Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Tort Law > Tort Law Cases > Flashcards

Tort Law Cases Flashcards

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

Donoghue V Stevenson

Negligence

A

Snail in drink did not purchase but still had duty of care from the shop it was bought from

Duty of Care

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

Kent V Griffiths

Negligence

A

Called an ambulance and it took 38 minutes to arrive. Patient died

Duty

Foreseability

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

Negligence

Jolley V Sutton

A

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

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

Bourhill V Young

Negligence

A

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

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

Hill V Chief constable of west Yorkshire

Negligence

A

A Criminal had killed a young women and had allegedly committed similar crimes against other females

Duty

Fair, Just and reasonable

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

Blyth V Birmingham waterworks

Negligence

A

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

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

Negligence

Wells V Cooper

Special characteristics of D

A

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

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

Nettleship V Weston

Negligence

A

Learner driver crashed. Did not meet the standard of a reasonable driver

Breach

Special characteristics of defendant

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

Paris V Stepney borough council

Negligence

A

Did not take extra care by providing googles for their one eyed mechanic.

Breach

Special characteristics of claimant

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

Negligence- Special Charcteristics

Walker V Northumberland council

A

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

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

Bolton V Stone

Negligence

A

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

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

Hayley V London electrical Bond

Negligence

A

Blind man missed the sign that there was an open manhole and fell into it

Breach

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

Laitmer V AEC

Negligence

A

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

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

Watt V Hertfordshire

Negligence

A

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

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

Roe V Minister of Health

Negligence

A

Anaesthetic got contaminated when glass container containing invisible cracks allowed antiseptic to seep through. Led to C being paralysed.

Breach

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

Day V High Performance Sports

A

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.

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

Barnett V Chelsea and kensignton Hospital

A

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

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

Fairchild V Glenhaven funeral services

A

Mutiple causes must prove that material contribution was from D’s breach

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

Smith V Littlewood

A

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

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

The Wagon Mound

A

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

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

Negligence

Bradford V Robinson Rentals

Remoteness of damage

A

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

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

Hughes V Lord Advoctae

A

Two boys took a lamp down man hole as as they left it was knocked causing an explosion. Risk of burning was foresablee

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

Doughty V Turner Asbestos

A

Chemical reaction caused an explosion that was not known of at that time was not forseeable

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

Smith V Leech Brain

A

Small splash of Molten metal triggered his pre exisiting condition debeloped cancer( Thin Skull rule )

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

West V Shepherd

A

Suffered severe head injury could not speak. Loss of amenity

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

Sayers V Harlow Urban District Council

A

25% Reduction

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

Stermer V Lawson

A

Borrowed D’s motorbike. But did not know the precise risk involved

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

Smith V Baker

A

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

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

Defences- Consent

Haynes V Harwood

A

D did not correctly tie his horse the police man was injured. He did not voluntarily accept the risk

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

Wheat V Lacon

A

Possession does not need to be exclusive

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

OLA 1957-1984

Revil V Newbury

S.1(3)

A

Occupier of an allotment shed. Premises

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

Invitee

A

Express permission and have been invited

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

OLA 1957

Licensee

A

Express or implied permission to be there for a certain period of time

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

OLA 1957

Statutory right of entry

A

Read a meter or police with a warrant

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

Contractual duty

A

Ticket holder for an event

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

OLA 1957

Roles V Nathan

Breach

A

Two chimney sweeps died of carbon monoxide poisoning. They would have known of the risks

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

Negligence

Moloney V Lambeth London BC

Breach- Standard of care

A

A 4yr old slipped through bannisters in a block of flats. Higher duty of care

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

Negligence

Lamb V Camden LBC

Damage

A

3rd party act can break chain

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

McKew V Holland

A

Victims own act

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

Haseldine V Daw&Son

A

Maintaining a lift is a highly specialised and therefore been given to a specialist

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

Geary V JD Weatherspoon

A

Customer slid down bannister and fell on marble fall. Knew of risk

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

Bottomley V Todmorden Cricket club

A

Did not undertake checks of the contractors

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

OLA 1957

Ashdown V Samuel Williams

Excluding Liablity

A

The sign said do at your own risk

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

Keown V Coventry NHS

A

D climbed up fire escape. There was nothing dangerous of state of the premises. Came form D’s actions.

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

OLA 1984

Higgs V Foster

Duty

A

Had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser. Policeman fell into an uncovered inspection pit.

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

Westwood V Post Office

A

A warning sign was sufficient for an adult

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

Tomlinson V Congleton

A

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

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

OLA 1984

Ratcliff V Mconnell

Consent - Defence

A

No liability as the claimant was well aware of the risk of diving into a swimming pool. Accepted the risk.

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

Psychatric harm

Reilly V Merseyside

A

Can not claim for claustrophobia and anxiety after being trapped in lift

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

Psychatric harm

Page V Smith

A

Traffic accident triggered ME in someone who had previously suffered from it

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

Donachie V CC of Greater Manchester

A

The police man was harmed by the police forces negligence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Psyschatric Harm

White V CC of South Yorkshire

Primary Victim

A

The policemen witnessed people die at the football stadium

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Walters

A

Babies death was sudden (Alock Criteria)

54
Q

W V Essex council

A

Parents of children abused by they child they fostered . They were told that he was not a known sex offender

55
Q

Attia V British Gas

A

House burnt down due to British Gas negligence . Home owner witnessed house being burned down

56
Q

Mcloughlin V O’Brian

A

Was there in the immediate aftermath. Child and Husband in car crash.

57
Q

Damage

Barnett V Chelsea

A

On the balance of probabilities

The conseqeunces would have still occured without the D’s negligence

58
Q

Damage (caustion) Mutiple causes

Fairchild V Glenhaven Funeral Services

A

Lung Cancer from abestos. Where there are mutiple causes. C must prove the D’s breach caused the harm or made a material contribution.

59
Q

Damage (Caustion) Novus Actus Interveniens

Smith V Littlewoods

A

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

60
Q

Remoteness of damage

The Wagon Mound

A

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

61
Q

Remoteness of damage

Bradford V Robisnon Rentals

A

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

62
Q

Remoteness of damage

Hughes V Lord Advocate

A

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

63
Q

Damage(Caustion) Thin skull rule

Smith V Leech Brain

A

C received a very minor burn however it triggered his pre-exisiting cancerous condition

64
Q

Defences (Consent- Volenti non fit injuria)

Stermer V Lawson

A

C borrowed the D’s motorbike. The defence failed beacause the C had not been properly been shown how to use a motorbike

65
Q

Defences (Consent- Volenti non fit injuria)

Smith V Baker

A

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

66
Q

Defences(Consent- Volenti non fit injuria)

Hayes V Harwood

A

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.

67
Q

S.2(1) OlA 1957

A

Occupier owes a duty of care to all lawful visitors

68
Q

S.2(2) OLA 1957

A

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.

69
Q

OLA 1957

Wheat V Lacon

A

This shows who the occupier is

70
Q

S.1(3) OLA 1957

A

Any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

71
Q

OLA 1957

Revill V Newbury

A

Defines what a premises is

72
Q

OLA 1957

Laverton V Kiapasha

A

The owners had done what was reaosnable

Premises does not need to be completly safe

73
Q

OLA 1957

Woollin V British Celanese

A

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.

74
Q

S2(3)b OLA 1957

A

A specialist should be able to protect themselves against risks within their own specialism. Therefore the occupier may take fewer precautions to protect them

75
Q

OLA 1957

Roles V Nathan

A

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

76
Q

OLA 1957

Moloney v Lambeth London BC

A

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.

77
Q

OLA 1957

Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government

A

Natural event can break the chain of causation.

Inteverning causes

78
Q

OLA 1957

Lamb v Camden LBC

A

3rd party acts can break chain

Inteverning causes

79
Q

OLA 1957

McKew v Holland

A

Victims own act – can break chain if not “reasonable”

Inteverning causes

80
Q

OlA 1957

Haseldine v Daw & Son

Independent contractors

A

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.

81
Q

OlA 1957

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

Independent contractors

A

Club were liable for actions of their contractors as they did not undertake checks.

contractor must be competent (and the occupier should check)

82
Q

OlA 1957

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

Independent contractors

A

Occupier must take reasonable steps to check the work

83
Q

OlA 1957

Geary v JD Weatherspoon

Consent

A

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.

84
Q

OLA 1957

Ashdown v Samuel Williams ltd

Excluding liability

A

Claim failed as clear signs said people using a shortcut did so at their own risk.

85
Q

S1(1) OLA 1984

A

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

86
Q

S1(3) OLA 1984

A

(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.

87
Q

OLA 1984

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties

A

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.

88
Q

OLA 1984

Keown v Coventry NHS

A

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.

89
Q

OLA 1984

Higgs v Foster

A

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.

90
Q

OLA 1984

Westwood v Post office

A

A warning sign was sufficient for an adult.

91
Q

OlA 1984

Ratcliff V Mconnell

A

No liability as the claimant was aware of the risk of diving into a swimmming pool.

92
Q

Psychiatric harm

Page V Smith

A

Traffic accident triggered ME in someone who had previously suffered from it.

Does not have to be an accident

93
Q

Psychiatric harm

Donachie V CC of Greater Manchester

A

The policeman was harmed by the police forces negligence.

94
Q

Psychiatric harm

White V CC of South Yorkshire

A

The police officers were there when fans from a football game was squashed toghether and they helped in the rescue

95
Q

Psychiatric harm

Sion V Hampstead Health Authority

A

Watching son die in hospital over a number of days was not sudden

96
Q

Psychiatric harm

Walters

A

Babies death was sudden and was an single event

97
Q

Psychiatric harm

Greatorex V Greatoux

A

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

98
Q

W V Essex council

A

Parents of children abused by a child they fostered could claim against the council

99
Q

Psychiatric harm

Dooley V Cammel Laird

A

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

100
Q

Psychiatric harm

Attia V British Gas

A

House burnt down due to british Gas negligence. Home owner witnessed property burn

101
Q

Psychiatric harm

McLoughlin V O’Brain

A

They also included immediate aftermath as close to accident in time and space

102
Q

Vicarious liabilty

Walker V Crystal Palace FC

A

A footballer was deemed to be an employee due to the level of control the club had over training schedules.

103
Q

Vicarious Liability

Ready Mix concrete

A

Case for the Mutiple test

104
Q

Vicarious Liability

Beard V London Genral Omnibus

A

The conductor of the bus turned it around and injuried an member of public while doing so

Act was not authorsied. Employer not liable

105
Q

Vicarious Liabilty

Harvey V RG O’Dell

A

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

106
Q

Vicarious Liabilty

Century Insurance V Northen Ireland Road Transport Board

A

Petrol tanker was making and delivery and started smoking causing tank to blow

Employer Liable

107
Q

Vicarious Liablity

Limpus V London General Omnibus

Expressly forbidden method

A

Compnay had told drivers not to race buses from other companies but they did so casing an accidnet

The employer was still held liable

108
Q

Vicarious liabilty

Lister V Hesley Hall

An act so closely conneceted to the employment

A

A warden at a care home sexually abused a number of boys in his care

Employer was liable

109
Q

Vicarious liabilty

Conway V Wimpey.

A

Not Liable as it was an unauthorised act and not part of his job

110
Q

Vicarious liabilty

Rose V Plently

A

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

111
Q

Private nuisnace

Hunter V Canary wharf

A

Many claimants said that the buildings had affected the Tv reception. This included owners, tenants and children with parents

Who can be an claimant

112
Q

Private nusinace

Sedleigh-Denfeild V O’Callaghan

A

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

113
Q

Private Nuisance

Tetley V Chitty

A

Landlord can be liable for actions of tenant if he authorised or approved of activity.

114
Q

Private Nuisance

Fearn V Tate gallery

A

Public could veiw their houses due to windows

Visual intrusion could amount to actionable nuisance

115
Q

Private Nuisance-Locality

Halsey V Esso

A

Oil company liable as they would deliver 24/7 in housing estate

116
Q

Private Nuisance-Locality

St Helens smelting V Tipping

A

Fumes damaged trees. Location is irrelevant if physical damage is caused

117
Q

Private Nuisance-Duration

Barr V Biffa

A

Key factor as it had been occuring on and off for five years

118
Q

Private Nuisance-Duration

Crown V Kimbolton

A

One off event can be a nuisance. Burning debris from the fireworks damaged river boats

119
Q

Private Nuisance- Sensitivity

Bridlington Relay V Yorkshire Electrical

A

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.

120
Q

Private Nuisance

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm V Emmet

A

Deeemed unlawful as it would have freightened the animals casuing a miscarage

121
Q

Nuisance-Under Rylands

Giles V Walker

A

Ploughed land which had been self soen with thistles. Not Liable

122
Q

Nuisance-Under Rylands

Rickards V Lothian

A

A tap overlfowed in a part of the building leased by the D. Water escaped caused damage. D not liable

122
Q

Nuisance-Under Rylands

Hale V Jennings

A

Was a chair from a ‘chair-o-plane’ in a fairground attraction

A dangerous thing

122
Q

Nuisance-Under Rylands- Defence

Perry V Kendricks

A

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

123
Q

Nuisance-Under Rylands-Defence

Nicols V Marshland

A

D was not liable after water had escpaed from an artifical lake following a prolonged violent storm.

Act of God

124
Q

Nuisance-Under Rylands-Defence

Green V Chelsea

A

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

125
Q

Economic Loss

Spartan Steel V Martin and Co.

A

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.

126
Q

Economic Loss

Hedley Bryne V Heller

A

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

127
Q

Economic Loss

Raja V Gray

A

Was not sufficent proximity

Reasonable reliance

128
Q

Economic Loss

Chaudry V Prabhaker

A

Social situation can create an special realationship

Reasonable reliance

Tort Law (3 decks)

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