cases english M1S2

Woodroffe-Hedley

This case involved a mountain climbing accident where a guide used only one ice screw instead of two, resulting in the death of his client. It is used to illustrate the disparate functions of tort law, such as corrective justice, compensation, and deterrence.

Pickles

The House of Lords established that malice is generally irrelevant in tort law; if an act (like diverting underground water) is lawful, the motive behind it does not make it unlawful

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett (1936)

In contrast to Pickles, this case showed that a malicious motive could render a normally reasonable act (firing guns on one's own land) unreasonable and thus a nuisance if intended to interfere with a neighbor’s business.

Bebee v Sales (1916)

A case demonstrating parental negligence, where a father was held liable for failing to control his son's use of an air gun after a previous accident.

Henderson

Relevant to the liability of persons of unsound mind, noting that if an action is involuntary, the person is unlikely to be held liable

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

The seminal case that recognized negligence as an independent tort and established the neighbour principle. It involved a consumer who found a decomposed snail in an opaque bottle of ginger beer.

Bourhill v Young

Established that the "neighbour" to whom a duty is owed must be the claimant directly affected

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Set the current three-part test for a duty of care: reasonable foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is just, fair, and reasonable to impose a duty

Hunter v Canary Wharf

The court ruled that mere deposits of dust from construction did not constitute "damage" to property unless they caused a physical change making the property less useful.

Croydon Health Authority

Cases dealing with medical negligence and "wrongful birth"; the House of Lords ultimately ruled that the birth of a healthy child cannot be viewed as "damage"

Kensington Hospital (1968)

Established the "but for" test for causation—whether the damage would have occurred but for the defendant's breach.

Baker v Willoughby

Used as an example of contributory negligence, where a claimant's failure to take evasive action before being struck by a car reduced their damages.

Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

Established the rule of strict liability for the escape of dangerous or "unnatural" things brought onto land (in this case, water from a reservoir flooding a neighbor's mine).

Read v J. Lyons & Co

A case where strict liability was excluded because there was no "escape" of the dangerous thing from the defendant's land

Cooper

Clarified that trespass to the person (such as battery) requires an intentional act; if the act is negligent, the proper cause of action is negligence.

Stephens v Myers (1830)

A key case for assault, where a defendant was liable for advancing with a clenched fist, causing the claimant to apprehend immediate violence.

Costanza

Criminal cases whose principles are applied to tort law, establishing that threats or even silence (malicious phone calls) can constitute assault if they cause fear of immediate violence.

R v Governor of Brockhill Prison (2000)

Established that false imprisonment is a tort of strict liability, meaning a governor could be liable for a miscalculated release date even if they followed existing rules.

Quinland v Governor of Swaledale Prison (2002)

Distinguished from Brockhill, finding that governors are not liable for false imprisonment if the miscalculation was made by the court rather than the prison

Byrne v Deane (1937)

A claim for defamation failed because an ordinary, reasonable person would not think less of someone for reporting illegal gambling.

Wooldridge v Sumner

Cases establishing the defense of consent (volenti) in sports, where participants or spectators are deemed to have accepted the inherent risks of the game.

Blake v Galloway (2004)

Related to "horseplay," stating negligence only succeeds if behavior falls far below an acceptable level

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

An essential case for establishing the existence of a duty of care