Tort Cases Flashcards
Byrne v Dean
Anyone who would think less of a person for reporting illegal activity is not a right-thinking member of society.
Newstead v London Express
Defamation can be available even if the claimant is misidentified as long as the reasonable person would think that the statement referred to the claimant.
Donoghue v Stevenson
Neighbour principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you an reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
Caparo v Dickman
Three points to consider to establish a duty of care:
- Reasonable foresight of harm
- Proximity
- Fair, reasonable and just to impost a duty.
Misstatement -
To establish a claim in negligent misstatement the C must prove that D must of known that:
1. The statement would be communicated to the C.
2. The statement would be made specifically in connection with the particular transaction.
3. The C would be very likely to rely upon it in deciding whether or not to proceed with the transaction.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co
Prison officers have a positive duty to act (rescue) prisoners.
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing
Employers have a positive duty to act (rescue) employees.
Carmathenshire v Lewis
Parents have a positive duty to act (rescue) their child.
Stansbie v Troman
A decorator was entrused with the key to a house that he was painting. He failed to secure the premises meaning X (the third party) burgled the house. A duty of care exists where D fails to take reasonable care to guard against the act of the 3rd party.
Perl v Camden
Damage was caused by burglars who gained entry through a neighbouring property. No duty to secure your own property to protect others, but (like Stansbie) there is a duty to protect another’s property if you have assumed responsibility of it.
Smith v Littlewoods
Cases where D’s left cinema empty and unattended and kids set fire to it causing damage to adjacent café. It was held D only owed a duty of care if the following “special circumstances” existed:
- Special relationship between C and D.
- D negligently created a source of danger and it was reasonably foreseeable that a 3rd party would interfere.
- D knew or was capable of knowing that a 3rd party had created a danger or risk of danger and had failed to take reasonable steps to abate it.
Mitchell v Glasgow
Set out the situations in which there may be liability in negligence for the criminal acts of another:
- There is vicarious liability for the crimes of the 3rd party.
- The D had an obligation to supervise the acts of the 3rd party.
- The D created the risk of danger.
- There is an assumption of responsibility for the victim.
Hedley Byrne v Heller
A person can be liable in tort for losses caused by a statement if he did not take sufficient care to ensure that statement was accurate or he did not make it clear that he had not taken steps to ensure it was accurate.
Spartan Steel
C’s could only acquire loss of profit for the damage to the melt in progress (as this was physical damage) not the loss of profit for subsequent melts which couldn’t take place whilst the electricity was down.
Anns v Merton
A duty of care was owed by the council (despite being economic loss) as their inspectors did not exercise proper care and skill during construction.
Junior Brooks
If the proximity of the parties was just short of a direct contractual relationship (i.e. subcontractors) a duty of care existed.
Murphy v Brentwood
Overruled Anns; council was not liable in the absence of physical injury.
Leach
PTSD is a recognised psychiatric injury.
Vernon v Basley
Pathological grief (not simple grief) is a recognised psychiatric injury.
Chadwick
Personality disorder is a recognised psychiatric injury.
Bourhill
Miscarriage is a recognised psychiatric injury.
Alcock
- Psychiatric injuries must be caused by a sudden event.
- A duty of care is owed in psychiatric injury based on three factors:
- Foreseeability
- Proximity (must be temporal and spatial proximity between claimant and incident)
- Cause of the shock; must be through unaided sight or hearing. - Shock communicated by TV broadcasts was not sufficient as it didn’t show recognisable or identifiable individuals suffering.
- Ordinary passers-by may be able to claim if the incident witnessed was particularly horrific.
Page v Smith
Identified 2 types of victim:
- Primary victim (directly involved)
- Secondary victim (must satisfy test laid out in Alcock)
McLoughlin v O’Brien
To satisfy the Alcock requirement of proximity, C need not be present at the time of the accident, but must come upon the immediate aftermath.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
No general duty of care owed by police to any particular individual.
Van Colle
General duty of care by police only exists if there is a “real and immediate” threat to life.
Blyth v Birmingham
Reasonable man test is applied to conclude whether D breached there duty of care.
Bolam
Standard of care for doctors is “the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill.”
Bolitho
A doctor can still be liable despite the presence of a body of medical opinion if the court feels the opinion is not reasonable or responsible.
Montgomery
A doctor has a duty to discuss with patients material risks involved in treatment. The test for materiality was whether a reasonable person in the position of the patient would think the risk is significant.
Nettleship v Weston
Standard of care required by all drivers (even learners) is the same: that of the reasonably competent driver.
