Tort Cases

A PowerPoint Presentation with Cases from Law of Tort. Each slide containes the name of the Case, what happened in the case, what the court held or what was established from the case.

I actually used these to study for GCSE Law so I don't know how helpful they would be for AS or A Level Law. Nevertheless, If you are studying Law, especially Law of Tort in Unit 2, you would know that it is important to learn Case Laws to back up the points you make in the exam and to show a better understanding of Law to the examiner, however, there are so many cases it  can become extremely difficult.This is what I made and used to learn the cases for my exam and I found them very very useful.

To make the best use out of this publication, I would suggest

  • you insert images into the slides of what happened in each case to help you remember them better, like I have in some of the cases.
  • Then, print the slides out and cut them out to make little cards. 
  • Separate them out into the sections stated at the bottom right corner
  • Read each case and what happened in it
  • Then, try to learn the purple box with the case name.
  • Finally, when you feel confident enough, get somebody to test you by reading out the CAPITAL UNDERLINED text in the purple box and see if you can guess the name of the case.

Once you can guess all of the, you know you are ready for the exam.

This is because, if the exam asks a question about if someone is owed a duty of care, you can say "Yes, in the case of Donoghue v Stavenson" or "No, in the case of Bourhill v Young"

This method obviously excludes the Acts of Parliament at the end, which you'll just have to learn the best way you can.


  • Please ignore spelling or grammar or any other mistakes. I made these myself. I'm only a 16 year old..:(
  • These are not ALL of the cases you need  to learn, there may be more you need to learn. Consult your teacher or check your Text books
  • As far as I know, it is not important to learn the dates (except for obviously the Occupier's Liability Acts)

I really hope this helps you, they definitely heelpes me. Please let me know what you thought be leaving a comment.


HideShow resource information
  • Created by: BobbyPin
  • Created on: 02-06-12 12:15
Preview of Tort Cases

Other slides in this set

Slide 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Mrs Donoghue bought a bottle of ginger beer by her
friend. She drank part of it then found it contained a dead
and decomposing snail at the bottom of it. As a result she
became ill. She could not sue the shopkeeper under the
law of contract since she had not bought the ginger beer.
She started a case against the manufacturers of the
ginger beer in being negligent in not making sure that
bottles were properly cleaned.
She won her case as Lord Atkin introduced the `DUTY OF CARE' to your
`NEIGHBOURS' and the tort of negligence was developed here.
Negligence…read more

Slide 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)
This case expanded the test for duty of care. They are
wider than the neighbour test. It has to be shown that:
· Damage was foreseeable
· There is sufficiently `proximate' relationship between the
parties (neighbour test)
· Is it just and reasonably to impose a duty of care
Negligence…read more

Slide 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Bourhill v Young (1943)
A motorcyclist crashed into a car and was killed. Mrs
Bourhill, who was eight months pregnant, heard the crash
but did not see it, only the blood from the accident on the
road; she suffered shock and lost her baby. She sued the
motorcyclist's estate, claiming he owed her a duty of
Held: She was NOT owed a duty of care; she was not his `neighbour'. (the
motorcyclist could not reasonably anticipate that she would be affected by her negligent
Negligence…read more

Slide 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

Paris v Stepney Borough Council(1951)
The defendants knew that the claimant, an employee,
was blind in one eye. They failed to provide him with
protective goggles for his work and he was blinded when
metal chip hit his good eye. Employers argued it was not
usual to provide goggles for this type of work.
Held: the defendants knew their employee was blind in one eye, they had to take
a GREATER DUTY OF CARE for his safety than for normal employees.
Negligence…read more

Slide 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

Roe v Minister of Health (1954)
The claimant became paralysed because anaesthetics
given to him during a operation was contaminated by
disinfectant. The anaesthetics was kept in glass ampoules
(small containers) which were stored un disinfectant. The
disinfectant had got into the anaesthetics through
invisible cracks in the glass. At the time of the operation
in 1947, this risk was unknown.
Held: Claimant had not proved that the hospital authorities had broken their duty
of care as the RISK WAS UNKNOWN and therefore he could not claim for
Negligence…read more

Slide 7

Preview of page 7
Preview of page 7

Slide 8

Preview of page 8
Preview of page 8

Slide 9

Preview of page 9
Preview of page 9

Slide 10

Preview of page 10
Preview of page 10



Thanks so much :)

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »