Novel Duty situations Flashcards
What was the ruling in Candler v Crane Christmas and Co (1951) regarding duty of care?
No duty of care was owed in relation to careless advice given by accountants to third parties.
Lord Denning argued in dissent that a duty of care was owed to employers, clients, and third persons who relied on the accounts.
What are the key elements for establishing a duty of care according to Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners (1964)?
- Reliance by claimant on defendant’s special skill and judgement
- Reasonable knowledge of reliance
- Reasonable in circumstances for claimant to rely on defendant
The court relied on Lord Denning’s dissenting judgement.
According to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), what conditions must be met for a duty of care to exist?
- Advice must be specific or general
- Purpose must be known to advisor
- Defendant must know that advice will be given to claimant
- Must be known that advice will be acted upon
- Advice must be acted upon to the detriment of the claimant
This case further clarified the criteria for establishing a duty of care.
What did Mutual Life Assurance v Evatt (1971) suggest about special relationships?
A special relationship could be any business or professional relationship.
The court held that the insurance company was not in business to give advice, so no duty was owed.
What was the outcome of Chaudhry v Prabhakar (1988) regarding liability?
Liability was imposed based on the defendant’s knowledge of the advice given.
The court noted that this was an unusual case.
What was the ruling in JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom and Co (1983) concerning duty of care?
Duty of care was owed, but the action failed because causation could not be proved.
The claimant acted on negligently overstated accounts.
In Commissioner of Police of Metropolis v Lennon (2004), what was the court’s conclusion regarding voluntary assumptions of responsibility?
The police advisor had voluntarily assumed responsibility for advising the claimant.
The claimant lost his entitlement due to taking time off based on the advice given.
What did Yianni v Edwin Evans (1982) establish about recovery of damages without reliance?
A surveyor became liable to a house buyer despite being employed by a lender because the test of reasonable foreseeability was satisfied.
This case shows that duty can exist even without direct reliance.
What was the significance of Dulieu v White and Sons (1901) in the context of nervous shock?
It became possible to bring a successful claim for nervous shock.
The claimant feared for her own safety when a horse ran into a public house.
What was the outcome of Reilly v Merseyside Regional Health Authority (1994) regarding psychiatric claims?
Claims for insomnia and nightmares were held to be normal human emotion.
This case illustrates limitations on claims for psychiatric injuries.
What did Vernon v Bosley No. 1 (1996) establish about claiming for psychiatric injuries?
It is possible to claim for psychiatric injury based on profound grief.
The claimant suffered pathological grief and bereavement.
What conditions must be satisfied for secondary victims to claim damages?
- Closeness of relationship with defendant
- Proximity to the accident
- Shock must be from what claimant saw or heard
This was defined in McLaughlin v O’Brien (1983).
What was the ruling in Paul v Wolverhampton NHS Trust (2020) regarding immediate aftermath?
The claim initially failed because the girls were not present at the time of the negligent event.
On appeal, the court allowed a trial due to the significant time gap.
What did the court decide in Taylor v A Novo UK Ltd (2013) regarding proximity in time and space?
The law could not extend for damages for an event occurring 3 weeks after the accident.
The daughter claimed psychiatric damages after her mother’s injury.
What was established in Sion v Hampstead Health Authority regarding psychiatric illness?
Psychiatric illness must arise from a singular event.
The claimant suffered stress-related psychiatric illness from witnessing his son’s death over 14 days.
What is the ‘thin skull rule’ as applied in Page v Smith (1996)?
The thin skull rule applies to primary victims.
This means that defendants are liable for the full extent of a claimant’s injury, even if it is unexpectedly severe.
True or False: In Bourhill v Young (1943), the claim for nervous shock was successful.
False.
The claimant was not in physical danger at the time of the accident.
Fill in the blank: The case of Attia v British Gas (1988) allowed for a claim in psychiatric injury where there is damage to _______.
[property].
The case involved damage due to a fire.
