Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law > Tort Law Case cards > Flashcards

Tort Law Case cards Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Grieves v FT Everard & Sons

tort of negligence

A
  • claimants said they had been exposed to asbestos through work
  • despite the pleural plaques they formed it was not enough to qualify for negligence because the p.p was benign/didn’t damage lung capacity or ability to work
  • did not amount to damages and claim was rejected
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Dryden v Johnson Matthey

tort of negligence

A
  • the claimants were exposed to platinum due to their work and developed platinum sensitisation
  • the company negligently did not do enough to ensure the claimant’s safety and were in breach of their duty of care
  • platinum sensitisation means the claimant can no longer work with salts and renders him unable to work in this industry (economic loss)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson

tort of negligence

A
  • May D found snail in bottle of ginger beer she received in cafe
  • the manufacturer was under a legal duty to the consumer to make sure article is free from defects that could cause death
  • they were in breach of this duty
  • first case in which it was shown that you can be negligent through careless and indirect acts rather than only direct/intentional
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

tort of negligence

A
  • Robinson (76) knocked over by police officer and drug dealer they were trying to arrest
  • during struggle the druggie backed into her and all 3 fell on her
  • supreme court believed that police are under duty of care to avoid causing injuries to R
  • officers negligently didn’t notice her even though she was in plain sight and were in breach of their duty of care to protect her
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Bowen v Commissioner of Police

novel duty case

A
  • 4 police officers arrested suspected terrorist, BA
  • BA claims officers assaulted/injured him during arrest
  • commissioner admitted liability and apologised for officer’s violence
  • officers took commissioner to court and claimed press release caused repetitional/economic damage
  • claimed commissioner had a duty of care to protect their economic/professional welfare
  • commissioner appealed to supreme court who said it wasn’t fair to impose a duty of care on an employer to protect legal proceedings as parties should be able to use litigation to solve disputes without fear of being liable to third parties
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Nettleship v Weston (1972)

duty of care

A
  • learner driver (Weston) was taking lessons from husaband’s friend when she crashed into local lampost
  • learner driver was meant to meet a standard that they couldn’t possibly be expected to meet
  • they are in breach but they are not at fault or should be blamed they just fell below the standard of care that a driver on the road reasonably should have
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)

A

negligence is ‘the omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided upon whose considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs 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
8
Q

McHale v Watson (1956)

children’s standard of care

A
  • decided by supreme court of AU
  • principle of reasonable child is stripped of any personality traits and are compared to a reasonable child their own age
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Mulin v Richards (1998) (children’s standard of care)

A
  • two 15 yr old girls fighting with rulers and one injures the other
  • girls are judged against reasonable 15 year olds and not adults
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

McErlean v Sarel (canada) (children and adult activities)

A

-when a child engages in adult activity they’re held to same standard as a reasonable adult

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

Dellwo v Pearson (1961, America) (children and adult activities)

A

unfair to public to allow minor driving a car to have any other standard of care different to adult in the same situation because they are putting people at risk

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

Carmarthenshire county council v Lewis (1995) (parental liability)

A
  • school failed to supervise children on playground and one of them escaped and caused a road traffic accident
  • school was liable to control/supervise/provide boundaries for kids to play in
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Ellis v Kelly (2018) (parental liability)

A
  • parent lets child play outside without supervision and the child gets injured
  • child sues the driver and the driver sues contribution from the parent
  • parent was held to not be liable cause they taught their child about road safety and had met the minimum standard of a reasonable parent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Wough v Allen (incapacity)

A
  • lorry driver felt ill and after feeling a bit better he continued to drive then died at the wheel of a heart attack
  • man who had a heart attack didn’t know his illness made him unsafe to drive so he wasn’t negligent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Mansfied v Weetabix (1998) (incapacity)

A
  • if you are unaware of an incapacity to drive you have the standard of care of a competent driver who is unaware of their condition
  • he had imperfect control and wasn’t liable
  • in other cases like Ramsbottom if you have a little imperfect control you are held to reasonable man standard
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Spearman v Royal United bath (mental incapacity)

A

-person staying at hospital injured themselves but were not liable because that would penalize them for their mental state

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

Campbell v Advantage Insurance Company (self-induced intoxication)

A
  • if your incapacity is caused by self induced intoxication you will be liable for contributory negligence
  • you have the capacity during the consumption of alchohol which is when you are acting without appropriate care for yourself
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Bolton v Stone (1951) (foreseeability)

A

-‘where the risk is really low and so small you don’t take it into account you’re not going to take precautions to stop it’

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

Tomlinson (2004)

A
  • person injured while swimming in a lake

- Lord Hoffman said people won’t take preventative measures that will prevent socially useful activities

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

Victorian Railway commissioners v coultas (1888) (historical development of duty of care in shock)

A

Australian privy council decided there was no duty of care owed to a claimant who’d been scared and traumatised by the D failing to control the level crossing gates properly
-no duty of care because it wasn’t forseeable passengers would suffer shock and there was no physical injury

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

Dulieu v White (1901) (duty of care in shock)

A
  • barmaid stood behind bar when horse and cart negligently crashed into bar
  • almost hit barmaid and she went into labour due to shock
  • courts said she could claim for physical injury due to fear for injury for oneself
  • courts begin to develop rule that if you’re in fear of injury to yourself you can have claim if your injury is forseeable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Hambrook v Stokes (1925) ( duty of care in shock)

A
  • coal lorry left negligently on top of hill because driver didn’t apply brakes properly
  • woman sees lorry rolling down and her kids down the hill
  • woman was told someone matching child’s description was injured
  • she suffers miscarriage and dies
  • she can claim for shock that results from fear she suffers when she thinks her daughter’s been injured
  • she fears for her child
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Bourhill v Young (1943) (duty of care in shock)

A
  • no claim because you don’t see traumatic event and you don’t know the person involved
  • B gets off tram and can hear motorcycle crash up the road
  • B walks across road and sees Y’s dead body and she had a miscarriage
  • it is not forseeable that B would be affected as she did not know Y or see the accident occur
  • she was not physically in danger and didn’t know Y
  • NO duty of care
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

McFarlane v Wilkinson (secondary victim of shock)

A
  • alpha oil rig disaster
  • he was on a boat 100 metres away
  • courts held he would have been primary victim if he reasonably feared he was in the danger zone but he was a secondary victim because he was not nearly close enough
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Weddle v Glasgow (2019) (secondary victim of shock

A
  • bin lorry went out of control and killed many because driver was having a heart attack and company negligently let him drive
  • W claims psychiatric injury for being exposed/seeing this
  • lorry was 12 metres from where she was standing and she wasn’t hit/wasn’t at risk
  • courts decides she wasn’t primary victim as she could have never reasonably believed she was at risk
  • she was secondary victim and couldn’t claim recovery
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Page v Smith (1996) Primary victim rule

A
  • C and D involved in car accident where C isn’t phsyically injured but suffers revival of pre-existing condition which makes him unable to work in the future
  • duty owed because it was reasonably forseeable that the claimant would suffer personal injury in car accident
  • doesn’t matter whether the injury is physical or induced by shock
  • D owed duty because they could have forseeably prevented C’s injury
  • when you are a primary victim it doesn’t matter WHY you suffer psychiatric injury
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Young v Charles Church (witness of traumatic event)

A
  • C suffered psychiatric injury from being exposed to employee being electrocuted due to negligence of employer
  • C was in danger zone but they suffered injury from witnessing event
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Dunnage v Randall (duty of care and mental health)

A
  • C was injured when his uncle set fire to himself and both were engulfed in flames
  • D had paranoid schizophrenia and suffered delusions during this event
  • judge held that D wasn’t in control of his actions and so wasn’t liable
  • C.A held C’s appeal that D owed duty of care because he had to measure up to objective standard of care as long as he was totally and completely unaware of his actions like sleepwalking
  • injuries were caused by uncle’s deranged mind and he had physical albeit not rational control over his actions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

McLoughlin v O’Brien, 1983 (secondary victim of shock)

A

claimant’s husband and children involved in car accident

  • she went to scene and witnessed the death of 1 child and the injuries of the rest of the family
  • she was a secondary victim
30
Q

Alcock

A
  • alcock and co held claim against head of south yorkshire police
  • relatives of people caught up in Hillsborough stadium disaster in which 95 liverpool fans died because of negligence of police
  • several claimants alleged they witnessed friends/relatives die while watching tv
  • claimed for psychiatric harm
  • HoL decided the victims were secondary victims and Alcock and the other claimants could not meet the requirements set by HoL
31
Q

Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS (close ties of love/affection)

A

-sisters were able to prove close ties of affection because their mother had died which meant their love was akin to maternal love in the eyes of the courts it was ‘almost like mother and daughter’

32
Q

Burdett v Dahill, 2002 (close ties of love and affection)

A
  • good friends
  • county court decision refused to strike out their relationship
  • secondary victim treated immediate victim like the ‘son I never had’
33
Q

McCarthy v Chief constable of south yorkshire police, 1996 (close ties of love/affection)

A
  • half siblings
  • exceptionally close
  • evidence showed a very close tie of love between them
34
Q

Liverpool Women’s hospital NHS foundation trust v Ronayne (proximity of time and space in shock)

A

simply visiting the hospital to confirm what you already know it probably not sufficient to count as immediate aftermath of negligent act

35
Q

Tranmore v T.E Scudder (proximity of time and space in shock)

A

arriving at the scene of the incident two hours after the fatal accident is not sufficient for time and space

36
Q

Taylor v A Novo, 2014 (proximity of time and space in shock)

A
  • mother injured at work and daughter taking care of her
  • because of negligent accident at work she suffers a pulmonary embolism and died
  • daughter is present at time of death
  • she wasnt present at the aftermath
  • she had to be present at the inital accident at work and she wasn’t at the scene of the accident or at the immediate aftermath as she only came to take care of her
  • bereavement is not enough to claim shock
37
Q

Wild v Southend University Hospital NHS foundation trust, 2014 (proximity of time and space in shock)

A
  • Husband witnesses traumatic stillbirth due to negligent pre-natal treatment
  • husband wasn’t there during treatment
  • relying on Taylor v A Novo courts held that he wasn’t sufficiently proximate
  • wasn’t there at time of negligent act or its immediate aftermath
38
Q

Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, 2014 (proximity of time and space in shock)

A
  • Paul’s claim based on failure to properly treat his heart problems (negligent omission) that led to his death
  • his children could recover as they witnessed the consequences of the negligent act (his death)
  • couldn’t have been present at the time of negligent omission because you wouldn’t know it was happening
39
Q

Young v MacVean (sudden shock)

A
  • mother saw badly damaged car and is informed her son in the accident has died and suffers psychiatric shock
  • court held that she couldn’t have a claim
  • she wasn’t shocked at the point where she met all the requirements and saw the car but later when she was told her son has been involved
  • shock did not occur at the immediate aftermath of tragedy so she cannot bring a claim
  • it was accumulation of traumatising events instead of the one definitive moment pointed out in Alcock
40
Q

McFarlane v EE Caledonia, 1994 (bystanders in shock)

A

court of appeal rejected clam from a man who unwillingly witnessed a plane crash
-not sufficiently horrifying to justify departure from Alcock criteria

41
Q

Chadwick v British railways, 1967 (rescuers in shock)

A
  • Lewisham rails disaster, multiple trains collided due to heavy london fog
  • C was recruited by police to crawl through wreckage
  • he could recover because at the time there was believed to be a special rule in which rescuers could claim compensation for being traumatised while rescuing
42
Q

New interpretation of Chadwick in White v Chief constable of south yorkshire, 1999

A
  • Chadwick was a primary victim
  • he put himself in danger and it was foreseeable that he would suffer personal injury
  • he could recover from personal injuries he suffered including psychiatric harm
43
Q

Dooley, 1951 (involuntary participants and psychiatric harm)

A
  • crane driver’s crane broke and injured colleagues
  • it was because of his employer’s negligence
  • suffered psychiatric harm from guilt
  • he was able to recover as an involuntary participant from his employer’s because they were responsible for the negligent action that started the chain of events
44
Q

W v Essex (involuntary participants and psychiatric harm)

A
  • claimants began fostering and made it clear they didn’t want anyone who would be a danger to their own children
  • essex county council breached their promise and provided and ex-con who abused their children
  • parents blamed themselves and felt guilty and suffered psychiatric harm
  • were able to recover
45
Q

Attia v British Gas, 1988 (psychiatric harm due to endangerment of property)

A
  • house caught on fire because of negligent work done by British gas engineers
  • claimant suffered psych injury and was allowed to recover
  • foreseeable that harm to property would cause some harm/injury and so any harm claimed is recoverable
46
Q

Smith v Littlewoods (rule of liability for pure omissions

A

‘common law does not impose liability for pure omissions’

47
Q

Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (pure omissons)

A

according to this case you can watch someone jump to their death and there is no legal duty to rescue them, no liability for simply failing to act

48
Q

Mitchell v Glasgow city council (2009), omissions

A

never looking or checking mirrors properly is an omission but it is part of the ACT of carelessly driving

49
Q

Goldman v Hargrave (exceptions to rule of omissions)

A

duty to take reasonable steps to stop the fire from spreading and causing even more danger

50
Q

Smith v Littlewoods (exception to rule of omissions)

A

-duty of care where D has “negligently caused or permitted the creation of a source of danger on his land where it is forseeable that third parties may trespass”

51
Q

Occupier’s liability act of 1957 and 1984 (exception to rule of omissions)

A

-property owners have duty to lawful visitors and trespassers

52
Q

Dorset Yacht (1970), rule of pure omission

A
  • home office oversaw inmated and took them to and island for overnight sleepover
  • whilst they’re there the officers fail to watch them properly and the inmates escape and damage lots of yachts whilst escaping
  • the home office had duty of care because they were in control and owe a duty as harm was caused to nearby property
  • courts held that home office owed a duty of care
53
Q

Vedanta resources plc v Lungowe (2019), rule of pure omissions

A
  • parent company had liability for harms caused by their subsidiary
  • relationship of control–> controlled acts of subsidiary company
  • liable for failure to act because they could and should have intervened
54
Q

Stansbie v Troman (exception to rule of pure omissions)

A

D agreed to paint house of C and was given a key

  • they forgot to lockup and theives broke in
  • courts held duty of care arose
55
Q

Rushbond plc v the JS Design partnership (exception to rule of pure omissions)

A
  • D left door open while conducting inspection
  • trespasser entered and started fire which damaged property
  • no interaction between D and C therefore no quasi-contractual conversation
  • D having the key wasn’t sufficient for him to be liable/responsible for defendant
56
Q

Reeves v Commisioner of Police (1999) assumption of responsibility

A

by taking someone into custody you assume responsibility of them

  • reasonable reliance is presumed
  • commisoner of police had responsibility to prevent reeves from commiting self harm in police custody
57
Q

Sherrot v Chief constable of greater manchester (assumption of responsibility)

A
  • mother did not check up on mentally ill daughter because of police assurance that they would check up on her
  • they failed to check on claimant
  • owed duty of care to check on daughter as the mother relied on their promise
58
Q

GN v Poole BC (assumption of responsibility)

A
  • kids brought claim against Poole BC because they failed to stop harassment from neighbouring family
  • councul had no assumption of responsibility and therefore could not be in breach of a DOC
  • P had not especially assumed any responsibility and had done nothing to promise the kids they’d be protected from harassment
  • was not reasonable for kids to rely on them
59
Q

Barrett v Ministry of Defense (assumption of responsibility and special relationships)

A
  • naval officer became unconscious due to drink
  • colleague took him to bed and he choked on vomit and died
  • MoS owed duty of care based on assumption of responsibility
  • special relationship of employment, reliance assumed
60
Q

Wright v Lodge (source of danger, omissions)

A
  • D had problem with car and parked at side of road
  • lorry driver moved out of way to avoid hitting D and crashed with another driver
  • D owed duty of care because they failed to appropriately remove their car
61
Q

Wilson & Clyde Coal Co V English (1938), rule of non-delegable duties

A

the reasonable employer will ensure safe equipment, safe workplace, competent employees, safe system of work for their employees

62
Q

McDermaid v Nash Dredging , (employer’s liability)

A
  • C employed as deckhand on boat
  • employer put in system a place that the deckhand would knock twice on captain’s door when it was safe to move the boat
  • captain didn’t wait for signal and started the boat and C was badly injured
  • D had a duty to put in safe system of work and this duty is non-delegable
  • D was responsible for system of work and therefore liable for injuries of claimant
63
Q

Hill v West Yorks Police (police liability)

A
  • C was mother of victim of yorkshire ripper
  • Failure failed to apprehend him
  • if police acted reasonably it was claimed they would have apprehended Y.R before he killed C’s daughter
  • it was held as a failure to act, no special relationship with murderer and there was no AOR to protect daugher
64
Q

Kent v Griffiths (ambulance liability)

A
  • C was pregnant/asthmatic and was having ashthma attack
  • There was DOC
  • When C called 999 and waited for ambulance they assumed responsibility
  • special relationship between doctor/patient
65
Q

Captain and countries plc v Hampshire (fire brigade liability)

A
  • fire brigade is not under common law duty to answer a call for help or take care to do so
  • no special relationship
  • DOC is only owed where brigade starts the danger which causes C’s injury
66
Q

DSD v Commisioner of Police for the metropolis (osman duty of care)

A
  • police failed to take action against notorious serial rapist in London
  • investigation was below standard of reasonable police force
  • claim in negligence was barred (similar to Hill)
  • could be claim for breach of article 3 of ECHR (failure to investigate crime appropriately)
67
Q

Cattle v Stockton Waterworks (PEL)

A
  • D were waterworks company
  • one of D’s pipes flooded cattle’s land
  • this flooding caused a delay in work
  • C claimed PEL for D to cover his lost expenses
  • Courts held c couldn’t recover because it was PEL
68
Q

Spartan Steel v Martin &Co

PEL

A
  • D negligently does road excavation work and damages electric cable and cuts off supply to C’s factory
  • C had to pour molten metal to prevent the metal solidifying and causing more damage
  • C suffered property, consequential economic loss and PEL
  • courts held first two were recoverable but PEL was not
69
Q

SCM Ltd v Whittal and Son Ltd (consequential economic loss)

A
  • D negligently damaged electric cable which ran alongside the orad
  • damage caused 7 hr power failure for C
  • C’s molten materials solidified because of lack of power
  • some of their machines damaged beyond repair
  • C lost value of those items and profit from one full day of production
  • economic loss caused by physical damge
70
Q

West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El-Safty (relational economic loss)

A
  • footballer suffered knee injury and was never able to play pro football again
  • Doc owes no DOC to his employer, only owes DOC to patient
  • Football club tried to sue him for economic loss they suffered due to his negligent treatment of their employee
  • does not fall within AoR so no DOC
71
Q

Spring v Guardian Assurance PLC (special knowledge)

A
  • HoL imposes DOC
  • C was unable to find employment because former employer was required to send reference and sent an inaccurate bad one
  • made it hard for C to get a job
  • D asssumed responsibility to exercise due care in providing reliance because the employer had special knowledge
  • C was dependent on D for their financial welfare

Law (7 decks)

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