AS Law TORT CASES

AS Law TORT CASES  
  
Changes are done, please view the flashcard.

Preview Flashcards

FrontBack
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.

Upgrade and get a lot more done!
Upgrade