2509 BPS Av LAW- Cases

Flashcards About The Landmark Cases In The Course
Changes are done, please view the flashcard.

Preview Flashcards

What is the landmark case for the Tort of Negligence
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
What is the principle theme of the cases Seaman v Curtiss Flying Service; and The Bywell Castle (1879) 4 PD 219?
If a man is confronted with a dangerous situation not of his own making, and there are several courses open to him and he is required to make a quick judgment, the failure to exercise the best possible judgment would not, of itself, constitute negligence.
The law does not require that the best course of action be taken in an emergency.
What was held in Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
That the likelihood of a cricket ball hitting Mrs. Stone was low and the defendant was not guilty of negligence.
What case represents the notion that degree of precautions required to eliminate the risk of injury?
Qantas Airways Ltd v Cameron (1996) 66 FCR 246 , as Qantas knew that flights in pressurised jet aircraft could give rise to health problems if non-smoking passengers were seated next to the smoking area.
In what case was the But for test formulated?
Cork v Kirkby MacLean. Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 402
A test used by courts to determine whether the causal link exists. It asks the question: “But for” the conduct of the defendant, would the plaintiff have suffered the damages alleged? It compares what actually happened to what might theoretically have happened.
What is the landmark case for the principle of Remoteness of damage?
Overseas Tankership (UK) Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd “The Wagon Mound (No. 1)” [1961] AC 388
Oil leaked onto the sea from tankership, hot metal from Morts Dock fell onto floating cotton igniting the oil and causing damages to the tankership.It was held that the fire was not reasonably foreseeable and that the appellant was not liable in negligence.
What happened in Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6? Was the defendant guilty of negligence?
Drunk pilot and friend who went for a joy flight. The friend had voluntarily assumed the risk as he knew the pilot was drunk and helped him into the plane.
It was held that the defendant was not liable for negligence because of voluntary assumption of risk (Volenti non fit injuria)
What case states that landowners’ rights do not extend to an unlimited height, but rather as necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment of his land?
Bernstein (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479
A person does not need the element of mens rea to be guilty, the act itself actus reus is sufficient. What is a case that illustrates this point?
R v McConnell [1977] 1 NSWLR 714

Upgrade and get a lot more done!