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;
129 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Latimer v AEC
|
No breach if consequences too great
|
|
|
Mullins v Richards
|
Breach correlated to age of defendants
|
|
|
Bolam/ Bolitho
|
Procedure endorsed by a group of reasonable experts and accepted by the judge as reasonable
|
|
|
Lady Gwendolen
|
Always have to come up to standard, even if working outside your profession
|
|
|
Bolton v Stone
|
No liability in negligence if particular risk was so small as to be inconsequential
|
|
|
Paris v Stepney BC
|
Extent of individual claimant's potential injury must be considered when assessing breach
|
|
|
Haley v LEB
|
Should have taken precautions for blind man walking into a hole
|
|
|
Nettleship v Weston
|
Reasonable driver standard, even if only a learner
|
|
|
Weetabix v Mansfield
|
Not negligent as a result of illness, unless he should have been aware of illness and taken precautions
|
|
|
Roe v Minister of Health
|
Only take precautions based on knowledge available at the time
|
|
|
Scott v London & St. Katherine's Docks
|
Res ipsa loquitur
|
|
|
Carroll v Fearon
|
Tyres case
|
|
|
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital
|
No causation
|
|
|
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw
|
Material contribution sufficient
|
|
|
Rahman v Arearose
|
Apportionment of injury taken too far
|
|
|
McGhee v NCB
|
Insoluble scientific uncertainty allows for material increase in risk
|
|
|
Wilsher v AHA
|
Difficulty in proving causation does not lead to a relaxing of the rules
|
|
|
Fairchild
|
The Fairchild exception
|
|
|
Barker v Corus
|
Proportionate damages in Fairchild
|
|
|
Grieves v FT Everard
|
Pleural plaques not actionable damage
|
|
|
Gregg v Scott
|
Loss of chance not damage in itself
|
|
|
Chester v Afshar
|
Vindication of patient's autonomy, despite no causation
|
|
|
Allied Maple v Simmons & Simmons
|
Loss of a chance good in commercial context
|
|
|
The Wagon Mound
|
Foreseeability test of scope of damage
|
|
|
Vacwell Engineering
|
No limit on extent of damage, once causation and scope of damage established
|
|
|
Smith v Leech Brain
|
Egg-shell skull test
|
|
|
Lagdon v O'Connor
|
Okay to rent instead of a buy a new car
|
|
|
Chubb v Vicar of Spalding
|
Purest novus actus
|
|
|
The Oropesa
|
Hand of casualty
|
|
|
Knightly v Johns
|
um
|
|
|
Hughes v Lord Advocate
|
If type of damage is foreseeable, the means by which that damage results is irrelevant
|
|
|
Caparo v Dickman
|
Caparo test (also no proximity)
|
|
|
Capital Counties
|
No duty of care for fire service to rescue
|
|
|
Kent v Griffiths
|
Duty of ambulance service to resuce
|
|
|
Carmathenshire CC v Lewis
|
Duty of school over young child crossing the road
|
|
|
Home Office v Dorset Yacth Co
|
Duty of care for borstal over yobbos
|
|
|
Smith v Littlewoods
|
No general liability for omissions
|
|
|
Watson v British Boxing Board
|
Assumption of responsibility case outside of PEL context
|
|
|
Smith v MOD
|
Duty of care not struck out, despite sensitive context
|
|
|
Hedley Byrne
|
Start of recovery for PEL
|
|
|
Smith v Eric E Bush
|
Surveyor liable for PEL where he knew the claimant would only rely on his services
|
|
|
Spring v Guardian Assurance
|
PEL for dodgy reference (complements law on malicious falsehood)
|
|
|
White v Jones
|
Assumption of responsibility expanded to cases where there was no assumption of responsibility (because D had never had dealings with C) for the purpose of just recovery
|
|
|
Williams v Natural Life
|
Constructive duty of care
|
|
|
HM Customs v Barclays Bank
|
Choice in how to establish a duty of care
|
|
|
Junior Books v Veitchi
|
Liability for the quality of goods; rare case; special circumstances
|
|
|
Simaan v Pilkington
|
No liability because of the existence of contractual arrangements
|
|
|
Murphy v Brentwood BC
|
No liability for defects in construction of a house
|
|
|
Spartan Steel
|
No liability for the PEL resulting from damage to another person's property (see also The Aliakmon)
|
|
|
X v Bedfordshire
|
No duty of social workers either arising from statutory context or from nature of work (reversed in ECtHR)
|
|
|
Gorringe v Calderdale
|
Only liability in relation to statutory function if arising on common law principles and not excluded by statute
|
|
|
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
|
Origins of the Hill exception; no proximity
|
|
|
Barrett v Enfield
|
Assumption of responsibility outside of PEL context (not W v BB)
|
|
|
Dulieu v White
|
Recovery for psychiatric injury if not injured, but nearly injured
|
|
|
McFarlance v EE Caledonia
|
Fear of harm must be reasonable to be a primary victim for purposes for psychiatric injury
|
|
|
Page v Smith
|
Psychiatric injury foreseeable where physical injury is foreseeable
|
|
|
British Steel PLC v Simmons
|
Recovery for psychiatric injury caused by anger, not fear (c.f. Atia v British Gas)
|
|
|
Alcock v Chief Constable
|
Rules of recovery by secondary victims
|
|
|
Wheat v Lacon
|
Definition of occupier for the OLA 1957
|
|
|
White v Blackmore
|
Insufficient signage at a jalopy race to exclude liability
|
|
|
Gwilliam v West Herts NHS
|
Splat wall; duty to check for insurance (no longer valid)
|
|
|
Herrington v British Railway Board
|
Duty of common humanity to child trespassers
|
|
|
Revill v Newbery
|
Liability of occupier qua occupier (also 66% reduction for contributory negligence)
|
|
|
Ratcliff v McConnell
|
Breaking into swimming pool; unlikely to be recovery for adult trespassers under OLA 1984
|
|
|
Tomlinson v Congleton BC
|
Clear case of volenti; also, OLA does not cover the nature of property, only its condition, so no recovery for injury in relation to natural hazards
|
|
|
Keown v Coventry NHS Trust
|
No recovery in relation to a perfectly fine fire-escape
|
|
|
St. Helen's Smelting v Tipping
|
Tangible nuisance (strict liability) vs intangible nuisance (reasonable user test)
|
|
|
British Celanese v Hunt
|
One of ocurrences sufficient for nuisace; also, recovery seemingly available where damage comes from damage to another person's property (c.f. Spartan Steel in negligence)
|
|
|
Robinson v Kilvert
|
No liability in nuisance for hyper-sensitivity
|
|
|
Network Rail v Morris
|
Suggestion the nuisance hypersensitivity rule should be replaced by one of foreseeability
|
|
|
Hussain v Lancaster County Council
|
Claim that nuisance must come from land now disavowed
|
|
|
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v Price
|
Liability for protesting outside a building (see O'Sullivan's comments; surely cases like this cannot fall under the heading tort to land, because if the claimants moved, the nuisance would move with them)
|
|
|
Barr v Biffa Waste
|
Planning permission is not a license to commit a nuisance
|
|
|
Lawrence v Fen Tigers
|
Prescriptive right to nuisance; defendant's concern must be taken into account of the nature of locality
|
|
|
Bradford Corporation v Pickels
|
No liability for intentional interference in nuisance (distinguishable on grounds of percolating water?)
|
|
|
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm
|
Liability for intentional interference in nuisance
|
|
|
Sturges v Bridgman
|
What would be nuisance in Bermondsey would not necessarily be nuisance in Belgrave
|
|
|
Laws v Florinplace Ltd
|
Nuisance caused by a sex shop
|
|
|
Dennis v Ministry of Defence
|
Public benefit is no defence in nuisance
|
|
|
Goldman v Hargrace (or Leaky)
|
Rules for adopting a nuisance with the reasonable means test (also Sedleigh Denfield)
|
|
|
Hunter v Canary Wharf
|
No right to light or TV signals; no liability in nuisance for mere presence; nuisance is a tort to land
|
|
|
Rylands v Fletcher
|
Non-natural accumulation on land with escape giving rise to strict liability
|
|
|
Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd
|
There must be escape for there to be liability in Rylands v Fletcher
|
|
|
Cambridge Water
|
Foreseeability test and stricter natural use rule for Rylands v Fletcher
|
|
|
Stannard v Grove
|
No Rylands v Fletcher liability for escape of fire unless the fire is stored
|
|
|
Perry v Kendricks Transport
|
No liability for unforeseeable act of a third party in Rylands v Fletcher
|
|
|
Transco
|
No liability for personal injury in Rylands v Fletcher
|
|
|
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
|
Res ipsa loquitur; common law product liability
|
|
|
Hobbs v Baxenden
|
Common law product liability includes a continuing duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, even if the harm was not foreseeable when the product was distributed
|
|
|
European Commission v UK
|
Developmental defence in CPA refers to state of scientific knowledge, so long as that scientific knowledge is reasonable accessible
|
|
|
Abouzhaid v Mothercare
|
The springyness of an elastic strap, though reasonably unforeseeable, was not covered by the developmental defence, because it was known that a spring was springy
|
|
|
A v National Blood Authority
|
Although D had no way of preventing defect, CPA has strict liability, so there was reasonableness defence. If D wanted to avoid liability, he should have done so by raising awareness of the risk and lowering the public's entitlement to safety
|
|
|
Bogle v McDonald's
|
No liability for defective products where the 'defect' was the hotness of tea
|
|
|
Goriss v Scott
|
Statute did not cover the damage in issue, despite the damage having resulted from a breach of the statute
|
|
|
Atkinson v Newcastle
|
A duty being owed the whole of Newcastle militated against one being owed at all
|
|
|
Groves v Lord Wimborne
|
Existence of statutory scheme for compensation militated against one existing at all
|
|
|
Phillips v Britannia Hygenic Laundry
|
Duty could not be owed to every road user
|
|
|
Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium
|
Statute was not the type to give rise to damages
|
|
|
O'Rourke v Camden LBC
|
um
|
|
|
DPP v Jones
|
Right of reasonable use of highway beyond transport
|
|
|
Bocardo
|
Trespass if drilling under ground
|
|
|
League Against Cruel Sports
|
Basically negligence liability for trespass of animals under your control
|
|
|
Bernstein v Skyviews v General
|
Only trespass in the air if in a portion of the sky for which the claimant has reasonable right of use
|
|
|
Ogwo v Taylor
|
Defendant liable to fire man injured when tackling fire in defendant's house
|
|
|
Letang v Cooper
|
Negligence and trespass to the person finally separated in terms of fault and intention
|
|
|
Wilson v Pringle
|
Offensiveness a necessary element of a battery
|
|
|
Collins v Wilcock
|
Consent to some touchings
|
|
|
Wilkinson v Downton
|
Tort of intentional infliction of harm (pre Dulieu v White)
|
|
|
Wainright v Cooper
|
Wilkinson v Downton basically reduced to nothing
|
|
|
Bird v Jones
|
Total deprivation of liberty necessary for false imprisonment
|
|
|
Robinson v New Ferry Co
|
Claimant not allowed to leave unless he paid a fee
|
|
|
Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co
|
Claimant not allowed to leave until lift was available and practicable
|
|
|
Murray v Ministry of Defence
|
Claimant does not ahve to be aware of deprivation of liberty for there to be actionable false imprisonment
|
|
|
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association
|
Officers not liable for not letting prisoners out of cells as under no particular duty, and false imprisonment can only really be committed by an intentional act
|
|
|
Lumba
|
Only nominal damages if imprisonment was only false because of a procedural issue
|
|
|
Bournewood
|
Governor liable for imprisonment beyond the legal date, despite it having been unlawful for him to release the prisoner before then.
|
|
|
Rose v Plenty
|
Vicarious liability for milkman who let children onto his float despite direct orders to the contrary
|
|
|
General Engineering v Kingston Corporation
|
Some limit to vicarious liability -- wholesale repudiation of contract of service
|
|
|
Cassidy v Ministry of Health
|
Hospital vicariously liable for actions of doctor, despite the high degree of control doctor had over his actions
|
|
|
Institute of Christian Brothers; Lister v Helsey Hall
|
Tort incidental to course of employment gives rise to vicarious liability, even if wholly outside course of employment was normally construed (even in like of Mattis v Pollock); akin to employment
|
|
|
Wells v Cooper
|
Not negligent to carry out household work if a trifling job, but must do so to the standard of a competent professional
|
|
|
McFarlane
|
No recovery for pain of birth, except for pain of the birth
|
|
|
Parkinson
|
Recovery for pain of birth and for additional costs arising from child's disability
|
|
|
Rees
|
Recovery for pain of birth and a one of payment as vindication of patient's autonomy
|
|
|
Stone v Taffe
|
Contributory negligence applies in OLA 1957
|
|
|
Network Rail v Cornarken
|
Where C makes a payment to A, because a payment is stipulated in a contract if C cannot fulfill a condition, and C's default on that condition was due to D's negligence, then C can recover for his liability under the contract insofar as the contract is reasonable. The same analysis would apply where there is no contract.
|
|
|
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co
|
Vicarious liability where employee was forbidden from racing the bus, but did so anyway
|
|
|
Conway v George Wimpey & Co. Ltd
|
No vicarious liability as employee was outside scope of employment in transporting an employee, although the employee did not know his passenger worked for a different firm, in spite of express provisions against doing so
|
|
|
Smith v Stages
|
Obiter comments from Lord Lowry say where an employee is on his employer's time will normally render the employer vicariously liable (e.g. not coming into work from home, unless compelled to do so in a certain manner by contract), with the suggestion being that personal detours will not fall within the course of employment
|
