Tort Law Cases

Front 1

A v UK

Back 1

Punishment of children can only be defence if proportionate and child aware of purpose

Front 2

Alcock

Back 2

Secondary victims can only claim negligent psychological harm if:
- they have a close relationship of love and affection with primary victim
- The harm was caused by a sudden event
- They were close in space and time to event
- They perceived event through own unaided senses.

Front 3

Allied maples Group v Simmons 1995

Back 3

To establish factual causation for financial loss of chance, proportionate liability approach should be used

Front 4

Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex

Back 4

For self-defence, if D is wrong in assuming need for self-defence, he will still be liable

Front 5

Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2009

Back 5

For restrictions to maintain public order, may only do so as long as necessary or it becomes false imprisonment

Front 6

Baker v TE Hopkins & Son

Back 6

For contributory negligence, rescuers are judged against the standard of the reasonable rescuer

Front 7

Barker v Corus UK Ltd

Back 7

If multiple causes, proportionate liability

Front 8

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital 1969

Back 8

Standard test for establishing factual causation is the but for test.
Duty between doctor and patient

Front 9

Barrett v MOD

Back 9

If D assumes responsibility for drunk person, there is a duty

Front 10

Bellew v Cement Co 1948

Back 10

Authority that social utility is irrelevant in nuisance

Front 11

Benjamin v Storr 1874

Back 11

outlines conditions for public nuisance

Front 12

Bici v MOD

Back 12

Recklessness is sufficient for intent in trespass to the person, also intent can be transferred.

Front 13

Bird v Jones 1845

Back 13

For false imprisonment, movement must be completely restricted

Front 14

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856

Back 14

Standard care of reasonable man used to establish if there is breach

Front 15

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957

Back 15

Acts of professionals correct if there is a reasonable body of opinion in agreement

Front 16

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA 1998

Back 16

Must be a logical basis behind responsible body of opinion

Front 17

Bolton v Stone 1951

Back 17

More likely harm is to happen, higher the standard of care

Front 18

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw 1956

Back 18

To prove factual causation for multiple cummulative causes, must show Ds act more than negligently contributed to harm

Front 19

Breslin v McKenna (Omagh bombing case) 2009

Back 19

For force to be direct and immediate, D need not be present

Front 20

Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2005

Back 20

Police have no duty to act in a case -highlights how broad protection of police for policy reasons is.

Front 21

Cambridge Water Company

Back 21

Foreseeability a requirement for Rylands v Fletcher

Front 22

Caparo v Dickman 1990

Back 22

General duty test:
- foreseeable damage
- relationship of proximity
- fair, just and reasonable to impose

Front 23

Capital & Counties PLC v Hampshire CC 1997

Back 23

Established that there's not general duty in omissions liability

Front 24

Carmathenshire CC v Lewis

Back 24

Teacher-pupil relationship counts as special creating duty for omissions

Front 25

Carslogie Steamship v Royal Norwegian Government 1957

Back 25

Acts of nature can be NAI is unforeseeable and separate from negligent act

Front 26

Chatterton v Gerson 1981

Back 26

If there is consent, no claim in trespass to the person

Front 27

Chester v Afshar 2004

Back 27

To establish factual causation for cases of medical non-disclosure, fairness and justice test should be used

Front 28

Christie v Davey 1893

Back 28

If malice is present, nuisance claim likely to succeed

Front 29

Collins v Wilcock 1984

Back 29

Any unwanted touching constitutes a battery

Front 30

Corr v IBC vehicles

Back 30

Suicide not an NAI
As depression often leads to suicide, this counted as foreseeable

Front 31

Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Company

Back 31

If act socially desirable, lower standard of care

Front 32

Daiichi v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty 2004

Back 32

Companies cannot sue under Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Front 33

F v West Berkshire AHA 1990

Back 33

Hostility is irrelevant for proving intention in battery

Front 34

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1968

Back 34

For battery, intent may start after force does

Front 35

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services 2005

Back 35

Establishes test for indeterminate defendants as material contribution to the risk of harm, must be same agent and evidential gap - joint and several liability

Front 36

Fitzgerald v lane 1987

Back 36

For concurrent causes, UK courts would probably impose joint and several liability

Front 37

Froom v Butcher

Back 37

C must contribute to injuries not accident for contributory negligence

Front 38

Goldman v Hargrave 1967

Back 38

Property occupier has duty to neighbours in omissions

Front 39

Gough v Thorne

Back 39

As children are less likely to know risk, higher standard for contributory negligence

Front 40

Gray v Thomas Trains 2009

Back 40

If previously liable for negligence, stops when illegal act happens

Front 41

Greatorex v Greatorex 2000

Back 41

No duty to secondary victims in psychiatric harm if V self-harmed

Front 42

Greg v Scott

Back 42

Can only claim for loss of chance if original chance was above 50%

Front 43

Haynes v Harwood 1935

Back 43

If D creates source of danger, duty established in omissions

Front 44

Hedley Byrne v Heller

Back 44

To claim economic loss by negligent misstatement must:
- one party has greater knowledge
- statement made to C about particular transaction
- C reasonably relies on statement
- D realises C will rely on statement

Front 45

Herd v Weardale Steel Co 1910

Back 45

If C willingly accepts conditions of restriction, not false imprisonment

Front 46

Hinz v Berry

Back 46

To claim psychological harm caused by negligence, must be medically recognised

Front 47

Holman v Johnson 1775

Back 47

Sets out basis for illegality defence (no claim for guilty man)

Front 48

Home Office v Dorset Yacht 1970

Back 48

No general duty to control acts of others and also requirements for exception established

Front 49

Hunter v Canary Wharf 1997

Back 49

Outlines who can sue in nuisance and under which circumstances

Front 50

JD v East Berkshire Community Health Trust 2005

Back 50

JD v East Berkshire Community Health Trust 2005

Front 51

Jobling v Associatied Dairies 1982

Back 51

Establishes test for factual causation for multiple successive causes

Front 52

Jolley v Sutton LBC 2000

Back 52

For remoteness test, TYPE of harm must be reasonably foreseeable

Front 53

Jones v Livox Quarries

Back 53

For contributory negligence, harm must be a foreseeable consequence of C's acts

Front 54

Jones v Royce

Back 54

In emergency, standard expected for contributory negligence is what's reasonable in circumstances

Front 55

Kent v Griffiths

Back 55

Ambulance service has duty to respond

Front 56

Kirkham v CC of Greater Manchester Police 1990

Back 56

As police have duty to prevent suicide, volenti defence can't be used if they know of suicide risk

Front 57

Knightley v Johns

Back 57

act of 3rd party will not be NAI if does not cause loss

Front 58

Kralj v Mcgrath

Back 58

Grief is not medically recognised for negligent psychological harm

Front 59

Lamb v Camden LBC 1981

Back 59

Acts of 3rd Parties will be NAI if the Act was unusual/unlikely

Front 60

Latimer v AEC ltd

Back 60

Cost and practicability of precautions taken into account when establishing standard of care

Front 61

Leakey v National Trust 1980

Back 61

Occupiers who continue a nuisance may be sued

Front 62

Letang v Cooper

Back 62

Must have intention for battery
If no intent, claim in negligence, cannot claim in both for same incident

Front 63

Mason v Levey Auto Parts of England 1967

Back 63

Outlines conditions to find liability for accidental fire

Front 64

McKew v Holland 1969

Back 64

If C exposes themselves to obvious/serious risks - NAI

Front 65

Morris v Murray

Back 65

Claimant must have specific knowledge of risk to use volenti defence

Front 66

Mullin v Richards

Back 66

Age of D can be taken into account when establishing standard of care

Front 67

Murphy v Brentwood District council

Back 67

Can only claim for negligence in providing defective good if they cause personal injury.

Front 68

Murphy v Culhane 1977

Back 68

If there is already illegal activity, no claim in wrongs to the person

Front 69

Murray v MOD 1988

Back 69

C may reclaim nominal damages for false imprisonment if they don't know they're imprisoned

Front 70

Nettleship v Weston 1971

Back 70

Drivers have duty to other road users no matter how experienced

Front 71

Osborne v The London and North Western Railway Company

Back 71

For volenti defence, C must know AND willingly accept risks

Front 72

Osman v UK

Back 72

Application of policy to establishing duty of public authorities criticised

Front 73

Page v Smith

Back 73

If psychiatric harm of primary victims reasonably foreseeable and caused by sudden event claim will suceed

Front 74

Paris v Stepney BC 1951

Back 74

Greater potential harm, higher standard of care

Front 75

Performance Cars v Abraham

Back 75

If multiple consecutive causes, but for test applies to 1st defendant

Front 76

Pitts v Hunt 1991

Back 76

Both C and D have to contribute to negligence to use defence

Front 77

Prison Officer Association v Iqbal 2009

Back 77

For false imprisonment the restriction must be unlawful

Front 78

R v Bournewood Community NHS Trust, ex p L 1999

Back 78

In strict circumstances defence of necessity may be available for trespass against the person

Front 79

R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans 2000

Back 79

For false imprisonment, only need intention to imprison

Front 80

R v Ireland 1998

Back 80

Words alone or silence may be sufficient for assault

Front 81

Read v Johns

Back 81

For Rylands v Fletcher, definition as non-natural use depends on circumstances

Front 82

Redland Bricks v Morris

Back 82

For a mandatory injunction, must prove that:
- Possibility of substantial damage in future
- Damages would be inadequate
- D acted unreasonably

Front 83

Reed v Lyons 1947

Back 83

For Rylands v Fletcher dangerous thing must physically escape

Front 84

Revill v Newberry 1996

Back 84

For defence of self-defence, act must be proportionate

Front 85

Robinson v Kilvert 1889

Back 85

Must prove would be nuisance for reasonable person, not a special circumstance

Front 86

Rothwell v Chemical & Insurance Co

Back 86

Anxiety over illness/symptomless plaques not foreseeable/actionable

Front 87

SCM v WJ Whittal & Son 1970

Back 87

Isolated incidents should be claimed in negligence not nuisance

Front 88

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co

Back 88

Established rep ipsa loquitur:
- thing which causes damage in control of D
- cause of accident unknown
- Accident would not normally occur without negligence

Front 89

Smith v Charles Baker & Sons

Back 89

Consent of employees cannot be used for volenti defence

Front 90

Smith v Leech Brain

Back 90

Thin skull rule established

Front 91

Smith v Littlewoods 1987

Back 91

If harm is reasonably foreseeable, property owners may have duty to their neighbours

Front 92

Smith v Scott 1873

Back 92

Rylands v Fletcher doesn't apply to controld of humans

Front 93

Smoldon v Whitworth

Back 93

Sports players accept risks as long as play in rules so can use volenti defence. referees have duty to prevent unsafe play

Front 94

Spartan Steel

Back 94

Generally no claim in PEL for negligence Can claim for negligent damage to property and losses incurred but not loss of profit

Front 95

Spring v Guardian Assurance

Back 95

Can claim for negligent reference

Front 96

Stovin v Wise 1996

Back 96

If public authorities didn't create situation, they have no duty to act

Front 97

Sturges v Bridgman 1879

Back 97

Established locality principle for nuisance
Prescription may be used as a defence but not if situation/neighbour new

Front 98

Surtecs v Kingston-upon-Thames BC 1991

Back 98

If a parent creates a situation, there is a duty in omissions

Front 99

Thomas v NUM 1986

Back 99

For assault, D must have means to carry out threat for it to be direct and immediate

Front 100

Thomas v Smith Ship Repairers Ltd 1984

Back 100

Common practice argument not generally accepted when establishing breach

Front 101

Transco v Stockport Metropolitan BC 2004

Back 101

For Rylands v Fletcher, risk of thing ESCAPING must be dangerous

Front 102

Tremain v Pike 1969

Back 102

Case for defence on remoteness (disease not being foreseeable)

Front 103

Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd 2009

Back 103

To be harassment, conduct must be unreasonable and oppressive

Front 104

Vernon v Bosley

Back 104

Distress is not medically recognised for negligent psychological harm

Front 105

Wagon Mound 1961

Back 105

Establishes remoteness test for legal causation

Front 106

Wainwright v Home Office 2003

Back 106

Negligence and Protection from Harassment Act 1997 have replaced Wilkinson v Downton

Front 107

Watson v BBBC 2001

Back 107

If D undertakes responsibility for C's welfare, there is duty in omissions

Front 108

Watt v Hertfordshire CC 1954

Back 108

Social benefits of D's actions should be considered when establishing breach

Front 109

Wilkinson v Downton 1897

Back 109

Allows claims for psychological harm caused without touching

Front 110

Wilsher v Essex AHA 1988

Back 110

If there are multiple alternative causes, unlikely to be causation

Front 111

Wong v Parkside NHS trust

Back 111

For Wilkinson v Downton
- must be actual harm
- D must act intentionally
- must be of level that D cannot claim they didn't mean to cause

Front 112

Wooldridge v Sumner

Back 112

Spectators consent to lapse of judgement/skill of players so can use volenti defence but not for negligence

Front 113

X v Bedfordshire CC 1995

Back 113

establishes test where policy reasons are concerned, social workers do not have duty to parents

Front 114

hatton v Sutherland

Back 114

Understaffed department relevant if claiming psychological damage