Tort 2-1 Cases

Front 1

Defendant must meet standard of reasonable man...

Back 1

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)

- Defendant must meet the standard of the reasonable man

Front 2

Reasonable man test is objective...

Back 2

Glasgow Corp v Muir (1943)

- Reasonable man test is impersonal – it is objective; what would a reasonable person have foreseen?

Front 3

If you create a dangerous situation where rescue is foreseeable, you owe a duty of care to rescuers...

Back 3

Baker v Hopkins (1959)

- Where a def has created a dangerous situation where an attempted rescue is reasonably foreseeable, that def owes the rescuer a duty of care

Front 4

Local authority held not to have a duty to reduce risk at accident blackspot...

Back 4

Stovin v Wise (1996)

- Accident blackspot and local authority failed to take action to reduce danger; held they had no duty of care

Front 5

If you do not owe a duty but do act, you don't owe a duty unless you make things worse...

Back 5

East Suffolk Rivers v Kent (1940)

- If you do not owe a duty, but do act, you are not liable in negligence as long as you don’t make things worse

Front 6

Failure to supervise young offenders... duty of care owed...

Back 6

Home Office v Dorset Yacht (1970)

- officers failed to supervise criminal boys but had positive duty from relationship of control and responsibility

Front 7

Trespassing vandals cause fire and damage to neighbouring buildings... no duty for owner...

Back 7

Smith v Littlewoods (1987)

- Vandals breaking in do fire damage to neighbouring building; no duty of care because owners unaware and not in control of vandal

Front 8

Lorry driver killed because of escaped four year old... school had duty of care...

Back 8

Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis (1955)

- Lorry driver killed avoiding 4-year-old strayed from school; Council had responsibility for child and therefore duty of care

Front 9

Naughty snail case...

Back 9

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

- Narrow rule: manufacturer owes duty to ultimate consumer of goods
- Neighbour principle: you must take reas care to avoid acts or omissions reasonably foreseeable as causing injury to your neighbour
- Neighbours are people closely enough affected by my act as to be in my reasonable contemplation when directing my mind to the acts or omissions in question

Front 10

Caparo novel duty test...

Back 10

Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)

- Reasonable foresight of harm to claimant
- Sufficient proximity of relationship to claimant
- Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Front 11

Person shocked by accident scene not a foreseeable victim of accident...

Back 11

Bourhill v Young (1943)
- C suffered miscarriage after coming upon scene of accident; not a foreseeable victim, so no duty

Front 12

Ship inspection body not justly owing duty because not for profit etc...

Back 12

Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine (1996)

- Tried to sue ship inspection body for negligently certifying ship; held not to be just and reasonable as not-for-profit and only seeking safety at sea

Front 13

Police do not owe a duty of care to any individual as a general rule...

Back 13

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)

- No duty of care to any individual but to the public at large

Front 14

Police owe duty for suicide due to assumption of responsibility...

Back 14

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (1990)

- Suicide in custody; duty of care because assumption of responsibility

Front 15

Blanket police immunity found to conflict with Article 6...

Back 15

Osman v UK (1999)

- Police owed no duty to a claimant they knew was harassed by third party
- ECHR found blanket immunity in conflict with Article 6, right to a fair trial

Front 16

UK domestic approach to negligence not found to conflict with Article 6...

Back 16

Z v UK (2002)

- UK domestic approach to negligence does not breach article 6; including “fair, just” test and considering policy is OK

Front 17

Authority for Res Ipsa Loquitur...

Back 17

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks (1865)

- Conditions for Res Ipsa Loquitur
- Thing causing damage must be under control of defendant
- Accident must be such as would not normally happen without negligence
- Cause of accident unknown to claimant; claimant has no direct evidence of failure to show reasonable care

Front 18

Standard of care for doctors and other skilled individuals...

Back 18

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)

- A doctor must show more skill than the ordinary person in the street; he must show the skill of the reasonable doctor
- Applies to any special skill

Front 19

A body of professional opinion can sometimes be shown to be unreasonable...

Back 19

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority (1997)

- A body of professional opinion can in some cases fail to be shown to be reasonable or responsible

Front 20

DIY jobs require the standard of the amateur carpenter...

Back 20

Wells v Cooper (1958)

- Even with odd jobs round the house, courts require skill of reasonable amateur carpenter

Front 21

Learner driver required to meet standard of reasonably competent driver...

Back 21

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

- A learner driver, on their first drive, is expected to reach standard of reasonably competent driver

Front 22

Standard of care for junior doctor...

Back 22

Wilsher v Essex Health Authority (1987)

- Junior doctor on first day must reach standard of hypothetical competent doctor in that post
- Standard comes from post, not experience of practitioner

Front 23

Standard of care for children...

Back 23

Mullin v Richards (1998)

- Child defendant expected to achieve standard of care to be reasonably expected of an ordinary child of their age

Front 24

Standard of care - can be OK to neglect very small or rare risks...

Back 24

Bolton v Stone (1951)

- Person hit by “six” out of cricket ground; really low frequency, six in 28 years, none causing injury
- Can be OK to neglect small risks subject to other considerations

Front 25

Case where loads of "sixes" were hit...

Back 25

Miller v Jackson (1977)

- Cricket balls came out of the ground eight or nine times a season, damaging property on a number of occasions

Front 26

Where there is a greater risk of severe harm, standard of care is stricter...

Back 26

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

- Where there is a risk of greater injury (one-eyed mechanic), the duty gets stricter

Front 27

Cost and practicality of precautions vs risks of not taking them...

Back 27

Latimer v AEC (1953)

- Cost and practicality of precautions to be weighed against risk (cost of shutting down factory)

Front 28

Case where risk to human life justified abnormal risks (NOT authority)

Back 28

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)

- Where human life is at risk, abnormal risk-taking may be justified
- Case is NOT AUTHORITY

Front 29

Accepted trade practice found to be a negligent one...

Back 29

Re The Herald of Free Enterprise (1987)

- The accepted trade practice of not checking bow doors before sailing was a negligent one

Front 30

Time of harm, not time case is heard to be used to decide foreseeability...

Back 30

Roe v Ministry of Health (1954)

- Time of injury, not time of case relevant for deciding whether risk is foreseeable

Front 31

Guard against reasonable probabilities, not "fantastic possibilities"...

Back 31

Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington (1932)

- Must guard against reasonable probabilities, not fantastic possibilities; dog broke car glass and injured someone

Front 32

A frteak accident but a reasonable possibility...

Back 32

Carmarthen CC v Lewis (1955)

- A freak accident but a reasonable possibility

Front 33

Driver who is taken ill but otherwise meeting standard is OK if unaware of condition...

Back 33

Mansfield v Weetabix (1998)

- Driver who spazzes out who is unaware of condition is ok if meeting standard of reasonable driver

Front 34

Sudden unexpected heart attack not a breach of duty...

Back 34

Waugh v James (1964)

- Sudden unexpected heart attack is not breach of duty