term1 Definition1term2 Definition2term3 Definition3
Please sign in to your Google account to access your documents:
ROE V MNISTER OF HEALTH 1945
two patients had minor operations, used contaminated anaesthetic, caused patients to become paralysed. The anaesthetic was stored in normal procedure, therefore there was no breach of duty as the risk was not foreseeable.
WALKER V NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL 1995
plaintiff manager suffered from stress and took 4 months of sick after having a mental break down. When he returned to work, employees refused to help him, took a second sick and was later dismissed. The council had breach of duty within the work area. The damage was foreseeable as he had suffered once from a breakdown.
BOLTON V STONE 1951
a women was injured by a cricket ball outside her home, she took action against the cricket club that had a 7 foot fence and the fence was 17 feet tall. The pitch was 100 yards from the claimants home. A witness had said for the last 30 years there had only been 5 or 6 balls hit his house in land in his yard. NO breach was held as all practical precautions had been taken. It had been around for 90 years and was a useful community service
HALEY V LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD 1965
workmen were digging a trench on a pavement, had no fence to barrier of the hole in the floor when on dinner so used a punner instead. A blind man walked past and fell over the plunner and became deaf. The defendant claimed that it was unforeseeable that a blind was going to walk past. There was a breach of duty because they should of been prepared for such people to walk past.
PARIS V STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL 1951
Paris had only one eye as he had lost the other during war. He was working in a garage and got a metal splinter in his only eye. He became completely blind as his employer had not given him and safety glasses. There was a breach of duty sue to the particular claimants situation.
Watt V Hertfordshire county council 1954
Fireman was called to traffic accident where a women had been trapped in her car underneath a lorry. They had no appropriate transport for the jack so carried it on the back of the fire truck. The truck braked and the jack fell of the claimants legs causing server injuries. No breach of duty was given as the emergency of saving a life outweighed the need to take precautions
Need help typing ? See our FAQ (opens in new window)
Please sign in to create this set. We'll bring you back here when you are done.
Discard Changes Sign in
Please sign in to add to folders.
Sign in
Don't have an account? Sign Up »
You have created 2 folders. Please upgrade to Cram Premium to create hundreds of folders!