Tests !!!!

Question 1

duty of care - 4 step test

Answer 1

1/ duty of care, 2 soc, 3, causation and remoteness, 4, harm/ fault

Question 2

anns v merton borough council

Answer 2

promxity and considerations to reduce

Question 3

caparo v dickman

Answer 3

proximity, reasonabble forseeablity, just and reasonable to impose liability

Question 4

hambrook v stoke brothers

Answer 4

close rel, zone of dnager, immediate aftermath

Question 5

mcloughlin v o brien

Answer 5

close rel, zone of dnager, immediate aftermath

Question 6

alcock v chief const

Answer 6

martial / parental
nervous shocj
pl was present
pls saw injury or reaosnable foreseebaility of injury
phyical and temporal connectyion - percepotion and relationshiop

Question 7

kelly v hennessy

Answer 7

psyc illness
shock
nervous shock- defs fault
reasonably forseebale that the event would cause shoc
perception
close rel
no public policy

Question 8

hedley v heller byrne

Answer 8

pl relied on skil; and judgement of def
def ought to/ shoiuld have known rely
reasonabe fort pl to rely

Question 9

capro and dickman in negilent misstatements

Answer 9

advice must be for a purpose
purpose must be for a oerson
known that it will be acted upon
it is acted upon

Question 10

dunne v national maternity hospital

Answer 10

1, guility of somehting no meidcal practioner would do
2, yes an deviate from gap- issue if cannot prove that no medical practioner was involved
3, any inherent defcets?
4, honest diffeence un opiono
5, not for court to decude
6, gap and does it apply to trearment or diagnoises

Question 11

geoghan v harris

Answer 11

reasonable patient tyest of disclosure
1, severity of consequneces, statisical frequency of risk, part cics of pl

Question 12

sunderland v hatton

Answer 12

1, ordinary neg for psyc illness of stress caused by employer
2, employer must have nowlegdde and nature of worl of employee
3, take reaosnabvle steps
4, employee must protect own health

Question 13

bradly v cie

Answer 13

soc- what would a reasonabvle and prudent emplyer have done

Question 14

morrisye v hse : vicarious liability

Answer 14

level of eng. by one party- to carry out a task- is sufficnet to show that - clealry intergtated in the activies of the employer

Question 15

breach of ststuorty duty case law and facts

Answer 15

cutler v wandsworth - crimianl equals public
m’david v milford- class
daly b greybridge - children
gorrsis v scott- sheep and what the leg was there to protect

Question 16

malicours falsehood

Answer 16

untrue, maliciours, plan- s.42

Question 17

malcious prosecution

Answer 17

malciours, wihtour probaly cause, unsuccessful , dmamage

Question 18

absue of process

Answer 18

legal process, wihtour probaly cause, unsuccessful , dmamage, malcious

Question 19

deceit

Answer 19

def lied, def knew it was a lie, def ineteded pl to rely, pl did, pls losss

Question 20

campus oil v misnter for industry and enegrry

Answer 20

seriosu question to be tried
damahes is not suffiencet
baqlance of convience favours injuntion

Question 21

shelfer v city of london

Answer 21

small
capavle of beinge staimnated in money
adquately compoensenetdd in money
would be opressive to grant an injunciton

Question 22

statute of limiations 1991

Answer 22

perpsn who wa sinjuured
the injury
was it linked to neg bvreach of duty or nusincse
the idneity of def
infidiety of torrtfeaer