negligence Flashcards
donoghue v stevenson
FACTS
sued manufacturer as a bottle of ginger beer had a decomposed snail in it giving her gastroemetriosis
donoghue v stevenson
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
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
bolton v stone
FACTS
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
bolton v stone
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
the risk was therefore low and the club wasnt expected to do any more: no breach
paris v stephney
FACTS
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
paris v stepheny
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
reasonable employer wouldve provided two eyed goggles in such circumstances - d shouldve done more
latimer v aec
FACTS
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
latimer v aec
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
there was no breach as they had done all that was reasonable
watt v herts
FACTS
fire fighters where speeding to an accident when a piece of equipment came loose and injured one of them.
watt v herts
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
there was no breach of duty as they were trying ti get a serious accident and prevent greater harm
barnett v chelsea and kensington
FACTS
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
barnett v chelsea kensignton
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
he was unable to be saved by medical intervention - no causation, hospital not liable
knightley v johns and others
FACTS
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.
knightley v johns and others
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
Senior officers instructions and failure to close the entrance = negligent and broke chain
wagonmound case
FACTS
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.
wagonmound case
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
this wasnt foreseeable as it was too remote
bradford v robinson
FACTS
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
bradford v robinson
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
c only needs to show that his boss wouldve forseen some sort of cold related injury wouldve occurred
hughes v lord advocate
FACTS
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
hughes v lord advocate
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
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
smith v leech brain and co
FACTS
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
smith v leech brain and co
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
d was liable the burn was foreseeable
bolam v friern hospital
FACTS
a doctor was sued for negligence and was judged against the standard of a reasonable competent doctor.
bolam v friern hospital
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
he was held not to be negligent as he did what other doctors in his position would do.
mullins v richards
FACTS
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
mullins v richards
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
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
nettleship v western
FACTS
d was a learner driver who caused an accident during a lesson
nettleship v western
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
when she was sued she couldnt use her experience as a excuse as she was expected to drive like any other driver
froom v butcher
FACTS
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
froom v butcher
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
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.
morris v murray
FACTS
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
morris v murray
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
no claim as c was fully aware of the consequences and voluntarily got on the flight with the pilot
