35 cards


Preview Flashcards

Front Back
 Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Established the "neighbour" principle.
 Caparo v Dickman (1990)
3 part test for duty of care.
 Kent v Griffiths (2000)
Example of foreseeablility. (Foreseeable that someone waiting for an ambulance would suffer harm if it were unduly delayed.)
 Bourhill v Young (1943)
Proximity in time alone is not enough to establish duty of care.
 McLoughlin v O’Brien (1983)
Claimant's relationship to victim of accident was enough to establish proximity.
 Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)
Police do not owe a duty of care to victims of crime and their families.
 MPC v  Reeves (2001)
Police owe a duty of care to people taken into custody.
 Orange v  Chief Constable  of West Yorks (2001)
Duty of care is owed by police to prisoners only when the risk is known.
 Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Baron Alderson's famous definition of the "reasonable man".
 Wells v Cooper (1954)
An amateur doing DIY is expected to reach the same standard as a competant professional.
 Nettleship v Weston (1971)
A learner driver must reach the same standard as a competent qualified driver.
 Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957)
Duty of care for professionals : 2-part test.
 Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority (1997)
Courts may decide that the standard accepted by the profession in general is not high enough.
 Roe v Minister for Health (1954)
Reasonable man would not protect against unknown risks.
 Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)
Greater care must be taken when the claimant is particularly vulnerable.
 Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995)
If an employee suffers work-related illness, employer must take extra care to avoid a repeat or worse illness.
 Bolton v Stone (1951)
No need to protect against very remote risks.
 Haley v London Electricity Board (1964)
It is reasonable to protect against risks which are statistically likely.
 Latimer v AEC (1952)
Duty of care is not breached if the defendant has taken all practical precautions.
 Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)
Lower standard of care where the benefits of the risk outweigh the potential harm.
 Day v High Performance Sports (2003)
Lower standard of care when making a rescue attempt.
 Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1968)
"But for" test.
 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. (2002)
Modified "but for" test in asbestos cases.
 Barker v Corus (2006)
Modified "but for" test in asbestos cases.
 Smith v Littlewoods (1987)
Intervening acts which are not foreseeable will break the chain of causation.
 Corr v IBC Vehicles (2006)
Depression suffered as a result of an accident is not an intervening act.
 The Wagon Mound (1961)
The defendant is liable for all foreseeable damage, but nothing else.
 Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)
Defendant is liable if the type of harm is foreseeable, even if the form is takes is unusual.
 Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)
Defendant is liable if the type of harm is foreseeable, even if the form is takes is unusual
 Doughty v Turner Asbestos (1964)
Damage which is not foreseeable is too remote.
 Smith v Leech Brain (1962)
Take your victim as you find him.
 Gabriel v Kirklees Metropolitan Council (2004)
Confirmed that reasonable foreseeability is still the correct test for remoteness of damage.
 Scott v London & St. Katherine’s Docks (1865)
3 part test for res ipsa loquitur.
 Bergin v David Wickes Television Ltd (1994)
"Res ipsa loquitur is a convenient label for a group of situations where there has been an unexplained accident, and common sense suggests there has been negligence."
 Pearson v North Western Gas Board (1968)
Even where res ipsa loquitur is proven, the defendant can avoid liability by proving that they had taken all reasonable precautions.
Related Flashcards