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

Other cards in this set

Card 2


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?


Caporo V Dickman (Negligence)

Card 3


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


Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4


Probability of harm


Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5


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


Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Civil Law resources »