Law of Tort cases Flashcards
Letang v Cooper [1965]
confirms intention required for liability for trespass to the person
Fowler v lanning [1959]
confirms intention required for liability for trespass to the person
Wilson v pringle [1987]
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
chatterton v gerson [1981]
If consent is given, there is no unlawfulness
Tuberville v Savage [1669]
No assault if condition cannot be filled in a conditional threat
r v ireland; r vburstow [1998]
the fear of the possibility of threat to be carried out immediately is sufficient for assault
Mbasago v logo [2006]
capacity to carry out the threat immediately must be evident
Bird v jones [1845]
complete restraint not partial obstruction needed for false imprisonment
Murray v ministry of defense [1988]
one’s awareness of his/her imprisonment is NOT requirement for liability of false imprisonment
Kettling Austin v commissioner of police of the metropolis [2009]
The restraint must be unlawful
Iqbal v Prison association [2010]
intention to be restrained must be evident for false imprisonment
Wilkinson v Downton [1897]
remedy given for intetnionally inflicted mental injury (told husband was in a car crash)
Nettleship v weston [1971]
(driving + neglignece) - standard of reasonable care is objective and not dependent on competence and skill
Mansfield v weetabix [1998]
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 - ?
Mullin v Richards [1998]
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
Blake v Galloway [2004]
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
Bolton v stone [1951]
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
Condon v Basi [1985]
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
Vowles v evans [2003]
duty of care - amateur referee
Bolam v friern hospital management committee [1957]
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
bolitho v city and hackeney health authroity [1998]
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
Montgomery v lanarkshire health board [2015]
whether a doctor is negligent in not disclosing risks
Paris v stepney BC [1951]
the required reasonable standard of care must take into consideration the seriousness of harm
Latimer v aec [1953]
Regarding preventing the possibility of harm and the balance of cost (taking reasonable precautions to prevent harm at work)
Haley v LEB [1965]
the required reasonable standard of care must take into consideration the likelihood of harm
Barnett v chelsea hospital [1969]
the but for test - in causation for neglignce
bonnington castings ltd v warlaw [1956]
Regarding material contribution to injury
- cumulative contribution to harm
Baker v willoughby [1970]
unrelated sufficient causes - still liable for damage if more damage caused after
Jobling v associated dairies [1982]
damage from second causes that is natural occurence (developed disease)
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]
Regarding material increase in risk of injury - tortious act added to risk
fairchild v glenhaven funeral services [2003]
material increase of risk across several employers
barker v corus UK ltd
It is not dair to hold each defendant liable for the whole damages
Hotson v East Berks HA [1987]
loss of chance to prevent damage - % chance of healing after a previous misdiagnosis
Wagon v mound [1961]
The damage caused must have been foreseeable to be liable in negligence (use for remoteness criteria)
Webb v Barclays bank Plc [2001]
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
McKew v Holland and Hamman and Cubbitts Ltd [1969
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
South australia asset management Corp v York Montague [1997] (SAAMCO v York Montague)
scope of duty - sope of agents liability only covers value lost due to him not doing his job correctly
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
(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)
anns v london borough of merton [1978]
2 stage test for duty of care (now overruled)
Caparo industries v DIckman [1990]
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
Hill v chief constable for west Yorkshire [1989]
Police immunity for duty of care
Swinney v Chief constable of northumbria [1997]
duty of care RE safeguarding police informants - sufficiently proximate relation between police and Plaintiff
OSman v UK 1999
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
michael v chief constable of south wales police [2015]
Police duty of care proximity - claim dismissed - lord kerr dissenting gave four-stage approach to proximity
commisioner of police of the metropolis v DSD and another [2018]
police duty of care - failure to inspect man properly after multiple charges - breach of article 3 human rights (not to be subjected to torture)
Stovin v wise [1996] (road saftey)
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
Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] (Road saftey)
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
Mitchell and another v Glasgow City Council [2009]
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
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983]
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
Alcock v chief constable of the south Yorkshire police [1992]
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
Page v Smith [1996]
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
St Helens Smelting co v Tipping [1865]
Nuisance - where there is physical damage to property - the locality has no relevance (also no defence that claimant came to the nuisance?)
Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]
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
sturges v bridgman [1879]
right to use property in reasonable matter and should not interfere with the enjoyment of neighbour’s property - regardless of a move to nuisance
barr v biffa waste services [2012]
permits and nuisance - land fill case
Christie v Davies [189]
(music wall bang case) malice in nuisance - injunction granted
Robinson v Kilvert [1889]
hyper sensitivity negates claim in nuisance
Rylands v Feltcher [1866]
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.
Hwaley v Luminar [2006 (vicarious liability)
nightclub bouncer hired through agency - liability of the nightclub vicariously for his actions
Viasystems v thermal transfer [2006]
vicarious liability in subcontracting
Catholic child welfare society v Insitute of the brothers of the Christian schools [2012]
vicarious liability through religious organisation
Cox v MoJ [2016]
Vicarious liability in prison - Ministry of justice liable in breach of their duty of care to prison workers
Lister v Hesley Hall [2002]
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
Mohamud v Morrison Supermarket [2016]
change in test for close connection to employer - gross abuse of position of employee
ICI v Shatwell [1956]
volenti used for employer - brothers knowingly acted against instructions and brought danger on themselves
Woolridge v Sumner [1963]
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
Morris v Murray [1990]
(drinking aeroplane) claimant voluntarily accepting risk of injury and waiving right to compensation
Froom v Butcher [1975]
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 -
Capps v Miller [1989]
no deduction for contributory negligence due to drink driving - more responsible
Reeves v CMP [1999]
suicide in police cell - contributory negligence as he was of sound mind and voluntarily acted but police duty to protect
Pitts v Hunt [1990]
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)
Smith v Finch [2009]
cyclist helmets in contributory negligence
Jackson v Murray [2015]
teenagers have less intuition than an adult when assessing contribution in contributory negligence to their own injury
