Week 3

Question 1

Res Ipsa Loquitor-

Answer 1

mere occurence of some events imply negligence

Question 2

when is res ipsa loquitor used

Answer 2

where pursuer cannot prove negligence

Question 3

Mcdyers v Celtic Football club

Answer 3

Res Ipsa Loquitor
timber fell out of canopy hitting pursuant
court found it to be in control of defenders, even though there is no exact negligent act liability and claim allowed

Question 4

3 requirements of res ipsa loquitor

Answer 4

defender had sole control of offending thing
incident wouldnt occur if defender had take due care
defenders give no explanation to how incident happened

Question 5

David T Morrison & Co ltd v ICL plastics ltd 2013

Answer 5

explosion in factory damaged morrisons shop
damage not seen till over the 5 year prescriptive period
court allowed claim, creating new longer standing prescription for cases similar

Question 6

occupier

Answer 6

person occupying or having control of land or premises (fixed or moving)

Question 7

Ward v Tesco Stores 1976

Answer 7

Slipped on yoghurt in shop
res ipsa loquitor had to be proved
court allowed claim, negligence found in area being under defendant control and they should have sorted this

Question 8

Scott v St Catherine Docks Co 1856

Answer 8

dockworker hit by sugar bag
court allowed claim by res ipsa loquitor
clearly negligent if sugar bags are falling, defenders could not prove otherwise

Question 9

Dobson v Asda Stores 2002

Answer 9

dobson slipped on cherries
asda could prove their cleaning procedure was effective, and a customer had dropped it
claim failed

Question 10

dawson v page 2003

Answer 10

legal control over a property
pursuer fell on wet plank of building works while delivering package
risk was obvious so claim failed

Question 11

Maloco v Littlewoods organisation ltd 1987

Answer 11

no liability for intentional actions of trespassers
fire set in building by trespassers which spread to nearby church
claim failed, no duty to prevent unknown third parties actions

Question 12

who holds burden of proof in occupiers liability

Answer 12

pursuer

Question 13

titchener v british railways board 1984

Answer 13

claim failed where boy got killed crossing train tracks
because of a fence and signs warning of risk, claim failed, sugnificant warning of risk and volenti non fit injuria

Question 14

McGuffie v Forth Valley Health Board 1991

Answer 14

slipping in snow due to failure to de ice path
court assessed danger arose at night so hospital could not react quickly enough
claim failed

Question 15

porter v Strathclyde regional council 1991

Answer 15

claim was allowed with contributory negligence for a nursery teacher slipping on food
court recognised risk was forseeable

Question 16

taylor v glasgow corporation 1922

Answer 16

such care that is reasonable includes taking into account the circumstances of the incident
child ate poisonous berries at botanical garden died
claim allowed, children often played on land, and berries were appealing (forseeable). defendants did nothing to relieve danger

Question 17

Tomlinson v Longleton 2004

Answer 17

No duty to take extra steps to warn of obvious naturally occurring dangers
pursuant dived into lake after jumping over fence with warning signs
no claim even if pursuant hadnt been trespassing

Question 18

Michael Leonard v Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park 2014

Answer 18

no duty for obvious natural dangers
man fell down hill

Question 19

Various claimants v institute of brothers of christian schools 2012

Answer 19

must be a relationship between defender and wrongdoer
relationship must be connected to their act or emission ie “in the course of employment”

Question 20

control test in employment

Answer 20

used to establish employer employee relationship, if employer has control of employee in work liability can be found

Question 21

Cox v Ministry of justice 2016 UKSC

Answer 21

negligence claim against prison, where prisoner dropped bag of food on workers back
supreme court held prison vicariously liable, they had control over prisoners actions

Question 22

3 aspects of control test

Answer 22

wrongdoer was acting on behalf of defender
wrongdoers activity connected with defenders business
in employing wrongdoer did the defender create the risk of the delict being commited

Question 23

Kerby v National Coal Board 1958

Answer 23

miners on smoke break, smoking in unauthorised area, caused explosion killing Kerby
NCB not liable bacuse smoking in mines forbidden by statute

Question 24

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland road transport board 1942

Answer 24

IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT
Lorry drivers smoked at petrol station causing explosion
recent authority overwrote requirement of actions to be to employers benefit, held liable

Question 25

Mohamud v Morrison Plc 2016 uksc

Answer 25

IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT worker assaulted shop user court ruled it closely connected enough to employer, employee abusing position of power employer had given, claim allowed

Question 26

Rose v Plenty 1975

Answer 26

IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT defendant delivered milk for a company strictly told not to use children to deliver still doing so child got hurt employer still found liable

Question 27

Lister v Hensley Hall 2002

Answer 27

Warden at school sexually abused multiple boys court questioned if employers could be liable court allowed claim, connecting sufficient connection to his conduct and his employment (including the powers this employment inferred)

Question 28

Attorney general of British Virgin islands v Hartwell 2004

Answer 28

claim allowed when acting on personal vendetta police officer used police gun to shoot partner and their fling employer bears risk of affording power to employee

Question 29

Bernard v attorney general of Jamaica 2004

Answer 29

close connection between activity and employment can be made through purporting to be acting in course of employment police officer in plain clothes shot man after altercation claim allowed.

Question 30

unfair contract terms act 1977

Answer 30

employers cannot remove their common law duty of care in a contract

Question 31

Kennedy v Cordia (services) [2016]

Answer 31

employers have to take reasonable steps ensuring safe work conditions pursuer slipped on ice visiting elderly patient defender had been aware of the potential risk, claim was allowed

Question 32

Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English 1938

Answer 32

employers cannot delegate out of duty of care man crushed to death while working in haulage mine pit employers claimed duty of safety had been delegated to employee on site claim was allowed, company cannot delegate

Question 33

employers liability (defective equipment) act 1969

Answer 33

if an employee is injured by defective equipment partially or wholly the fault of third parties, the employer will also be liable

Question 34

Mcgregor v AAH pharmaceuticals ltd 1996

Answer 34

employers have a duty to provide and implement a safe working system

Question 35

health and safety at work etc act 1974

Answer 35

minimum health and safety requirements established by statute

Question 36

Wilson v Merry and Cunningham 1866-69

Answer 36

duty to employ competent individuals miner killed in explosion owner, negligent scaffolding, had contractor put scaffolding up claim allowed, employers duty includes that to employ competent workers

Question 37

Hatton v Sutherland 2004

Answer 37

EMPLOYERS HAVE A DUTY TO AVOID DAMAGING EMPLYEES MENTAL HEALTH employees are entitled to take what employees say at face value employee must show employer did not take reasonable steps where teacher asked work for mental health help, eventually had to reduce hours claim allowed

Question 38

Keen v Tayside contracts 2003

Answer 38

PTSD/NERVOUS SHOCK road worker got ptsd after attending accident with burned bodies claim failed, secondary victim test

Question 39

Donoghue v stevenson

Answer 39

beetle in bottle established neighbour principle manufacturer of product owes duty to ultimate consumer

Question 40

neighbour principle

Answer 40

must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely injure your neighbour

Question 41

consumer protection act 1987

Answer 41

Strict liability for harm suffered by consumers to defective goods

Question 42

to find liability under consumer protection act 1987 what is necessary

Answer 42

consumers are required to establish that product had defect and defect caused harm

Question 43

what is a product as per the consumer protection act 1987

Answer 43

any "goods or electricity" including parts or raw materials

Question 44

what is a defective product (CPA 1987)

Answer 44

a product which the safety of is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect

Question 45

what will courts consider when it comes to the product in defective products cases (CPA 1987

Answer 45

product marketing and safety warnings what would be expected to be done with product time when product was supplied

Question 46

parties liable for defective products (CPA 1987)

Answer 46

the producer any person putting their name trademark or feature on a product any person holding themselves to be producer of product an importer

Question 47

if the product itself is the only thing damaged (CPA 1987)

Answer 47

there is no liability

Question 48

if property damaged I not for private use (CPA 1987)

Answer 48

there is no liability

Question 49

what must damage exceed for a claim (CPA 1987)

Answer 49

275 pounds

Question 50

who is a producer (CPA 1987)

Answer 50

the manufacturer a person who own or abstracted the product persons who carried out the industrial process

Question 51

when will supplier be made liable (CPA 1987)

Answer 51

when consumer asks for producer and isn't given it in good time

Question 52

defences for product liability (CPA 1987)

Answer 52

Product was not supplied or profit or in course of business defendants did not supply product to others subsequent defects producer could not possibly discover defect product is used as a part of another product and defect arose from assembly

Question 53

A (and others) v national blood authority [2001]

Answer 53

claimants contracted hep C from blood transfusions court allowed claim, blood considered defective

Question 54

b (child) v McDonalds restaurant ltd 2002

Answer 54

some products have inherent risks, otherwise product would be unsatisfactory mdonalds coffee spilt on children, defective lids and too hot? court denied claim, forseeable that coffee would be warm

Question 55

Worsley v Tambrands ltd 1999

Answer 55

toxic shock syndrome from defendants tampons defender not liable, a warning about the potential risk of TSS on packaging was sufficient care

Question 56

Abouzaid v Mothercare 2000

Answer 56

Producer is defective wether or not producer knows of hazard sleeping bag strap hit boys eye causing vision loss court found defender liable, if an identifiable risk exists, knowledge of it is important

Question 57

consumer rights act 2015

Answer 57

covers contracts for sales, hire purchase agreements, hire of goods, and transfer of goods goods will come as described goods quality is what reasonable person considers satisfactory