Tort case list

Donoughue V Stevenson (Negligence)

You have a duty of care to avoid acts and omission which you could reasonably foresee would harm your neighbour

1 of 87

Caporo V Dickman (Negligence)

Which party is in a better position to buy insurance, will the duty prevent future accidents or discourage people from taking party in normal activities, should the claimant have responsibility to look after themselves?

2 of 87

Blyth (Negligence)

Being negligent is doing something a reasonable man wouldn't do or failing to do something a reasonable man would do

3 of 87

Bolton V stone (Negligence)

Probability of harm

4 of 87

Robinson V Postoffice (Negligence)

If medical treatment is foreseeable, D is liable for all damages

5 of 87

Smith v Leech Brain (Negligence)

Thin skull victims; you are liable for all damages even if it's unforeseeable

6 of 87

Bradford v Robinsons (Negligence)

Does not matter if the damage was more server than expected

7 of 87

Hughes (Negligence)

The fact that the damage has come about in a unforeseeable way, did not render the damage too remote

8 of 87

The Wagon Mound no 1(Negligence)

Was the kind of damage reasonable foreseeable by the defendant at the time of the breach of duty

9 of 87

Wilsher (Negligence)

Couldn't prove on the balance of probability that the defendants negligence caused the blindness

10 of 87

Barnett (Negligence)

but for the defendant's breach of duty, the victim still would have died.

11 of 87

Nettleship v Western (Negligence)

Learners should show the same standard of care as someone fully qualified.

12 of 87

Paris (Negligence)

Potential seriousness

13 of 87

Latimer (Negligence)

practicality of precautions

14 of 87

watt (Negligence)

Emergency situation/ Social value

15 of 87

Bolam (Negligence)

Standard for experts

16 of 87

Bolitho (Negligence)

Standard for experts

17 of 87

Lamb (Negligence)

A criminal third party act will break the chain of causation

18 of 87

Knightly V Jones (Negligence)

A negligence third part act will break the chain of causation

19 of 87

Scott v Sheperd (Negligence)

An innocent third party act will not break the chain of causation

20 of 87

Mckew (Negligence)

Claimants own act won't break the chain, as long as it's not unreasonable

21 of 87

Brannon v Airtours (Contributory Negligence)

The holiday company was negligent in how they arranged the room, however he contributed to the negligence as they were told not to stand on tables

22 of 87

Froom v Butcher (Contributory Negligence)

Wasn't wearing a seatbelt

23 of 87

Morris v Murray (Consent)

Aware of negligence and freely consented to it

24 of 87

Barnett (Medical Negligence)

Hospital casualty department can not choose which patients to treat, it owes a duty of care to everyone

25 of 87

Chester v Afshar (Medical Negligence)

A doctor has a duty to explain the risks of surgery to a patient

26 of 87

Gregg v Scott (Medical Negligence)

Undetected cancer left his changes of living from 42% to 25%, they refused to allow loss of chance.

27 of 87

Mahon v Osborne (Medical Negligence)

Res ipsa loquiter

28 of 87

Radcliff (Medical Negligence)

Res ipsa loquiter (could prove another explanation)

29 of 87

Page v Smith (psychiatric harm)

Psychiatric harm was not foreseeable, but physical harm was and so that is enough.

30 of 87

Chadwick (psychiatric harm)

Climbed into the train, where there was danger so he feared for himself, and becomes a primary victim

31 of 87

Alcock (psychiatric harm)

Sets the criteria for secondary victims; close tie of love and affection, close to the accident in time and space, perceived with their own senses

32 of 87

McLoughlin v O'brian (psychiatric harm)

It was like she had seen the accident (time and space)

33 of 87

Sion (psychiatric harm)

It was growing awareness for the son to die (slow shock)

34 of 87

Walters (psychiatric harm)

One step led inevitably to the next so it was a single event therefore a sudden shock

35 of 87

W V Essex County Council (psychiatric harm)

Definition of primary and secondary victims were so uncertain as to allow the claimants to qualify as secondary or even primary victims

36 of 87

Hinz v Berry (psychiatric harm)

Recognised psychiatric disorder

37 of 87

Donoughue V Stevenson (product liability)

A manufacturer of goods owes a duty of care to the consumer of these goods, when he intends those goods to reach the consumer when they have left the factory without further examination or preparation

38 of 87

Stennett v Handcock (product liability)

A bystander effected by the defendants negligence can claim

39 of 87

Grant (product liability)

Hidden defect was not reasonably discoverable by the purchaser so the defendant should have taken more care (faulty manufacturing process)

40 of 87

Kubach v Hollands (product liability)

(Instructions and warning labels) The shop should have put the warnings on the chemicals, it's not the manufacturers fault

41 of 87

Evans (product liability)

Couldn't show on the balance of probabilities that it was the defendants negligence which caused the damage

42 of 87

Muirhead (product liability)

What damage can be claimed for? You can only claim for damage caused by the product, and not the product itself

43 of 87

Spartan Steel (Economic Loss)

Difference between consequential economic loss and pure economic loss

44 of 87

Cattle (Economic Loss)

Pure economic loss (no claim)

45 of 87

Hedley Bryne V Heller (Economic Loss)

In order to claim under there must be a relationship between two parties

46 of 87

Lennon (Economic Loss)

Possesses skills and expertise required (the advice should be correct)

47 of 87

Caparo v Dickman (Economic Loss)

Known user of the advice

48 of 87

Goodwill (Economic Loss)

Victim had to rely on the defendant passing over the advice correctly

49 of 87

Reeman (Economic Loss)

Advice is for a known purpose

50 of 87

Smith v Bush (Economic Loss)

Reasonable reliance

51 of 87

Ready Mix Concrete (Vicarious Liability)

Multiple Test

52 of 87

Carmicheal (Vicarious Liability)

Mutuality of obligation

53 of 87

Century Insurance (Vicarious Liability)

Employer was VL for damage, as employer was carrying out is authorised duties, albeit in a negligent way

54 of 87

Limpus (Vicarious Liability)

Employer was VL, as at the time of the accident the employee was acting in an authorised way, the fact that he was doing so in a forbidden way is irrelevant

55 of 87

Beard (Vicarious Liability)

Employer was VL as the acts were unauthorised

56 of 87

Rose v Plenty (Vicarious Liability)

(Lifts) Employer VL if employee gives a lift to some, whilst otherwise going about his duties, and the passenger contributes to these duties

57 of 87

Hemphill v Williams (Vicarious Liability)

Employer VL diavation by a driver from the normal route, as long as the detour is connecting to the employer business and is too great in extent

58 of 87

Lister v Helsley Hall (Vicarious Liability)

Employer is VL for the criminal acts of an employee if those acts are so closely connected to what the employee was employed to do that is fair and just to hold the employer responsible

59 of 87

Lowery v Walker (Occupiers Liability) (Lawful visitor)

Lawful visitors due to repeated visits and the occupier did not discourage them

60 of 87

Jolley v Sutton (Occupiers Liability) (Lawful visitor)

Children not a trespasser of they enter land to investigate something. They owed a duty of care to the boys

61 of 87

Pearson (Occupiers Liability) (trespasser)

The child walked into the zoo area due to the lack of signs to stop people, not a trespasser as there was no clear limit as to area

62 of 87

Scrutton (Occupiers Liability) (trespassers)

Limit as to purpose

63 of 87

Wheat v Lacon (Occupiers Liability) (Lawful visitor)

Occupier if you have control over the premises

64 of 87

s.1 (3) (a) (Occupiers Liability) (Lawful Visitor)

premises includes land, buildings etc...

65 of 87

Phipps (Occupiers Liability) (Lawful visitor)

An occupier is entitled to assume that a small child will be being supervised

66 of 87

Roles v Nathan (Occupiers Liability) (Lawful visitor)

specialist visitor undertaking job, he should be aware of the risks

67 of 87

Woodward (Occupiers Liability) (Lawful visitor)

School could have taken reasonable steps to check the steps were safe

68 of 87

s.2 (1) (Occupiers Liability) (Lawful Visitor)

an occupier of a premises owes a duty of care to all his lawful visitors

69 of 87

s.2 (2) (Occupiers Liability) (Lawful Visitor)

duty is to take reasobale care that the vistor will be safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he/ she has been invited

70 of 87

s.1 (3) (Occupiers Liability) (Trespasser)

The claimant must show that the occupier did three things

71 of 87

Scott (Occupiers Liability) (Trespasser)

is aware of the danger and has reasonable grounds to believe it exists

72 of 87

Donoghue (Occupiers Liability) (Trespasser)

He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone is or may come into the vicinity of the danger

73 of 87

Hunter (Private nuisance)

the claimant must have a legal interest in land

74 of 87

Halsey v Esso (Private nuisance)

The location is important as it will effect what activities are acceptable

75 of 87

Spicer v Smee (Private nuisance)

The more often something happens the more likely it is to be a nuisance.

76 of 87

Murdock (Private nuisance)

The more serious the interference is the more likely it is to be a nuisance (low level noise not a nuisance)

77 of 87

Bridlington Relay (Private nuisance)

if the claimant is using the property for an extra sensitive use he is not entitled to sue in circumstances where reasonable use would not need protection

78 of 87

Dennis (Private nuisance)

How useful to society the activity is

79 of 87

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm (Private nuisance)

if the defendant deliberately does something with no other purpose than to annoy the claimant the defendants malice can make something a nuisance that may not otherwise have been so

80 of 87

Kennaway v Thompson (Private nuisance)

injunction granted

81 of 87

AG v PYA Quarries (public nuisance)

30 people were enough for a class

82 of 87

Rimmington (public nuisance)

there must be a common injury

83 of 87

Lyons v Gulliver (public nuisance)

public nuisance- all his customers were prevented from going to the shop

84 of 87

Tate (public nuisance)

the claimant suffered a special loss '' above and beyond everyone else''

85 of 87

Stannard v Gore (Ryland's v Fletcher)

the defendant must keep or collect an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing on his land

86 of 87

Transo (Ryland's v Fletcher)

there must be an exceptionally high risk that the dangerous thing will escape

87 of 87

Get Revising

Tort case list

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: