Tort Cases for PQ Flashcards
Must be intentional touching
Letang v Cooper
Psychological harm considered ‘direct’
Wilkinson v Downton
Ordinary conduct of everyday life
Collins v Wilcock
Touching must be hostile
Wilson v Pringle
Sports give consent
Blake v Galloway
Consent when in best interest of patient (but apply to courts first)
In re F
Contributory negligence not a defence
Coop v Pritchard
Self-defence: belief must be reasonable (not honest)
Ashley v CC of Sussex Police
Overt act required, anticipation must be reasonable (not paranoia)
Mbasogo v Logo
Assault even if impossible to carry out battery, as long as reasonable belief
Logdon v DPP
If clearly impossible, not reasonable
Thomas v NUM
Made to stay even if possible exit route/enforced compliance satisfies
Jalloh
Not false imprisonment if alt exit possible
Bird v Jones
Not false imprisonment if reasonable condition on exit
Robinson v Balmain
FI need positive act, unless no legal right to detain
Iqbal
Imprisonment can be justified by necessity if reasonable
Austin v Comm. of Met. Police
Lower in the estimation of right thinking members of society
Sim v Stretch
Serious Harm to reputation
DA13, s1
Serious harm = gravity, scale, attention, etc.
Lachaux v Independent Print
If statement to group, must establish C included specifically
Knuppfer
Enough for statement to be substantially true
DA13, s2
1) Statement of Opinion 2) Factual basis indicated 3) Based on true facts
DA13, s3/ Joseph v Spiller
1) Statement on Public Interest 2) D reasonably believed in PI
DA13, s4/ Serafin v Malkiewicz
Reasonable care + no reason to believe
Innocent Dissemination
DA96, s1
If accepted, C barred from continuing action; if rejected can be defence
Offer to make amends
DA96, s2-4
Only ‘right to exclusive possession’ (freeholders, leaseholders if contract)
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Law more strict towards physical than sensible intereference
Halsey v Esso Petroleum
Ordinariness of activity
Bamford v Turnley
Locality Principle
Sturges v Bridgman
C’s hypersensitivity irrelevant (tort to land)
Robinson v Kilvert
Deliberately drilling to prevent water flow - no nuisance
Possible rationale per Taggart: water no come from land (cf: noise)
Mayor of Bradford v Pickles
Deliberately make noise to kill fox - nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet
Planning permission irrelevant
Lawrence v Fen Tigers
Coming to the nuisance no defence, unless
C changes use; D no nuisance b4, no increase, sensible, reasonable/lawful
If bring/keep anth likely to cause mischief when escape, then liable for damage
Rylands v Fletcher
Incremental approach in non-novel, in novel find analogy if not caparo
Robinson v West Yorkshire Pol
1) Foreseeability 2) Proximity 3) Fair, just and reasonable
Caparo v Dickman
No duty to act unless special relationship/assumed responsibility
Stovin v Wise
Generally no duty to act bc public resource
Hill v South Yorks Police
No duty unless: in control, foreseen, no reasonable care; assumed responsibility
Michael v South Wales Police
Part in creating danger = assumed resp
Reeves v Met Police
Primary: foresee physical harm
Page v Smith
Primary: caused by immediate shock
Rothwell v Chem Insulating Co
Secondary test
Alcock v CC of South Yorks
Alcock criteria
1) Close ties of love and affection; 2) Proximity in time & space; 3) Means; 4) Customary phlegm; 5) Suddenness
Exposed to personal danger (primary), or satisfy Alcock
White v CC of South Yorks
PEL not consequential of physical damage not recoverable
Spartan Steel v Martin
Undervaluation (bc of physical defect) = PEL
Murphy v Brentwood
Test for AR
Hedley Byrne v Heller
Hedley Byrne Test
1) Fiduciary relationship of trust & confidence; 2) Voluntary assumption of risk by D; 3) Relied by C; 4) Reasonable reliance
Hedley Byrne extended to services
Henderson v Merret Syndicates
Hedley Byrne extended to references
Spring v Guardian Assurance
No AR if duty arises from law
Customs & Excise v Barclays
Just bc willing to assume duty to someone else =/= duty assumed
BNL v Playboy Club London
Unreasonable reliance (v obv error) no give rise to AR
Steel v NRAM
Very unlikely = no breach
Bolton v Stone
If unlikely but v serious = breach
Paris v Stepney BC
Cost for D vs Cost for C
Latimer v AEC
Point of activity to get injured, but no medical assistance = breach
Watson v British Boxing BC
Professional practice test - no breach if supported by responsible body
Bolam v Friern Hospital
When more than 1 reasonable opinion, no negate C’s own interest
Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB
When only 4/10 possible options reasonable, not liable for not informing 6
McCullough v Forth Valley HB
Warning must hv relevant danger indicated
Westwood v Post Office
No duty to take additional steps j bc ppl no heed warning
Tomlinson v Congleton
Objective: duty owed by learner-driver same as driver
Nettleship v Weston
Children as exception
Mullin v Richards
No lower standard even if schizo
Dunnage v Randall
Unawareness of condition taken into consideration - lower standard
Mansfield v Weetabix
But For test - on balance of probabilities
Barnett v Chelsea
If harm indivisible, D liable for entirety
Williams v Bermuda Hospital
Material increase in risk = liable if scientific uncertainty
McGhee
Material contribution test: if multiple D, can claim in full from D
Fairchild v Glenhaven
C entitled to full damages from D for mesothelioma
Compensation Act 2006, s3
Even if C would hv agreed to risk, no inform = loss of autonomy
Chester v Afshar
Loss of chance of survival no action
Gregg v Scott
Onset of disease breaks chain
Jobling v Associated Dairies
Break chain if act unreasonably
McKew v Holland
No break if not unreasonable enough
Spencer v Wincanton Holdings
3rd party carelessness usually no break
Rouse v Squires
Broken in extreme circumstances
Knightley v Jones
No break when duty to protect against 3rd party
Home Office v Dorset Yacht
No break when 2 consecutive injuries
Baker v Willoughby
Did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know = no liability
Wagon Mound No.1
Thin Skull Rule: no need know extent
Smith v Leech Brain
No need know particulars, genus enough
Jolley v Sutton LBC
Loss within scope of duty: purpose of advice/duty (objective)
MBS v Grant Thornton
Consent to lack of reasonable care: knowledge of nature and extent of risk
Woolridge v Summer
Intoxication no render C incapable of appreciating nature and extent of risk
Morris v Murray
Volenti = deliberate collaboration + knowledge, CN = careless collaboration
ICI v Shatwell
Foresee risk of injury + can take easy precautions
Law Reform (CN) Act 1945
Risky rides
Jones v Livox Quarries
Personal beliefs irrelevant (no safety gear)
Froom v Butcher
Improper use of safety gear (helmet not fastened)
Capps v Miller
No CN when child no knowledge
Yachuk v Oliver Blais
If child should hv knowledge, CN
Morales v Eccleston
Defence of Illegality Test
Patel v Mirza
Patel v Mirza Test
1) Purpose of illegality enhanced by denial?; 2) Conflicting relevant policies; 3) Avoid disproportionate
No need to consider 3 if 1 and 2 not met
Stoffel & Co v Grondona
Duty to visitors
OLA57
Degree of Control test
Wheat v Lacon
Danger must be related to state of premises (activity: negligence)
Everett v Comojo
Balance likelihood, seriousness, cost, social value
Cook v Swansea/Tomlinson
Calling: guard against special risks, Warning: need warning + alternative
Roles v Nathan
Duty delegable when damage bc of faulty work of independent contractor
OLA57, s2(4)(b)
Duty to Non-visitors
OLA84
Reasonable belief that C might come within vicinity
Donoghue v Folkestone
Risk reasonably be expected to offer protection
Brown v South West Lakes
Non-occupiers: work for dwelling, landlords
Defective Premises Act 1972
PL statute
Consumer Protection Act 1987
Delegable, unless:1) vulnerable & dependant; 2) positive duty; 3) C no control over D obligations
Woodland v Essex
Relationship akin to employment
Cox v MoJ
Cox test
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
Foster parents = employee
Armes v Nottinghamshire
If clear D own independent business, no need test
Barclays v Various Claimants
No VL if D on ‘frolic of his own’
Joel v Morison
Injunction for PN (abt to commit)
Shelfer v LEL
Shelfer Test
1) Injury tor rights small; 2) Estimated in money; 3) Adequately compensated by small money; 4) Oppressive to grant injunction
If cared by loved one, obliged to give damages to them
Hunt v Severs
Lost years: can claim for loss of work earnings for life expectancy dec
Pickett v BRE
Insults/abuse during false imp
Thompson v Cmssr of MP
Fault but little loss
Constantine v Imperial Hotels
No unless: 1) Oppressive/arbitrary/unconstitutional by PA; 2) Aimed to profit from tort > C loss; 3) Statute
Rookes v Barnard
Cause of action survives for estate except for punitive, lost years, defamation
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934
Bereavement damages for partner/parents if minor/ Loss of support
Fatal Accidents Act 1976
Cohabitee w 2 yrs covered for bereavement
Smith v Lancanshire NHS
