Tort Cases

Front 1

Wilsons v Clyde Coal Co

Back 1

Employer/employee duty of care. Employer must provide

1. Competent staff

2. Adaquate materials and plant/premesis

3. Proper system of work/supervision

Front 2

Bolam v Friern Hospital

Back 2

Doctor/patient duty of care. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD OF CARE

Front 3

Nettleship V Weston

Back 3

All road users owe standard of care of experienced driver. Duty of car among motorists

Front 4

Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire Police

Back 4

NO DUTY OF CARE between cops and victims

Front 5

Donoghue v Stevenson

Back 5

Ginger beer snail. Manufacturer/consumer duty if care. Neighbor principle liability.

Front 6

Caparo v Dickman

Back 6

Novel liability test. Reasonable foreseeablity, sufficient proximity, and fair and reasonable for liability to exist for policy.

Front 7

Haley v London Electricity Board

Back 7

Blind guy falls in hole. Liable for reasonabley foreseeable risks

Front 8

Watson v British Board of Boxing

Back 8

Control can be enough proximity for liability. Benchmark proximity case

Front 9

McFarlane v Tayside H. B

Back 9

Bad vesectamy. Courts will not award damages for birth if healthy child, bad policy to make life negative

Front 10

Smith v Littlewoods Org. Ltd

Back 10

Vagrents set fires in Smith property burning down Littlewoods. No liability for pure omission with no foreseeablity

Front 11

Barret v Ministry of Defense

Back 11

Looking after drunk guy who later dies. Undertaking an action can make you liable

Front 12

Horsey v McLaren

Back 12

Not liable for rescue attempts unless you leave someone worse off than you found them

Front 13

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

Back 13

Reasonable man definition

Front 14

Dunnage v Randall

Back 14

Crazy guy injures nephew. Everyone owes same duty of care to equals

Front 15

Mansfield v Weetabix

Back 15

Damages due to unforeseeable things a reasonable man would not think of are not liability

Front 16

Bolton v Stone

Back 16

Cricket ball hit someone, highly unlikely. Highly unlikely risks are generally not reasonably foreseeable, no liability

Front 17

Paris v Stepney B. C

Back 17

One eyed workman injured. Seriousness of risk increases liability

Front 18

Ward v London

Back 18

Unnecessary rushing fireman. Even in rescue if risk taken not proportionate to damage trying to prevent you will be liable

Front 19

Latimer v AEC

Back 19

Oil spill, factory cleans up best it can, man still injured. If cost to alleviate a small risk too high there will be no liability. Only must take reasonable steps to limit risk

Front 20

Mullin v Richards

Back 20

Girls hurt each other playing. Children held to reasonable care of children

Front 21

Barnett v Chelsea Hospital

Back 21

Doctor tells patient to come back in morning. Patient dies. Would have died anyway. NEGLIGENCE MUST CAUSE DAMAGE

Front 22

Fitzgerald v Lane

Back 22

Guy jaywalks, hit by two cars. All parties negligent. IF ALL CAUSES CONCURRENT ALL ARE LIABLE

Front 23

Wilsher v Essex Area H. A

Back 23

Baby gets too much oxygen. NO DEFINITIVE ONE CAUSE, NO LIABILITY. BUT FOR TEST NEEDED

Front 24

Baker v Willoughby

Back 24

D injures C's leg, later shot and loses leg. SUCCESSIVE TORTS DON'T CANCEL PREVIOUS ONES

Front 25

Jobling v Associated Diaries Ltd

Back 25

back problem lost wages. ONLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES YOU ACTUALLY CAUSE

Front 26

Performance cars v Abraham

Back 26

Two crashes both scratch paint. PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS NEGATE SOME LIABILITY IF DAMAGE ALREADY THERE

Front 27

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw

Back 27

Silica dust case. CAUSE MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL OR CONTRIBUTING TO TORT. NO PROOF OF CAUSATION NO LIABILITY

Front 28

McGhee v National Coal Board NCB

Back 28

Dermatitis. IF CONDUCT INREASES RISK OF DAMAGE THERE CAN BE LIABILITY

Front 29

Chester v Afshar

Back 29

Doctor not warning patient. No official but for causation. BUT FOR TEST EXPANDED FOR MEDICAL CONSENT

Front 30

Knightly v Johns

Back 30

Tunnel crash. Negligent actions of another can break chain of causation

Front 31

McKew v Holland and Hannens...

Back 31

C jumped down stairs. Negligent actions by claimant can break chain of causation

Front 32

Harnett v Bond

Back 32

C wrongly imprisoned in insane asylum. Intervening acts of 3rd parties can break chain of causation

Front 33

Carslogie Steamship Co. V Royal Norwegian Gov.

Back 33

Fixing ship. Bad weather delay. Acts of nature can break chain of causation

Front 34

Scott v Shepherd

Back 34

Firework hot potato. If 3rd party acts aren't voluntary no break in chain of causation

Front 35

Jones v Boyce

Back 35

C jumped from "crashing" coach. Intervening acts done by reflex do not break chain of causation

Front 36

Stransbie v Troman

Back 36

D left house unlocked. Foreseeable acts by 3rd parties don't break chain of causation.

Front 37

Corr v IBC Vehicles

Back 37

PTSD suicide case. Non voluntary actions by claimant don't break chain of causation

Front 38

Webb v Barclay's Bank and Portsmith Hospitals NHS

Back 38

Clinical negligence must be severe to break chain of causation

Front 39

Wagon Mound No1

Back 39

Petrol on water burned warf. Kind of damage must be foreseeable, extent and manner don't have to be foreseeable. REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE

Front 40

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Back 40

Frostbite case. Kind of harm needs to be foreseeable in applying Wagon Mound

Front 41

Vacwell Engineering v B. D. H Chemicals

Back 41

Chemical explosion. Extend of damage need not be foreseeable in applying Wagon Mound

Front 42

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Back 42

Oil lamp fell down sewer hole. Manner of damage occurring need not be foreseeable to apply Wagon Mound

Front 43

Duilieu v White

Back 43

Egg shell skull rule TORT

Front 44

D & F Estates v Church Commissioners for England

Back 44

No tort claim to fix negligent item/service that has caused no damage. Pure economic loss

Front 45

Murphy v Brentwood District Council

Back 45

Cost to alleviate an apparent danger from defective property can't be claimed in tort until that danger causes damage to persons/property. Cost is pure economic loss

Front 46

Spartan Steel v Martin

Back 46

You can only recover economic loss directly resulting from damage to your own property. D caused power outage, C could claim for damaged steel and loss of profit due to steel damage, not loss of future steel melts that day

Front 47

Weller v Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute

Back 47

Claimants can only sue in tort for economic loss from damage to property they own. Cattle auctioneer's suit for lost profit failed since he did not own the cows that got ill

Front 48

Aswan Engineering Establishment v Lupdine Ltd

Back 48

Authority for complex structure exception. Bucket and its contents were complex structure. Failed for lack of foreseeability

Front 49

Howard Marine V Ogden

Back 49

Firms/people in business of giving advice have special relationships with advicee if that advice is reasonable to follow and meet Headley Byrne v Heller & Partners requirement to be liable in tort for pure economic loss from negligent misstatements

Front 50

Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners

Back 50

Tort liability for PEL from negligent misstatements if there is voluntarily assumed special relationship and claimant reasonably relies on misstatements

Front 51

Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank

Back 51

Assumption of responsibility must be voluntary in negligent misstatements tort

Front 52

Wheat v Lacon

Back 52

There can be more than one occupier at a time, test for occupancy is sufficient control

Front 53

Gould v McAuliffe

Back 53

Occupier placing limit on visitor must take steps to bring those limits to visitor's attention

Front 54

Murphy v Bradford MC

Back 54

C fell on icey walk. Walk was cleared and salted at 6:30am and again at 8:00am. HELD more should have been done to alleviate danger or want visitor's against it, breach of duty under OLA 1957

Front 55

Edwards v Sutton LBC

Back 55

Occupiers not bound to protect against obvious dangers

Front 56

Phipps v Rochester Corp.

Back 56

D not liable for 5 year old kid breaking leg in trench on his property as there was not sufficient adult supervision and the D could not reasonably expect an unserpervised child to be on his land

Front 57

Roles v Nathan 1963

Back 57

Occupier not liable for dangers to skilled workers if those dangers are related to the skilled worker's profession. No liability for carbon monoxide fumes killing chimney sweeps

Front 58

Darby v National Trust

Back 58

No duty to warn against an obvious danger

Front 59

BRB v Herrington

Back 59

Occupier owes a limited duty even to trespassers

Front 60

Tomilsom v Congleton Borough Council

Back 60

Under OLA 1984, any warning alleviates liability towards trespassers

Front 61

Brice v Brown

Back 61

Pure grief and sorrow can't be claimed in tort

Front 62

Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

Back 62

Primary victims and secondary victims. Secondary victims must be close relation to someone involved, sufficiently close in time and space, reasonable fortitude, see/hear accident with own senses

Front 63

Page v Smith

Back 63

Primary victims are people present at the accident who did or could reasonably foresee suffering PI and got nervous shock from the incident. Can claim for resurgence of existing conditions, unlike secondary victims

Front 64

North Galmorgan v Walters

Back 64

Watching someone die 36 hours after accident was sufficient proximity in time and space for secondary victim to claim nervous shock

Front 65

Taylor v Novo

Back 65

Daughter watching mother die from injuries 3 weeks later not sufficient proximity I'm time/space to claim nervous shock as secondary victim

Front 66

White v Jones

Back 66

Solicitor liable for PEL to beneficiaries negligently omitted from a will. PEL can be claimed by 3rd parties if the defendant assumes responsibility and there is a special relationship arising from that assumption.

Front 67

McFarlane v Caledonia Ltd

Back 67

Bystanders cannot claim for nervous shock unless primary or secondary victims applying page v Smith or alcock v chief constable south Yorkshire police

Front 68

Dooley v Cammell Laird

Back 68

Involuntary participants in negligence causing accidents are primary victims and can claim nervous shock

Front 69

Robinson v Harman

Back 69

Tort remedies seek to put V in position they would be if the tort never took place

Front 70

Cunningham v Harrison

Back 70

You can claim costs of someone nursing or looking after you even if that service is provided for free by family

Front 71

West v Shepard

Back 71

If you are in a coma you can claim for remedies for loss of amenity NOT pain and suffering

Front 72

Joel v Morrison

Back 72

If employee is "off on a frolic of his own" the employer won't be vicariously liable

Front 73

Lister v Hesley Hall

Back 73

Employer of a school warden who sexually abused pupils was held vicariously liable as the job/role gave the perpetrator a unique position to commit the offence

Front 74

Catholic Child Welfare Society v Inst of Brothers and Others

Back 74

Two stage approach to Vicarious Liability

1. Is the relationship between X and y capable of giving rise to Vicarious liability?

2. is there a close connection between the relationship and the act/ommission by X?

Front 75

Cox v Ministry of Defence

Back 75

Prisoner doing work in the prison was an employee and Vicarious Liability was established

Front 76

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing

Back 76

An employer knowingly hiring an employee that plays practical jokes and not making sure he stopped was liable for injuries to another worker via Employers' Liability

Front 77

Coltman v Bibby Tankers

Back 77

A ship was considered equipment for Employers' Liability

Front 78

General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas

Back 78

Employers must establish a safe system of work AND ensure that safe system is followed

Front 79

Bowater v Rowley Regis

Back 79

Employees can rarely fully consent to do dangerous tasks asked by employers as they are financially dependant on the employer

Front 80

ICI v Shatwell

Back 80

Volenti can apply when an employee is fully aware of the risk, has a free choice, and is the author of their own misfortune. Quarry shot firers not using the blast shelters provided and getting injured

Front 81

Woodbridge v Sumner

Back 81

Spectators take risk of damage caused by the sport in question, no volenti AND for Volenti defence, claimant must have knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk

Front 82

Dann v Hamilton

Back 82

C knowingly took a lift from drunk driver defendant. Volenti defence did not apply as the drunkenness need be so extreme and obvious that it's like playing with an unexploded bomb

Front 83

Morris v Murray

Back 83

Plane crashed due to pilot (D) being drunk. Volenti applied when C and D had been out drinking together and D had drank equivalent of 17 whiskeys. C held to have fully appreciated the risk and gone along with it despite apparent danger

Front 84

Watson v BBC

Back 84

Boxer consented to risk of injury from sport but not risk of worsening injury due to inadequate safety measures. Volenti defence failed

Front 85

Froom v Butcher

Back 85

C need not cause the accident but merely contribute to the damages from the accident, such as a claimant not wearing a seatbelt in a car crash

Front 86

Jones v Livox Quarries

Back 86

Damage must be within the scope of risk the claimant's conduct creates for contributory negligence to apply. Riding on back of truck and getting crushed WAS within the scope of risk and the C was held contributorily negligent

Front 87

Hollis v Dow Corning Corp.

Back 87

Failing to issue a timely recall can be actionable negligence. D knew about an issue with breast implants bit failed to issue a recall for 2 years

Front 88

A v National Blood Authority

Back 88

A group action to sue under CPA for damage caused by blood contaminated with Hep C succeeded despite there being no way to screen for Hep C at the time . Section 4(1)(e) CPA defence failed

Front 89

Re F

Back 89

A tort battery requires force beyond what is normally acceptable

Front 90

Letang v Cooper

Back 90

There cannot be negligent battery

Front 91

R v Billinghurst

Back 91

Implied consent to battery only covers contact that normally occurs in the action consented to. No consent to fistfights because you agreed to play violent game of rugby

Front 92

Wilson v Downton

Back 92

A wilful act calculated to cause harm, despite no direct force and only indirect harm that results in a recognised psychiatric illness or extreme distress is an actionable tort

Front 93

Thomas v News Group Newspapers

Back 93

Harassment is generally understood AND calling a claimant "the black clerk" in a newspaper story for no reason could be harassment

Front 94

Ferguson v British Gas

Back 94

A computerised debt recovery system sending letters threatening legal action was harassment

Front 95

Kuwait Airways v Iraqui Airways

Back 95

Conversion is when a party by deliberate conduct appropriates chattel belonging to another so extensively it prevents the other party from using the goods

Front 96

Fowler v Hollins

Back 96

Liability for conversion tort only requires intention as to the conduct, not intention to commit tort or conversion. Conversion can easily occur by mistake. D accidently sold cotton he was holding for C but sold it thinking it belonged to X, making D liable for conversion

Front 97

Jerome v Bentley

Back 97

Receiving goods intentionally through a transaction like a purchase can create liability for conversion tort

Front 98

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Back 98

One must have a proprietary interest in affected land to sue in private nuisance. Damages for amenity damage calculated as lost property value from loss of enjoyment AND no personal injury damages in private nuisance claims

Front 99

At Helens Smeting v Tipping

Back 99

If your land incurs physical damage from another's unreasonable use of their land you can sue in private nuisance regardless if factors like locality, duration, frequency, etc.

Front 100

Walter v Selfe

Back 100

Amenity damage is inconvenience cause by another's unreasonable use of their land that materially interferes with normal comfort physically of human existence HOWEVER is subject to doctrine of locality

Front 101

Delaware Mansions v Westminster City Council

Back 101

Tree roots affecting neighbouring property can be private nuisance by encroachment but for damages to be claimable one must inform the tree owner so they can fix/mitigate damage caused by their tree's roots

Front 102

Sturges v Bridgman

Back 102

Unreasonable use of land is affected by locality. Prescription of rights time period of 20 years only starts to run when it becomes possible for someone to claim a nuisance AND no defence of "you chose to life next to the nuisance"

Front 103

Robinson v Kilvert

Back 103

If C or his land is overly sensitive, a neighbour's reasonable use of their land that causes damages will not be liable for private nuisance

Front 104

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet

Back 104

Behaviour calculated to cause nuisance in a malicious way is unreasonable and may result in private nuisance. Man went shooting near silver fox fame knowing it upset the foxes and caused them to have issues with breeding

Front 105

Bradford Corp v Pickles

Back 105

D's actions must interfere with C's rights over their land for a private nuisance to occur. If no right is interfered with no nuisance. D drained water from his land to maliciously dry up his neighbour's land. HELD no private nuisance as C had no right to water

Front 106

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather

Back 106

One is liable for all nuisances they created whether they know they created it or not. Although the nuisance need not be foreseeable the type of damage needs to be foreseeable

Front 107

Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan

Back 107

You are liable for not taking action to fix a nuisance on your land created by a trespasser

Front 108

Leakey v National Trust

Back 108

You have a duty to fix nuisances on your land created by nature but factors like the nature of the nuisance and your financial power are taken into account

Front 109

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lights

Back 109

Courts can grant damages in lieu of injunction. Injunction is a totally discretionary equitable remedy

Front 110

Ryeford Homes v Sevenoaks D.C

Back 110

In private nuisance you can claim for economic loss but not pure economic loss

Front 111

AG v PYA Quarries

Back 111

Public nuisance is an act that materially affects reasonable comfort/convenience of a class of people

Front 112

Tate & Lyle v GLC

Back 112

C could claim cost of dredging to allow them added to their jetties after D built a ferry terminal and caused debris in the water

Front 113

Lysons & Sons v Gulliver

Back 113

A queue outside a movie theatre was sufficient disruption and sever inconvenience for actionable public nuisance

Front 114

Dymond v Pearce

Back 114

Cars parked on road can be obstruction of highway and anything left on highway can be a danger on the highway. Parked lorry hit by motorcyclist who argued lorry was public nuisance. Because accident wholly caused by motorcyclist negligence no claim

Front 115

Wandsworth v Railtrack

Back 115

For liability under public nuisance the defendant must have knowledge of the obstruction or danger on the highway and means to abate it but fails to do so. D liable for pigeons roosting on his property ******** on the highway

Front 116

Tarry v Ashton

Back 116

Occupier is liable for dangers in their premises that affect use of the highway. D liable when lamp fell off his house onto passers by

Front 117

Rylands v Fletcher

Back 117

When someone collects on their land anything likely to cause mischief if it escapes they are liable for all natural consequences of its escape. Covers isolated escape of nusiance from neighboring property

Front 118

Transco v Stockport MBC

Back 118

The "dangerous thing" in Rylands v Fletcher must be incredibly dangerous inherently or be abnormal use. Pumping water was neither

Front 119

Read v Lyons

Back 119

For tort under Rylands v Fletcher the escape must involve movement from one property to another

Front 120

Rickards v Lothian

Back 120

For tort under Rylands v Fletcher there must be some special use of land bringing increased danger to other