tort

What principle was established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?

Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle.

What are the three indicators of a duty established in Caparo v Dickman (1990)?

Proximity, foreseeability, and equitability.

What does proximity involve in McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983)?

It is not solely about time and distance but also legal relationship.

In Bourhill v Young (1943), what was determined about foreseeability?

Injury to the miscarrying claimant was not foreseeable by an ordinary person.

What did Haley v London Electricity Board (1964) clarify about foreseeability?

Injury to a blind claimant was foreseeable by an ordinary person.

What was determined in Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence (1996) regarding duty during a gun battle?

Imposing a duty on a soldier in an active gun battle was not equitable.

What did Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire (1988) state about police duty?

Police do not owe a duty to protect the public through the performance of their investigation of crime.

What can prevent a duty even if the Caparo Test is met, according to Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1991)?

Policy reasons, such as lack of funds to pay all claims.

What did Robinson v Chief Constable West Yorkshire (2018) conclude about the Caparo test?

Caparo only needed for novel cases; Police owe duty where injury caused by commission.

How is breach judged according to Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856)?

Breach is judged objectively.

In Roe v Minister of Health (1954), how is breach assessed?

On the state of general knowledge at the time of the act or omission.

What standard must a learner driver meet as highlighted in Nettleship v Weston (1971)?

A learner driver must perform to the standard of an ordinary driver.

What age standard do children have to meet according to Mullin v Richards (1998)?

Children are judged to the standard of the ordinary child of their age.

What standard do professionals have to meet as defined in Bolam v Frien Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957)?

Professionals are judged to the standard of a reasonable body of their profession.

What must the opinion of a professional body not be according to Bolitho v Hackney HA (1996)?

The opinion must not be illogical or unreasonable.

What does the case Bolton v Stone (1951) suggest about duty breach?

Low likelihood of injury and disproportionate cost of preventing it suggests a duty is not breached.

What does Paris v Stepney (1951) indicate about high risk of injury?

High risk of serious injury which can be prevented with minimal cost indicates breach.

In Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954), what justifies taking a considerable risk?

Saving life and limb justifies the taking of considerable risk and suggests no breach.

What is a key requirement for causation in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington (1969)?

D must be the factual cause of C’s damage.

What does The Wagon Mound No.1 (1961) state about foreseeability?

Damage can only be caused by D if it was reasonably foreseeable.

According to Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963), what must be reasonably foreseeable?

The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, not how it happened.

In Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2000), what must also be reasonably foreseeable?

The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, not how it happened.

In Smith v Leech Brain (1962), how does the severity of injury relate to foreseeability?

If the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, the severity of the injury is irrelevant.

What does Watson v Gray (1999) clarify about volenti?

Volenti requires knowing & willing consent to all harm.

What implication does Smith v Baker (1891) have regarding consent?

Following an employer's orders does not necessarily imply consent.

What does ICI v Shatwell (1965) imply about safety procedures?

Disobedience of an employer’s safety procedures does imply consent.

In Haynes v Harwood (1935), what does a rescuer performing their duty indicate?

It does not amount to volenti.

What does Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958) indicate about damages?

Damages to the claimant are reduced in proportion to their own fault.

How is contributory negligence assessed in Froom v Butcher (1976)?

Not wearing a seat belt amounted to contributory negligence representing up to 25% of loss.

What did Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) (1985) state about contributory negligence?

Contributory negligence can be 100% but does not amount to volenti.

In Weller & Co. v Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966), what type of loss was mentioned?

An auctioneer's lost profit was pure economic loss and could not be claimed.

What does Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co. Ltd (1972) explain about claims?

Only loss which is a physical consequence of the breach can be claimed.

What can lead to liability in misstatement according to Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964)?

There must be a special relationship and no disclaimer.

What does Caparo v Dickman (1991) establish regarding special relationships?

It establishes the five requirements of a special relationship where D can be liable for misstatement.

What relationship did White v Jones (1995) clarify regarding solicitors?

Solicitors owe a duty to beneficiaries of a will having assumed responsibility.

What does Steel v NRAM (2018) say about reliance on misstatements?

D’s reliance on a misstatement must be proper and reasonable.

What is required for a special relationship according to Banca Nazionale v Playboy Club (2018)?

D must know the identity of the potential C.

In Chaudhry v Prabhakar (1988), what can be the context for special relationships?

They can exist even in a social context if all Caparo criteria are met.

What did McLoughlin v O'Brian [1982] establish about nervous shock?

It must be based on psychiatric illness, not mere grief or distress.

Under what condition can primary victims claim for psychiatric injury according to Page v Smith (1995)?

If physical injury was reasonably foreseeable, so too was psychiatric injury.

What does Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (2024) indicate about claims?

Claims can only be made for accidents; doctors do not owe duty to 3rd parties for trauma.

What applies to the timing of the traumatising event?

The traumatising event need not be sudden and shocking.

What tests regarding claims were established in Alcock v CC South Yorkshire (1991)?

The hearness, nearness and dearness tests.

What can rescuers claim for according to Chadwick v BRB (1967)?

They can claim for nervous shock where personally in harm’s way.

In Attia v British Gas (1987), what can lead to psychiatric loss?

If Alcock criteria are met, damage to personal property can lead to loss.

What does Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd (1966) state about occupiers?

Occupier has control not necessarily ownership.

According to Wheeler v Copas (1981), what can be considered premises?

Even a ladder could be premises.

How does The Calgrath (1927) define trespassers?

Lawful visitors become trespassers if they exceed permission.

What does Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002) say about safety for visitors?

Visitors need only be kept reasonably safe, not 100% so.

How can allurement prevent a child from being a trespasser, as noted in Jolley v Sutton LBC (2000)?

It can prevent a child being a trespasser.

In Bourne Leisure v Marsden (2009), what do occupiers need to prove?

They need not prove the parents were negligent to avoid liability.

What is the significance of Roles v Nathan (1963) about tradespeople?

Trades people are expected to guard against risks of their profession.

What does Salmon v Seafarer Restaurants (1983) say about fire risks?

Fire presents unforeseeable risks which cannot always be guarded against.

In Haseldine v Daw (1941), when can liability be avoided?

Where complexity of the task makes it reasonable to contract work out.

What extended responsibilities do hospitals have in Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust (2002)?

Checking the competency of a contractor includes checking insurance, etc.

Under what conditions can complex work be contracted out according to Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945)?

Liability can be avoided under s.2(4)(b).

What does Rae v Mars (1990) indicate about unusual dangers?

They require more than just a warning sign, e.g., a barrier.

What does Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995) say about obvious risks?

An obvious risk requires no warning sign.

When does Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004) indicate no liability exists?

No liability to trespassers where the risk is unknown.

In Higgs v Foster (2004), when is there no liability to trespassers?

Where their presence is not reasonably anticipated.

According to Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003), what must danger originate from?

Danger must originate in the defective premises not the dangerous activity.

What did Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) establish regarding land?

Presence of a building is not a nuisance unless something emanates from it.

In Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994), what must damage from nuisance be?

Damage caused by nuisance must be reasonably foreseeable.

What does Robinson v Kilvert (1889) clarify about sensitive claimants?

Nuisance will not protect extraordinarily sensitive claimants.

What does Sturges v Bridgman (1879) state about locality and nuisance?

Locality can make use of land unreasonable.

According to St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping (1865), what damages are considered a nuisance?

Indirect physical damage will be a nuisance regardless of location.

In Halsey v Esso Petroleum (1961), how does time of day affect use of land?

Time of day can make use of land unreasonable.

What can a malicious motive do regarding land use as distinguished in Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)?

It can make the use of land unreasonable.

What does Miller v Jackson (1977) signify about coming to the nuisance?

Coming to the nuisance is not a defence.

According to Leeman v Montague (1936), how can activity method affect land use?

The method for an activity can make the use of land unreasonable.

In Andreae v Selfridge (1938), when is temporary interference not a nuisance?

Unless the defendant fails to take reasonable steps to minimise it.

What can be deemed a nuisance concerning ongoing dangers on land?

The presence of an ongoing danger can be deemed a nuisance, as seen in Spicer v Smee (1946).

What does Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd (1981) say about parliamentary permission?

If Parliament permits construction purposes, it permits associated activities.

What does Wheeler v Saunders (1996) convey about planning permission?

It will act as a defence only if it expressly changes the nature of acceptable activity.

What was established in Coventry v Lawrence (2014)?

A victim of nuisance is entitled to an injunction unless the defendant shows why damages are preferable.

According to Dunne v North West Gas (1964), what is needed for liability in Rylands v Fletcher?

Thing needed to be brought onto the land for D's own purposes.

What does Read v J Lyons & Co (1947) say about damage claims?

Thing must escape from land to another’s; only damage to other land is actionable.

What does Stannard v Gore (2012) state about fire damage?

Fire damage is generally only a basis for a claim if the fire itself was brought onto the land.

What does Rikards v Lothian (1913) define as unnatural use of land?

Unnatural use means to unordinary use as opposed to contrary to nature.

In Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994), what must be foreseeable?

The damage from the escape must be reasonably foreseeable.

What level of danger is required for liability according to Transco PLC v Stockport MBC (2003)?

Danger and the “unnatural” element should be extraordinarily high or unusual.

What defense can apply in Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956)?

The act of a stranger can be a defence.

What are the three stages of the economic reality of employment according to Ready Mixed Concrete v Ministry of Pensions (1968)?

(1) Wage for service, (2) Control, (3) Other provisions consistent with employment.

What did Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants (2012) clarify regarding vicarious liability?

It can exist in relationships akin to employment if a two-stage test is met.

What does Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016) emphasize regarding vicarious liability?

Furtherance of the defendant’s aims is important regardless of commercial intent.

In Limpus v London General (1862), when is a defendant liable?

For an employee's act undertaken in an unauthorised mode.

What did Lister v Hesley Hall (2001) clarify about connection to tort?

Actions must be closely connected to the relationship for vicarious liability.

What was established in Mohamud v W M Morrisons (2016) regarding tortfeasors?

Their actions can be closely connected even if contrary to the defendant's aims.

In W M Morrisons v Various Claimants (2020), when is there no close connection test met?

When employees' unauthorised actions are solely for their own personal motives.