Tort Law

Front 1

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control

Back 1

Boxer injured during match
Supervisors failed to administer proper emergency medical treatment
Boxer spent 40 days in coma, upon waking was wheelchair-bound for 6yrs

Hint 1

Sued for negligence
Held: DoC owed, sufficient proximity + forseeability

Front 2

Vowles v Evans & Welsh Rugby Union Ltd

Back 2

Claimant: Rugby player, inexperienced sub player
Ref in knowledge of this placed him in centre of scrum anyway
Claimant injured when scrum collapsed
Def argued: in an aggressive sport, risk should be borne by players themselves

Hint 2

Held: DoC owed, ref negligent
rugby is an inherently dangerous sport, rules and ref present to avoid injury
where a ref undertakes that role, it is just, fair, reasonable to impose upon him a duty to take reasonable care

Front 3

Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council

Back 3

Def researched water to test appropriateness for fishery
Resident brought action against Def for negligent report on water conditions in the area which contained arsenic
Claimant argued that Def had duty to report presence of arsenic so govt. could take action

Hint 3

Held: No DoC, no duty to test for/report presence of arsenic
No proximity btw NERC and the residents as report was not aimed at the benefit of the residents

Front 4

Mullin v Richards

Back 4

Unique situations affecting standard of care: children

2 girls playing with plastic rulers, one snapped and a piece of plastic pierced one of the girl's eye

Hint 4

Held: Unforeseeable
Standard of care is adjusted to age of the child, but remains objective as to children of that age
Criticism: were the girls of age to be able to appreciate the risk?

Front 5

Blake v Galloway

Back 5

Unique situations affecting standard of care: horseplay

Throwing a piece of bark chipping in a "general messing around" resulted in injury

Hint 5

Held: horseplay will only amount to breach where there is a display of very high degree of recklessness, which was not the case here.

Front 6

Bolton v Stone

Back 6

Factors affecting standard of care: Likelihood of injury

Ball flew out from cricket stadium, injured person outside
Ball only flew out 6 times in the past 30 years

Hint 6

Held: Likelihood of injury low ; STD of care low
No breach

Front 7

Miller v Jackson

Back 7

Factors affecting std of care: likelihood of injury

Cricket ball flew out of stadium and injured person outside
Ball flew out of stadium at least 8-9 times a season

Hint 7

Held: Risk of harm was great, likelihood of injury high; std of care high
Breach, liable

Front 8

2 Elements of contributory negligence

Back 8

1.Cl failed to take reasonable care
2.this led to damage/loss/injury

Front 9

s1(1) Law Reform (Cont Neg) Act 1945

Back 9

where cont neg is proved, Cl's damages will be reduced to extent court thinks is equitable, having regard to Cl's share in responsibility for the damage

Front 10

Jones v Livox Quarries

Back 10

vehicle driven negligently into traxcavator, on which Cl was riding the towbar

Hint 10

Held: Cl contributed to own injury by negligently exposing himself to the risk. Damages reduced

Front 11

Davies v Swan Motor

Back 11

Cl's husband rode on step of dustcart, Def's bus overtook dustcart, the husband was killed in collision.

A Cl will NOT be cont. neg where he has made an error in judgement. Reas ppl do make errors of judgement esp in emergencies.
Judgement must be so strikingly unreasonable to amount to cont neg.

Hint 11

Held: Both drivers + Cl's husband negligent (however dustcart driver not named as a Def)

Front 12

Generally a Cl will not be found cont neg if...

Back 12

1. Def put Cl in position of danger
2. Cl acts in agony of the moment
3. Cl acted in reasonable apprehension of danger
4. Cl acted reasonably

Hint 12

Jones v Boyce

Front 13

Revill v Newbury

Back 13

Shed owner shot trespasser

Hint 13

Held: Cont neg successfully raised.
Volenti however did not apply; Cl did not volunteer to the risk if getting shot.

Front 14

Reeves v Metropolitan Comissioner

Back 14

An inmate committed suicide in custody
His estate brought an action against MC because the authorities at the correctional facility had knowledge that he was suicide risk

Hint 14

Held: Volenti rejected, mental instability negated sufficient knowledge to volunteer
However cont neg successfully raised; intentional self-harm = cont neg. Damages reduced.

Front 15

Gough v Thorne

Back 15

13 y/o girl crossing road killed by lorry from direction opposite from another car she was facing

Hint 15

Held: taking into account her age, Denning held that she had not fallen below the expected SoC, therefore not cont neg

Front 16

Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co

Back 16

For cont neg to be applied to children, the child must fully understand the nature of his dangerous conduct

Hint 16

Held: 9y/o boy could not be expected to fully understand the danger of gasoline. Not cont neg

Front 17

Evans v Soul Garage

Back 17

Where a child fully understands the risk/danger of his conduct, can be found cont neg

Hint 17

Held: 13y/o boy who bought petrol to inhale fumes and later burnt himself badly was cont neg. Fully understood the dangerous nature of his conduct

Front 18

Harrison v British Railway Board

Back 18

Courts are reluctant to find cont neg in respect of rescuers because of policy reasons (discouraging rescuers)

Front 19

Badger v Ministry of Defence

Back 19

Cl's husband died of lung cancer due to exposure to asbestos at work
Non-tortious causes included husband's smoking habit

Hint 19

Held: Smoking= cont neg

Front 20

Smith v Baker

Back 20

"One who has invited/assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong"

Hint 20

Volenti non fit injuria
Volenti failed, continuing to work did not indicate volens due to economic duress.

Front 21

2 Requirements for Volenti

Back 21

1. knowledge/ understanding of the risk/ dangers associated to the activity
2. Acceptance/ consent to the risk

Front 22

Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp

Back 22

Volenti: What amounts to consent

Hint 22

there must be genuine choice on part of Cl

Front 23

Lynch v Ministry of Defence

Back 23

Volenti: what amounts to knowledge of risk

Hint 23

Mere appreciation of risk is insufficient

Front 24

ICI v Shatwell

Back 24

Where employee consciously adopts dangerous methods of work when safety measures are in place, Volenti will succeed as he had voluntarily accepted the risk of harm, hence responsible for his own injury

Hint 24

Cl chose not to wear protective gear provided while testing detonators at work

Front 25

5 Situations where Volenti is not apllicable

Back 25

1. economic duress
2. Unlawful sports/ playing sports in non-adherence to rules
3. Children
4. Def assumed responsibility for welfare of Cl
5. s149 Road Traffic Act 1988

Front 26

Home Office v Dorsett Yacht

Back 26

Borstal wards escaped, collided yacht with one belonging to Cl. Cl sued for vicarious liability for borstal wardens' negligence.

Hint 26

-Destructive act of boys foreseeable
-Affected party was a "neighbour"
-incident was direct effect of the borstal bringing the boys to Poole Harbour
Held: wardens negligent, HO vicariously liable.

Front 27

Anns v London Merton BC

Back 27

Revised version the NBHD principle with a 2 stage test, but later overruled because too expansive.

Front 28

1. if there was sufficient prox + foreseeability of damage, there is a prima face duty
2. were there any policy considerations to negative the duty?

Back 28

The Anns 2 stage test

Hint 28

overruled. stage 1 too easy to satisfy, stage 2 not enough of a hurdle because judiciary reluctant to discuss policy.

Front 29

persons who are so closely and directly affected by my acts/omissions

Back 29

Who is a neighbour?

Hint 29

Lord Atkin, Donoghue v Stevenson

Front 30

you must take reas care to avoid acts/omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour

Back 30

The NBHD principle

Hint 30

Lord Atkin, Donoghue v Stevenson

Front 31

Caparo v Dickman

Back 31

3 stage test to impose DoC
1. Foreseeability
2. proximity
3. just, fair + reasonable

Hint 31

overruled Anns

Front 32

1. Pl responsible for own loss
2. DoC leads to unduly defensive practices
3. DoC undermines other causes of action
4. Alt remedies
5. DoC cuts across complex statutory framework

Back 32

Situations in which DiC not imposed

Front 33

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Back 33

Claim against police for not convicting Yorkshire Ripper, as he went on to commit more murders
Police have immunity due to public policy

Hint 33

No proximity btw police + Vic because Ripper had wide class of victims
Against p policy to impose DoC

Front 34

X v Bedfordshire CC

Back 34

In overlap of CL + statutory duties, must distinguish operational and discretional duties.
Parli confers discretion, if action is within that ambit of discretion = non-justiciable
Where exercise of discretion disputed, courts must determine if exercise is so unreas that no authority wld have acted as such
Operational duties are justifiable; Caparo applies.

Front 35

Arthur JS Hall v Simons

Back 35

Lawyers no longer have blanket immunity against negligence suits

Front 36

s1(1) Congenital Disability Civil Liability Act

Back 36

act covers medical negligence before conception, during pregnancy, and during childbirth

Hint 36

any negligent act falling outside such times is a claim under wrongful life

Front 37

McFarlane v Tayside HA

Back 37

Vasectomy failed
Healthy child, wrongful life claim

Hint 37

Child is blessing. Not just + reas to award compensation.

Front 38

Rees v Darlington NHS Trust

Back 38

Healthy child, disabled parent
Wrongful life claim

Hint 38

Dismissed claim for cost of upbringing, but awarded damages for "loss of autonomy"

Front 39

Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital

Back 39

Unhealthy child, wrongful life claim
Failed sterilisation

Hint 39

Claim for cost of upbringing allowed

Front 40

Carmenthenshire CC v Lewis

Back 40

impsoing DoC in 3P situations
student left nursery and walked out onto road, causing traffic accident

Hint 40

Council owed DoC to road users in that area, responsible for 3P (child)
Aware that children could easily leave the compound, responsible to build fences

Front 41

AG v Hartwell

Back 41

imposing DoC in 3P situations
Policeman shot + injured several ppl when he went to confront his wife about affair

Hint 41

AG vicariously liable for negligence of police force

Front 42

Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co.

Back 42

Man getting onto train dropped package of fireworks, Pl injured, brought action against train co

Hint 42

Held: unforeseeable, no liability

Front 43

Urbanski v Patel

Back 43

Dr negligently removed kidney, mistook for cyst
As result, father donated kidney, approved by Dr
Patient's body rejected transplant

Hint 43

Held: father's actions of donating kidney and all other resulting events after mistaken removal = foreseeable. Lty imposed.

Front 44

Haley v London Electricity Board

Back 44

Blind man fell into uncovered trench left by workers

Hint 44

Foreseeably. Liability imposed

Front 45

Mulcahy v MoD

Back 45

Artilleryman caught in friendly fire, sued MoD

Hint 45

Held: not just + fair + reas to impose DoC

Front 46

Jebson v MoD

Back 46

Cl, guardsman, fell off top of vehicle while trying to control drunken colleagues.
Sued MoD for failure to provide sufficient regulations to guardsmen

Hint 46

Foresseeable that guardsmen could lose control of colleagues. DoC owed, but damages reduced due to Cl's conduct

Front 47

Paris v Stepney

Back 47

factors affecting SoC; seriousness of injury
employee lost sight in his one good eye, although goggles provided at workplace, employers did not enforce their use.

Hint 47

held: injury would be more serious to employee with only one good eye, SoC higher, employers fell below SoC.

Front 48

Latimer v AEC

Back 48

factors affecting SoC: practicality of precaution
Def not expected to take every precaution possible, only what is reas. absolute perfection= took heavy a burden
Def sprinkled sawdust on slippery floor but Cl fell and injured anyway, argued Def should have shut down factory.

Hint 48

held: shutting down factory impractical. no breach

Front 49

Ward v Hertfordshire CC

Back 49

factors affecting SoC: Utility of def's act
where Utility of def's act is high, SoC is low.
Rescuers did not have proper vehicle to transport rescue equipment, during journey injured passenger

Hint 49

held: utility of rescuer's act high, SoC low, no breach

Front 50

Roe v Ministry of Health

Back 50

factors affecting SoC: state of knowledge/ foreseeability
Where state of knowledge/foreseeability low, SoC is low
Hairline crack on tube containing anaesthetic caused contamination, resulted in partial paralysis of Cl.

Hint 50

held: Hindsight cannot be used to determine breach. must use state of knowledge at the time alleged breach occurred. since it was then low, no breach