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;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Erischen v No-frills Supermarket (USA)
|
Plaintiff assaulted, beaten and robbed; dragged along the road for a mile. Do we want to fix the supermarket with liability? What about personal responsibility? Consider that over 16months similar crimes had been perpetrated on 10 occasions. First instance, claim failed. Supreme Court decided D breached a duty owed to P
|
|
|
Weld v Blundell
|
'In general...even though A is in fault, he is not responsible for injury to C which B, a stranger to him, deliberately chooses to do...though A may have given the occasion for B's mischievous activity, v then becomes a new and independent cause.
|
|
|
Stansibe v Troman
|
Painter failed to lock door, burglars entered. D held liable. C recovered for value of stolen property because reasonable foreseeability test was applied.
|
|
|
Holgate v Lancashire Mental Hospitals Board
|
Medical officers released mental patient with a record of violence on 'holiday licence.' They failed to check supervision arrangements. Patient indecently assaulted C and D was held liable.
|
|
|
Rapport v Nichols |
N celebrated 18th birthday at a pub and drove away whilst intoxicated. Collided with Rapport who was killed. New Jersey court decides in favour with the claimant and fixed pub owner with liability
|
|
|
Kelly v Gwinnel
|
G had been drinking at a friends house and drove whilst intoxicated. G's friend was held liable.
|
|
|
Topp v London Country Bus
|
D left minibus unlocked with keys in the ignition. Person unknown drove the bus off and was involved in a collusion which killed Topp. Trial judge said it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on D. CA upheld the decision. |
|
|
Yuen Kun-Yeu
|
C deposited money with a company that was badly run. C suffered loss and C argued that the commissioner of the deposit-taking could have used his discretionary powers to protect him from loss.
|
|
|
W v Essex CC (HL) |
Local authority (D) placed 15yr old boy in a foster family. The boy was known as a sexual abuser. D failed to inform claimants of the boy's full history. The foster parents were abused by the boy. They suffered psychiatric injury. HL concluded the claim could be entertained. |
|
|
Simth v Chief Constable of Sussex Police |
Jeffrey repeatedly threatened to smith. Smith reprted threats to police. He seriously injured her with a claw hammer. C argued that D owed duty of reasonable care. First claim was struck out but CA reinstated it. HL said C was not owed a duty of care. |
|
|
Glasgow CC v Mitchell |
From 1994-2001, Mitchell was reportedly subjected to death threats by his neighbour, Drummond. D (Glasgow CC) threatened to recover possession of Drummond's property. D gathered evidence of the harassment. Council didn't act decisively to counter the threat. Drummond beat Mitchell to death on the day the council threatened him again. Claim in negligence and for breach of Art 2 failed. |
|
|
X and Y v Hanslow |
Couple with learning difficulties were subject to physical and sexual abuse by youths in the council flat which they had been settled into by the council. At trial, Maddison J held the council liable. D appealed successfully. Law could not be incrementally developed because the case was unusual on its facts. Subsequent application to ECtHR for breach of Art 8 was discontinued because council paid them off. |
|
|
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre (AHC) |
P attacked unknown people in car park at 10.30pm. D had turned off lights at 10pm. AHC said no duty of care was owed because no special relationship between P and D. |
|
|
Adeels Palace v Moubarak |
NYE celebrations on D's licensed premises. Dispute between 2 women. Fight ensued involving relatives and friends. One man involved in the fight was struck in the face and returned with a gun and shot Moubarak (the man who struck him in the face). AHC said licencee owed a duty to protect customers. Claim failed on causation grounds: C had to prove on the balance of probabilities that the provision of security personnel would have prevented the shooting. |
|
|
McDonald's v Ogborn |
Hoaxer called McDonalds pretending to be a police officer and insructed the manager that she should disrobe a member of her team and detain her pursuant to a criminal investigation. Plaintiff was detained in the office and stripped. She was sexually abused by the Manager's partner. CA held McDonald's could be sued for negligence. |
|
|
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire |
Claimants were walking down the street when she got caught in the arrest of the drug dealer. He violently sturggeled and his momentum carried the group up the street towards the claiamnt. She was knocked over and injured. At trial it was deemed D owed a duty of care, the policce officers breached this but they enjoyed an immunity. CA said that it was not fair just and reasonable to impose a duty. |
