Rules and Theory of Tort law

Question 1

Boxing injury - poor care

Watson V British Boxing Board (2000)

Answer 1

D owed a duty of care as the necessary equipment to ensure the safety of boxers was missing

Question 2

Murder victim family sued after the police didnt catch killer

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990)

Answer 2

For public policy reasons, the police do not owe a duty to ordinary members of the public as it would result in defensive policing

Question 3

Police failed to protect C as she had given evidence about a criminal.

Swinney v Chief constable of Northumbria (1999)

Answer 3

The police do owe a duty of care where they have accepted responsibility for the after of a specific person

Question 4

Fire service turned off water letting a biuilding burn down

Capital and Counties PLC v Hampshire county council (1997)

Answer 4

The fire service owe a duty of care where they take negligent but positive action

Question 5

Ambulance delay casuing severe injuries

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Answer 5

Ambulance subject to a duty of care once they accepted a call

Question 6

workmens negligence a cable was seveed stopping production

Spartan steel v Martin (1972)

Answer 6

A claim can be made for goods damadged but not for those when the factory was closed a this was ‘pure economic loss’

Question 7

Mother suffered shock when she saw her injured family after an arguament

Mcloughlin v O’Brian (1982)

Answer 7

A claim for nervous shock could be made by a person who had

-close ties of love and affection to the victim
- and who saw the aftermath

Question 8

Familtes of Hilsborough Disaster learning loved ones died in accident

Alcock v CCSY (1991)

Answer 8

A claim for nervous shock could be made by a person who had

-close ties of love and affection
-who saw aftermath/immediate aftermath
-suffered shock through UNAIDED SENES

Question 9

Claims of nervous shock by police officers

White v CCSY (1999)

Answer 9

Rescuers could only claim if they feared for their own saftey

Question 10

Due to learners negligence instructor was injured

Nettleship V Western (1971)

Answer 10

A learner is treated at the same standard of an experienced driver

Question 11

A woman injured by a ball hit off the ground

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Answer 11

The cricket club had taken all nescesary precautions bearing in mind the risk and had not breached its duty of care

Question 12

Firm sent workers back to work despite hazards post flood (sawdust)

Latimer v AEG (1952)

Answer 12

The owners had taken all nescesary precautions to make the factory safe taking into account the risk, and they had not breached their duty of care

Question 13

Girl injured during play fight (ruler case)

Mullen v Richards (1998)

Answer 13

Children are to be treated as children and not as adults

Question 14

Man blinded when not given propper PPE

Paris v Stepney (1951)

Answer 14

The claimant was particularly vulnerble and the employers should have provided him with extra protection

Question 15

Fireman injured while responding ot an emergency

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)

Answer 15

Greater risks can be taken when dealing with emergencies

Question 16

C injured while recieving ECT for mental illness

Bolam v Friem Barnet Hosptal Management Committee (1957)

Answer 16

There was no breach of duty from the Dr, who should be judged according to the standard of what others in the profession would have done.

Question 17

Cricket balls into garden

Miller v Jackson (1977)

Answer 17

The public gbenefit of the cricket ground outwweighed the disadvantage to the individuial householders