Cases Flashcards
Miller v Minister of State
Proving beyond reasonable doubt ≠ Proving beyond all shadows of doubt.
Just to establish that there’s concrete evidence beyond preponderance that the accused has actually committed the crime
Transco Plc v Stockport MBC
- The Claimant owned a gas pipe under an old railway.
- The Defendant was a council responsible for a nearby water pipe.
- In 1992, the water pipe leaked and wasn’t detected immediately.
- The leak caused water to soak the ground around the gas pipe.
- The ground eventually collapsed, leaving the gas pipe unsupported.
- This created a serious risk, requiring costly repairs.
- The Claimant said the council was strictly liable for the damage under Rylands v Fletcher
The issue in the case was whether the rule in Rylands v Fletcher could be applied to this set of facts and specifically whether it could be held that the council’s use of the land (to deliver water to the housing estate) was a non-natural use.
The court held that the council was not liable for the damage as the council’s use was a natural use of the land.
Read more: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/transco-v-stockport.php
Carl Von Savigny
In the general consciousness of the people lies the people’s law
Wilkinson v Downton
- D told P that her husband had broken both his legs in an accident. Had meant to be a practical joke
- P suffered a violent shock; vomited, hair turned white
- Court held D was liable because he intentionally did an act that caused the shock
Janvier v Sweeney
P suffered sever nervous shock from the false statement of being wanted for communicating with a German spy
Private detective falsely represented he was a police officer to get papers from the P
Made her believe she was in danger of arrest for association with a German spy
Caused her psychiatric trauma
Collins v Wilcock
Goff said that bodily contact was not actionable if it was generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life
Kirk v Gregory
Executor moved the jewellery of the dead person to protect it from theft
It got stolen
Court held that she was a busybody; ought to have gotten permission
Held liable for conversion
Who described Tort Law as an ombudsman?
Linden J
Caparro Industries v Dickman
- Concerned the liability of an auditor for financial loss suffered by investors
- Established 3 rules to determine duty of care
- It must be reasonable foreseeable that the conduct of the defendant will cause damage to the claimant
- There must be sufficient proximity between the parties
- Whether the imposition of care would be ‘fair, just and reasonable’
Donoghue v Stevenson
The question before the House of Lords was if the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate users of his products
The conclusion was that he did
- A manufacturer sold ginger beer in an opaque bottle to a retailer
- Retailer sold it to A who bought it for her acquaintance
- The drink had decomposed remains of a snail
- The woman alleged she had become seriously ill as a result and sued the manufacturer for negligence
Lord Atkin The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law that you must not injure your neighbour
Who is your neighbour? The lawyer’s question.
Those who are closelt and directly affected by my act.
The case established the neighbourhood principle.
Lord Macmillan: The categories of negligence are never closed
Rylands v Fletcher
Facts:
- Mr. Fletcher owned a coal mine.
- Mr. Ryland owned a mill and decided to build a water reservoir on his land.
- Independent contractors hired by Ryland found old mine shafts while digging but didn’t seal them properly.
- They filled the reservoir with water, which then leaked through the old mine shafts into Fletcher’s coal mine.
- Fletcher’s mine was flooded and damaged as a result.
- House of Lords held Rylands liable
It was decided by Blackburn J, who delivered the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and the House of Lords, that to succeed in this tort the claimant must show:
- That the defendant brought something onto his land;
- That the defendant made a “non-natural use” of his land (per Lord Cairns, LC);
- The thing was something likely to do mischief if it escaped;
- The thing did escape and cause damage.
- Forseeability
Read more: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/rylands-v-fletcher.php
Hulton v James
Defendants were newspaper proprietors who published a funny account of a motor festival
They wrote things about a Artemus Jones, a character they believed to be fictional
They alleged he had been cheating on his wife
The real Artemus Jones sued the newspaper for lovely
The House of Lords affirmed the verdict and held that it was immaterial that the defendants did not intend to defame him
Naomi Campbell v MGN
Naomi sued the D for a story it carried about her being a drug addiction and her enrolment at a rehab center
It was held that her right to privacy had been breached by publishing details of the treatment and photos of her leaving the rehab center
Khorasandijan v Bush
Claimant was a young lady who was harassed by a man who repeatedly made threatening and abusive phone calls to her
Calls were made to her parents and grandparents house
Through the tort of nuisance, sought an injunction to prevent him from making these calls
Injunction was granted but the defendant sought to have it put aside because she didn’t have any interest in the land subject to the nuisance in the form of phone calls
Held that proprietary interest is not a determinant to be granted protection by the law from deliberate harassment
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc
Defendant used PCE (organochlorine) in their tanning trade
Small continual spillages built up to a pool of PCE under the land and contaminated the aquifer the claimants drew their water from (supply)
Claimants had to find another source which cost almost 1 million pounds
At the time the only known hazard of PCE were the fumes in the case of a large spillage
HOL decided unanimously that the defendants were not liable in damages for contamination
Gloucester Grammar School Case
Well liked teacher leaves Gloucester and decides to open his own school nearby
He charges less
Many students left Gloucester
Owner of Gloucester sued
Court held even though damage had occurred no legal rights had been violated
Damnum Sine Injuria locus classicus
Mayor of Bradford v Pickles
Plaintiff was responsible for supplying water to people in the area
The water came from 2 springs which flowed through land owned by the defendant
Pickles owned land at a higher elevation, dug a well on his property which disrupted the natural flow of the water to the springs
Plaintiff approached Pickles asking him to stop
Pickles refused unless
- He paid him money to restore the water flow
- Bought his entire property
Plaintiff refused both options and approached the court claiming the defendant was acting out of malice
Court decided that the law Plaintiff relied on only punished illegal interference with water
Pickled was working within his rights as a landowner
Court said that a legal action can’t become illegal just because someone has bad motives
Damnum Sine Injuria
NNB Plc v Alhaji Musa Abubakar and Sons
CA held that before an action can yield damages there must be a wrong committed.
The respondent was wronged by the negligence of the appellant
AG Leventis and Co Ltd v Akinyele and Ors
Competition alone doesn’t constitute an actionable wrong
(Trade Competition)
Nigeria Bottling Company Ltd v National Root Crop Research Institute
CA ruled that economic loss due to competition is not compensable
7up Bottling Company v Pepsi Cola Nig Ltd
Competitive advertising practices do not constitute passing off or unfair competition
Guiness Nig Plc v Nigerian Breweries Plc
CA held that price competition is lawful and doesn’t constitute unfair trade practices
Ashby v White
Injuria Sine Damno
The prevention of the plaintiff from voting was held to be illegal
Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium
P had a right of legal action even though his preferred candidate won anyways
Farashi v Yakubu
Injuria Sine Damno
The act of implying that a person has committed a criminal offence (adultery) was held to be slander and actionable per se
Agoaka v Ejiofor
Injuria Sine Damno
D falsely accused the plaintiff of stealing cocoyams in a village gathering
Held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for slander without needing to prove actual damage
Brady v Schatzel
Defendant pointed a gun at the plaintiff and threatened to shoot
Gun was unloaded
Plaintiff said he wasn’t scared
Court held that the D was liable for assault as it was immaterial that the plaintiff wasn’t scared
Not material that the person assaulted should be put in fear.
If that were so the question would be dependant on whether the assaulted part was a courageous or timid person and not on the intention of the assailant
reasonable man of ordinary prudence
Innes v Wylie
Acting as a passive obstacle will not suffice for tortious liability for assault
Police officer was ordered to prevent the claimant from entering a hotel room under the belief that the claimant had been lawfully ejected
Police officer blocked the path and then shoved the claimant when he tried to shove his way through
The defendant policeman standing motionless in order to block a doorway was held not to have committed assault by so doing
Smith v Chief Superintendant of Woking Police Station
Defendant was found peering into the ground floor window of a woman’s house late at night
She was alone and terrified
Court held that it was assault despite the physical barrier (window)
R v Barrett
Defendant advanced towards the complainant, shook his fist and threatened to beat the complainant there and then
Held that there was assault
Stephen v Myers
Claimant was the chairman of a local parish meeting
Engaged in a heated exchange with the defendant across the table. There were like 7 people between them
Defendant said “he’d pull the chairman out of his chair” rather than leave the room
Defendant got up and approached the claimant menacingly, shaking his fist in a threatening manner
He was stopped by the church warden
He was held liable for assault
R v St George
Criminal Law
Defendant pointed an unloaded gun to the victim who believed the gun to be loaded
The complainant could have been hurt if the gun had been fired
Held liable for assault
Blake v Barnard
The declaration alleged that the pistol was loaded with gun powder, ball and shot
Lord Abinger: If the pistol wasn’t loaded it would be no assault
“If you do not keep quiet, I’ll blow your head off”
Court ruled that the threat didn’t amount to assault because he had been given a choice
Example of words may negate assault
Tuberville v Savage
Defendant put his hand on his sword (threat = assault)
Said “If it were not assize-time I would not take such language from you”
Held that there was no assault
Winfield and Jolowicz on the principle of fault
Fault can be proved by showing that the defendant either negligently or intentionally inflicted the damage on the plaintiff
Letang v Cooper
Defendant drove a car over the plaintiff’s leg who was sunbathing
Court struck out the action; plaintiff should have sued in negligence and not in trespass
Trespass is an intentional tort
D’s conduct was negligent
(She couldn’t sue in negligence because the statute of limitation of 3 years had come into play)
Fowler v Lanning
Plaintiff was shot by the defendant
D argued it was an accident
Court held that P had to prove intent/ negligence to succeed on his claim
What did Brian CJ say about intention?
The thought of man shall not be tried for the devil himself knoweth not the thought of man
Bowen LJ in Edginton v Fitzmaurice
The state of a man’s mind is as much of a fact as his state of digestion
Thoughts can be deduced from what he says
Vaughan v Menlove
Neighbours repeatedly warned D that his haystack posed a fire hazard
He mad a chimney instead of dismantling it
Haystack eventually caught fire; spontaneous combustion
Fire destroyed Vaughan’s cottages
Court found Menlove liable for gross negligence
Ryland v Fletcher (strict liability, exception to the principle of fault)
Strict liability; liable regardless of intent or negligence
Despite the absence of fault on the appellant’s part he was held liable
Scott v Sherpherd
Defendant’s intentional act cannot be taken as too remote
D thread a small firework in a crowded marketplace
Yates threw it to Ryal
Ryal threw it and it ended up hitting and exploding in Scott’s face.
Scott suffered serious injury to his eye and ended up blind
Court held that the chain of causation had not been broken
D was held liable
Kennedy J in Dulieu v White and Sons
The Thin Skull rule
D is expected to take his victim as he finds him/her
Not vindicated if P had an unusually thin skull / unsuusually thin heart
Bidwell v Briant
Court held that one who carelessly inflicts a minor cut on a hemophiliac who bleeds to death will be fully responsible
Egg Shell Rule
Smith v Leech Brain and Co
D negligently inflicted a burn on P’s lips
P had a pre malignant condition, got cancer and died 3 years later
D was held fully liable
Egg Shell Rule
Morgan v Wallis
P was injured while trying to avoid a rope thrown by a stevedore on a ship
D accepted liability but contested the quantum of damages because P refused to submit himself for medical test and operation
Court held the refusal to be unreasonable
Exception to the Thin Skull rule; rule will not apply if the condition which aggravates the P’s injury occurs after the tortious act
