Law cases- Tort law

All the cases you need to know for Tort law.

Enjoy! :)

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Holly
  • Created on: 04-12-12 09:37
Preview of Law cases- Tort law

First 516 words of the document:

Donaghue v Stevenson Established the neighbour principle in the law of
negligence- `You must take reasonable care to avoid
acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee
would be likely to injure your neighbour.'
Caparo v Dickman Established the 3 part test to decide if a duty of care
exists;
Was some harm or damage foreseeable?
Was there a sufficiently proximate relationship
between the 2 parties?
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
on the D?
Kent v Griffiths It was reasonably foreseeable that some harm would
come to the man if the ambulance took too long to arrive
an asthma sufferer at the hospital. There is a duty of
care
Osman v Ferguson There was a sufficiently proximate relationship between
the victim and the police. There is a duty of care
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council It was reasonably foreseeable that some harm might
come to a child playing on a damaged boat that had not
yet been removed from where children might play on it.
There is a duty of care
Bourhill v Young It was not reasonably foreseeable that some harm
would come to the claimant as she did not see he
crash, only hear it and saw blood on the road, resulting
in a miscarriage of her child. There is no duty of care
Topp v London County Bus Ltd It was not reasonably foreseeable that a man would
steal the bus and drive dangerously, injuring the
claimant. There is no duty of care
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire There was not a sufficiently proximate relationship
between the unknown victim and the police so there is
no duy of care.
Mulcahy v MOD It was not fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty of care
as it would open the flood gates of litigation
Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County It is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on
an authority where they have created a new danger or
Council substantially increased the risk of an existing danger.
Roe v Minister of Health If the risk of harm is not known then there is no breach
Bolton v Stone Where a risk is small then it is unlikely that there is a
duty of care
Haley v London Electricity Board Where its known there is a risk and no steps are taken
to guard against that risk, there is a breach in the duty
of care
Paris v Stepney Borough Council Where the consequences of harm to a particular person
are greater than for others, there is a higher standard of
care owed to that person.
Latimer v AEC Only reasonable precautions need to be taken. E.g. a
spillage in a large factory, it will be unreasonable to
close the whole factory.

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Bolam v Fiern Hospital Management Where the D has some expertise, e.g. a doctor, then the
standard of care is that which would be normally
expected from a doctor- `it is sufficient if he exercises
the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man
exercising that particular art'.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

Dufosse V Melbry Events There was a breach of duty of care when a 73 year old
tripped over a plastic icicle and injured herself whilst
visiting Santa's grotto. The D did not take reasonable
precautions
Johnston V Nei International Combustion Negligence cannot be sustained where the damage
is trivial. It follows that real damage must have been
Limited suffered to sustain an action
Palmer v Cornwall County Council `But for' test.…read more

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »