Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
89 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
CAPARO V DICKMAN |
1. Foreseeability of Damage 2. Proximity of Neighbourhood 3. Fair and just to impose a duty |
|
|
Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire |
'Operational Negligence' - Police Acting in the ordinary course of activities |
|
|
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire |
Core principle of no liability when investigating and preventing crimes |
|
|
Van Colle |
Positive duty to prevent death only where authorities ought to have known about an immediate risk to life |
|
|
Kent v Griffiths |
Relayed arrival of an ambulance for no reason = Liability |
|
|
Capital v Counties |
Fire Brigade only liable when they substantially increase the risk to those in peril |
|
|
Roe v Ministry of Health |
Foreseeability of Harm |
|
|
Daborn v Bath |
Social utility of conduct |
|
|
Bolton v Stone, Hilder v Associated Portland |
Magnitude of Risk |
|
|
Paris v Stepney BC |
Burden of taking Precautions |
|
|
Blake v Galloway |
Implied consent in horseplay, especially children |
|
|
Dunnage v Randall |
Mental illness must remove rational motivation |
|
|
Bolam |
Doctor must reach the standard of a reasonably competent professional. Must be a responsible body of medical opinion in support |
|
|
Montgomery |
Duty to disclose information of material risk in any recommended operation |
|
|
Shakoor v Situ |
Extends Bolam to unorthodox medicine |
|
|
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital |
But-for test |
|
|
Baker v Willoughby |
Consecutive torts, first tortfeasor responsible for the whole amount |
|
|
Jobling |
Tort followed by natural occurrence. `Liability for the first tort ceases when the natural event is more powerful than the tort |
|
|
Hotson |
Must be >50% chance of recovery to claim |
|
|
Gregg v Scott |
Confirmed Hotson Lord Nicholls powerfully dissents |
|
|
Wagon Mound no1 |
Remoteness test: Could D have reasonably foreseen the kind of damage for which C is suing for? |
|
|
Scott v Shepherd |
No liability for instinctive acts |
|
|
Home Office v Dorset Yacht |
Novus Actus cannot be foreseeable |
|
|
Webb v Barclay |
Court not willing to find medical novus actus Must be 'so grossly negligent as to be a completely inappropriate response to the injuryW |
|
|
Wright v Cambridge Medical |
No medical novus actus Act must be 'such an egregious event' |
|
|
Mcghee v National Coal Board |
Material increase of the risk due to poor working conditions |
|
|
Fairchild v Glenhaven |
Mesothelioma, all defendants found materially increasing the risk, jointly liable Exceptional facts, solvency of the defendants Increased contribution to the risk, not increased contribution to the injury |
|
|
Holtby v Brigham |
Asbestosis, damages reduced in accordance with amount of years C worked at each company |
|
|
Barker v Corus |
Mesothelioma case. Proportionate liability used instead of joint liability. Assessed based on relative contribution to the risk |
|
|
Sienkiewicz v Greif |
85% chance death was not from a tortious cause D held 100% liable Shows courts are speculating, and awarding damages before any causation is proved |
|
|
ICI V Shatwell |
Volenti: Agreement to the risk despite employers warnings |
|
|
Dann v Hamilton |
Volenti: Awareness of risk is not sufficient, full knowledge to nature and extent is required |
|
|
Morris v Murray |
Volenti: Act was so glaringly dangerous |
|
|
Smith v Charles Baker & Sons |
Volenti: Desire to keep job is not voluntary consent |
|
|
Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commission |
Volenti: Does not apply where D failed to prevent suicide (police under a general duty) |
|
|
Kirkham v Greater Manchester Police |
Volenti: Does not apply where D failed to prevent suicide |
|
|
Ashton v Turner |
Illegality: Negligent driving after a burglary was not a defence |
|
|
Pitts v Hunt |
Illegality: C encouraged the crime, therefore no compensation |
|
|
Gray v Thames Trains |
Illegality: Public policy overruled the causal connection |
|
|
Clunis v Camden |
Illegality: Manslaughter prevented C from action against a hospital that released him far too early |
|
|
Jones v Livox Quarries |
Contributory Negligence: Ought reasonably to have foreseen that if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent person, he would hurt himself Contribution to damage likely if C's negligence exposed him to the type of damage suffered |
|
|
Stapley v Gypsum Mines |
Contributory Negligence: Balancing the relative blameworthiness |
|
|
Froom v Butcher |
Contributory Negligence - Seatbelts - 25% for prevention - 15% for mitigation - 0% for no impact |
|
|
Hinz v Berry |
Recognized psychiatric illness is mandatory for a claim |
|
|
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire |
Primary Victims are involved immediately as a participant Criteria for Secondary Victims: - Shock - Presumption of close tie of love - Immediate Aftermath - See or hear with own senses |
|
|
Page v Smith |
Physical harm for primary victims must have been foreseeable |
|
|
Macfarlane v EE Caledonia |
Objective approach to 'zone of physical danger' (set out in Dulieu v White) |
|
|
Sion v Hampstead |
Shock: A sudden appreciation of a horrifying event |
|
|
McLoughlin |
1-2 hours after accident was immediate aftermath. |
|
|
Taylor v Novo |
3 weeks was not immediate aftermath |
|
|
Chadwick v British Railways Board |
Rescuers afforded primary victim test |
|
|
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire |
Overruled Chadwick, no special allowance for rescuers |
|
|
Monk v PC Harrington |
Rescuers must reasonably believe they are putting their own safety at risk |
|
|
Wagner (US Case) |
Cardoza: Danger invites resuce |
|
|
Brice v Brown |
Test of ordinary fortitude in determining whether there is sufficient shock |
|
|
Ferguson v Dawson |
Substance of contract, not the wording will be examined to find employment relationship |
|
|
Market Investigations v Minister Social Security |
Can the employer tell the employee what to do |
|
|
Ready Mixed Concrete |
Provision of uniform, company branding was not sufficient to justify employment |
|
|
VC v Catholic Child Welfare Society |
Was it fairly and properly to be regarded as acting in ordinary course of the firms business |
|
|
Dubai |
Lack of precision is inevitable for control test |
|
|
Lister v Hesley Hall |
Broad approach in determining employment |
|
|
Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board Mattis v Pollock |
Harsh operation of vicarious liability
|
|
|
Wheat v E Lacon
|
Test for occupier - sufficient degree of control |
|
|
Tomlinson v Congleton BC |
Did the danger arise from the premises? |
|
|
Roles v Nathan |
Warnings must be sufficient Professionals expected to take precautions Lord Denning's footbridge example |
|
|
Glasgow Corp, Jolley v Sutton |
Higher standard of care for children |
|
|
Phipps v Rochester |
Expected supervision of very young children |
|
|
Lowerey v Walker |
Implied permission construed widely (to avoid subjecting people to harsh trespasser laws) |
|
|
Jolley v Sutton |
Duty of Care situations in occupiers liability are facts sensitive |
|
|
Malone v Laskey |
Proprietary Interest needed to establish a claim for private nuisance |
|
|
Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan |
D must have a degree of responsibility, adopting or continuing the risk |
|
|
Southwark LBC v Mills |
Landlord must expressly or implicitly authorise a nuisance |
|
|
Hunter v Canary Wharf |
1. No right of actionable nuisance for interfering with television reception 2. Malone v Laskey interest test restored |
|
|
Goldman |
Occupier must take reasonable steps to abate a nuisance thrust upon him Resources and ability to act are factors |
|
|
Coventry v Lawrence
|
Nature of Locality, planning permission cannot authorise a nuisance |
|
|
De Keyser Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros |
Duration and Frequency, commons sense rule applied |
|
|
Robinson v Klivert |
Abnormally sensitive claimants not compensated |
|
|
Bland |
Things of 'mere delight' not protected |
|
|
Network Rail v Morris |
Electromagnetic interference is party of ordinary life |
|
|
Hollywood Silver v Emmett |
Malice overrides abnormal sensitivity |
|
|
Holbeck Hall v Scarborough |
Applies ordinary rules on remoteness where D has not caused the nuisance |
|
|
Att-Gen v PYA Quarries |
Public Nuisance occurs where it materially afffects the reasonable comfort of a class of her Majesty's subjects |
|
|
R v Rimmington |
Must be a reasonable cross section of the class |
|
|
Winterbottom v Lord Derby |
Must be a special or particular damage suffered by the claimant
|
|
|
Rylands v Fletched |
4 elements: 1. Accumulation of dangerous things 2. Non-natural 3. Escape 4. Reasonably foreseeable |
|
|
Transco v Sotckport |
Dangerous things now require an 'exceptionally high risk of danger' |
|
|
Rickards |
Must be not naturally there |
|
|
Read v Lyons |
Must be an escape, where the material moves from D to C's property |
|
|
Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries LEeather |
Relevant type of damage must be foreseeable |
