Tort Law Cases Flashcards
Donoghue V Stevenson
Negligence
Snail in drink did not purchase but still had duty of care from the shop it was bought from
Duty of Care
Kent V Griffiths
Negligence
Called an ambulance and it took 38 minutes to arrive. Patient died
Duty
Foreseability
Negligence
Jolley V Sutton
Derelict boat was left. Two teenage boys came over it and over several visits tried to move it. It fell on one of the boys leaving him disabled
Bourhill V Young
Negligence
Motorbike crashed into a car 50 Feet away from a pregnant lady she did not see the crash happen but saw the aftermath of it she claimed shock
Duty
Proximity
Hill V Chief constable of west Yorkshire
Negligence
A Criminal had killed a young women and had allegedly committed similar crimes against other females
Duty
Fair, Just and reasonable
Blyth V Birmingham waterworks
Negligence
Laid pipes to the best standards. However the frost due to the winter made one of them burst. Not Negligent
Breach
Objective reasonable man standard
Negligence
Wells V Cooper
Special characteristics of D
Man fitted a door. There was a high wind and door was hard to close. Handle came lose and Claimant fell down stairs. D met standard of carpenter
Nettleship V Weston
Negligence
Learner driver crashed. Did not meet the standard of a reasonable driver
Breach
Special characteristics of defendant
Paris V Stepney borough council
Negligence
Did not take extra care by providing googles for their one eyed mechanic.
Breach
Special characteristics of claimant
Negligence- Special Charcteristics
Walker V Northumberland council
Social worker was made to much more work than he could cope with. He then gained a stress related illness and they did little to improve things
Bolton V Stone
Negligence
For the first time in 6 Years a ball had been hit past the fence that was erected and hit a person standing outside the grounds
Breach
Have all pratical precautions been taken
Hayley V London electrical Bond
Negligence
Blind man missed the sign that there was an open manhole and fell into it
Breach
Laitmer V AEC
Negligence
Factory flooded after heavy rain. Warning sings were put up and messages were passed around the workforce sand and sawdust was used. However Claimant still slipped and was injured
Breach
Watt V Hertfordshire
Negligence
Firefighters were injured whilst travelling to an accident. Vehicle was not equipped to take it. No Breach as they were already attending an accident.
Breach
Roe V Minister of Health
Negligence
Anaesthetic got contaminated when glass container containing invisible cracks allowed antiseptic to seep through. Led to C being paralysed.
Breach
Day V High Performance Sports
Fell while climbing on an indoor wall> She discovred that she was not tied in properly . Fell and suffered brain damage. Centre had reached the standard of the reasonably competent.
Barnett V Chelsea and kensignton Hospital
Men had drank tea and went to the nurse. Nurse had told them to go home. The doctor did not exam the men. Men died. They would have died even of they were examined. If conseqeunce would still occur the test would not be met
Fairchild V Glenhaven funeral services
Mutiple causes must prove that material contribution was from D’s breach
Smith V Littlewood
Vandals broke into building that was to be demolished and damaged near by property. Novus Actus Intervenis as D did not know of this act
The Wagon Mound
D spilt some oil it spread over the water to C’s wharf were a welding was going on it caught light and wharf was damged by the fire. Damage from oil forseaable but damage from fire was not
Negligence
Bradford V Robinson Rentals
Remoteness of damage
The weather was very cold. Windscreen kept freezing so had to leave windows open. Van had no heater. Foresable that he may suffer injury although not frostbite
Hughes V Lord Advoctae
Two boys took a lamp down man hole as as they left it was knocked causing an explosion. Risk of burning was foresablee
Doughty V Turner Asbestos
Chemical reaction caused an explosion that was not known of at that time was not forseeable
Smith V Leech Brain
Small splash of Molten metal triggered his pre exisiting condition debeloped cancer( Thin Skull rule )
West V Shepherd
Suffered severe head injury could not speak. Loss of amenity
Sayers V Harlow Urban District Council
25% Reduction
Stermer V Lawson
Borrowed D’s motorbike. But did not know the precise risk involved
Smith V Baker
A worker complained about rocks being passed over his head later rocks hit his head. He had no other choice but to accept the risk
Defences- Consent
Haynes V Harwood
D did not correctly tie his horse the police man was injured. He did not voluntarily accept the risk
Wheat V Lacon
Possession does not need to be exclusive
OLA 1957-1984
Revil V Newbury
S.1(3)
Occupier of an allotment shed. Premises
Invitee
Express permission and have been invited
OLA 1957
Licensee
Express or implied permission to be there for a certain period of time
OLA 1957
Statutory right of entry
Read a meter or police with a warrant
Contractual duty
Ticket holder for an event
OLA 1957
Roles V Nathan
Breach
Two chimney sweeps died of carbon monoxide poisoning. They would have known of the risks
Negligence
Moloney V Lambeth London BC
Breach- Standard of care
A 4yr old slipped through bannisters in a block of flats. Higher duty of care
Negligence
Lamb V Camden LBC
Damage
3rd party act can break chain
McKew V Holland
Victims own act
Haseldine V Daw&Son
Maintaining a lift is a highly specialised and therefore been given to a specialist
Geary V JD Weatherspoon
Customer slid down bannister and fell on marble fall. Knew of risk
Bottomley V Todmorden Cricket club
Did not undertake checks of the contractors
OLA 1957
Ashdown V Samuel Williams
Excluding Liablity
The sign said do at your own risk
Keown V Coventry NHS
D climbed up fire escape. There was nothing dangerous of state of the premises. Came form D’s actions.
OLA 1984
Higgs V Foster
Duty
Had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser. Policeman fell into an uncovered inspection pit.
Westwood V Post Office
A warning sign was sufficient for an adult
Tomlinson V Congleton
Council owned lake they already had warning signs. However they were being ignored. Could not yet build fence due to lack of funds. Danger arose from D’s own actions. Trespasser ran the risk himself
OLA 1984
Ratcliff V Mconnell
Consent - Defence
No liability as the claimant was well aware of the risk of diving into a swimming pool. Accepted the risk.
Psychatric harm
Reilly V Merseyside
Can not claim for claustrophobia and anxiety after being trapped in lift
Psychatric harm
Page V Smith
Traffic accident triggered ME in someone who had previously suffered from it
Donachie V CC of Greater Manchester
The police man was harmed by the police forces negligence.
Psyschatric Harm
White V CC of South Yorkshire
Primary Victim
The policemen witnessed people die at the football stadium
Walters
Babies death was sudden (Alock Criteria)
W V Essex council
Parents of children abused by they child they fostered . They were told that he was not a known sex offender
Attia V British Gas
House burnt down due to British Gas negligence . Home owner witnessed house being burned down
Mcloughlin V O’Brian
Was there in the immediate aftermath. Child and Husband in car crash.
Damage
Barnett V Chelsea
On the balance of probabilities
The conseqeunces would have still occured without the D’s negligence
Damage (caustion) Mutiple causes
Fairchild V Glenhaven Funeral Services
Lung Cancer from abestos. Where there are mutiple causes. C must prove the D’s breach caused the harm or made a material contribution.
Damage (Caustion) Novus Actus Interveniens
Smith V Littlewoods
Vandals broke in and set a fire on a building which affected other buildings. D did not know of previous attempts to start a fire. Therefore it was not reasoanbly foreseeable
Remoteness of damage
The Wagon Mound
D spilt some oil. The oil spread and started a fire. D could not have known that the oil could be set on fire while in water
Remoteness of damage
Bradford V Robisnon Rentals
D required the C to drive. The weather was very cold. The windscreen kept freezing so he had leave the window open. Suffered frostbite
Forseeable that he may suffer some form of injury
Remoteness of damage
Hughes V Lord Advocate
Two boys took a lamp down a manhole. It was knocked and caused an explosion damaging one of the boys. The risk of burning was forseeable even though highley unlikely
Damage(Caustion) Thin skull rule
Smith V Leech Brain
C received a very minor burn however it triggered his pre-exisiting cancerous condition
Defences (Consent- Volenti non fit injuria)
Stermer V Lawson
C borrowed the D’s motorbike. The defence failed beacause the C had not been properly been shown how to use a motorbike
Defences (Consent- Volenti non fit injuria)
Smith V Baker
The defence will not work if C has no choice but to accept the risk. Worker was injuired when rocks were moved above his head and fell on him
Defences(Consent- Volenti non fit injuria)
Hayes V Harwood
Where C is under a duty to accept the risk then he is not acceptingt the risk voluntarily. Policeman was trying to restrain a horse that was thethred incorrectly.
S.2(1) OlA 1957
Occupier owes a duty of care to all lawful visitors
S.2(2) OLA 1957
The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.
OLA 1957
Wheat V Lacon
This shows who the occupier is
S.1(3) OLA 1957
Any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
OLA 1957
Revill V Newbury
Defines what a premises is
OLA 1957
Laverton V Kiapasha
The owners had done what was reaosnable
Premises does not need to be completly safe
OLA 1957
Woollin V British Celanese
D was liable as although it had put up a warning sign regarding the dangerous roof it was behind a door and so not easily visible to anyone working in the area.
S2(3)b OLA 1957
A specialist should be able to protect themselves against risks within their own specialism. Therefore the occupier may take fewer precautions to protect them
OLA 1957
Roles V Nathan
Two chimney sweeps died of carbon Monoxide poisoning. The claim failed as they had been warned of the risk and it should have been one with which they were familiar and known how to have dealt with
S2(3)b
OLA 1957
Moloney v Lambeth London BC
A 4 yr old slipped through the bannisters in a block of flats. D was liable as it was not a defence to say the gap in the railings would prevent an adult falling through.
OLA 1957
Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government
Natural event can break the chain of causation.
Inteverning causes
OLA 1957
Lamb v Camden LBC
3rd party acts can break chain
Inteverning causes
OLA 1957
McKew v Holland
Victims own act – can break chain if not “reasonable”
Inteverning causes
OlA 1957
Haseldine v Daw & Son
Independent contractors
Maintaining a lift was highly specialised and therefore reasonable to give to a specialist.
it must be reasonable to give the work to an independent contractor.
OlA 1957
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
Independent contractors
Club were liable for actions of their contractors as they did not undertake checks.
contractor must be competent (and the occupier should check)
OlA 1957
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
Independent contractors
Occupier must take reasonable steps to check the work
OlA 1957
Geary v JD Weatherspoon
Consent
A customer in Ds bar attempted to slide down a bannister but fell onto a marble floor 4 metres below. Her claim failed as she was aware of the risk and willingly took it.
OLA 1957
Ashdown v Samuel Williams ltd
Excluding liability
Claim failed as clear signs said people using a shortcut did so at their own risk.
S1(1) OLA 1984
Than his visitors in respect of any risk of their suffering injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them
S1(3) OLA 1984
(a) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;
(b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity
of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger
(c) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may
reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection.
OLA 1984
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
The test of whether a duty of care exists under s.1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984 must be determined having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the alleged breach resulted in injury to the claimant. At the time Mr Donoghue sustained his injury, Folkestone Properties had no reason to believe that he or anyone else would be swimming from the slipway. Consequently, the criteria set out in s.1(3)(b) was not satisfied and no duty of care arose.
OLA 1984
Keown v Coventry NHS
D injured climbing up a hospital fire escape.
Not liable as nothing inherently dangerous about the state of the premises. The danger came from D’s own misjudged actions.
OLA 1984
Higgs v Foster
D not liable if he or she has no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser. A policeman fell into an uncovered inspection pit. He had entered the premises for surveillance but was deemed a trespasser.
OLA 1984
Westwood v Post office
A warning sign was sufficient for an adult.
OlA 1984
Ratcliff V Mconnell
No liability as the claimant was aware of the risk of diving into a swimmming pool.
Psychiatric harm
Page V Smith
Traffic accident triggered ME in someone who had previously suffered from it.
Does not have to be an accident
Psychiatric harm
Donachie V CC of Greater Manchester
The policeman was harmed by the police forces negligence.
Psychiatric harm
White V CC of South Yorkshire
The police officers were there when fans from a football game was squashed toghether and they helped in the rescue
Psychiatric harm
Sion V Hampstead Health Authority
Watching son die in hospital over a number of days was not sudden
Psychiatric harm
Walters
Babies death was sudden and was an single event
Psychiatric harm
Greatorex V Greatoux
D was badly injuired caused by his own negligent driving . His father was his rescurer (was a firefighter) suffered Psychiatric harm
Failed as D had no duty to loo after himself in case it caused distress to others
W V Essex council
Parents of children abused by a child they fostered could claim against the council
Psychiatric harm
Dooley V Cammel Laird
A person who thinks they have killed people through their act when in fact they died through the negligence of another
Can claim for Psychiatric harm
Psychiatric harm
Attia V British Gas
House burnt down due to british Gas negligence. Home owner witnessed property burn
Psychiatric harm
McLoughlin V O’Brain
They also included immediate aftermath as close to accident in time and space
Vicarious liabilty
Walker V Crystal Palace FC
A footballer was deemed to be an employee due to the level of control the club had over training schedules.
Vicarious Liability
Ready Mix concrete
Case for the Mutiple test
Vicarious Liability
Beard V London Genral Omnibus
The conductor of the bus turned it around and injuried an member of public while doing so
Act was not authorsied. Employer not liable
Vicarious Liabilty
Harvey V RG O’Dell
A repair man was sent on a day long job and on his way bavk from lunch he caused an accident.
Liable as day long job would require the employee to travel to get lunch
Vicarious Liabilty
Century Insurance V Northen Ireland Road Transport Board
Petrol tanker was making and delivery and started smoking causing tank to blow
Employer Liable
Vicarious Liablity
Limpus V London General Omnibus
Expressly forbidden method
Compnay had told drivers not to race buses from other companies but they did so casing an accidnet
The employer was still held liable
Vicarious liabilty
Lister V Hesley Hall
An act so closely conneceted to the employment
A warden at a care home sexually abused a number of boys in his care
Employer was liable
Vicarious liabilty
Conway V Wimpey.
Not Liable as it was an unauthorised act and not part of his job
Vicarious liabilty
Rose V Plently
Instruction not to employ children as an milkman. One milkman did and a child got injuired. Liable as it was an authorised act but unauthorised method
Private nuisnace
Hunter V Canary wharf
Many claimants said that the buildings had affected the Tv reception. This included owners, tenants and children with parents
Who can be an claimant
Private nusinace
Sedleigh-Denfeild V O’Callaghan
A tresspasser installed a pipe in a ditch on the C’s land. The D was liable when it became blocked and flooded the C’s land as he knew it had existed
Private Nuisance
Tetley V Chitty
Landlord can be liable for actions of tenant if he authorised or approved of activity.
Private Nuisance
Fearn V Tate gallery
Public could veiw their houses due to windows
Visual intrusion could amount to actionable nuisance
Private Nuisance-Locality
Halsey V Esso
Oil company liable as they would deliver 24/7 in housing estate
Private Nuisance-Locality
St Helens smelting V Tipping
Fumes damaged trees. Location is irrelevant if physical damage is caused
Private Nuisance-Duration
Barr V Biffa
Key factor as it had been occuring on and off for five years
Private Nuisance-Duration
Crown V Kimbolton
One off event can be a nuisance. Burning debris from the fireworks damaged river boats
Private Nuisance- Sensitivity
Bridlington Relay V Yorkshire Electrical
Claimed his Tv mast was being interfred with by the D’s power lines. Court dismissed the claim as the power cables would not have interefed with any ordinary user of the land.
Private Nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm V Emmet
Deeemed unlawful as it would have freightened the animals casuing a miscarage
Nuisance-Under Rylands
Giles V Walker
Ploughed land which had been self soen with thistles. Not Liable
Nuisance-Under Rylands
Rickards V Lothian
A tap overlfowed in a part of the building leased by the D. Water escaped caused damage. D not liable
Nuisance-Under Rylands
Hale V Jennings
Was a chair from a ‘chair-o-plane’ in a fairground attraction
A dangerous thing
Nuisance-Under Rylands- Defence
Perry V Kendricks
D left bus having empty tank of petrol. Stranger removed the petrol cap and anothe child threw an match into a tank.
Act of stranger
Nuisance-Under Rylands-Defence
Nicols V Marshland
D was not liable after water had escpaed from an artifical lake following a prolonged violent storm.
Act of God
Nuisance-Under Rylands-Defence
Green V Chelsea
D was not liable when one of the water pipes burst. D had statutory duty to maintain it pipes and given it was not negligent D was not liable
Statutory Authority
Economic Loss
Spartan Steel V Martin and Co.
An eletrical power cable outside C’s Factory was negligently cut by D. This led to loss of power for sereval hours. The melt in the furnance at the time had to be destroyed to stop it solidifying in the furnance and wrecking it.
Economic Loss
Hedley Bryne V Heller
An advertising company relied on the reference given from the clients bank when allowing the advertisers to place adverts (on credit). The firm went bust and Hedley sued bank for negligent misstatement. Held Liable
Statement was made negligently
Special relationship between parties
Economic Loss
Raja V Gray
Was not sufficent proximity
Reasonable reliance
Economic Loss
Chaudry V Prabhaker
Social situation can create an special realationship
Reasonable reliance
