Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law Cases > negligence > Flashcards

negligence Flashcards

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

donoghue v stevenson
FACTS

A

sued manufacturer as a bottle of ginger beer had a decomposed snail in it giving her gastroemetriosis

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

donoghue v stevenson
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

court awarded damages on basis of neighbour principle:
we owe a duty to those closely and directly affected by our actions , we ought to owe them compensation
modern law of negligence was born

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

bolton v stone
FACTS

A

a cricket ball was hit out of the grounds and hit someone. A high fence was built and this only happend 6 times in 30 years

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

bolton v stone
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

the risk was therefore low and the club wasnt expected to do any more: no breach

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

paris v stephney
FACTS

A

c had one good eye and was employed by a garage without being provided with goggles. Whilst working he struck something and a piece of metal injured his good eye
Sued on basis that d was negligent in not providing work goggles

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

paris v stepheny
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

reasonable employer wouldve provided two eyed goggles in such circumstances - d shouldve done more

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

latimer v aec
FACTS

A

a factory was flooded as the result of a storm. The day after warning signs were displayed and sandust was put down and an employee slipped

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

latimer v aec
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

there was no breach as they had done all that was reasonable

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

watt v herts
FACTS

A

fire fighters where speeding to an accident when a piece of equipment came loose and injured one of them.

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

watt v herts
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

there was no breach of duty as they were trying ti get a serious accident and prevent greater harm

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

barnett v chelsea and kensington
FACTS

A

c attended a hospital complaining of severe stomach pains and vomiting. He was seen by a nurse who called the doctor who advised c to go home and rest he died 5 hours later. His wife tried to sue the hospital for negligence as post mortems showed large amounts of arsenic in his system but he wouldve died regardless

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

barnett v chelsea kensignton
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

he was unable to be saved by medical intervention - no causation, hospital not liable

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

knightley v johns and others
FACTS

A

after a car had overturned, two police officers on motorbikes went to shut the tunnel which involved driving on the other side of the road around a corner, this caused an accident and c suffered injuries. C tried to sue all involved.

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

knightley v johns and others
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

Senior officers instructions and failure to close the entrance = negligent and broke chain

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

wagonmound case
FACTS

A

ship was being refuelled when some oil spilt into water. 2 days later: oil floated to the exact spot where another ship was being welded, a spark ignited and caused fire and damage to the ship.

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

wagonmound case
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

this wasnt foreseeable as it was too remote

17
Q

bradford v robinson
FACTS

A

a man was sent out by his boss in a van that had no heating. it was a long car journey and c ended up with frostbite. d argued that frostbite was too remote to predict

18
Q

bradford v robinson
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

c only needs to show that his boss wouldve forseen some sort of cold related injury wouldve occurred

19
Q

hughes v lord advocate
FACTS

A

a manhole was left open at night with a lamp to act as a warning. a group of boys went into the manhole and one of the lamps exploded causing burns

20
Q

hughes v lord advocate
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

it wasnt neccessary to prove that ds couldve foreseen exactly how this would happen. burns were foreseeable doesnt matter that the explosion wasnt
provided kind of damage suffered is foreseeable doesnt matter how it happened

21
Q

smith v leech brain and co
FACTS

A

c was working for d part of his job required him to work with molten metal but he hadnt been provided with adequete protection. some molten metal landed on his lip causing a burn. Unknown to d, c had pre cancerous cells and the burn triggered the cancer and he died

22
Q

smith v leech brain and co
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

d was liable the burn was foreseeable

23
Q

bolam v friern hospital
FACTS

A

a doctor was sued for negligence and was judged against the standard of a reasonable competent doctor.

24
Q

bolam v friern hospital
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

he was held not to be negligent as he did what other doctors in his position would do.

25
Q

mullins v richards
FACTS

A

c and d were schoolgirls who engaged in a mock sword fight with plastic rulers. one ruler snapped a fragment ended up in the eye of c blinding her in one eye

26
Q

mullins v richards
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

the girl was expected to meet the standard of a reasonable 15 year old girl not that of a reasonable man - found not guilty to be in breach of duty

27
Q

nettleship v western
FACTS

A

d was a learner driver who caused an accident during a lesson

28
Q

nettleship v western
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

when she was sued she couldnt use her experience as a excuse as she was expected to drive like any other driver

29
Q

froom v butcher
FACTS

A

c was injured in a car accident when the car he was driving collided with ds car due to ds negligent driving. c wasnt wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident

30
Q

froom v butcher
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

c was guilt of contributory negligence as they couldve foreseen that by not acting reasonably injury would occur - damages reduced by 20% made injuries worse but not liable for the injury/car crash that occurred.

31
Q

morris v murray
FACTS

A

c and a pilot had been drinking all day then decided to fly a plane which crashed and killed the pilot. C was injured and brought negligent action against the pilots estate

32
Q

morris v murray
LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A

no claim as c was fully aware of the consequences and voluntarily got on the flight with the pilot

Law Cases (28 decks)

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