Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Donoghue v Stevenson
|
created test for considering if duty owed in novel situations. (neighbour principle)
|
|
|
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
|
slightly updated broad rule from Donoghue v Stevenson by establishing Caparo test.
|
|
|
Civil Evidence Act 1968
|
a defendant who has been convicted of a criminal offence is presumed, in any subsequent civil proceedings, to have committed the offence.
|
|
|
Kirk ham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
|
Just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty on the police because they were in complete control over his actions overriding policy arguments.
|
|
|
Brooks v Metro Police Comm and Others
|
Established policy arguments against imposing duty on the police.
|
|
|
Baker v Hopkins
|
if defendant creates dangerous situation they owe rescuers a duty of care.
|
|
|
Bourhill v Young
|
principle of foreseeablility in novel duty of care situations.
|
|
|
Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd
|
fair, just and reasonable test failure by non-profit ship inspectors
|
|
|
Stovin v Wise
|
Duty of care not owed because of omission, local council failed to fix ‘dangerous’ junction.
|
|
|
East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent and Another
|
If you do not owe a duty of care and act anyway you are not liable for negligence, even if you act carelessly, unless you make the situation worse.
|
|
|
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
|
vicarious liability. Duty to act due to special relationship. Home office had duty to watch young offenders.
|
|
|
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
|
occupier not liable, no special relationship, for damage to neighbouring property from arsonists on their land.
|
|
|
Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis
|
education authority owes duty to ensure kids under care don’t endanger others. Rare event is not nessacarily ‘fantastic possibility’.
|
|
|
Glasgow Corp v Muir
|
created objective ‘reasonable person’ standard for breach of duty.
|
|
|
Balam v Friern Hospital management Committee
|
established duty of care for professionals. A doctor must show same degree of skill as reasonable doctor.
|
|
|
Wells v Cooper, Nettleship v Weston, Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
|
Inexperience not relevant consideration in deciding whether a defendant has been negligent.
|
|
|
Mullin v Richards
|
A child defendant will be expected to show such care as can reasonably be expected of an ordinary child their age
|
|
|
Bolton v Stone
|
justifiable not to take steps to eliminate a real risk if:
• Real risk of injury is small • Circumstances are such that a reasonable person would think it right to neglect |
|
|
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
|
Greater risk of injury requires more precautions. Should have considered eye risk injury especially for man already blind in one eye.
|
|
|
Latimer v AEC Ltd
|
justified in not closing factory for small risk to employees.
|
|
|
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
|
Unusual risk justified when it is to save human life.
|
|
|
R v The Herald of Free Enterprise
|
Common practice can be ruled negligent. Ship captains not checking bow doors.
|
|
|
Roe v Ministry of Health
|
Risk of foreseeable injury must be based on knowledge existing at the time of the incident.
|
|
|
Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington
|
not liable of fantastic possibility of incident occurring. Passer-by hit by glass shard from window during rescue of dog from car.
|
|
|
Mansfeld v Weetabix, Waugh v James k Allen
|
Not liable for unforeseen health condition as long as action was ‘reasonable’. (having heart attack while driving)
|
