Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law of Torts > Law of Tort cases > Flashcards

Law of Tort cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Letang v Cooper [1965]

A

confirms intention required for liability for trespass to the person

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

Fowler v lanning [1959]

A

confirms intention required for liability for trespass to the person

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

Wilson v pringle [1987]

A

Battery - Hostile contact is considred “unlawful” - harm is not a requirement for liability in trespass against person. any touching in a way that the claimant would object to is unlawful

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

chatterton v gerson [1981]

A

If consent is given, there is no unlawfulness

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

Tuberville v Savage [1669]

A

No assault if condition cannot be filled in a conditional threat

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

r v ireland; r vburstow [1998]

A

the fear of the possibility of threat to be carried out immediately is sufficient for assault

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

Mbasago v logo [2006]

A

capacity to carry out the threat immediately must be evident

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

Bird v jones [1845]

A

complete restraint not partial obstruction needed for false imprisonment

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

Murray v ministry of defense [1988]

A

one’s awareness of his/her imprisonment is NOT requirement for liability of false imprisonment

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

Kettling Austin v commissioner of police of the metropolis [2009]

A

The restraint must be unlawful

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

Iqbal v Prison association [2010]

A

intention to be restrained must be evident for false imprisonment

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

Wilkinson v Downton [1897]

A

remedy given for intetnionally inflicted mental injury (told husband was in a car crash)

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

Nettleship v weston [1971]

A

(driving + neglignece) - standard of reasonable care is objective and not dependent on competence and skill

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

Mansfield v weetabix [1998]

A

if a driver is unaware of a health condition that he suffers from, the standard of care is that of a reasonably competent driver who is unaware of such a health condition - ?

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

Mullin v Richards [1998]

A

teenagers - (ruler fight in class led to loss of eye-sight) No duty of care and therfore no breach of duty of care as it was reasonable activity for people of their age to engage in

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

Blake v Galloway [2004]

A

volenti used to defend agaisnt horse play - knowingly put themself in position where harm may result - only a breach of duty of care where the defendants conduct amounts to recklessness or a high degree of carelessness

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

Bolton v stone [1951]

A

no breach of duty of care when hit w a cricket ball during a match. lord reid test applied whether risk of damage tot a person on the road was so small that a reasonable man in the position would think to take steps to prevent such a happening

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

Condon v Basi [1985]

A

standard of care varies with level of expertise a player has if he injures someone in a match - people accept risk in sport but not accepting risk of something outside of the rules - recklessness

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

Vowles v evans [2003]

A

duty of care - amateur referee

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

Bolam v friern hospital management committee [1957]

A

Bolam test - appropriate standard of care judged by medical professional peers - not in breach of duty of care if one acts in accordance with a practice accepted by responsible body of opinion in the profession

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

bolitho v city and hackeney health authroity [1998]

A

HoL clarified that bolam test to include a proviso that the practice accepted by body of professionals must be based on logical and defensible grounds

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

Montgomery v lanarkshire health board [2015]

A

whether a doctor is negligent in not disclosing risks

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

Paris v stepney BC [1951]

A

the required reasonable standard of care must take into consideration the seriousness of harm

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

Latimer v aec [1953]

A

Regarding preventing the possibility of harm and the balance of cost (taking reasonable precautions to prevent harm at work)

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

Haley v LEB [1965]

A

the required reasonable standard of care must take into consideration the likelihood of harm

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

Barnett v chelsea hospital [1969]

A

the but for test - in causation for neglignce

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

bonnington castings ltd v warlaw [1956]

A

Regarding material contribution to injury
- cumulative contribution to harm

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

Baker v willoughby [1970]

A

unrelated sufficient causes - still liable for damage if more damage caused after

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Jobling v associated dairies [1982]

A

damage from second causes that is natural occurence (developed disease)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]

A

Regarding material increase in risk of injury - tortious act added to risk

31
Q

fairchild v glenhaven funeral services [2003]

A

material increase of risk across several employers

32
Q

barker v corus UK ltd

A

It is not dair to hold each defendant liable for the whole damages

33
Q

Hotson v East Berks HA [1987]

A

loss of chance to prevent damage - % chance of healing after a previous misdiagnosis

34
Q

Wagon v mound [1961]

A

The damage caused must have been foreseeable to be liable in negligence (use for remoteness criteria)

35
Q

Webb v Barclays bank Plc [2001]

A

intervening act of third party - when the intervening act is a negligent medical treatment, there is no breach of the chain of causation unless the negligent medical treatment amounts to gross negligence

36
Q

McKew v Holland and Hamman and Cubbitts Ltd [1969

A

When the intervening act comes from P and is subsequent to D’s breach of duty of care there is a breach in the chain of causation if P’s act was unreasonable and not a result of the breach in duty of care

37
Q

South australia asset management Corp v York Montague [1997] (SAAMCO v York Montague)

A

scope of duty - sope of agents liability only covers value lost due to him not doing his job correctly

38
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

A

(snail bottle) 1) duty of care no longer dependant on contractual relationship between P and D; new duty of care set up that was between manufacturer and consumer; NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE by Lord Atkin only applies where there is proximity (close and direct relations)

39
Q

anns v london borough of merton [1978]

A

2 stage test for duty of care (now overruled)

40
Q

Caparo industries v DIckman [1990]

A

3 ingredients intention required for liability for breach of duty of care in NOVEL situations - forseeability , “proximity”, and the duty of care being fair just and reasonable

41
Q

Hill v chief constable for west Yorkshire [1989]

A

Police immunity for duty of care

42
Q

Swinney v Chief constable of northumbria [1997]

A

duty of care RE safeguarding police informants - sufficiently proximate relation between police and Plaintiff

43
Q

OSman v UK 1999

A

ECtHR case - Article 6 - applied that Hill immunity was illegal under article 6 of European Convention on Human rights - ruled that blanket immunity from hill was a disproportionate restriction

44
Q

michael v chief constable of south wales police [2015]

A

Police duty of care proximity - claim dismissed - lord kerr dissenting gave four-stage approach to proximity

45
Q

commisioner of police of the metropolis v DSD and another [2018]

A

police duty of care - failure to inspect man properly after multiple charges - breach of article 3 human rights (not to be subjected to torture)

46
Q

Stovin v wise [1996] (road saftey)

A

existence of a power or a public law style of futy does not provide a short cut to finding a duty at common law - visibility impaired by a bank and car accident - local authority does not owe duty of care to remove

47
Q

Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] (Road saftey)

A

driver injured by driving into a bus and tried to claim local authority owed duty of care to put slow signs - No duty of care was owed

48
Q

Mitchell and another v Glasgow City Council [2009]

A

omission to exercise power - foreseeability alone is not enough to justify a duty of care - nor is it fair just and reasonable where the original purpose is for the good of the community

49
Q

McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983]

A

Psychiatric Harm - duty of care was owed in cases of careless infliction of psychiatric injury, and that a breach of that duty of care could result in liability for damages

50
Q

Alcock v chief constable of the south Yorkshire police [1992]

A

if P is a secondary victim (has suffered psychiatric harm due to another suffering physical) then psychiatric is only recoverable under the conditions that 1) P is closely related or ties of love and affection with harmed person 2)must be sufficiently proximate in time and space to the traumatic event 3) psychiatric harm must be caused by SIGHT or HEARING the trauma

51
Q

Page v Smith [1996]

A

If P is a “primary victim” then if P suffers psychiatric harm - that harm is also recoverable as it is covered by D’s duty of care

52
Q

St Helens Smelting co v Tipping [1865]

A

Nuisance - where there is physical damage to property - the locality has no relevance (also no defence that claimant came to the nuisance?)

53
Q

Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]

A

no right of action in nuisance for interference with tv reception - interest in property is required to bring an action in nuisance - Khorasanjian v bush overruled so far as it hods that a licensee can sue in private nuisance

54
Q

sturges v bridgman [1879]

A

right to use property in reasonable matter and should not interfere with the enjoyment of neighbour’s property - regardless of a move to nuisance

55
Q

barr v biffa waste services [2012]

A

permits and nuisance - land fill case

56
Q

Christie v Davies [189]

A

(music wall bang case) malice in nuisance - injunction granted

57
Q

Robinson v Kilvert [1889]

A

hyper sensitivity negates claim in nuisance

58
Q

Rylands v Feltcher [1866]

A

damages from neighbouring properties - who brings something onto their land that is likely to do harm if it escapes, will be held strictly liable for any damage caused if it does escape.

59
Q

Hwaley v Luminar [2006 (vicarious liability)

A

nightclub bouncer hired through agency - liability of the nightclub vicariously for his actions

60
Q

Viasystems v thermal transfer [2006]

A

vicarious liability in subcontracting

61
Q

Catholic child welfare society v Insitute of the brothers of the Christian schools [2012]

A

vicarious liability through religious organisation

62
Q

Cox v MoJ [2016]

A

Vicarious liability in prison - Ministry of justice liable in breach of their duty of care to prison workers

63
Q

Lister v Hesley Hall [2002]

A

court rejected view that vicarious liability can only arise when doing something for employer benefit - can arise when in context of employment an employee is acting on their own behalf - touching up kids at boarding school case

64
Q

Mohamud v Morrison Supermarket [2016]

A

change in test for close connection to employer - gross abuse of position of employee

65
Q

ICI v Shatwell [1956]

A

volenti used for employer - brothers knowingly acted against instructions and brought danger on themselves

66
Q

Woolridge v Sumner [1963]

A

no breach of duty so claimant failed - On volenti it was held that consent to the risk of injury was insufficient . there must be consent to the reach of duty in full knowledge of the nature and extent of risk

67
Q

Morris v Murray [1990]

A

(drinking aeroplane) claimant voluntarily accepting risk of injury and waiving right to compensation

68
Q

Froom v Butcher [1975]

A

claimant not wearing seatbelt when got into car crash due to negligence of the other driver - guidance on apportionment of damages set out by lord denning -

69
Q

Capps v Miller [1989]

A

no deduction for contributory negligence due to drink driving - more responsible

70
Q

Reeves v CMP [1999]

A

suicide in police cell - contributory negligence as he was of sound mind and voluntarily acted but police duty to protect

71
Q

Pitts v Hunt [1990]

A

The function of contributory negligence as partial defence does not allow its application at a 100% level. Apportionment of damages is an inevitable consequence of its character as a partial defence. In this case, volenti could not apply either due to s.148(3) Road Traffic Act 1972 (but the defence of illegality was applicable)

72
Q

Smith v Finch [2009]

A

cyclist helmets in contributory negligence

73
Q

Jackson v Murray [2015]

A

teenagers have less intuition than an adult when assessing contribution in contributory negligence to their own injury

Law of Torts (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions