Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Y1 LLB > Tort Cases for PQ > Flashcards

Tort Cases for PQ Flashcards

1
Q

Must be intentional touching

A

Letang v Cooper

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

Psychological harm considered ‘direct’

A

Wilkinson v Downton

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

Ordinary conduct of everyday life

A

Collins v Wilcock

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

Touching must be hostile

A

Wilson v Pringle

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

Sports give consent

A

Blake v Galloway

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Consent when in best interest of patient (but apply to courts first)

A

In re F

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Contributory negligence not a defence

A

Coop v Pritchard

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

Self-defence: belief must be reasonable (not honest)

A

Ashley v CC of Sussex Police

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

Overt act required, anticipation must be reasonable (not paranoia)

A

Mbasogo v Logo

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

Assault even if impossible to carry out battery, as long as reasonable belief

A

Logdon v DPP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

If clearly impossible, not reasonable

A

Thomas v NUM

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

Made to stay even if possible exit route/enforced compliance satisfies

A

Jalloh

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

Not false imprisonment if alt exit possible

A

Bird v Jones

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Not false imprisonment if reasonable condition on exit

A

Robinson v Balmain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

FI need positive act, unless no legal right to detain

A

Iqbal

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

Imprisonment can be justified by necessity if reasonable

A

Austin v Comm. of Met. Police

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Lower in the estimation of right thinking members of society

A

Sim v Stretch

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

Serious Harm to reputation

A

DA13, s1

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

Serious harm = gravity, scale, attention, etc.

A

Lachaux v Independent Print

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

If statement to group, must establish C included specifically

A

Knuppfer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Enough for statement to be substantially true

A

DA13, s2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

1) Statement of Opinion 2) Factual basis indicated 3) Based on true facts

A

DA13, s3/ Joseph v Spiller

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

1) Statement on Public Interest 2) D reasonably believed in PI

A

DA13, s4/ Serafin v Malkiewicz

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Reasonable care + no reason to believe

Innocent Dissemination

A

DA96, s1

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

If accepted, C barred from continuing action; if rejected can be defence

Offer to make amends

A

DA96, s2-4

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

Only ‘right to exclusive possession’ (freeholders, leaseholders if contract)

A

Hunter v Canary Wharf

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

Law more strict towards physical than sensible intereference

A

Halsey v Esso Petroleum

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

Ordinariness of activity

A

Bamford v Turnley

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

Locality Principle

A

Sturges v Bridgman

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

C’s hypersensitivity irrelevant (tort to land)

A

Robinson v Kilvert

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

Deliberately drilling to prevent water flow - no nuisance

Possible rationale per Taggart: water no come from land (cf: noise)

A

Mayor of Bradford v Pickles

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

Deliberately make noise to kill fox - nuisance

A

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet

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

Planning permission irrelevant

A

Lawrence v Fen Tigers

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

Coming to the nuisance no defence, unless

A

C changes use; D no nuisance b4, no increase, sensible, reasonable/lawful

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

If bring/keep anth likely to cause mischief when escape, then liable for damage

A

Rylands v Fletcher

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

Incremental approach in non-novel, in novel find analogy if not caparo

A

Robinson v West Yorkshire Pol

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

1) Foreseeability 2) Proximity 3) Fair, just and reasonable

A

Caparo v Dickman

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

No duty to act unless special relationship/assumed responsibility

A

Stovin v Wise

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

Generally no duty to act bc public resource

A

Hill v South Yorks Police

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

No duty unless: in control, foreseen, no reasonable care; assumed responsibility

A

Michael v South Wales Police

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

Part in creating danger = assumed resp

A

Reeves v Met Police

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

Primary: foresee physical harm

A

Page v Smith

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

Primary: caused by immediate shock

A

Rothwell v Chem Insulating Co

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

Secondary test

A

Alcock v CC of South Yorks

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

Alcock criteria

A

1) Close ties of love and affection; 2) Proximity in time & space; 3) Means; 4) Customary phlegm; 5) Suddenness

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

Exposed to personal danger (primary), or satisfy Alcock

A

White v CC of South Yorks

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

PEL not consequential of physical damage not recoverable

A

Spartan Steel v Martin

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

Undervaluation (bc of physical defect) = PEL

A

Murphy v Brentwood

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

Test for AR

A

Hedley Byrne v Heller

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

Hedley Byrne Test

A

1) Fiduciary relationship of trust & confidence; 2) Voluntary assumption of risk by D; 3) Relied by C; 4) Reasonable reliance

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

Hedley Byrne extended to services

A

Henderson v Merret Syndicates

52
Q

Hedley Byrne extended to references

A

Spring v Guardian Assurance

53
Q

No AR if duty arises from law

A

Customs & Excise v Barclays

54
Q

Just bc willing to assume duty to someone else =/= duty assumed

A

BNL v Playboy Club London

55
Q

Unreasonable reliance (v obv error) no give rise to AR

A

Steel v NRAM

56
Q

Very unlikely = no breach

A

Bolton v Stone

57
Q

If unlikely but v serious = breach

A

Paris v Stepney BC

58
Q

Cost for D vs Cost for C

A

Latimer v AEC

59
Q

Point of activity to get injured, but no medical assistance = breach

A

Watson v British Boxing BC

60
Q

Professional practice test - no breach if supported by responsible body

A

Bolam v Friern Hospital

61
Q

When more than 1 reasonable opinion, no negate C’s own interest

A

Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB

62
Q

When only 4/10 possible options reasonable, not liable for not informing 6

A

McCullough v Forth Valley HB

63
Q

Warning must hv relevant danger indicated

A

Westwood v Post Office

64
Q

No duty to take additional steps j bc ppl no heed warning

A

Tomlinson v Congleton

65
Q

Objective: duty owed by learner-driver same as driver

A

Nettleship v Weston

66
Q

Children as exception

A

Mullin v Richards

67
Q

No lower standard even if schizo

A

Dunnage v Randall

68
Q

Unawareness of condition taken into consideration - lower standard

A

Mansfield v Weetabix

69
Q

But For test - on balance of probabilities

A

Barnett v Chelsea

70
Q

If harm indivisible, D liable for entirety

A

Williams v Bermuda Hospital

71
Q

Material increase in risk = liable if scientific uncertainty

A

McGhee

72
Q

Material contribution test: if multiple D, can claim in full from D

A

Fairchild v Glenhaven

73
Q

C entitled to full damages from D for mesothelioma

A

Compensation Act 2006, s3

74
Q

Even if C would hv agreed to risk, no inform = loss of autonomy

A

Chester v Afshar

75
Q

Loss of chance of survival no action

A

Gregg v Scott

76
Q

Onset of disease breaks chain

A

Jobling v Associated Dairies

77
Q

Break chain if act unreasonably

A

McKew v Holland

78
Q

No break if not unreasonable enough

A

Spencer v Wincanton Holdings

79
Q

3rd party carelessness usually no break

A

Rouse v Squires

80
Q

Broken in extreme circumstances

A

Knightley v Jones

81
Q

No break when duty to protect against 3rd party

A

Home Office v Dorset Yacht

82
Q

No break when 2 consecutive injuries

A

Baker v Willoughby

83
Q

Did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know = no liability

A

Wagon Mound No.1

84
Q

Thin Skull Rule: no need know extent

A

Smith v Leech Brain

85
Q

No need know particulars, genus enough

A

Jolley v Sutton LBC

86
Q

Loss within scope of duty: purpose of advice/duty (objective)

A

MBS v Grant Thornton

87
Q

Consent to lack of reasonable care: knowledge of nature and extent of risk

A

Woolridge v Summer

88
Q

Intoxication no render C incapable of appreciating nature and extent of risk

A

Morris v Murray

89
Q

Volenti = deliberate collaboration + knowledge, CN = careless collaboration

A

ICI v Shatwell

90
Q

Foresee risk of injury + can take easy precautions

A

Law Reform (CN) Act 1945

91
Q

Risky rides

A

Jones v Livox Quarries

92
Q

Personal beliefs irrelevant (no safety gear)

A

Froom v Butcher

93
Q

Improper use of safety gear (helmet not fastened)

A

Capps v Miller

94
Q

No CN when child no knowledge

A

Yachuk v Oliver Blais

95
Q

If child should hv knowledge, CN

A

Morales v Eccleston

96
Q

Defence of Illegality Test

A

Patel v Mirza

97
Q

Patel v Mirza Test

A

1) Purpose of illegality enhanced by denial?; 2) Conflicting relevant policies; 3) Avoid disproportionate

98
Q

No need to consider 3 if 1 and 2 not met

A

Stoffel & Co v Grondona

99
Q

Duty to visitors

A

OLA57

100
Q

Degree of Control test

A

Wheat v Lacon

101
Q

Danger must be related to state of premises (activity: negligence)

A

Everett v Comojo

102
Q

Balance likelihood, seriousness, cost, social value

A

Cook v Swansea/Tomlinson

103
Q

Calling: guard against special risks, Warning: need warning + alternative

A

Roles v Nathan

104
Q

Duty delegable when damage bc of faulty work of independent contractor

A

OLA57, s2(4)(b)

105
Q

Duty to Non-visitors

A

OLA84

106
Q

Reasonable belief that C might come within vicinity

A

Donoghue v Folkestone

107
Q

Risk reasonably be expected to offer protection

A

Brown v South West Lakes

108
Q

Non-occupiers: work for dwelling, landlords

A

Defective Premises Act 1972

109
Q

PL statute

A

Consumer Protection Act 1987

110
Q

Delegable, unless:1) vulnerable & dependant; 2) positive duty; 3) C no control over D obligations

A

Woodland v Essex

111
Q

Relationship akin to employment

A

Cox v MoJ

112
Q

Cox test

A

1) Activity on behalf of employer; 2) Activity part of business activity; 3) Risk created by employing; Absence of insurance/total lack of control may negate

113
Q

Foster parents = employee

A

Armes v Nottinghamshire

114
Q

If clear D own independent business, no need test

A

Barclays v Various Claimants

115
Q

No VL if D on ‘frolic of his own’

A

Joel v Morison

116
Q

Injunction for PN (abt to commit)

A

Shelfer v LEL

117
Q

Shelfer Test

A

1) Injury tor rights small; 2) Estimated in money; 3) Adequately compensated by small money; 4) Oppressive to grant injunction

118
Q

If cared by loved one, obliged to give damages to them

A

Hunt v Severs

119
Q

Lost years: can claim for loss of work earnings for life expectancy dec

A

Pickett v BRE

120
Q

Insults/abuse during false imp

A

Thompson v Cmssr of MP

121
Q

Fault but little loss

A

Constantine v Imperial Hotels

122
Q

No unless: 1) Oppressive/arbitrary/unconstitutional by PA; 2) Aimed to profit from tort > C loss; 3) Statute

A

Rookes v Barnard

123
Q

Cause of action survives for estate except for punitive, lost years, defamation

A

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

124
Q

Bereavement damages for partner/parents if minor/ Loss of support

A

Fatal Accidents Act 1976

125
Q

Cohabitee w 2 yrs covered for bereavement

A

Smith v Lancanshire NHS

Y1 LLB (3 decks)

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