Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law Second Year > Tort Law - Omissions and Third Parties > Flashcards

Tort Law - Omissions and Third Parties Flashcards

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

How do L&O argue we should see the case of Kent Griffiths?

A

Better to compare ambulance services to other health services, with a public law duty

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

Morrison v Lord Mayor of Sheffield general

A

Iron guard, blackout

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

Vacwell v BDH

A

Manufacturers must supply appropriate instructions and warnings with products

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

Majority in Smith v Littlewoods Corporation

A

Foreseeability, emphasising lack of knowledge of compromised security, although acknowledged DoC

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

barnes v hants general

A

school authorities

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

What jurisdiction is Stewart v Pettie from?

A

SC of Canada

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

How was the FJR impliedly considered in Lowns v Woods?

A

Applied test of proximity from Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman

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

Naval airman, vomit

A

Barrett v MoD

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

What are the five exceptions to the general rule for liability for acts of 3rd?

A

Control imports responsibility, psychiatric patients, liability of landowners to neighbours, landlords and tenants and liability for serving alcohol

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

Barrett v Enfield LBC

A

No general duty of good parenting

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

Who, in obiter, suggested a way to distinguish Capital and Kent, and in what case?

A

Lord Bingham in Smith v Sussex

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

Unlocked mini bus, pub closing time

A

Tapp v London Country Bus

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

Watson v British Board of Boxing Council on reliance

A

General reliance led to DoC despite Capital as they were a regulatory body assuming responsibility towards participatory fighters to provide medical equipment

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

What is the economic reason for limiting liability for omissions?

A

Incentivising individuals against certain acts by making them pay - desirable by economic theory that people act efficiently and create the least costs

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

What two cases show liability for omission can arise out of an office/position of responsibility

A

Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and SoS for HD v Robb

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

Tapp v London Country Bus judgment

A

No special danger arose, relying on Goff in Smith

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

Jebson v MoD general

A

Lorry dancing

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

Why do L&O argue Kent survives Gorringe?

A

AR came from the call as well, giving a basis other than statutory power on which to impose the positive duty

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

What did Lord Nicholls add to Hoffman’s reasons in stovin v wise?

A

Imposes compulsory altruism which should require a special justification before being imposed

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

Jordan House v Menow judgment

A

Canada found a DoC with two influencing factors - (1) regular and (2) Canadian legislation imposed a tortious duty on owners of pub etc. if customer was killed/committed suicide after getting drunk at their premises

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

Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis judgment

A

Police admitted DoC and HoL agreed due to extensive control of police over V

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

Palmer v Tees Health Authority judgment

A

Lack of proximity - no AR to such a large class of potential victims

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

Designated social worker, violent father

A

Selwood v Durham CC

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

Watson v British Boxing judgment

A

AR for adequacy of supplies at an approved bout

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

Rape by foreign citizen

A

K v SoS for HD

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

R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd judgment

A

No DoC as no basis on which to find a positive duty to act

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

Cole v South Tweed Heads

A

HC of Australia denied licensed club owes a DoC to stop patrons drinking to excess

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

White v Jones judgment

A

Contractual undertaking may generate a duty of affirmative action - AR for task

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

Palmer v Tees Health Authority general

A

4 year old abduction, nightmares

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

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent general

A

Sea wall, 178 days

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

SoS for HD v Robb general

A

Hunger strike

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

Lowns v Woods general

A

Epilepsy, 300m

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

Winfield and Jolowicz on OLL Ltd v SoS for Transport

A

Decision is hard as coastguard made children worse off by depriving them of assistance

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

Tapp v London Country Bus general

A

Unlocked mini bus, pub closing time

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

What judge and in what case made it clear that the question of whether V’s identity is known should not determine proximity test outcome

A

Palmer v Tees Health Authority per Pill LJ

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

what three reasons for limiting liability for omissions did Hoffman given in Stovin v Wise?

A

Political, moral and economic reasons

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

What did Williams show about the judges in Kent?

A

They tried to align law with moral sentiment - ‘offensive to concepts of common humanity’ (Turner J) not to give a remedy

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

What case stated a Medical professional is not liable as long as he ‘acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled’ in the given area

A

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management

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

What two judges in Mitchell v Glasgow Focused on Council’s actions as being entirely lawful, and thus not negligently creating any risk under 3rd by Goff in Smith

A

Rodger and Hale

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

Name at least one caseshowing how liability for omission can arise out of supply of non-obviously dangerous products

A

Vacwell v BDH; Hobbs (Farms) v Baxender

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

Home Office v Dorset Yacht general

A

Borstal

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

Name at least two cases showing reliance creating liability for omission as D undertook responsibility for C’s wellbeing

A

Watson v British Board of Boxing Council; Barrett v Ministry of Defence; Jebson v MoD; Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

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

no general DoC simply due to a ‘blood relationship’

A

Hahn v Conley

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

Winfield and Jolowicz on Kent and Capita

A

Fire service usually concerned with property damage, so liability would benefit subrogated fire insurers with a premium to cover the risk

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

Manufacturers must supply appropriate instructions and warnings with products

A

Vacwell v BDH

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

Who said there is ‘no rational distinction’ at all between acts and omissions?

A

Hart and Honore

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

What needs to be seen together to find liability under supply of non-obviously dangerous products?

A

Supply of product and failure to warn - if they are not one, it is nonfeasance, not misfeasance

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

Smith v Littlewoods Corporation judgment

A

No breach of DoC - HoL unanimous in result but no in reasoning

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

What did a fear of deterring would-be rescuers through liability for exposing V to a new danger lead to in the US?

A

‘Good Samaritan’ statutes, recognising immunity in some cases

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

Jordan House v Menow general

A

Dark, drunk, regular

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

Gorringe v Calderdale judgment

A

Mere presence of statutory powers which, if exercised, might have prevented damage to C is not enough for a Doc

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

Adeels Palace v Moubarak

A

Owner of a bar/similar establishment owes a DoC to prevent a patron from harming others on premises

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

Hart and Honore on Nicholls’ judgment in Stovin

A

Took his statement that ‘distinction is not clear’ between acts and omissions and said there is ‘no rational distinction’ at all

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Council, unpleasant neighbour, meeting

A

Mitchell v Glasgow CC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Jebson v MoD judgment

A

Commanding officer AR for WHOLE activity, meaning MoD AR vicariously. Aim of event to get drunk, which CO knew

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

what would bender prefer tort focused on?

A

Interdependence rather than individualism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Hunter v Canary Wharf

A

Cannot claim in nuisance if C is not the owner of the land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

From what jurisdiction is Jordan House v Menow?

A

Canada

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Selwood v Durham CC judgment

A

No duty by health authority to world at large, but yes to social worker because small group of social workers involved in the case, and worked in close proximity with health authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

From what jurisdiction is Hahn v Conley?

A

HC of Australia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Goldman v Hargrave judgment

A

Privy Council found DoC to stop damage caused by D’s property to neighbouring land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

What is the political reason for limiting liability for omissions?

A

Restricts personal autonomy inappropriately

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

What case said AR give liability for omission only when intending to benefit a small class

A

Stradhar v National Environment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

Name a case on a parent-child relationship and liability for omissions

A

Barrett v Enfield LBC; Hahn v Conley

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Honore on Hobbs (Farms) v Baxender

A

Shows a broader principle so that innocent doing of harm/risk creation = a positive duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

What is the position in Australia on liability of owners of premises serving alcohol, and in what case?

A

Cole v South Tweed Heads; HC of Australia denied licensed club owes a DoC to stop patrons drinking to excess

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

what concern did the judges have in capital and Counties?

A

That liability would disturb the performance of fire brigades

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

What were the 3 conditions for recognising DoC for damage of 3rd given by Lord Goff in Smith v Littlewoods?

A

(1) AR towards C to prevent damage caused by 3rd, (2) D has a special relationship with 3rd or (3) D negligently creates the source of danger which 3rd foreseeably sparks off

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Clark Fixing v Dudley Metropolitan BC judgment

A

Duty to stop spread of fire - knew of intrusions etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Why was a DoC found in Selwood v Durham CC?

A

small group of social workers involved in the case, and worked in close proximity with health authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

When might negligence be the only claim for liability for omission in occupation of land?

A

If C is not the owner/the claim is for personal injury/non-land interference: Hunter v Canary Wharf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

What did Honore say of the categories for liability for omissions?

A

There is no ‘neat pattern’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

McIvor on cases where control imports responsibility and liability for third party actions

A

Need a very strong relationship between ‘responsible’ D and ‘irresponsible’ 3rd, C needs to be within a narrowly defined class of potential victims and harm-causing conduct of 3rd needs to be highly foreseeable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

Name two cases at least where liability for actions of third parties arises out of serving alcohol

A

Adeels Palace v Moubarak; Childs v Desormeaux; Stewart v Pettie

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC judgment

A

No proximity by accepting call, and general reliance does not give a DoC. No AR by arriving due to statutory obligation to public at large, not a tortious obligation to X in particular. HOWEVER, negligent positive act through turning sprinklers off

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

Selwood v Durham CC general

A

Designated social worker, violent father

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

What does Williams claim about Kent?

A

Had little impact on negligence claims - less than 20 of 60 on negligent failure to attend resulted in compensation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

A

Staff in casualty department may AR by helping/advising a person seeking attention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

Winfield v Jolowicz on Barrett

A

If officer had ignored him, would have been bound as generally accepted employers owe DoC to sick employees: Kasapis v Laimos

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

Stradhar v National Environment on undertaking responsibility

A

Lack of contact meant no DoC - expert knowledge does not of itself create a duty to use it for the public at large

81
Q

Which case rejected that the mere presence of statutory powers which, if exercised, might have prevented damage to C is enough for a Doc?

A

Gorringe v Calderdale

82
Q

Rodger and Hale in Mitchell v Glasgow

A

Focused on Council’s actions as being entirely lawful, and thus not negligently creating any risk under 3rd by Goff in Smith

83
Q

How can SoS for HD v Robb and Reeves v Commissioners be reconciled?

A

Police have a duty to deprive V as far as possible the means to self-injure, bar ACTUALLY using force

84
Q

What is the stance in Canada on liability for serving alcohol and actions of third parties, and according to what case?

A

Stewart v Pettie: DoC owed by commercial premises serving alcohol to those who might be injured when patron leaves

85
Q

Gorringe v Calderdale general

A

SLOW on road

86
Q

Howarth on Tapp v London Country Bus

A

Criticised the CoA for relying on minority reasoning of Goff in Smith

87
Q

What case is an example of the 3rd condition by Goff in Smith?

A

Sandhu Menswear v Woolworths

88
Q

SoS for HD v Robb judgment

A

No right to forcefeed a hunger strike prisoner

89
Q

Stewart v Pettie does not apply to ‘social hosts’ unless they enhance the risk

A

Childs v Desormeaux

90
Q

Kent v Griffiths judgment

A

CoA found DoC as made situation worse, and no duty to public AT LARGE - to specific X once call is allocated, and no need to worry about liability of others to distort performance

91
Q

what case gave that danger to public at large was insufficient for DoC?

A

K v SoS for HD

92
Q

Bender on lack of duty of rescue

A

Reflects a ‘legal system devoid of car and responsiveness to the safety of others’

93
Q

Lord Reid in HO v Dorset Yacht

A

Simple foreseeability of damage test

94
Q

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis judgment

A

Authority liable for OWN negligence rather than vicarious liability through teacher’s negligence - AR for control of child, creating a relationship of proximity with those foreseeably endangered by him

95
Q

What case is an example of the 2nd condition by Goff in Smith?

A

HO v Dorset Yacht

96
Q

What case suggested there may be liability if a manufacturer does not warn past consumers of a latent defect discovered in their product?

A

Hobbs (Farms) v Baxender

97
Q

What Acts impose a duty on landowners to ensure land is reasonably safe for both trespassers and guests

A

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and 1984

98
Q

Palmer v Tees Health Authority per Pill LJ

A

Question of whether V’s identity is known should not determine proximity test outcome

99
Q

Watson v British Boxing general

A

Medical supplies

100
Q

Who criticised the CoA for relying on minority reasoning of Goff in Smith in Tapp v London Country Bus?

A

Howarth

101
Q

Clark Fixing v Dudley Metropolitan BC general

A

Roof adjoining neighbours, intrusions and fires

102
Q

What types of landlords does Mitchell v Glasgow cover?

A

Both public and private

103
Q

Kevin Williams on reasons given in Stovin v Wise

A

Risks overlooking other relevant policy factors, e.g. that a life could be saved by a relatively trivial act

104
Q

What case shows liability for omission by creating the risk in the first case?

A

Morrison v Lord Mayor of Sheffield

105
Q

How was the authority held liable for its own negligence in Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis?

A

AR for control of child, creating a relationship of proximity with those foreseeably endangered by him

106
Q

From what jurisdiction is Cole v South Tweed Heads

A

HC of Australia

107
Q

Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC general

A

Sprinkler system, chief officer

108
Q

Who asks Did D make things worse (act) or did he fail to make things better (omission)? in order to distinguish between acts and omissions?

A

L&O

109
Q

Mitchell v Glasgow CC

A

HoL showed a clear preference for Goff’s approach in Smith v Littlewoods

110
Q

How do L&O criticise Goff’s three conditions in Smith v Littlewoods?

A

Goff rejected foreseeability, and yet allowed DoC where D ‘either knows or has the means of knowing’ 3rd is causing damage - isn’t this essentially foreseeability?

111
Q

Sprinkler system, chief officer

A

Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC

112
Q

Stewart v Pettie

A

SC of Canada found DoC owed by commercial premises serving alcohol to those who might be injured when patron leaves

113
Q

Combustible material, storage unit

A

Sandhu Menswear v Woolworths

114
Q

Tall red gum, relight

A

Goldman v Hargrave

115
Q

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan

A

Liability of landowners established if damage/nuisance caused by trespassers (3rds) to a neighbour is ‘adopted’ or ‘continued’ by D

116
Q

Goldman v Hargrave on liability of landowners to neighbours for acts of 3rds

A

Duty to protect neighbours from natural hazards on land

117
Q

L&O on classic act/omission distinction

A

It is unhelpful

118
Q

What is the moral reason for limiting liability for omissions?

A

The ‘Why Pick On Me’ argument, of all the possible defendants

119
Q

Name at least two cases covering expert knowledge leading to liability for omission by undertaking responsibility for C’s wellbeing

A

OLL Ltd v SoS; Capital and Counties; East Suffolk; Kent v Griffiths

120
Q

Hope in Mitchell v Glasgow

A

Key question was no AR to warn C, and concern over onerous burden of DoC

121
Q

Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire judgment on acts of 3rds

A

No proximity - part of a large class and thus unforeseeable

122
Q

What was the award in Jebson v MoD?

A

75% reduction due to P’s contributory negligence

123
Q

When is there liability for/a duty to rescue?

A

When D tries to rescue V, but instead exposes V to a new or increased danger

124
Q

Goldman v Hargrave general

A

Tall red gum, relight

125
Q

Reeves v Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis on office of responsibility creating liability for omission

A

Institutions exercising extensive control over vulnerable people will often owe a DoC to prevent self-injury

126
Q

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales judgment

A

Response to all by police was not AR, and not even AR to ensure she got called back

127
Q

What two cases should be contrasted in the context of reliance on D’s undertaking of responsibility for C’s wellbeing?

A

Jebson v MoD and Barrett v MoD

128
Q

Who said the ‘distinction is not clear’ between acts and omissions in Stovin?

A

Nicholls

129
Q

How do L&O distinguish between acts and omissions?

A

Did D make things worse (act) or did he fail to make things better (omission)? Distinction is one of degree and different duties restrict liberty of action to different extents

130
Q

What category of case for liability for omission does R v Imperial Tobacco come under?

A

Undertaking responsibility for C’s wellbeing

131
Q

Kent v Griffiths general

A

Asthma attack, ambulance, respiratory failure

132
Q

Sandhu Menswear v Woolworths judgment

A

Duty even without previous fires having been lit

133
Q

Smith v Sussex, per Lord Bingham OBITER

A

Suggested Capital was a claim for property damage, whilst Kent was for personal injury where insurance is less likely

134
Q

R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd general

A

Low-tar cigarettes, no warning

135
Q

generally accepted employers owe DoC to sick employees

A

Kasapis v Laimos

136
Q

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent judgment

A

Board only AR not to cause FURTHER damage, which they didn’t

137
Q

What judge in Stradhar emphasised that expert knowledge does not of itself create a duty to use it for the public at large?

A

Lord Hoffman

138
Q

Who highlighted liability in a case like Capital would actually benefit fire insurers, not the public?

A

Winfield and Jolowicz

139
Q

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management

A

Medical professional not liable as long as he ‘acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled’ in the given area

140
Q

Who found the Key question was no AR to warn C, and concern over onerous burden of DoC in Mitchell v Glasgow?

A

Lord Hope

141
Q

Mitchell v Glasgow CC judgment

A

No DoC, unanimously decided in favour of Goff’s no foreseeability test in Smith but differed on reasoning

142
Q

What did trial judge stress in Lowns v Woods?

A

Doctor was approached in his office, during office hours

143
Q

Name at least two cases showing liability for omission due to AR

A

White v Jones; Barnes v Hants; Stradhar v National Environment; Watson v British Boxing

144
Q

OLL Ltd v SoS for Transport general

A

Coastguard, children, wrong direction

145
Q

What case shows liability for omission can arise through occupation of land?

A

Goldman v Hargrave

146
Q

Barnes v Hants judgment

A

School authorities AR for young children, arising from ‘non-verbal conventions’

147
Q

Who believed the reasons given in Stovin risk overlooking other relevant policy factors?

A

Kevin Williams

148
Q

Name two cases on psychiatric patients leading to liability for acts of third parties

A

Palmer v Tees Health Authority; Selwood v Durham CC

149
Q

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and 1984

A

Duty to ensure land is reasonably safe for both trespassers and guests

150
Q

Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire general

A

Sutcliffe

151
Q

Sandhu Menswear v Woolworths general

A

Combustible material, storage unit

152
Q

What is the general rule for liability for acts of third parties?

A

Third party act breaks the chain of causation

153
Q

How does Williams see the liability recognised in Kent reflected elsewhere?

A

GP duty through NHS Regulations 1992, which require them to help anyone in their practice area in immediate need if they are available and asked to attend

154
Q

When did Lord Woolf in Kent suggest the outcome might be different?

A

If the case was about the allocation of resources

155
Q

K v SoS for HD judgment

A

No relationship of proximity as mere knowledge D was a danger to public at large was insufficient

156
Q

What did Lord Woolf suggest in Kent v Griffiths that was particularly hard to reconcile with Capital and Counties?

A

Even where there are multiple casualties, there is still a DoC - it will just be about whether it was breached

157
Q

Hobbs (Farms) v Baxender judgment

A

Liability for latent defect discovered by consumer may create DoC to warn past consumers

158
Q

Morrison v Lord Mayor of Sheffield judgment

A

CoA found DoC regardless of omission because they failed to eliminate the risk in changed circumstances

159
Q

Why would Kent perhaps not survive Gorringe?

A

Ambulance services have a statutory power to prevent damage to C, but Gorringe suggests this is insufficient for DoC

160
Q

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis general

A

Nursery, lorry driver

161
Q

Kasapis v Laimos

A

generally accepted employers owe DoC to sick employees

162
Q

Smith v Littlewoods corporation general

A

Derelict, cinema, teenagers, fire

163
Q

Lowns v Woods judgment

A

Foreseeability alone is insufficient, but ‘physical’, ‘circumstantial’ and ‘causal’ proximity gave DoC - doctor approached during office hours , in his office

164
Q

Minority (Lord Goff) in Smith v Littlewoods

A

No DoC ever arose, giving 3 conditions for recognising DoC for damage of 3rd

165
Q

K v SoS for HD general

A

Rape by foreign citizen

166
Q

Stradhar v National Environment general

A

Bangladesh, water

167
Q

Hobbs (Farms) v Baxender general

A

Latent defect

168
Q

School authorities

A

Barnes v Hants

169
Q

Epilepsy, 300m

A

Lowns v Woods

170
Q

Barrett v MoD judgment

A

CoA found DoC when senior officer found him, but no DoC solely from broader context suggesting possibility of drunkenness

171
Q

OLL Ltd v SoS for Transport judgment

A

No DoC of coastguard

172
Q

Who said in Kent that it would be ‘offensive to concepts of common humanity’ not to recognise a duty?

A

Turner J

173
Q

Barrett v MoD general

A

Naval airman, vomit.

174
Q

Kent v Griffiths on doctors and development

A

Liability can arise not only from careless treatment but unreasonable delay leading to a deterioration in V’s condition

175
Q

Suicide prisoner, transfer

A

Reeves v Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis

176
Q

GP duty through NHS Regulations 1992

A

Requires them to help anyone in their practice area in immediate need if they are available and asked to attend

177
Q

What is a positive of the three conditions given by Goff in Smith v Littlewoods?

A

Favours D as existence of DoC is a question of fact that can be raised as a preliminary issue, avoiding a full trial

178
Q

Sea wall, 178 days

A

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent

179
Q

What judge and in what case gave policy reasons for limiting liability for omissions?

A

Lord Hoffman in Stovin v Wise

180
Q

No general duty of good parenting

A

Barrett v Enfield LBC

181
Q

Who argued no DoC ever arose in Smith v Littlewoods?

A

Lord Goff

182
Q

Capital and Counties on doctors

A

Doctors are not obliged to be a Good Samaritan

183
Q

Hahn v Conley

A

High Court of Australia, no general DoC simply due to a ‘blood relationship’

184
Q

Childs v Desormeaux

A

Stewart v Pettie does not apply to ‘social hosts’ unless they enhance the risk

185
Q

Stradhar v National Environment judgment on AR

A

AR ONLY where there is intention to benefit a small class

186
Q

Williams on Bolam v Friern Hospital Management

A

Emphasises importance of doctors’ ethical obligations being translated into law, in particular the Hippocratic Oath

187
Q

Reeves v Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis general

A

Suicide prisoner, transfer

188
Q

Home Office v Dorset Yacht judgment

A

HoL agreed on DoC, but disagreed on basis

189
Q

White v Jones general

A

Solicitor

190
Q

In what case did the HoL show a clear preference for Goff’s approach in Smith v Littlewoods?

A

Mitchell v Glasgow CC

191
Q

Coastguard, children, wrong direction

A

OLL Ltd v SoS for Transport

192
Q

Name at least two cases where question of liability for omission arose out of D undertaking responsibility for C’s wellbeing

A

Stradhar v National Environment; R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd; Capital and Counties; East Suffolk; OLL v SoS etc.

193
Q

What is the position in Canada on liability of owners of premises serving alcohol?

A

Jordan House v Menow - DoC to regular

194
Q

Lord Pearson, Diplock and Morice in Dorset Yacht

A

Considered underlying policy factors on existence and scope of DoC

195
Q

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales general

A

Ex-partner, misallocation of call, 60 mins, dead in 15

196
Q

Palmer v Tees Health Authority

A

4 year old abduction, nightmares

197
Q

Mitchell v Glasgow CC general

A

Council, unpleasant neighbour, meeting

198
Q

Who criticised a lack of duty of rescue in English law?

A

Bender

Law Second Year (62 decks)

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