Tort Cases Flashcards
1
Q
Woodroffe-Hedley
A
rock climber, diverse aims of tort law - compensation & corrective justice, Horsey and Rackley - backwards and forwards looking
2
Q
Tomlinson [2003]
A
compensation culture - myth, more people who know rights the better - crackdown by Conservative government - LASPO, The Social Action, Responsibility, and Heroism Act (SARAH) 2015
3
Q
Bradford Corporation v Pickles
A
no remedy if harm not covered by tort - used his own land, intent not relevant - refused to issue an injunction
4
Q
Osman v Ferguson
A
public policy wouldn’t allow negligence claim against police for failing to prevent school teacher’s killing of student’s father and injuring of student
5
Q
Van Colle
A
in the absence of special circumstances, the police owe no common law duty of care to protect people from harm committed by criminals - tried to bring claim for violation of A.2 based on Osman v UK, but failed based on facts of the case
6
Q
Wainwright v Home Office
A
distress and embarrassment not a tort under A.8 right to privacy, not a recognised psychiatric illness under Wilkinson v Downton
7
Q
F v West Berkshire
A
meaning of unlawful force - consensual, accepted contact of everyday life, or
out of common law principle of necessity - can be in an emergency or in a permanent/semi-permanent state
8
Q
Wilson v Pringle
A
trespass in an intentional act
9
Q
Bici v Ministry of Defence
A
assault - defendant must intend claimant to apprehend infliction of battery
10
Q
Read v Coker
A
words alone couldn’t constitute assault unless accompanied by action/gesture
11
Q
R v Ireland
A
rejected idea that words couldn’t constitute assault, also found that ‘immediate’ could mean within a minute or so
12
Q
Tuberville v Savage
A
words may negative an assault - ‘if we weren’t being watched by police, I’d hit you’
13
Q
Wilkinson v Downton
A
defendant intended to cause shock, claimant suffers tangible damage as a result
14
Q
Rhodes v OPO
A
elements of the tort of WIlkinson v Downton reformulated: 1/conduct element requiring words or conduct directed at the claimant for which there was no justification or excuse, 2/ a mental element requiring an intention to cause at least severe mental or emotional distress, 3. consequence element requiring physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness
15
Q
Condon v Basi
A
consent in sport - not just to conduct within the rules of the game but also within the spirit of the particular sport
16
Q
Chatterton v Gerson
A
Consent straightforward- must not be forced
17
Q
Chester v Afshar
A
Complex medical consent - to vitiate consent would have to mean claimant wouldn’t have consented - but inaccurate consent may lead to negligence claim
18
Q
Cockcroft v Smith
A
Defence of the Person - not in retaliation
19
Q
Goddard v Green
A
Defence of property
20
Q
Co-operative Group v Pritchard
A
Contributory negligence no longer a defence to trespass to the person
21
Q
Baker TE Hopkins
A
Established duty where the defendants actions create a dangerous situation and it is reasonably foreseeable that someone will attempt a rescue, defendant owes a duty to the rescuer
22
Q
Donoghue v Stevenson
A
Neighbour principle - duty to those ‘ought reasonably to have them in contemplation’
Narrow Rule - manufacturer liable to consumer for defective product as long as there isn’t a reasonable expectation of intermediate examination
23
Q
Caparo v Dickman
A
Redefined test for novel duty - 1. Reasonable foresight of harm to claimant, 2. Sufficient proximity of relationship, 3. Fair, just, and reasonable to impose duty - first two in D v S, third allows for policy decisions
Auditors didn’t have a sufficiently close relationship to potential shareholders to owe them a duty - criteria for special relationship - 1. Advisor knew the purpose for which the advise was given, 2. The advisor knew the advice would be communicated to the advisee, either specifically or as a member of an ascertainable class, 3. The advisor knew the advisee was likely to act on the advice without independent inquiry, 4. The advice was acted on by the advisee to their detriment
24
Q
Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire
A
Difference between positive acts and omissions - arrest is a positive act so duty may be imposed on the police for people in their custody
Shouldn’t reapply Caparo test to established duties
25
Bourhill v Young
Foreseeability - claimant suffered psychological harm, shock and miscarriage, after seeing motorcycle crash, not a foreseeable victim as she wasn’t in immediate danger of physical harm
26
Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine
Cargo lost at sea - not reasonable to recover losses from non-profit surveyor who aimed to save lives
27
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire
Police didn’t owe duty to victim of Sutcliffe to catch him, duty to public not individuals so unfair to impose duty, also insufficient proximity as he was one of many suspects
28
Kirkham v CC of Greater Manchester Police
Police assumed responsibility to man who killed himself in prison - duty imposed
29
Osman v U.K.
ECHR found policy of blanket immunity for police a violation of A.6 right to a fair trial
30
Z v U.K.
ECHR revisited Osman - found approach to negligence in U.K. courts not a violation
31
Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Case against police by friend and witness to Stephen Lawrence’s murder dismissed based on Hill
32
Michael v CC of South Wales Police
Family of domestic violence victim brought negligence and violation of A.2 claim against police, negligence dismissed but A.2 claim allowed
33
Swinny v CC of Northumbria Police
Policy decision that police owed a duty to informants, important and limited group of people
34
Camarthenshire v Lewis
Liability for omission - education authority had a duty to stop child endangering others
35
Stovin v Wise
No liability for omission to act - highway authority knew junction was dangerous and did nothing
36
East Suffolk Rivers v Kent
Decision to act when there is no duty to do so - only liable if situation made worse
37
Dorset Yacht
Liability for omission - young offenders left unsupervised, “escaped” on yacht, home office had vicarious liability - had power or control over the situation
38
Smith v Littlewoods
No liability re leaving building due for demolition unsupervised at night leading to kids breaking in and starting a fire - no control over situation
39
Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks
‘Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man...would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do’
40
Glasgow Corp v Muir
Test for breach of duty is objective and impersonal
41
Bolam
Special standard - doctor must show degree of care and skill of a reasonable doctor
Where professional opinion differs there must be a reasonable body of professional opinion supporting defendants actions
Accepted practice in profession strong evidence against negligence but not conclusive
42
Bolitho v City and Hackney HA
Courts decision whether body of professional opinion is reasonable
43
Wells v Cooper
Standard of a reasonably skilled a amateur
44
Wilsher v Essex
Junior doctor must meet standard of a reasonable doctor
45
Bolton v Stone
Standard of care - risk assessment - 6 cricket balls hit out in 28 years - reasonable not to take precautions
46
Miller v Jackson
Magnitude of risk - 8/9 cricket balls hit out per season and damage to claimants property caused a number of times
47
Paris v Stepney
Risk is individual - claimant with one good eye should be given goggles because potential magnitude of risk so much higher
48
Latimer v AEC
Cost and practicality of precautions - signs and sawdust on flooded floor, didn’t need to close factory - expensive
4th employers' duty - take reasonable steps to provide a safe workplace
49
Watt v Hertfordshire
Fireman, equipment fell on him, court found purpose of saving life or limb should be considered, doesn’t mean emergency services immune from negligence
50
Re The Herald of Free Enterprise
Counter to Bolam - court found commonly accepted practice of ferries not checking doors were closed was negligent
51
Roe v Ministry of Health
What a reasonable person would have foreseen based on current state of knowledge at time
52
Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington
Limitation of reasonable duty - only to do what is reasonable , don’t have to guard against ‘fantastic possibilities’ - distinct from rare possibilities in Lewis
53
Mansfield v Weetabix
Driver whose consciousness impaired judged by standard of reasonable driver who didn’t know of condition
54
Waugh v James K Allen
Driver also not liable for sudden heart attack
55
Scott v London St Katherine’s Dock
Res Ipsa Loquitur - docker injured by heavy bag of sugar falling from defendant’s crane, couldn’t prove what caused bag to fall, 3 criteria - 1. The thing causing the damage must be under the control of the defendant or someone for whom defendant was responsible, 2. The accident must be such as would not normally happen without negligence, 3. The cause of the accident must be unknown to the claimant
56
Barnett
‘But for’ test
57
McWilliams
Safety harness
58
Hoston v East Berkshire Area Health Authority
Factual causation failed where there was a 25% chance medical negligence caused disability
59
Wilsher v Essex
Factual causation failed where there were 5 possible causes of blindness and only 1 was caused by junior doctor’s negligence
60
Gregg v Scott
Misdiagnosis - loss of chance to recover from cancer - from 42% to 25% - not recoverable as always less than 50% - Hotson
61
Bonnington
Material contribution - 2 sources of dust, negligent re 1, not the other
62
McGhee v NCB
Dust exposure at two sources, at work and on way home because of lack of washing facilities, claimant developed dermatitis from dust but couldn’t show source - material contribution extended to material increase in risk
63
Holtby
Asbestosis - develops over time - material increase in risk divided among employers based on length of employment
64
Fairchild
Material increase in risk extended to mesothelioma, indivisible injury so employers held to be responsible for whole of claimants harm, could recover amongst themselves under the Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978
65
Baker v Coras
Amended Fairchild - rather than being responsible for the whole harm employers were responsible for a material increase in risk - divisible - changed by Parliament in the Compensation Claim Act 2006
66
Grief U.K.
Mesothelioma only recognised case of uncertainty where factual causation/material contribution rules not applied
67
Performance Cars v Abraham
Collision scrapped paint but needed to be respirated anyway - not liable according to factual causation
68
Rahman v Arearose
Assaulted at work, medical treatment negligent, caused claimant to go blind, suffered psychological harm as a result of both - found mental illness was divisible
69
Knightly v Johns
Intervening act - driver who blocked tunnel couldn’t foresee police inspector ordering officer to drive back against the traffic
70
Scott v Shepard
Instinctive act - throwing lit firework away - not an intervening act
71
Rouse v Squires
Lorry driver jackknifed, blocked two motorway lanes, car collided with lorry, another lorry stopped to help, further lorry didn’t manage to stop, killed Rouse, both negligent drivers were liable
72
Wright v Lodge
Broken down car pulled over but not pushed off road, lorry crashed into it, skidded, 4 car pile up, chain of causation broken - Knightly applies
73
Lamb v Camden
Defendants caused damage to claimant house, while it was being repaired house left unoccupied, squatters moved in and caused more damage, defendants not liable for actions of squatters
74
Cunningham v Reading Football Club
Predictably antagonistic match, building work, left concrete blocks lying around, violence foreseeable so chain of causation not broken
75
Stansbie v Troman
Defendant decorating house, left for a couple of hours to get something, had been told to make sure they locked up but didn’t, someone broke in and stole a diamond bracelet, Court of Appeal found theft didn’t break chain of causation - assumed responsibility and failed to take reasonable care
76
McKew v Holland
Action of claimant breaking chain of causation - defendants had weakened claimants leg, he went up steep staircase with no hand rail - broke chain of causation
77
Wieland v Cyril
Claimant injured neck due to defendants negligence, couldn’t wear glasses, further injury falling downstairs, defendants liable, claimant hadn’t acted unreasonably, must be entirely unreasonable to break chain of causation
78
Wagon Mound
Oil in harbour, damaged must be reasonably foreseeable or actually foreseen at the time of the act
79
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Unattended work site - similar in type proviso to remoteness rule
80
Tremalin v Pike
Similar in type argument failed re rare disease from rats urine
81
Jolley v Sutton
Similar in type rule applied - children playing on boat, occupiers' liability - causation and remoteness as in common law
82
Robinson v Post Office
Small injury, allergic reaction to tetanus shot, defendant liable - need for medical treatment reasonably foreseeable - egg shell skull rule
83
Nettleship v Weston
Voluntary assumption of risk test: 1. Claimant has full knowledge of nature and extent of the risk , 2. Claimant willingly consented to the risk of being harmed by the defendants negligence
84
Dann v Hamilton
Voluntary assumption re drunk driver (who died in crash), found there may be cases where driver so drunk getting in the car amounted to voluntary assumption but not on the face cuts off this case
RTA s.149 voluntary assumption can’t apply to passengers, but Dann still illustrative of high bar for this defence
85
Morris v Murray
Voluntary assumption succeeded re pilot who was drinking with claimant all day (17 whiskies)
86
Ratcliffe/Tomlinson/Donoghue
High bar for voluntary assumption even re trespassers diving into water
87
Smith v Baker
Voluntary assumption rarely successful for employers
88
Casewell
Employers liability, voluntary assumption, will consider all circumstances including full, repetitive work
89
Haynes v Harwood
Rescuers not found to have consented to risk - rescue people from defendants negligence, act under moral compulsion, conduct reasonable and a natural and probably consequence
90
Ashton v Turner
Escaping a burglary, claimant injured by defendants negligent driving, defence of illegality applied
91
Pitts v Hunt
Defendant (16) gave claimant (18) a ride on his motorbike, no licence or tax, licence would only allow him to ride bike up to 50cc, bike was 250cc, went to party and drank, D drove back dangerously, C yelled encouragement, they were hit by another vehicle while on the wrong side of the road, claim failed on the basis of illegality
92
Jetivia v Bilta
Illegality in the context of company insolvency - can’t raise illegality defence on the basis that the directors’ illegal acts can be attributed to the company so the company was complicit in their illegal acts
93
Owens v Brummell
Contributory negligence - knowingly accepting lift from drunk driver
94
Froom v Butcher
Contributory negligence- seat belt - 25% reduction if seat belt wouldn’t have prevented injury, 15% if it would have been less severe, 0% if it wouldn’t have made a different - most responsibility on the driver
95
Fairchild
Material increase in risk extended to mesothelioma, indivisible injury so employers held to be responsible for whole of claimants harm, could recover amongst themselves under the Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978
96
Baker v Coras
Amended Fairchild - rather than being responsible for the whole harm employers were responsible for a material increase in risk - divisible - changed by Parliament in the Compensation Claim Act 2006
97
Grief U.K.
Mesothelioma only recognised case of uncertainty where factual causation/material contribution rules not applied
98
Performance Cars v Abraham
Collision scrapped paint but needed to be respirated anyway - not liable according to factual causation
99
Rahman v Arearose
Assaulted at work, medical treatment negligent, caused claimant to go blind, suffered psychological harm as a result of both - found mental illness was divisible
100
Fairchild
Material increase in risk extended to mesothelioma, indivisible injury so employers held to be responsible for whole of claimants harm, could recover amongst themselves under the Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978
101
Baker v Coras
Amended Fairchild - rather than being responsible for the whole harm employers were responsible for a material increase in risk - divisible - changed by Parliament in the Compensation Claim Act 2006
102
Grief U.K.
Mesothelioma only recognised case of uncertainty where factual causation/material contribution rules not applied
103
Performance Cars v Abraham
Collision scrapped paint but needed to be respirated anyway - not liable according to factual causation
104
Rahman v Arearose
Assaulted at work, medical treatment negligent, caused claimant to go blind, suffered psychological harm as a result of both - found mental illness was divisible
105
Capps v Miller
Contributory negligence re crash helmets - adopted tariffs from Froom
106
Gough v Thorne
Contributory negligence test for children - reasonable for their age
107
Baker v TE Hopkins
Contributory negligence test for a reasonable rescuer
108
Jones v Boyce/Sayers v Harlow
If claimant in a dilemma allowance will be made to contributory negligence test
109
Corr
Employers argument that suicide should act as a intervening act failed
110
Gray v Thames Trains Ltd
Claimant injured in rail crash due to defendants negligence, suffered ptsd and personality change, stabbed someone and convicted of manslaughter, defendants accepted damages for loss of earnings prior to attack but not while claimant in custody and not for compensation to the claimant’s victim - defence of illegality applied
111
St. George v Home Office
Claimant a prisoner with a history of drug and alcohol dependency, warned guard he may have withdrawal seizures, put on top bunk, fell and suffered brain damage, Court found he was at fault for addiction but didn’t reduce damages
112
Murphy v Brentwood
LA negligently approved plans for house, claimant bought house but damages emerged later, had to sell at a loss, found to be pure economic loss despite risk to health and safety
113
Spartan Steel
Contractors damages cable supplying claimant with electricity, found defendant liable for metal damages while electricity was out and logs of profit on that metal but not for loss of profit during the time the plant didn’t have power as a result of damages to a third party’s property (the cable) as this was pure economic loss, had they owned cable all losses would have been recoverable as consequential economic loss
114
Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Unit
Virus escaped from defendant’s premises, claimant a cattle market auctioneer, loss of profits not recoverable - pure economic loss
115
Hadley Byrne v Heller
Negligent statement, special relationship, found there was a duty of care based on 1. An assumption of responsibility by the defendant, 2. Reasonable reliance by the claimant (although claim failed in this case due to effective disclaimer)
116
Hicks Anderson
Company accountant owed no duty to prospective bidder who relied on their rushed brief - insufficient proximity - accountant didn’t know report would be communicated to advisee
117
Morgan Crucible
Directors and financial advisors at target company in take over bid may have had duty not to mislead potential bidder if they knew identity and purpose of advice
118
Chaudhry
Assumption of no special relationship re advice in social relationships but rebutted in this case
119
Spring v Guardian Assurance
Employers have a duty under special relationship re references, duty to provide a safe system of work extended to employees' financial well being
120
Desmond v Nottinghamshire
Teacher applied for enhanced criminal record check, disclosed info relating to arrest and release without charge for a sexual offence, claimant argued it was prepared negligently, rejected by court on the basis that they were acting in the public interest
121
White v Jones
Claimant not the person relying on the defendant, client instructed solicitor to draft new will, delayed, client died, claimant would have benefited, Court found there was a sufficiently close relationship
122
Smith v Eric S Bush; Harris v Wyre
Court found there was a duty of care owed by valuers/surveyors to home purchases, given in the course of business so covered by UCTA, exclusion clause stating that they accepted no responsibility for accuracy of report - found to be unreasonable - factors: relative bargaining power of parties, practicality of second opinion, difficulty of task, practical consequences - taking into account sums at stake and ability of parties to bare costs - insurance
123
Page v Smith
Pure psychiatric harm - primary victims - actually in the area of the damage/reasonable belief that they would be in danger
124
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
Secondary victim - witness injury to someone else/fear for safety of a primary victim, owed a duty of care in relation to pure psychiatric harm provided that it was foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude would suffer psychiatric harm, and they had a close relationship of love and affection with the person who is endangered by defendants negligence, proximity in time and space - must be present at the event or immediate aftermath, proximity of perception, must see or hear accident with their own senses
125
White v Chief Constable for South Yorkshire Police
Test for rescuers - same as for primary/secondary victims, rescuers as secondary victims - unlikely to fulfil close relationship criteria
126
Delieu v White & Sons
Test for primary victim - suffered pure psychiatric harm without any physical impact, primary victim - reasonably feared for her own safety
127
Chadwick v British Railways
Lived near collision and went to help, asked to crawl through small spaces so was in physical danger but suffered psychiatric harm
128
Hambrook v Stokes Brothers
Extended Wilkinson v Downton - intentional psychiatric harm, C feared for children, although not for herself - claimant successful, although not extended to Wainwright v Home Office
129
Wise v Kaye
Subjective test for awarding damages for pain and suffering, ie claimant must be aware of pain, not unconscious
130
West v Shepard
Objective test for loss of amenity
131
Pickett v British Rail
Claimant can recover for loss of earnings for lost years but this is reduced by the amount they would have spent on themselves - 25% if no children, 33% of children, adjusted if there is evidence to support this
132
Schneider
Domestic help, nursing costs are recoverable
133
Housecraft v Burnett
Help or nursing provided by relatives, starting point loss of earnings but shouldn’t exceed normal professional rate, if relative not earnings somewhere in between based on facts
134
Smith v Manchester Corporation
Loss of earnings potential - only relevant where claimant in original job, otherwise comes under normal loss of earnings
135
Wilsons & Clyde
found that the employer would be responsible for providing: 1. competent staff, 2. adequate materials, 3. proper system of work and supervision, non-delegable duties
136
Hudson
duty to provide competent staff - breached by known prankster
137
Waters
staff must be psychologically as well as physically competent
138
Mullaney
safe system of work and supervision - not enough for system to be devised, must also be enforced
139
Pape
providing cleaner with gloves insufficient if reason for wearing them not explained, use not enforced
140
General Cleaning v Christmas
window cleaner stood on first floor window sill and fell when sash window closed on his finger, found that employer had failed in duty to provide a safe working system
141
Jebson
truck sent to collect drunk soldiers, needed to send someone to supervise too
142
Wilsons/Cook
Wilsons - employee on secondment but duty non-delegable, limited by Cook - not responsible for employee tripping on a tile in Saudi Arabia
143
Corr/Walters
providing a safe working system extends to psychiatric care/suicide prevention
144
McDermid
non-delegable duty
145
Deyong
safe working system doesn't extend to cover employees' personal property
146
Walker
stress at work - not an established duty but an element of providing a safe system of work
147
Hatton/Barber
threshold for stress at work - reasonably foreseeable, depending on nature of work (workload, colleagues stress, absenteeism), signs from employee themself
148
Melville v Home Office
prison officer retrieved 8 bodies after they killed themselves - stress foreseeable (in contrast to White v CC for South Yorkshire)
149
Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society
criteria for determining situation akin to employment - employer more likely to have means to compensate victim than employee, tort committed as a result of activity being undertaken by employee on behalf of an employer, employees' activity likely to have been part of business activity of employer, employer, by employing employee, will have created risk of tort being committed, employee under the employer's control
150
Barclays Bank v Various Claimants
important distinction between employee and independent contractors - primarily, employee provides service to just one employer
151
Ready Mixed Concrete
test: 1. employees agree that, in consideration of a wage or other remuneration, they will provide their own work and skill in the performance of some service for their employer, 2. employees agree, expressly or impliedly, that in the performance of that service they will be subject to another person's control in a sufficient degree to make that person the employer, 3. the other provisions of the contract are consistent with it being a contract of employment, don't have to provide own tools or take financial risk
152
Lister v Hesley Hall
used definition of in the course of employment given by Sir John Salmond - a) wrongful act authorised by the master, b) a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master
found that child care worker abusing children was sufficiently connected to employment
153
Poland v Parr
off-duty but stopped thief stealing from stall, tort of battery found to be in the course of employment
154
Warren v Henleys
insulted by a customer, punched them, found to be a personal act - not in the course of employment
155
Century Insurance
smoking while refilling petrol tank - authorised act in an unauthorised way
156
Harrison v Michelin
messing around while pushing wheelbarrow - authorised act in an unauthorised way
157
Rose v Plenty
prohibited act not necessarily outside the course of employment
158
Twine v Bean
prohibited act not in the course of employment - picking up hitchhiker
159
Majkowski
employer liable for bullying - unauthorised act but in the course of employment
160
Lloyd v Grace
employers' liability for intentional torts - conveyancer committed fraud in the course of property transfers - act employer had asked them to do
161
Mattis v Pollock
bouncer committed intentional assault - sufficiently connected to employment
162
Maga v Birmingham Archdiocese
boy abused by priest, not a member of the catholic church but was helping at the church, found that abuse was in the course of employment - general duty to evangelise
163
Mohamud v Morrison
employer liable for petrol station employee who insulted customer in the course of asking them to leave - instructed to deal with the public
164
Joel v Morison
term 'frolic' cases
165
Hilton
car accident while on an unauthorised break from work - frolic - employer not liable
166
Harvey
sales rep who went 3 miles out of their way to get lunch acted reasonable, not a frolic
167
Lister v Romford
employers' indemnity - found that employers were entitled to recover damages from their employee- now there are similar provisions in the Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978
168
Ogwo v Taylor
occupiers' liability under the 1957 and 1984 Act - duty due to the state of the premises - can be a grey area - attempt to burn off paint during DIY project, claimant burnt - damages awarded
169
Wheat v E Lacon
occupier has sufficient control over premises
170
Roles v Nathan
skilled visitors - chimney sweeps can take care of themselves in relation to dangers from the flues, especially as danger pointed out to them
171
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
Occupiers' liability to children - higher standard of care, especially in relation to dangers with a particular allure to children
172
Phipps v Rochester
occupiers are also entitled to rely on parents to behave prudently
173
Bourne v Marsden
found that pond and the danger it posed to children was an obvious feature and was behind a 2 foot fence, didn't need to be highlighted
174
Haseldine
engineers repairing lifts - reputable contractors, occupier couldn't check the work themself
175
Woodward v Hastings
child slipped on icy step which cleaner had negligently not de-iced - but occupier could have checked
176
White v Blackmore
exclusion of liability different from voluntary assumption - exclusion less specific
177
Robbert Addie
claimant under Occupiers' Liability 1984 Act, if outside remit of statute
178
Donoghue v Folkstone
duty under 1984 Act - risk one which occupier reasonably expected to take precautions against, not trespasser jumping into sea at midnight on Christmas eve
179
Rhind v Astbury
claimant went from being a visitor to a trespasser, occupier didn't have reasonable grounds to believe there was an obstruction in the lake
180
Tomlinson
claim failed as no duty under 1984 Act - shallow nature of Act an obvious feature
181
Reville v Newbury
no duty under 1984 Act - fired gun at trespasser, but danger not a result of the premises, illegality not a defence
182
Ratcliffe v McConnell
defence of voluntary assumption of risk - showed that claimant knew risk of diving into partially drained, shallow swimming pool
183
AC Builders
independent contractors may be liable under 1984 Act, dependant on degree of control
184
Haseldine v Daw
liability for defective product - extended to anyone who has responsibility for product before it reaches consumer , e.g. repairer in this case
185
Stennett v Hancock
installer may be liable for defective product
186
Andrews
supplier liable under defective product
187
Kubach v Holland
duty for defective product - no reasonable expectation of intermediate examination
188
Murphy v Brentwood
scope of duty for defective product - personal injury/property damage (but not for damage to product itself)
189
R White & Sons
followed decision in D v S that res ipsa loquitur doesn't apply to liability for defective products
190
Grant
inference of negligence re defective product allowed, despite exclusion of res ipsa loquitur in D v S
191
Carroll v Fearnon
followed Grant - established that claimant could prove fact from which inference of negligence in manufacturing of product could be made- although rebuttable
192
Evans
factual causation for defective product
193
Re Polemis
remoteness for defective product - direct consequence of negligence
194
A v National Blood Authority
wide definitions under defective product and strict liability
195
Commission v UK
defence of development risks narrowed - standard of best knowledge available anywhere
196
Marcic v Thames Water
rejected idea of other claimants under A.8, but seemed to leave open possibility
197
Matania
contractor liable as defendant under tort relating to land
198
O'Callaghan
liability for predecessor/trespasser/natural occurrence - if occupier adopted (made use of) and continued (ought reasonably have known of and didn't stop it) nuisance
199
Lippiat
occupier also liable for visitor if they adopted and continued nuisance
