Torts - Negligence - Duty Of Care: Areas Of Controversy

Front 1

Nervous Shock

Back 1

Yep

Front 2

McLoughlin v O'Brian

Back 2

P sees family in hopsicle after car accident, suffers from psychiatric damage. Wilbergroundforce: reasonable foreseeability, close relationship, direct perception.

Front 3

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

Back 3

Hillsborough football disaster!?? 16 plaintiffs - all fail. Seeing on the tv was held not to be sufficiently direct perception. Failed on policy grounds.

Front 4

Mulally v Bus Eireann

Back 4

P's family in serious car accident. Sees them in hopsicle. PTSD. Allowed to recover based on principles of negligence.

Front 5

Kelly v Hennessey

Back 5

1. Psychiatric injury.
2. Shock induced.
3. Causation.
4. Actual or apprehended injury to P or P's family.
5. Reasonable foreseeability.

Front 6

Fletcher v Commissioner of Public Works

Back 6

Fear of developing asbestos related illness not allowed to succeed. Would be unreasonable to impose such a standard of care.

Front 7

Pure Economic Loss

Back 7

Yep.

Front 8

Ultramares v Touche

Back 8

Reason for not imposing liability - indeterminate amount, indeterminate class.

Front 9

Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin & Co Ltd.

Back 9

D's negligence causes power to cut out in factory - furnaces cut out. Only allowed to claim damages for steel lost in furnaces, not for loss of earnings. Can claim for economic loss arising out of physical damage.

Front 10

Junior Books v Veitchi

Back 10

Liability for faulty flooring. Loss of earnings as well as cost of replacement. Judges are not willing to follow this decision in the UK.

Front 11

Ward v McMaster
McShane v Wholesale Fruit & Vegetable

Back 11

Both seem to support Junior Books.

Front 12

Hedley Byrne Liability

Back 12

Liability for economic loss arising out of negligent misstatement.

Arises where P relies on D's special skill, D knew they would rely, and it is reasonable for P to rely.

Front 13

Hedley Byrne v Heller

Back 13

Credit reference from a bank - they are A-ok! This, it transpired, was not the case at all. Bank had disclaimer so they were grand like.

Front 14

Wildgust v Governors & Company of Bank of Ireland

Back 14

Man misses payment on insurance premium. Bank had told his broker that the payment had gone through.

Front 15

Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd

Back 15

Brochure incorrectly states the size of a property. Disclaimer in the brochure. Held to be liable anyway - reasonable to rely on the brochure.