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;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol |
Steel erector killed by a fall. Even if safety harness had been provided the workmen wouldn't have worn it. 'But for' test showed breach of duty did not cause his death. |
|
|
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Health Management Committee |
Plaintiff became ill after drinking tea. At the hospital the Doctor instructed him to return home and to visit his local Doctor. P died from arsenic poisoning. On balance of probabilities even if the Doctor had treated him then he still would have died. |
|
|
Burrows v March Gas Co |
Two negligent acts (an incorrectly fitted gas pipe and a man walking around with a candle) caused an explosion. Original pipe layer could be liable as he contributed to the event. |
|
|
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw |
Plaintiff developed an industrial lung disease after working in the defendant's workshop. This was caused by cumulative inhaling of dust (some caused by negligence and some was inevitable). Able to revoker full loss as negligence had made a material contribution. |
|
|
Bailey v Ministry of Defence |
Suffered cardiac arrest which led to brain damage owing to the aspiration of vomit. Claimed it would not have happened had she not been in a weakened state due to D's earlier negligence. Loss had cumulative causes and breach had materially contributed to the damage. |
|
|
McGhee v National Coal Board |
Negligence in failing to provide adequate washing facilities at end of working day. Held to be a sufficient causal connection. |
|
|
Wilsher v Essex HA |
Excess oxygen negligently given to a premature baby (materially increased the risk of blindness). Four other agents which could have also caused the damage. Unable to prove on the balance of probabilities and therefore a causal connection was not established. |
|
|
Hoston v Berkshire AHA |
Schoolboy injured his hip when he fell from a tree. When taken to the hospital his injuries were not immediately discovered. Five days later his condition was correctly diagnosed (developed hip disability which he claimed was caused by the delayed diagnosis). Hospital admitted negligence but denied liability on grounds of lack of causation. Given proper treatment would have only been a 25% chance of complete recovery. Lost case because on balance of probabilities the disability would have still occurred. |
|
|
Gregg v Scott |
Late diagnosis go cancer. Claimant given 25% chance of 10 years survival. Chance would have been 42% had it been diagnosed on first visit. Lost on balance of probabilities. |
|
|
Chester v Afshar |
Patient was not warned about the 1-2% risk of paralysis regarding a surgery. But for test had not been satisfied as even if she had been warned she might have had the surgery anyway. However, ruled in favour of the claimant as they based their conclusion on the policy grounds of upholding the patient's autonomy. |
|
|
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services |
Claimants suffered from mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. Many Claimants had been exposed negligently while working for a number of defendants. HL held that each defendant had materially increased the risk of damage and the employers were all joint and severely liable. |
|
|
Performance Cars v Abraham |
Rolls Royce was damaged due to fault of A, required a respray. 2 weeks later before repair B collided with the same car. B created no additional damage so was not liable. |
|
|
Baker v Willoughby |
Plaintiff suffered a leg injury in a car accident attributed to the negligence of the defendant. 3 years later before the trial he was shot in the same leg which resulted in an amputation. Held it was a concurrent cause and didn't wipe out effect of first injury. |
|
|
Jobling v Associated Dairies |
Work injury resulted in a permanent disability. 3 years later before trial, spinal disease put end to employment completely. HL held in favour of D as he should only be liable to pay damages up to that point. |
|
|
Kerry v England |
Chemist supplied wrong substance to a fatally ill patient. No damages as it had not accelerated an already terminal illness. |
|
|
Raham v Arearose |
Plaintiff was assaulted at work by 2 youths causing an eye injury. Work hadn't provided sufficient security measures. Was then taken to hospital where he had an operation but was left blind. Suffered PTSD as a result. Held damages should be apportioned. |
|
|
McKew v Holland |
Plaintiff injured in a work related injury for which employer was liable. Knowing he had a weak leg, he descended a staircase with not rail. He fell breaking his ankle. P's own unreasonable behaviour broke the chain of causation.
|
|
|
Wieland v Cyril Carpets |
Result of defendant's negligence, the plaintiff had to wear a neck brace which restricted her ability to use her bifocal glasses. Caused her to miss a step and fall down some stairs. Conduct was not unreasonable and defendant was liable for the accident. |
|
|
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis |
Claimant's partner committed suicide in police cell. Police had breached duty of care to supervise him. Damages against police were reduced on the basis of contributory negligence. |
|
|
Scott v Shepherd |
D threw a firework into a crowded market place. A caught it and threw it to B. A had acted instinctively so had not broken the chain of causation. |
|
|
The Opresa |
Collision of two ships, partly due to negligence of D. In attempting to rescue his crew the master took action which resulted in the drowning of men. Chain was not broken as it was a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances. |
|
|
Knightly v Johns |
Caused an accident in a tunnel due to Johns negligence. Police on scene ordered motorcyclist to ride through tunnel against the flow of traffic which led to a second accident. Held that the officers ordered intervened in the chain of causation as it was a positive act.
|
|
|
Wright v Lodge |
Car broke down on the motorway and she took no steps to move it. Lorry crashed into the car and went into the middle parting onto the other side of the road causing a second accident. Original driver was not responsible for the second accident as Lodge's driving was negligent. |
|
|
Re Polemis |
Cargo was being unloaded, plank negligently dropped into hold by D's employee, caused a spark igniting gases causing an explosion. D held liable on the basis that there should be liability for all 'direct consequences'. |
|
|
The Wagon Mound |
Fire which caused damage in harbour would not have been easily predicted as a result of D's oil spillage. Not reasonably foreseeable. No liability for fire as it was too remote. |
|
|
Hughes v Lord Advocate |
Workmen left an open manhole, guarded by paraffin lamps. Child knocked a lamp into the manhole causing an explosion. Leaving of the lamps created a risk of reasonably foreseeable injury of burns. |
|
|
Termain v Pike |
C worked on D's farm which had, owing to negligence, become infested with rates. As a result C caught Weil's disease. Disease was not reasonably foreseeable. |
|
|
Jolley v Sutton LBC |
Abandoned boat on D's land. Children tried to repair it and one was seriously injured in the process. Held that children playing with it was foreseeable. |
|
|
Smith v Leech Brain |
P was splashed on the lip by milton metal due to employer's negligence. Burn activated pre-cancerous cells which he eventually died of. Despite claim being from cancer and that it was unforeseeable at the time, employer was held liable for the full loss. |
|
|
Robinson v Post Office |
C cut shin due to D's negligence. Went to hospital to get a tetanus jab which he was allergic to. D liable for all damage. |
