Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

(THUR) Tort > (GREEN) Negligence Cases > Flashcards

(GREEN) Negligence Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Donoghue V Stevenson

A
  • decomposed snail in her ginger beer
  • duty of care
  • breach
  • damage
    ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Robinson V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

A
  • police, injured 78 year old bystander,
  • ‘established legal principle’, a duty of care assumed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Caparo V Dickman

A
  • outlined 3 stage test to establish duty of care
    1. Forseeability
    1. Proximity
    1. Fair, Just, and Reasonable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Kent V Griffiths

A
  • Ambulance, ignored 3 calls from doctor, after pregnant lady stopped breathing, baby lost, memory loss
  • duty of care if foreseeable
  • L
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Doughty V Turner Manufacturing

A
  • An asbestos lid, molten liquid, new chemical reaction, explosion
  • If not foreseeable, no duty of care
  • NL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Bourhill V Young

A
  • Mrs Bourhill pregnant on a bus, young crashed motorcycle in front of the bus, Mrs Bourhill walked down the road to see and had a miscarriage
  • No duty of care if not in proximity - time & space
  • NL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Munroe V London Fire Brigade

A
  • emergency services, not checking neighbouring buildings for debris
  • no DOC for omissions (only acts), not in best interests of society - open floodgates
  • NL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Nettleship V Weston

A
  • learner driver accident, held to standards of qualified driver
  • objective standard, incompetent best not good enough
  • L
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Mullins V Richards

A
  • 15 year old girls ruler fighting, claimant lost eye
  • Shown the standards of care of average 15 year old
  • NL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Orchard V lee

A
  • playground supervisor, injured by 13 year old playing tag, normal activity
  • child have to be careless to a very high degree before any breach
  • NL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Bolam

A
  • following standards laid down by professional body, competent standards
  • NL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Wells V Cooper

A
  • Carpenter, door handle, later injured claimant
  • Standard of care imposed of a reasonably skilled person, no requirement to be perfect
  • NL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bolton V Stone

A
  • cricketball, 78 yards, 17 foot, 6 times 30 years
  • It was not foreseeable, happens every 5 years
  • NL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Latimer V AEC

A
  • flood, accident, large costs
  • Large cost of precautions
  • NL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Paris V Stepney

A

-1 eye, goggles, lost eye
- Risk of serious injury
- L

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

Watt V Hertfordshire

A
  • fireman, heavy jack, not secure,
  • Importance of activity or social utility needs to be considered
  • NL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Smith V Leech Brain

A
  • molten metal, minor lip burn, dormant cancer
  • defendant may be liable even for unforeseeable loss if loss due to an existing condition or weakness in claimant
  • L
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Hughes V Lord advocate

A
  • 2 boys,manhole,oil lamp, explosion, burnt
  • Even though explosion was not foreseeable, being burnt was
  • L, successfully sued
19
Q

Barnet V Chelsea Hospital management committee

A
  • vomiting, turned away hospital, arsenic poisoning
  • would have died regardless
  • NL
20
Q

Scott V Shepherd

A
  • Lit firework, market hall, explode
  • No break in the chain of causation
  • L
21
Q

Wilsher V Essex Area Health Authority

A
  • junior doctors lack of experience not taken into account
  • Held to objective standard
  • L
22
Q

Bailey V MOD and Portsmouth NHS Trust

A
  • MOD hospital, transfer NHS, heart attack, weakened-poor treatment at MOD
  • Doctors negligence materially increased risk of injury
  • L
23
Q

Sayers V Harlow DC

A
  • bus garage toilet, fell out window
  • But for her trying to climb out, she wouldn’t have been injured
  • 25% to blame, reduction in damages
24
Q

Refill V Newberry

A

Entered defendant land to steal, accidentally shot
Burglar contributed to negligence
L

25
Q

Yachuk V Oliver

A

9 year old, gasoline, burn, company negligence
A child would have to be reckless to a high degree for their age for a successful defence
Not Liable/ No partial defence

26
Q

Sylvester V Chapman

A

Smouldering cigarette, leopard cage, maul
Where a claimant voluntarily consents to a risk, they cannot sue for damages
No defence

27
Q

Woolbridge V Sumner

A

Spectators, sporting,
Assumed risk of harm provided players not reckless or intentional
NL

28
Q

Smoldon V WhitWorth

A

U19 rugby match, scrum collapsed, boy injured
Where rules are not kept to, volenti cannot be used
L

29
Q

Haynes V Harwood

A

Horses, busy street, police
Where there is a moral duty to stage a rescue there was no consent as no choice
NL

30
Q

Cutler V United Dairies

A

Horse bolt,field, rescue
No immediate risk so volenti could apply
Owner NL

31
Q

Nichols V Marsland

A

Lakes flooded, most violent thunderstorm in living memory, 4 bridges
Severe unanticipated event for which no human is responsible
NL

32
Q

Cope V Sharp

A

Fire, vegetation destroyed to prevent fire, reasonable
Entitled to take action that is urgently necessary to prevent a greater evil
NL

33
Q

Stanley V Powell

A

Bullet ricocheted, tree
Reasonable precautions are taken by the claimant, despite this accident could not be prevented
NL

34
Q

3 Points to be proven

A
  1. Duty of care
  2. Breach
  3. Damage
35
Q

Caparo 3 test

A
  1. forseeability
  2. Proximity
  3. Fair, just and reasonable
36
Q

Reasonable person test

A

Held to objective standard
“Learner driver may be doing their best, but their incompetent best isn’t good enough”

37
Q

Factors to decide if conduct is reasonable

A
  1. Likelihood of injury
  2. Cost of precautions
  3. Potential seriousness of injury
  4. Important of activity or social utility
38
Q

Likelihood of injury

A

Bolton v stone

39
Q

Cost of precautions

A

Latimer v AFC

40
Q

Potential seriousness of injury

A

Paris v stepney

41
Q

Importance of social activity

A

Watt v Hertfordshire

42
Q

Factual causation

A

‘But for’ test

43
Q

Contributory negligence

A

Refill v Newbury - shot stealing

(THUR) Tort (8 decks)

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