Changes are done, please view the flashcard.

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.
Enter Password


Upgrade and get a lot more done!