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;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Donoghue v Stevenson |
Created neighbour test and established tort of negligence |
|
|
Caparo v Dickman |
Replaced neighbour test with new 3 part test 1-Reasonably foreseeable 2-Sufficient proximity 3-Fair, just and reasonable |
|
|
Kent v Griffiths |
Reasonably foreseeable that if an ambulance didn't arrive then the patient would suffer injury |
|
|
Bourhill v Young |
It wasn't reasonably foreseeable that a pregnant woman would go to the scene of the accident and suffer a stillbirth due to shock |
|
|
Osman v Ferguson |
It was sufficently proximity as the police knew there was a risk that the claimant would be targeted |
|
|
Hill v CC of West Yorks |
It wasn't sufficiently proximate as anyone could've been the next victim and it didn't matter that the police didn't arrest killer before the victim died |
|
|
Capital PLC v Hampshire CC |
It was fiar, just and reasonable for the fire-bridgade to hold a duty of care, as they ordered the sprinklers to be turned off which made it worse. Didn't open floodgates of liability |
|
|
Mulcahy v MoD |
It wasn't fair, just and reasonable as a serviceman doesn't owe a duty of care to his fellow servicemen in battle conditions, and for the same reason for MoD as they didn't have to provide a safe system of work in those conditions |
|
|
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co |
Created the reasonable man test |
|
|
Roe v MoH |
D didn't know about the risk of anaesthetic being contaminated in glass jars, so there was no claim |
|
|
Paris v Stepney BC |
Employer should've provided goggles, and so taking greater care of C's good eye. So when good eye was damaged, D had breached duty |
|
|
Walker v Northumberland CC |
Work-related stress became a special characteristic of C, so employer should've taken extra care to ensure C was protected at work |
|
|
Bolton v Stone |
6 balls in 30 years had been hit over the 17 foot high fence. This was low risk so there was no breach |
|
|
Hayley v LEB |
1 in 500 people were blind so there was a relatively high risk of a blind person falling into trench, meaning there was a breach |
|
|
Latimer v AEC |
D had done several things in order to prevent harm from happening, so when C slipped and was injured there was no breach as all pracitcal precautions had been taken |
|
|
Watt v Hertfordshire CC |
The benefit of saving a woman's life was greater than the risk of injuring a fireman, who were ready to take the risk of using vehicle to save the woman's life |
|
|
Nettleship v Weston |
Learner driver's standard should be judged to that of a reasonably competent driver, and not the standard of a learner driver There are no learner standards in tort law |
|
|
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee
|
Medical experts had 2 opinions, one for and one against use of relaxant drugs. So hospital had reached higher professional standard that was expected so there was no breach |
|
|
Bolitho v City & Hackney Ha |
Modified Bolam. Open to court to find entire medical profession wrong. In these circumstances, duty of care had been breached despite normal medical procedure being followed |
|
|
Mulin v Richards |
Girl was only expected to meet the standard of a reasonable 15 year old gilr, not a reasonable man. Meant that the girl had no breach duty of care |
|
|
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC |
Death hadn't occured as a result of the Doctor's breach of duty, so the claim failed |
|
|
Fairchild v Glenhaven FS Ltd |
Damages awarded from the place that was most likely to give the C asbestos |
|
|
Barker v Corus |
D is liable for the proportion to the likelihood where the asbestos came from |
|
|
Smith v Littlewoods |
Vandalism is an intervening act |
|
|
Carr v IBC Vehicles |
Suicide doesnt breach the chain of causation, so D had still been negligent |
|
|
Wagon Mound |
Damage done by the spread of fire due to the oil spill was too remote from the original negligent act so D wasn't liable for this damage as it wasn't reasonably foreseeable |
|
|
Hughes v Lord Advocate |
The injury caused by the explosion of the paraffin lamsp was foreseeable, so D was liable. And it was foreseeable that a child may explore, break a lamp and be burnt by it |
|
|
Smith v Leech Brain |
D was liable for death despite not knowing due to the thin skull rule as the burn to C's lip was foreseeable |
|
|
Reeves v MPC |
Police were liable for death, but compensation was reduced by 50% as suicide is contributory negligence |
|
|
Sayers v Harlow |
D was found negligent, but damages were reduced by 25% as C had been careless when climbing onto toilet which caused her to break both legs |
|
|
Morris v Murray |
C helped a clearly drunken pilot into plane. They crashed on take off. No damages as C had been 'the author of their own misfortune' |
|
|
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks |
Court held that the facts spoke for themselves so D had to prove that they hadn't been negligent. Led to a 3 part test 1-Situation must have been under D's control 2-No obvious alternative explanation 3-Wouldn't have happened if proper care had been taken |
|
|
Ward v Tesco |
Tesco had been unable to prove that they had taken all reasonable precautions so Tesco's was liable and C won their claim |
|
|
Gee v Met. Railway |
D was found liable as they were in control of the doors of the train, so negligence was a likely cause of C's injury |
|
|
Mahon v Osborne |
Res ipsa loquitur can only be applied to things within common experience, and this wasn't the case with complex surgical procedures |
|
|
Easson v LNER |
D wasn't liable as they weren't sufficently in control of the doors and the distance travelled from the last station (several miles) meant that another passenger may have interfered with the doors |
