Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Corkery vs Carpenter (1951)

A

Man found drunk in charge a bicycle. Is a bicycle a carriage?

Mischief Rule applied to use the intent of the law, and found that a bicycle should be considered a carriage.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Quintavalle vs Sec of State for Health (2003)

A

What is the definition of Embryo and does it include cloned eggs?

Major early use of the Purposive Approach and ability of courts to re-i repeat statute (and make law)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Whitely vs Chappell (1868)

A

Impersonating a dead voter. Squirted on the literal rule - that a dead person was not eligible to vote so not voter fraud.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

LNER vs Berriman (1946)

A

Death while maintaining railway lines. Aquitted due to literal reading of law referring to “repairing” of railway lines only.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Adler vs George (1964)

A

Obstructing armed forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place. Defendant argued he wasn’t in the vicinity as he was actually ON the army base. Golden Rule was applied to avoid an absurdity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Litster vs Forth Dry Dock (1990)

A

Employees dismissed one hour BEFORE transfer of business to new owner.

Law says that a termination cannot be carried out as part of the transfer.

Purposive Approach used to meet the intent of the law, which is to protect employees in the event of a sale of a business.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Wood v Comissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1986)

A

Does a piece of broken glass meet the definition of an offensive weapon under the Vagrancy act?

Eiusderm Generis was used to argue no, as the glass was not designed or intended as a weapon.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Pengelley v Bell Punch Co (1964)

A

Does a floor used for storage fall under the Factories Act requirement to be kept clear at all times?

Noscitur a Sociis used to argue no - as the examples given in the Act are all passageways, not storage areas.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Inhabitants of Sedgely (1831)

A

Can the “poor rate” levied on coal mines specifically be applied to other mines?

Expressio unius used to argue no - if the intent was to cover all mines, it would not say coal mines specifically.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Pepper vs Hart (1995)

A

Established that Hansard was a valid Extrinsic Source for Statutory Interpretation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Donogue v Stevenson (1932)

A

Dead snail in a bottle of ginger beer.

No breach of contract as claimant did not purchase drink herself.

But damages owed as a person owes a duty to take reasonable care that they do not commit any act which they could reasonably forsee as injuring another person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Crossley v Rawlinson (1982)

A

Man injured while rushing to put out a truck on fire.

Was the truck driver liable?

Judge said no - as the injury was not a foreseeable result of the driver’s actions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Smith v Hughes

A

Prostitutes soliciting through a window, not “on the street”

Mischief Rule used to apply the law broadly and convict

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Caparo v Dickman 1990

A

Established the 3 part test for a Novel Duty of Care

Case regarding economic loss from financial auditors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Bourhill v Young 1943

A

No duty of care for psychiatric harm for victims not reasonably foreseeable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Stovin v Wise 1996

A

No duty of Care for Omissions

17
Q

Hedley Byrne v Heller 1967

A

Set the conditions under which a claim can be made for pure economic loss

18
Q

Miller v Jackson 1977

A

Cricket Ball case - the social benefit of sport was a relevant consideration

19
Q

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management

A

Bolam Test - Professionals can be judged by the reasonable standard of a competent professional

20
Q

Nettleship v Weston 1971

A

A learner driver is held to the same standard as a qualified driver

21
Q

Baker v TE Hopkins & Sons

A

Established Duty to the Rescuer (if defendant caused the dangerous situation)

22
Q

Blyth v Birmingham 1856

A

Reasonable man test.

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do

23
Q

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

A

“But for” Test for Causality

Would the result have occurred but for the act or omission of the defendant?

24
Q

Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (Wagon Mound)

A

Established test for Remoteness of Damage.

Would a reasonable person have foreseen the damage?

25
Q

Robinson v Post Office 1974

A

Egg Shell Rule

Defendant must take claimant as he finds him.

If the type of injury is foreseeable, details don’t need to be precise

26
Q

Damn v Hamilton 1939

A

Knowledge of risk is not consent to the risk

27
Q

Weller v FMDRI 1965

A

Exclusionary Rule - Pure Economic Loss

28
Q

Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin & Co 1973

A

CONSEQUENTAL economic loss were recoverable

29
Q

Wheat v Lacon 1966

A

Definition and Test of Occupier

Occupational Control