Tort cases

Manufacturer and consumer

Donghue v Stevens - neighbour principle

Doctor and patient

Bolem vs barnet - Professionals will be judged against competent experts

Drivers and other road users

Nettelship vs Weston - not given any leeway even though she was a learner

Employer and employee

Paris vs stepney - Already blind in one eye so greater risk of becoming fully blind

Instructor and learner

Day v high performance sport - lower standard of care as rescuing climber outweighed other risks

Thin skull rule

Smith v Leech brain

If damage is foreseeable but much more serious due to an existing medical condition - D is liable for all consequences

Remoteness

Wagon mound

Spilled oil ignited however fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable

Geary v Weatherspoon

Duty only cover dangers due to the state of the premises

OLA s.2(2)

Keep visitor reasonably safe for the purpose of which they are invited to be there

Laverton vs kiapasha takeaway

Fitted slip resistant tiles and regularly mopped floors - reasonable in circumstances

Child visitors in OLA

Jolly v sutton

Boat fell on boy playing and paralysed him

Council breached duty of care by failing to move the boat

OLA s.2(3)(a)

Occupier must prepare for children to be less careful than adults

OLA s.2(3)(b)

Tradespeople are expected to guard against special risks they are expected to know about through their work

Roles v Nathan

2 chimney sweepers died due to inhalation of fumes - expected to be known and guard against this risk

Haseldine v Daw

Claimant killed by lift fixed by independent contractor

Occupiers fulfilled duty by hiring reasonable contractor and ensured competency

Didn’t need to check over work as it was too technical

OLA s.2(4)(b)

Defence against independent contractor when

It is reasonable to hire a contractor

Precautions were taken to ensure contractor was competent

Reasonable checks to inspect the work

OLA s.2(4)(a)

Warning notices - Effective warning of danger

Sufficient to enable visitors be safe

Tomlinson vs congleton

Dived into lake

Unreasonable to offer protection against obvious risk

Barr vs biffa waste (nuisance)

Landfill site was a nuisance as it produced strong smells on many occasions over 5 years

Miller v Jackson

Community use of the cricket ground did not outweigh private use of the garden - damages awarded instead of injunction

Defence of statutory authority (nuisance)

Allen v Gulf oil

could not sue about noise and fumes as oil refinery was built under powers in an act of parliament

Fearn v Tate gallery

Claimant lived in a block of flats oppositetate modern

Visitors on viewing gallery could see in and photographed flats

Not conveniently done with proper consideration for interests of neighbours

Not common ordinary use of Tates land

Dangerous thing in Rylands

Stannard v Gore

Not liable for fire damage as tires were not dangerous and did not escape

(thing which fuels the fire needs to have escaped)

Perry v Kendricks

3rd party lit a match and caused and explosion of D’s coaches

Transco v stockport

Water piping that burst did not escape nor was it a non-natural use of land

Economic reality test

Ready mixed concrete vs minister of pensions

Employee works for a wage

Work is in control of the employer

Contract is consistent with that of an employment contract

Acting against order

Limpus vs London general omnibus

Racing buses however was still acting for his business

Acting in a frolic of their own

Beard vs London general omnibus

Bus conductor injured someone however they were not employed to drive so no VL

Criminal actions of employee

Mattis v Pollock

Nightclub VL as his actions were closely connected with his work

Phipps v rochester

Parents should be expected to accompany young children

Rose v plenty

Milkman had child helping him

Employees actions benefiting business