liability Flashcards
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
would have succeeded in product liability if there was no claim in contract
Daniels v R White & Sons 1938
no breach for caustic acid in jugs of lemonade as they had used same process as everyone else
Evans v Triplex Glass 1936
couldn’t prove causation for shattered windscreen
Griffiths v Arch Engineering 1968
contributory negligence used as defence for injury whilst using 2 handed tool
Abouzaid v Mothercare 200
design defect with buckle on pram (trapping hazard)
Richardson v LRC Products Ltd 2000
warning on pack about splitting condoms meant claim failed - not uncommon
Bogle v McDonald’s Restaurants 2002
claim failed due to warning on cup of coffee
A v National Blood Authority 2001
anything that goes through manufacturing process is a product
Collier v Anglian Water Authority 1983
premises can have more than one occupier
Glasgow Corp v Taylor 1922
successful claim as park took no precautions against children eating poisonous berries
Pearson v Coleman Bros 1948
successful claim as dangerous area with lions had not been marked off effectively
Wheeler v Copas 1981
showed ladders can be premises
Revill v Newbury 1996
d liable for shooting burglar through door - greater violence than was justified - contributory negligence took away 2/3rds of his claim
Ratcliff v McConnell, Ors & Harper Adams College 1999
claim failed after drunk man dived into shallow pool - no duty to protect as any adult would see danger
Tomlinson v Congleton BC 2003
warning was enough to excuse liability for lake saying “no swimming”
Jolley v Sutton London BC 2000
claim failed based on remoteness after child tried to fix up boat which had been there for 2+yrs
Keown v Coventry NHS Trust 2006
premises not unsafe after child climbed up scaffolding in “monkey like way”
Scott v Associated British Ports 2000
foreseeable that people would trainsurf after it happened once before
Anns v Merton BC 1978
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
Governors of the Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd 1985
claim failed based on policy grounds as there was a duty to protect public order & relaying drains was in public interest
D&F Estates v Church Commissioners 1989
no liability as they had hired plasterers with a good reputation
Murphy v Brentwood DC 1990
established a need for special relationship and reasonable foreseeability that loss would occur if a negligent / innaccurate statement was made
Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service 1996
couldn’t reasonably foresee that she would rely on the statement
Smith v Bush 1990
liable as it was obvious that the statement about how much the house was worth was relied upon
White v Jones 1995
successful claim after solicitor failed to change will before man died so daughters suffered pure eco loss
Chaudhry v Prabhakar 1988
successful claim after claimant asked friend with “some knowledge of cars” to advise him on purchasing one which turned out to be unroadworthy
Caparo Industries v Dickman 1990
not liable as it wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that someone would use the shareholder would use the statement to purchase the company
Spring v Guardian Assurance 1994
successful claim in pure eco loss after false reference cost him job
Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police 2011
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)
Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller
disclaimer at the bottom of creditworthiness statement meant the claim failed
Collins v Hertfordshire CC 1947
employers “cannot only order or require what is done but how it shall be done”
Walker v Crystal Palace FC
professional footballer classed as employee
Ready Mixed Concrete v Ministry of Pensions & National Insurance 1968
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
Mc Kenna
provision of work in return for wage, express or implied agreement to being subject to employers control, agreement to provide personal service
Limpus v London Omnibus 1863
authorised act in an unauthorised way (racing buses)
Iqbal v London Transport Executive 1973
bus conductor driving bus amounted to frolic of their own
Heasmans v Clarity Cleaning 1987
maid making calls from hotel rooms amounted to frolic of their own
Conway v Wimpey 1951
no vicarious liability for giving lifts to and from work
Rose v Plenty 1975
no vicarious liability as milkman specifically told no kids allowed
Warren v Henlys 1948
punching customer was not an authorised act so no vicarious liability
Lister v Helsey Hall Ltd 2001
criminal act was so closely related with his job that vicarious liability had to be established (sexually abusing boys in carehome)
Mattis v Pollock 2003
established vicarious liability for assault (doorman)
