Juries

Question 1

Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1956)

Answer 1

Company laid pipes around the city and they leaked which damaged Blythe’s property.
No negligence or breach of duty.

Question 2

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Answer 2

Neighbour Principle.
“Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act”.
Snail found in drunk her friend had bought her.

Question 3

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Answer 3

An investor had lost money in a company based on the auditors who had processed inaccurate accounts.
No breach.
Law should develop the neighbour principle.

Question 4

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Answer 4

An ambulance was called for the claimant who had an asthma attack, took 40 mins for the ambulance by which point the person had stopped breathing.
Defendant was liable.

Question 5

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Answer 5

Young was riding his motorcycle and was hit by a car and died. She suffered a still birth a long time after and blamed Young for nervous shock.
Not foreseeable, not liable.

Question 6

Mcloughin v O’brien (1983)

Answer 6

Pending

Question 7

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

Answer 7

Learner driver crashed into a lamppost.

Driver was liable despite her inexperience.

Question 8

Wells v Cooper (1958)

Answer 8

Door handle fell off so defendant tried to fix it but wasn’t a professional. Wasn’t done properly so the claimant tripped and badly hurt himself.
No breach.

Question 9

Mullin v Richards (1998)

Answer 9

Two 15 year old girls were fighting with rulers and one but snapped and went in her eye.
Different for child defendants.
A reasonable 15 year old would not be blamed so no breach.

Question 10

Corden v Basi (1985)

Answer 10

Claimant suffers a broken leg during a football match.
Was liable as the reasonable sportsman wouldn’t have tackled
like that.

Question 11

Bolam v Friern hospital (1957)

Answer 11

Claimant underwent electro-convulsive therapy in hospital for depression. Doctor didn’t give any muscle relaxants so claimant suffered dislocation of both hips with fractures of the pelvis either side.
No breach because doctors would’ve done the same thing.

Question 12

Bolitho v City and Hackney health authority (1998)

Answer 12

Claimant suffered brain damage as a result of failing to attend to a child’s blocked airways.
No breach.

Question 13

Latimer v AEC ltd (1953)

Answer 13

COST: must be proportionate to the risk of injury.
Factory became flooded so they put sawdust down and someone slipped.
No breach of duty as defendant only had to take reasonable precautions.

Question 14

Watt v Hertfordshire (1954)

Answer 14

PUBLIC BENEFIT: when defendants behaviour is in the public benefit, the lower the standard of care.
Firefighters were injured by lifting gear into a fire engine which they didn’t need to do.
No breach.

Question 15

Paris v Stepney (1951)

Answer 15

SENSITIVITIES: if the defendant knows about the claimants sensitivities the defendant might have a higher standard of care. Safety goggles weren’t provided and the claimant was blind in one eye which the defendant knew about.
Breach.

Question 16

Walker v Northumberland City council (1995)

Answer 16

SENSITIVITIES:
Upon his return to work he asked for assistance but defendant provided no additional support so the claimant had another breakdown.
Breach as they knew about him needing help.

Question 18

Haley v London electricity board (1964)

Answer 18

SIZE OF RISK: the greater the risk, the more care needs to be taken based on the likelihood and the seriousness.
Hole in the ground which workers left without signs and a blind man fell into it.
Breach.

Question 19

Lord Denning in Cork v Kirby Maclean ltd (1952)

Answer 19

Claimant died while working over 20 feet above the ground from an epileptic seizure.
Argued that the epilepsy caused his death rather than the fact there were no railings.
Breach, but for test.

Question 20

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1968)

Answer 20

Cup of tea with arsenic in it which claimant drank, he went to the hospital and they told him to come back later but he died.
Not liable, but for test.

Question 21

The wagon mound (1961)

Answer 21

Oil spill from the boat to the pier where construction workers were, he sparked the fire and the pier blew up.
No liability as the damage from the oil was foreseeable but not the fire.

Question 22

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

Answer 22

Two young boys were exploring a manhole with a lantern and an explosion occurred resulting in burns.
Liable, type of injury is foreseeable.

Question 23

Doughty v Turner Asbestos

Answer 23

An asbestos lid was knocked into molten lights causing an explosion burning the claimant. Wasn’t know the asbestos would do that.
Not liable.

Question 24

Smith v Leech brain (1962)

Answer 24

Burnt lip which triggered the cancer cells, claimant then died of cancer.
Employer was liable for not supplying a mask.

Question 25

Baker v Willoughby (1970)

Answer 25

Claimant was ran over then 3 years later got shot in the leg.
House of lords held that the loss of earnings were a result of the original injury.
No intervening acts.

Question 26

Roe v Minister of health (1954)

Answer 26

KNOWLEDGE OF RISK: if you know it would happen lower standard of care.
Claimants given contaminated anaesthetic for minor operations resulting in paralysis. No knowledge so no breach.

Question 27

Mckew v Holland

Answer 27

Slipped at work had a dodgy leg and went downstairs, fell and jumped to the bottom.
Tried suing the company.
Defendant was not liable as jumping down the stairs was self inflicted.

Question 28

Carlsogie Steamship v Royal Norwegian government

Answer 28

ACT OF GOD: In a storm the claimants ship was hit by the defendant then it got patched up and it broke again because of the storm.
Not liable as the storm made the ships collide.

Question 29

Hinz v Berry (1970)

Answer 29

Women was out the car and her husband and children were in the car, they got hit by a lorry.
Damages are recoverable for nervous shock.

Question 30

Page v Smith (1996)

Answer 30

Mr Page was involved in a minor car accident didn’t get hurt but for chronic fatigue syndrome.
Provided some kind of injury was foreseeable it doesn’t matter if it’s physical or not.

Question 31

Alcock v CC Yorkshire Police (1992)

Answer 31

Claimant must prove:

1. They witnessed the event, close proximity.
2. Close tie of love and affection to victim.

Question 32

White v CC Sourh Yorkshire (1998)

Answer 32

Hillsborough disaster, 95 liverpool fans were killed. The claimants were the police who were trying to get compensation for the 2nd hand witnessing of the tragedy.
No duty of care owed to the police officers as they weren’t ‘in the zone of danger’.

Question 33

Hunter v Canary wharf (1997)

Answer 33

Television reception was interfered by the large tower constructed by Canary Wharf ltd.
Not liable, does not amount to an actionable nuisance.

Question 34

Robinson v Cheif Constable of West Yorkshirw police (1989)

Answer 34

Police officers chasing a drug dealer tan into a 76 year old lady and knocked her over where the was potential risk of injury.
Police officers were liable.

Question 35

Grobbelaar v News group newspapers (2002)

Answer 35

Claimant bought a claim as the newspapers accused him of fixing football matches matches for money.
Was originally awarded £85000 but changed on appeal to £1.

Question 36

Johnson v Steele (2014)

Answer 36

Steele launched attacks on twitter against Johnson on a fake account, at least 129 defamatory tweets.
Granted £70000 but got more from being treated maliciously.