liability

Question 1

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

Answer 1

would have succeeded in product liability if there was no claim in contract

Question 2

Daniels v R White & Sons 1938

Answer 2

no breach for caustic acid in jugs of lemonade as they had used same process as everyone else

Question 3

Evans v Triplex Glass 1936

Answer 3

couldn’t prove causation for shattered windscreen

Question 4

Griffiths v Arch Engineering 1968

Answer 4

contributory negligence used as defence for injury whilst using 2 handed tool

Question 5

Abouzaid v Mothercare 200

Answer 5

design defect with buckle on pram (trapping hazard)

Question 6

Richardson v LRC Products Ltd 2000

Answer 6

warning on pack about splitting condoms meant claim failed - not uncommon

Question 7

Bogle v McDonald’s Restaurants 2002

Answer 7

claim failed due to warning on cup of coffee

Question 8

A v National Blood Authority 2001

Answer 8

anything that goes through manufacturing process is a product

Question 9

Collier v Anglian Water Authority 1983

Answer 9

premises can have more than one occupier

Question 10

Glasgow Corp v Taylor 1922

Answer 10

successful claim as park took no precautions against children eating poisonous berries

Question 11

Pearson v Coleman Bros 1948

Answer 11

successful claim as dangerous area with lions had not been marked off effectively

Question 12

Wheeler v Copas 1981

Answer 12

showed ladders can be premises

Question 13

Revill v Newbury 1996

Answer 13

d liable for shooting burglar through door - greater violence than was justified - contributory negligence took away 2/3rds of his claim

Question 14

Ratcliff v McConnell, Ors & Harper Adams College 1999

Answer 14

claim failed after drunk man dived into shallow pool - no duty to protect as any adult would see danger

Question 15

Tomlinson v Congleton BC 2003

Answer 15

warning was enough to excuse liability for lake saying “no swimming”

Question 16

Jolley v Sutton London BC 2000

Answer 16

claim failed based on remoteness after child tried to fix up boat which had been there for 2+yrs

Question 17

Keown v Coventry NHS Trust 2006

Answer 17

premises not unsafe after child climbed up scaffolding in “monkey like way”

Question 18

Scott v Associated British Ports 2000

Answer 18

foreseeable that people would trainsurf after it happened once before

Question 19

Anns v Merton BC 1978

Answer 19

introduced 2 part test for claims in pure eco loss - sufficient relationship of proximity based on foreseeability, any policy reasons not to impose a duty of care

Question 20

Governors of the Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd 1985

Answer 20

claim failed based on policy grounds as there was a duty to protect public order & relaying drains was in public interest

Question 21

D&F Estates v Church Commissioners 1989

Answer 21

no liability as they had hired plasterers with a good reputation

Question 22

Murphy v Brentwood DC 1990

Answer 22

established a need for special relationship and reasonable foreseeability that loss would occur if a negligent / innaccurate statement was made

Question 23

Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service 1996

Answer 23

couldn’t reasonably foresee that she would rely on the statement

Question 24

Smith v Bush 1990

Answer 24

liable as it was obvious that the statement about how much the house was worth was relied upon

Question 25

White v Jones 1995

Answer 25

successful claim after solicitor failed to change will before man died so daughters suffered pure eco loss

Question 26

Chaudhry v Prabhakar 1988

Answer 26

successful claim after claimant asked friend with “some knowledge of cars” to advise him on purchasing one which turned out to be unroadworthy

Question 27

Caparo Industries v Dickman 1990

Answer 27

not liable as it wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that someone would use the shareholder would use the statement to purchase the company

Question 28

Spring v Guardian Assurance 1994

Answer 28

successful claim in pure eco loss after false reference cost him job

Question 29

Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police 2011

Answer 29

police have duty to to the public so claim failed when they provided information about a crime that he was not charged for (indecent exposure, job as teacher)

Question 30

Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller

Answer 30

disclaimer at the bottom of creditworthiness statement meant the claim failed

Question 31

Collins v Hertfordshire CC 1947

Answer 31

employers “cannot only order or require what is done but how it shall be done”

Question 32

Walker v Crystal Palace FC

Answer 32

professional footballer classed as employee

Question 33

Ready Mixed Concrete v Ministry of Pensions & National Insurance 1968

Answer 33

established payment of a wage, tools provided, uniform and some control over issuing orders & how work is to be done is how you establish an employee status

Question 34

Mc Kenna

Answer 34

provision of work in return for wage, express or implied agreement to being subject to employers control, agreement to provide personal service

Question 35

Limpus v London Omnibus 1863

Answer 35

authorised act in an unauthorised way (racing buses)

Question 36

Iqbal v London Transport Executive 1973

Answer 36

bus conductor driving bus amounted to frolic of their own

Question 37

Heasmans v Clarity Cleaning 1987

Answer 37

maid making calls from hotel rooms amounted to frolic of their own

Question 38

Conway v Wimpey 1951

Answer 38

no vicarious liability for giving lifts to and from work

Question 39

Rose v Plenty 1975

Answer 39

no vicarious liability as milkman specifically told no kids allowed

Question 40

Warren v Henlys 1948

Answer 40

punching customer was not an authorised act so no vicarious liability

Question 41

Lister v Helsey Hall Ltd 2001

Answer 41

criminal act was so closely related with his job that vicarious liability had to be established (sexually abusing boys in carehome)

Question 42

Mattis v Pollock 2003

Answer 42

established vicarious liability for assault (doorman)