Tort Cases Flashcards
It is reasonably foreseeable that D’s act or omission would injure the claimant
Kent v Griffiths
Is there a closeness in space and time or relationship between C and D
Bourhill v Young
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire Police
Reasonable man test
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Being a learner is an individual characteristic and will not be considered
Nettleship v Weston
Being a junior is an individual characteristic and will not be considered
Wilsher v Essex Health Authority
D will be compared to competent members of the same profession
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Bolitho City v Hackney Health Authority
Children are judges by the standard of a reasonable child of the same age
Mullin v Richards
If there is a likelihood of injury, then standard of care must increase
Bolton v Stone
Hilder v Associated Portland Cement
If there is a risk of serious injury the standard of care must increase
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
If D was acting out of social utility the standard of care lowers
Watt v HCC
If D has to go above and beyond what the reasonable man would do, then the standard of care lowers
Latimer v AEC Ltd
But for test
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
Intervening acts can break the chain of causation if they were unforeseeable
Scott v Sheperd
C must prove that D actually caused the damage or materially contributed to the damage
Wilsher v Essex Health Authority
The type of damage can’t be too remote, it must be foreseeable
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
The type of damage can’t be too remote, it must be foreseeable
Wagon Mound No.1
Doesn’t matter how the damage happened as long as the type of damage was foreseeable
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Thin skull rule - D must take V as they find them
Smith v Leech Brain and Co
An occupier is someone who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises as to allow or prevent people from entering
Wheat v Lacon
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
Licensees are people invited by implication into the persons premises
Robson v Hallett
Having an allurement on premises likely to attract amounts to giving a child implied permission to enter
Cooke v Midland and Great Western Railway of Ireland
A ladder can be a premises
Wheeler v Copas
D is only expected to guard against the foreseeable
Horton v Jackson
Occupiers must expect children to be less careful so the standard of care is higher than that of an adult
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
Occupier is entitled to assume a very young child will be supervised by an adult and he would do his duty by giving warning suitable for an adult
Phipps v Rochester Corp
Occupier will not be liable where tradesmen fail to guard against risks ordinarily incident to their activity
Roles v Nathan
Occupier will not be liable if it was reasonable to entrust the work to a contractor and the occupier took reasonable steps to ensure that the contractor was competent and did the work properly
Haseldine v Daw
