• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

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;

50 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control
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
Sued for negligence
Held: DoC owed, sufficient proximity + forseeability
Vowles v Evans & Welsh Rugby Union Ltd
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
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
Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council
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
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
Mullin v Richards
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
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?
Blake v Galloway
Unique situations affecting standard of care: horseplay

Throwing a piece of bark chipping in a "general messing around" resulted in injury
Held: horseplay will only amount to breach where there is a display of very high degree of recklessness, which was not the case here.
Bolton v Stone
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
Held: Likelihood of injury low ; STD of care low
No breach
Miller v Jackson
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
Held: Risk of harm was great, likelihood of injury high; std of care high
Breach, liable
2 Elements of contributory negligence
1.Cl failed to take reasonable care
2.this led to damage/loss/injury
s1(1) Law Reform (Cont Neg) Act 1945
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
Jones v Livox Quarries
vehicle driven negligently into traxcavator, on which Cl was riding the towbar
Held: Cl contributed to own injury by negligently exposing himself to the risk. Damages reduced
Davies v Swan Motor
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.
Held: Both drivers + Cl's husband negligent (however dustcart driver not named as a Def)
Generally a Cl will not be found cont neg if...
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
Jones v Boyce
Revill v Newbury
Shed owner shot trespasser
Held: Cont neg successfully raised.
Volenti however did not apply; Cl did not volunteer to the risk if getting shot.
Reeves v Metropolitan Comissioner
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
Held: Volenti rejected, mental instability negated sufficient knowledge to volunteer
However cont neg successfully raised; intentional self-harm = cont neg. Damages reduced.
Gough v Thorne
13 y/o girl crossing road killed by lorry from direction opposite from another car she was facing
Held: taking into account her age, Denning held that she had not fallen below the expected SoC, therefore not cont neg
Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co
For cont neg to be applied to children, the child must fully understand the nature of his dangerous conduct
Held: 9y/o boy could not be expected to fully understand the danger of gasoline. Not cont neg
Evans v Soul Garage
Where a child fully understands the risk/danger of his conduct, can be found cont neg
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
Harrison v British Railway Board
Courts are reluctant to find cont neg in respect of rescuers because of policy reasons (discouraging rescuers)
Badger v Ministry of Defence
Cl's husband died of lung cancer due to exposure to asbestos at work
Non-tortious causes included husband's smoking habit
Held: Smoking= cont neg
Smith v Baker
"One who has invited/assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong"
Volenti non fit injuria
Volenti failed, continuing to work did not indicate volens due to economic duress.
2 Requirements for Volenti
1. knowledge/ understanding of the risk/ dangers associated to the activity
2. Acceptance/ consent to the risk
Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp
Volenti: What amounts to consent
there must be genuine choice on part of Cl
Lynch v Ministry of Defence
Volenti: what amounts to knowledge of risk
Mere appreciation of risk is insufficient
ICI v Shatwell
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
Cl chose not to wear protective gear provided while testing detonators at work
5 Situations where Volenti is not apllicable
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
Home Office v Dorsett Yacht
Borstal wards escaped, collided yacht with one belonging to Cl. Cl sued for vicarious liability for borstal wardens' negligence.
-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.
Anns v London Merton BC
Revised version the NBHD principle with a 2 stage test, but later overruled because too expansive.
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?
The Anns 2 stage test
overruled. stage 1 too easy to satisfy, stage 2 not enough of a hurdle because judiciary reluctant to discuss policy.
persons who are so closely and directly affected by my acts/omissions
Who is a neighbour?
Lord Atkin, Donoghue v Stevenson
you must take reas care to avoid acts/omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour
The NBHD principle
Lord Atkin, Donoghue v Stevenson
Caparo v Dickman
3 stage test to impose DoC
1. Foreseeability
2. proximity
3. just, fair + reasonable
overruled Anns
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
Situations in which DiC not imposed
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Claim against police for not convicting Yorkshire Ripper, as he went on to commit more murders
Police have immunity due to public policy
No proximity btw police + Vic because Ripper had wide class of victims
Against p policy to impose DoC
X v Bedfordshire CC
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.
Arthur JS Hall v Simons
Lawyers no longer have blanket immunity against negligence suits
s1(1) Congenital Disability Civil Liability Act
act covers medical negligence before conception, during pregnancy, and during childbirth
any negligent act falling outside such times is a claim under wrongful life
McFarlane v Tayside HA
Vasectomy failed
Healthy child, wrongful life claim
Child is blessing. Not just + reas to award compensation.
Rees v Darlington NHS Trust
Healthy child, disabled parent
Wrongful life claim
Dismissed claim for cost of upbringing, but awarded damages for "loss of autonomy"
Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital
Unhealthy child, wrongful life claim
Failed sterilisation
Claim for cost of upbringing allowed
Carmenthenshire CC v Lewis
impsoing DoC in 3P situations
student left nursery and walked out onto road, causing traffic accident
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
AG v Hartwell
imposing DoC in 3P situations
Policeman shot + injured several ppl when he went to confront his wife about affair
AG vicariously liable for negligence of police force
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co.
Man getting onto train dropped package of fireworks, Pl injured, brought action against train co
Held: unforeseeable, no liability
Urbanski v Patel
Dr negligently removed kidney, mistook for cyst
As result, father donated kidney, approved by Dr
Patient's body rejected transplant
Held: father's actions of donating kidney and all other resulting events after mistaken removal = foreseeable. Lty imposed.
Haley v London Electricity Board
Blind man fell into uncovered trench left by workers
Foreseeably. Liability imposed
Mulcahy v MoD
Artilleryman caught in friendly fire, sued MoD
Held: not just + fair + reas to impose DoC
Jebson v MoD
Cl, guardsman, fell off top of vehicle while trying to control drunken colleagues.
Sued MoD for failure to provide sufficient regulations to guardsmen
Foresseeable that guardsmen could lose control of colleagues. DoC owed, but damages reduced due to Cl's conduct
Paris v Stepney
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.
held: injury would be more serious to employee with only one good eye, SoC higher, employers fell below SoC.
Latimer v AEC
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.
held: shutting down factory impractical. no breach
Ward v Hertfordshire CC
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
held: utility of rescuer's act high, SoC low, no breach
Roe v Ministry of Health
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.
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