Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort - Negligence > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Established a duty of care between teacher and child

A

Carmathenshire CC v Lewis

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

Established a duty of care between doctor and patient

A

Pippin v Sheppard

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

Established a duty of care owed by road users

A

Nettleship v Weston

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

Established a duty of care between transport operator and user

A

Silverlink trains v Collins

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

Caparo - Foreseeability

A

Hayley v London Electricity board

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

Caparo - Proximity between C and D

A

Donoghue v Stevenson
OR
Geary v JD Wetherspoons

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

Caparo - fair, just and reasonable

A

XA v YA
OR
Hill v West Yorkshire Police

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

Omissions - did C exercise control over D

A

Reeves v West Yorkshire Police
Clarified in Orange v CC of Northumbria
Confirmed in Keenan v ECHR

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

Omissions - D assumed responsibility

A

Costello v CC of Northumbria

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

Omissions - D adopted the risk of danger

A

Goldman v Hargrave

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

Actions of 3rd party - D and C have a relationship

A

Stansbie v Truman

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

Actions of 3rd party - D and 3rd party have a relationship

A

Home Office v Dorset Yacht

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

Actions of 3rd party - 3rd party sparked danger

A

Haynes v Harwood

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

Actions of 3rd party - D didn’t prevent the known danger caused by C

A

Clark fixing v Dudley

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

Psychiatric harm - primary victim

A

Defined in Alcock: “directly involved in the accident, and well within the range of foreseeable physical injury”

Narrowed in Page v Smith ‘danger zone’ i.e. those within a range of foreseeable danger

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

Psychiatric harm - example of foreseeability in Page v Smith

A

Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating LTD

NB: also said this type of claim should be restricted to accidents

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Psychiatric harm - when can C recover for psychiatric injury? (not a case)

A

C can recover for psychiatric injury if they have suffered physical injury or risk of physical injury caused by D’s negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Psychiatric harm - secondary victims test

A

Bouhill v Young - ‘foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude’
Alcock mechanisms - 1) relationship 2) proximity 3) shock

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Psychiatric harm - relationship

A

Roberston v Forth Bridge Guard

NB: Judge gave petrol tanker and school example

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Psychiatric harm - proximity

A

Berisha v Stone Superstores - 5 hours didn’t satisfy
McLoughlin v O’Brian - 2 hours satisfied proximity
Galli-Atkinson v Seghal - proximity satisfied a few hours after accident and arriving at morgue (generous)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Psychiatric harm - proximity in relation to the accident, not the consequence

A

Taylor v Anovo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Psychiatric harm - shock

A

Soin v Hampstead Hospital - child died over 14 days.

‘sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event which violently agitates the mind’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Economic loss - distinction between consequential and pure economic loss

A

Spartan Steel v Martin Co

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Economic loss - when can C claim for pure economic loss

A

Hedley Byrne

1) fiduciary relationship
2) voluntarily assumes responsibility
3) reasonable reliance
4) expert/special knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Economic loss - Hedley Byrne - voluntarily assumes responsibility

A

In Hedley Byrne disclaimer meant they didn’t voluntarily assume responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Economic loss - Hedley Byrne - reasonable reliance

A

Smith v Bush

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Economic loss - Hedley Byrne - expert knowledge

A

Professions e.g. solicitors, surveyors

Social context if D claims to have knowledge - Chaudray v Prabhakar

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Economic loss - Extensions of Hedley Byrne

A

White v Jones = wills

Spring v Guardian Assurance = job references

29
Q

Liability of Public Bodies - fire service

A

Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC

30
Q

Liability of Public Bodies - ambulance

A

Kent v Griffith

31
Q

Liability of Public Bodies - police - operational negligence

A

Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire

32
Q

Liability of Public Bodies - police - policy decisions

A

Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire

33
Q

Liability of Public Bodies - police - do not owe a duty to individuals

A

Smith v CC of Sussex

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire

34
Q

Breach of duty - foreseeability

A

Wagon Mound

35
Q

Breach of duty

A

Donoghue v Stevenson:
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

This is an objective standard of reasonableness

36
Q

Breach of duty - general standard of care

A

Nettleship v Weston - ‘ an objective standard is applied, a learner driver is compared to a skilled, professional driver’

37
Q

Breach of duty - DIY enthusiast

A

Wells v Cooper

38
Q

Breach of duty - held to someone of the same profession

A

Philips v Whiteley - piercer not surgeon

39
Q

Breach of duty - skill doesn’t mean lesser standard of care

A

Condon v Basi

40
Q

Breach of duty - child will be compared to a reasonable child

A

Richard v Mullins

41
Q

Breach of duty - reasonable person in an emergency

A

James v Boyce

42
Q

Breach of duty - general standard of care

A

Nettleship v Weston - ‘ an objective standard is applied, a learner driver is compared to a skilled, professional driver’

43
Q

Breach of duty - DIY enthusiast

A

Wells v Cooper

44
Q

Breach of duty - held to someone of the same profession

A

Philips v Whiteley - piercer not surgeon

45
Q

Breach of duty - skill doesn’t mean lesser standard of care

A

Condon v Basi

46
Q

Breach of duty - child will be compared to a reasonable child

A

Richard v Mullins

47
Q

Breach of duty - reasonable person in an emergency

A

James v Boyce

48
Q

Breach of duty - professional standard of care

A

Bolam v Friern Hospital - ‘Did D act with the skill and competence that was expected by someone within that field’

49
Q

Breach of duty - what amended Bolam

A

Bolitho v Hackney HA - actions must have a reasonable and logical basis

50
Q

Breach of duty - junior doctors same standard as professional doctors

A

Wilsher v Essex HA

51
Q

Breach of duty - when does Bolam not apply

A

Montgomery v Lancashire HB - if there has been a disclosure of risks

52
Q

Causation - exceptions to but for test and cases:

A

Multiple causes of harm - Wilsher v Essex HA
Negligence was a material contribution - Bonnington v Wardlaw
Negligence increased the risk - McGhee v National Coal Board
Failure to inform - Chester v Ashfar
Multiple D’s cause the negligence - Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Service

NB: methods to encourage employers to be more safe

53
Q

Causation - remoteness

A

Wagon Mound ‘reasonable person must be able to see the negligence was the ‘real’ and not ‘far fetched’ cause of injury’

54
Q

Breach of duty - Did D fall below the standard of care? - Social utility

A

Watt v Hertfordshire CC

55
Q

Breach of duty - Did D fall below the standard of care? - Cost of reducing injury

A

Paris v Stepney CC
OR
Laterimer v AEC

56
Q

Breach of duty - res ipsa loquitor

A

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks

57
Q

Causation - but for test

A

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management

58
Q

Causation - exceptions to but for test and cases:

A

Multiple causes of harm - Wilsher v Essex HA
Negligence was a material contribution - Bonnington v Wardlaw
Negligence increased the risk - McGhee v National Coal Board
Failure to inform - Chester v Ashfar
Multiple D’s cause the negligence - Fairchail v Glenhaven Funeral Service

59
Q

Causation - remoteness

A

Wagon Mound ‘reasonable person must be able to see the negligence was the ‘real’ and not ‘far fetched’ cause of injury’

60
Q

Causation - remoteness

A

Hughes v Lord Advocate - not too remote because expected injury is burns

NB: shows courts leniency towards children and trying to encourage employers to be more safe

61
Q

Causation - thin skull rule

A

Smith v Leech Brain Co

62
Q

Causation - novus actus interveniens

A

Weld-Blundell v Stephens - crimes break the chain of causation (Note: this contradicts Baker. However, courts worried in Baker because robbers were never court there would be a gap in damages)

Rouse v Squires

63
Q

Causation - acts of C’s

A

Mckew - Holland

64
Q

Causation - naturally occurring acts

A

Carlsogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government

65
Q

Defences - consent

A

Condon v Basi

Morris v Murray

66
Q

Defences - illegality

A

Grays
OR
Pitts v Hunt

67
Q

Defences - contributory negligence

A

Jackson v Murray

Jones v Livoux

68
Q

Grief, anxiety, stress will not suffice for psychiatric injury

A

Hicks v CC for South Yorkshire

Tort - Negligence (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions