Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort > Tort Cases > Flashcards

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Wilson v Pringle

A

trespass in an intentional act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Bici v Ministry of Defence

A

assault - defendant must intend claimant to apprehend infliction of battery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Read v Coker

A

words alone couldn’t constitute assault unless accompanied by action/gesture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Tuberville v Savage

A

words may negative an assault - ‘if we weren’t being watched by police, I’d hit you’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Wilkinson v Downton

A

defendant intended to cause shock, claimant suffers tangible damage as a result

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Chatterton v Gerson

A

Consent straightforward- must not be forced

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Cockcroft v Smith

A

Defence of the Person - not in retaliation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Goddard v Green

A

Defence of property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Co-operative Group v Pritchard

A

Contributory negligence no longer a defence to trespass to the person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Bourhill v Young

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine

A

Cargo lost at sea - not reasonable to recover losses from non-profit surveyor who aimed to save lives

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Kirkham v CC of Greater Manchester Police

A

Police assumed responsibility to man who killed himself in prison - duty imposed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Osman v U.K.

A

ECHR found policy of blanket immunity for police a violation of A.6 right to a fair trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Z v U.K.

A

ECHR revisited Osman - found approach to negligence in U.K. courts not a violation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

A

Case against police by friend and witness to Stephen Lawrence’s murder dismissed based on Hill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Michael v CC of South Wales Police

A

Family of domestic violence victim brought negligence and violation of A.2 claim against police, negligence dismissed but A.2 claim allowed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Swinny v CC of Northumbria Police

A

Policy decision that police owed a duty to informants, important and limited group of people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Camarthenshire v Lewis

A

Liability for omission - education authority had a duty to stop child endangering others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Stovin v Wise

A

No liability for omission to act - highway authority knew junction was dangerous and did nothing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

East Suffolk Rivers v Kent

A

Decision to act when there is no duty to do so - only liable if situation made worse

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Dorset Yacht

A

Liability for omission - young offenders left unsupervised, “escaped” on yacht, home office had vicarious liability - had power or control over the situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Smith v Littlewoods

A

No liability re leaving building due for demolition unsupervised at night leading to kids breaking in and starting a fire - no control over situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks

A

‘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’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Glasgow Corp v Muir

A

Test for breach of duty is objective and impersonal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Bolam

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA

A

Courts decision whether body of professional opinion is reasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Wells v Cooper

A

Standard of a reasonably skilled a amateur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Wilsher v Essex

A

Junior doctor must meet standard of a reasonable doctor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Bolton v Stone

A

Standard of care - risk assessment - 6 cricket balls hit out in 28 years - reasonable not to take precautions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Miller v Jackson

A

Magnitude of risk - 8/9 cricket balls hit out per season and damage to claimants property caused a number of times

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Paris v Stepney

A

Risk is individual - claimant with one good eye should be given goggles because potential magnitude of risk so much higher

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Latimer v AEC

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Watt v Hertfordshire

A

Fireman, equipment fell on him, court found purpose of saving life or limb should be considered, doesn’t mean emergency services immune from negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Re The Herald of Free Enterprise

A

Counter to Bolam - court found commonly accepted practice of ferries not checking doors were closed was negligent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Roe v Ministry of Health

A

What a reasonable person would have foreseen based on current state of knowledge at time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington

A

Limitation of reasonable duty - only to do what is reasonable , don’t have to guard against ‘fantastic possibilities’ - distinct from rare possibilities in Lewis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Mansfield v Weetabix

A

Driver whose consciousness impaired judged by standard of reasonable driver who didn’t know of condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Waugh v James K Allen

A

Driver also not liable for sudden heart attack

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Scott v London St Katherine’s Dock

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Barnett

A

‘But for’ test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

McWilliams

A

Safety harness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Hoston v East Berkshire Area Health Authority

A

Factual causation failed where there was a 25% chance medical negligence caused disability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Wilsher v Essex

A

Factual causation failed where there were 5 possible causes of blindness and only 1 was caused by junior doctor’s negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Gregg v Scott

A

Misdiagnosis - loss of chance to recover from cancer - from 42% to 25% - not recoverable as always less than 50% - Hotson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Bonnington

A

Material contribution - 2 sources of dust, negligent re 1, not the other

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

McGhee v NCB

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

Holtby

A

Asbestosis - develops over time - material increase in risk divided among employers based on length of employment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

Fairchild

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Baker v Coras

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

Grief U.K.

A

Mesothelioma only recognised case of uncertainty where factual causation/material contribution rules not applied

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Performance Cars v Abraham

A

Collision scrapped paint but needed to be respirated anyway - not liable according to factual causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

Rahman v Arearose

A

Assaulted at work, medical treatment negligent, caused claimant to go blind, suffered psychological harm as a result of both - found mental illness was divisible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Knightly v Johns

A

Intervening act - driver who blocked tunnel couldn’t foresee police inspector ordering officer to drive back against the traffic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Scott v Shepard

A

Instinctive act - throwing lit firework away - not an intervening act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

Rouse v Squires

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

Wright v Lodge

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

Lamb v Camden

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

Cunningham v Reading Football Club

A

Predictably antagonistic match, building work, left concrete blocks lying around, violence foreseeable so chain of causation not broken

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

Stansbie v Troman

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

McKew v Holland

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

Wieland v Cyril

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

Wagon Mound

A

Oil in harbour, damaged must be reasonably foreseeable or actually foreseen at the time of the act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

Hughes v Lord Advocate

A

Unattended work site - similar in type proviso to remoteness rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

Tremalin v Pike

A

Similar in type argument failed re rare disease from rats urine

81
Q

Jolley v Sutton

A

Similar in type rule applied - children playing on boat, occupiers’ liability - causation and remoteness as in common law

82
Q

Robinson v Post Office

A

Small injury, allergic reaction to tetanus shot, defendant liable - need for medical treatment reasonably foreseeable - egg shell skull rule

83
Q

Nettleship v Weston

A

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
Q

Dann v Hamilton

A

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
Q

Morris v Murray

A

Voluntary assumption succeeded re pilot who was drinking with claimant all day (17 whiskies)

86
Q

Ratcliffe/Tomlinson/Donoghue

A

High bar for voluntary assumption even re trespassers diving into water

87
Q

Smith v Baker

A

Voluntary assumption rarely successful for employers

88
Q

Casewell

A

Employers liability, voluntary assumption, will consider all circumstances including full, repetitive work

89
Q

Haynes v Harwood

A

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
Q

Ashton v Turner

A

Escaping a burglary, claimant injured by defendants negligent driving, defence of illegality applied

91
Q

Pitts v Hunt

A

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
Q

Jetivia v Bilta

A

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
Q

Owens v Brummell

A

Contributory negligence - knowingly accepting lift from drunk driver

94
Q

Froom v Butcher

A

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
Q

Fairchild

A

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
Q

Baker v Coras

A

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
Q

Grief U.K.

A

Mesothelioma only recognised case of uncertainty where factual causation/material contribution rules not applied

98
Q

Performance Cars v Abraham

A

Collision scrapped paint but needed to be respirated anyway - not liable according to factual causation

99
Q

Rahman v Arearose

A

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
Q

Fairchild

A

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
Q

Baker v Coras

A

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
Q

Grief U.K.

A

Mesothelioma only recognised case of uncertainty where factual causation/material contribution rules not applied

103
Q

Performance Cars v Abraham

A

Collision scrapped paint but needed to be respirated anyway - not liable according to factual causation

104
Q

Rahman v Arearose

A

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
Q

Capps v Miller

A

Contributory negligence re crash helmets - adopted tariffs from Froom

106
Q

Gough v Thorne

A

Contributory negligence test for children - reasonable for their age

107
Q

Baker v TE Hopkins

A

Contributory negligence test for a reasonable rescuer

108
Q

Jones v Boyce/Sayers v Harlow

A

If claimant in a dilemma allowance will be made to contributory negligence test

109
Q

Corr

A

Employers argument that suicide should act as a intervening act failed

110
Q

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd

A

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
Q

St. George v Home Office

A

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
Q

Murphy v Brentwood

A

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
Q

Spartan Steel

A

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
Q

Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Unit

A

Virus escaped from defendant’s premises, claimant a cattle market auctioneer, loss of profits not recoverable - pure economic loss

115
Q

Hadley Byrne v Heller

A

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
Q

Hicks Anderson

A

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
Q

Morgan Crucible

A

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
Q

Chaudhry

A

Assumption of no special relationship re advice in social relationships but rebutted in this case

119
Q

Spring v Guardian Assurance

A

Employers have a duty under special relationship re references, duty to provide a safe system of work extended to employees’ financial well being

120
Q

Desmond v Nottinghamshire

A

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
Q

White v Jones

A

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
Q

Smith v Eric S Bush; Harris v Wyre

A

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
Q

Page v Smith

A

Pure psychiatric harm - primary victims - actually in the area of the damage/reasonable belief that they would be in danger

124
Q

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

A

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
Q

White v Chief Constable for South Yorkshire Police

A

Test for rescuers - same as for primary/secondary victims, rescuers as secondary victims - unlikely to fulfil close relationship criteria

126
Q

Delieu v White & Sons

A

Test for primary victim - suffered pure psychiatric harm without any physical impact, primary victim - reasonably feared for her own safety

127
Q

Chadwick v British Railways

A

Lived near collision and went to help, asked to crawl through small spaces so was in physical danger but suffered psychiatric harm

128
Q

Hambrook v Stokes Brothers

A

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
Q

Wise v Kaye

A

Subjective test for awarding damages for pain and suffering, ie claimant must be aware of pain, not unconscious

130
Q

West v Shepard

A

Objective test for loss of amenity

131
Q

Pickett v British Rail

A

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
Q

Schneider

A

Domestic help, nursing costs are recoverable

133
Q

Housecraft v Burnett

A

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
Q

Smith v Manchester Corporation

A

Loss of earnings potential - only relevant where claimant in original job, otherwise comes under normal loss of earnings

135
Q

Wilsons & Clyde

A

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
Q

Hudson

A

duty to provide competent staff - breached by known prankster

137
Q

Waters

A

staff must be psychologically as well as physically competent

138
Q

Mullaney

A

safe system of work and supervision - not enough for system to be devised, must also be enforced

139
Q

Pape

A

providing cleaner with gloves insufficient if reason for wearing them not explained, use not enforced

140
Q

General Cleaning v Christmas

A

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
Q

Jebson

A

truck sent to collect drunk soldiers, needed to send someone to supervise too

142
Q

Wilsons/Cook

A

Wilsons - employee on secondment but duty non-delegable, limited by Cook - not responsible for employee tripping on a tile in Saudi Arabia

143
Q

Corr/Walters

A

providing a safe working system extends to psychiatric care/suicide prevention

144
Q

McDermid

A

non-delegable duty

145
Q

Deyong

A

safe working system doesn’t extend to cover employees’ personal property

146
Q

Walker

A

stress at work - not an established duty but an element of providing a safe system of work

147
Q

Hatton/Barber

A

threshold for stress at work - reasonably foreseeable, depending on nature of work (workload, colleagues stress, absenteeism), signs from employee themself

148
Q

Melville v Home Office

A

prison officer retrieved 8 bodies after they killed themselves - stress foreseeable (in contrast to White v CC for South Yorkshire)

149
Q

Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society

A

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
Q

Barclays Bank v Various Claimants

A

important distinction between employee and independent contractors - primarily, employee provides service to just one employer

151
Q

Ready Mixed Concrete

A

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
Q

Lister v Hesley Hall

A

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
Q

Poland v Parr

A

off-duty but stopped thief stealing from stall, tort of battery found to be in the course of employment

154
Q

Warren v Henleys

A

insulted by a customer, punched them, found to be a personal act - not in the course of employment

155
Q

Century Insurance

A

smoking while refilling petrol tank - authorised act in an unauthorised way

156
Q

Harrison v Michelin

A

messing around while pushing wheelbarrow - authorised act in an unauthorised way

157
Q

Rose v Plenty

A

prohibited act not necessarily outside the course of employment

158
Q

Twine v Bean

A

prohibited act not in the course of employment - picking up hitchhiker

159
Q

Majkowski

A

employer liable for bullying - unauthorised act but in the course of employment

160
Q

Lloyd v Grace

A

employers’ liability for intentional torts - conveyancer committed fraud in the course of property transfers - act employer had asked them to do

161
Q

Mattis v Pollock

A

bouncer committed intentional assault - sufficiently connected to employment

162
Q

Maga v Birmingham Archdiocese

A

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
Q

Mohamud v Morrison

A

employer liable for petrol station employee who insulted customer in the course of asking them to leave - instructed to deal with the public

164
Q

Joel v Morison

A

term ‘frolic’ cases

165
Q

Hilton

A

car accident while on an unauthorised break from work - frolic - employer not liable

166
Q

Harvey

A

sales rep who went 3 miles out of their way to get lunch acted reasonable, not a frolic

167
Q

Lister v Romford

A

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
Q

Ogwo v Taylor

A

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
Q

Wheat v E Lacon

A

occupier has sufficient control over premises

170
Q

Roles v Nathan

A

skilled visitors - chimney sweeps can take care of themselves in relation to dangers from the flues, especially as danger pointed out to them

171
Q

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

A

Occupiers’ liability to children - higher standard of care, especially in relation to dangers with a particular allure to children

172
Q

Phipps v Rochester

A

occupiers are also entitled to rely on parents to behave prudently

173
Q

Bourne v Marsden

A

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
Q

Haseldine

A

engineers repairing lifts - reputable contractors, occupier couldn’t check the work themself

175
Q

Woodward v Hastings

A

child slipped on icy step which cleaner had negligently not de-iced - but occupier could have checked

176
Q

White v Blackmore

A

exclusion of liability different from voluntary assumption - exclusion less specific

177
Q

Robbert Addie

A

claimant under Occupiers’ Liability 1984 Act, if outside remit of statute

178
Q

Donoghue v Folkstone

A

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
Q

Rhind v Astbury

A

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
Q

Tomlinson

A

claim failed as no duty under 1984 Act - shallow nature of Act an obvious feature

181
Q

Reville v Newbury

A

no duty under 1984 Act - fired gun at trespasser, but danger not a result of the premises, illegality not a defence

182
Q

Ratcliffe v McConnell

A

defence of voluntary assumption of risk - showed that claimant knew risk of diving into partially drained, shallow swimming pool

183
Q

AC Builders

A

independent contractors may be liable under 1984 Act, dependant on degree of control

184
Q

Haseldine v Daw

A

liability for defective product - extended to anyone who has responsibility for product before it reaches consumer , e.g. repairer in this case

185
Q

Stennett v Hancock

A

installer may be liable for defective product

186
Q

Andrews

A

supplier liable under defective product

187
Q

Kubach v Holland

A

duty for defective product - no reasonable expectation of intermediate examination

188
Q

Murphy v Brentwood

A

scope of duty for defective product - personal injury/property damage (but not for damage to product itself)

189
Q

R White & Sons

A

followed decision in D v S that res ipsa loquitur doesn’t apply to liability for defective products

190
Q

Grant

A

inference of negligence re defective product allowed, despite exclusion of res ipsa loquitur in D v S

191
Q

Carroll v Fearnon

A

followed Grant - established that claimant could prove fact from which inference of negligence in manufacturing of product could be made- although rebuttable

192
Q

Evans

A

factual causation for defective product

193
Q

Re Polemis

A

remoteness for defective product - direct consequence of negligence

194
Q

A v National Blood Authority

A

wide definitions under defective product and strict liability

195
Q

Commission v UK

A

defence of development risks narrowed - standard of best knowledge available anywhere

196
Q

Marcic v Thames Water

A

rejected idea of other claimants under A.8, but seemed to leave open possibility

197
Q

Matania

A

contractor liable as defendant under tort relating to land

198
Q

O’Callaghan

A

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
Q

Lippiat

A

occupier also liable for visitor if they adopted and continued nuisance

Tort (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions