skibidi toilet

Donoghue v Stevenson: the case that established negligence

Caparo v Dickmann: the test used (previously) for if a DOC applies

Robinson: the case that overruled Caparo stating statute should be followed

Blythe v Birmingham water works: the case for breach of DOC (reasonable man)

Bolam: test for professionals in Breach

Montgomery: professionals must disclose risk of procedure (Breach)

Paris v Stephney Borough Council: higher standard of care (special characteristics (negligence))

Bolton v Stone: size of the risk effects the standard of care required (negligence)

Latimer: had D taken all the proper precautions for standard of care (negligence)

Roe v Minister of Health: were the risks known at the time (breach)(Negligence)

Watt: was there a public benefit to take the risk (negligence)

overseas tanker ships v Morts dock and engineering co ltd: legal causation

Bradford v Robinson: was the type of injury foreseeable (negligence)

Smith v Leech Brain: thin skull rule in negligence

O’Connell v Jackson: case that states the defence of Contributory negligence

Haynes v Harwood: case that states the defence

Occupiers liability act 1957: act for lawful visitors

Occupiers liability act 1984: act for unlawful visitors

Lowery v Walker: a person who trespass’ with no objection could lead to them being a licensee

Harris: anyone in control of the premises could be an occupier

Laverton v Kipasha takeaway supreme: owner took reasonable precautions to protect the visitors (not expected to protect against all dangers) (OL)

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor: need to protect children from allurements (OL)

Ogwo v Taylor: workers must be protected against risk INCIDENTAL to their job

Hazeldine v Daw and son: independent contractors must be for work reasonable for the need of an independent contractor (easier work = less reasonable) (OL)

Bottomley v Todmorden: occupier must check competence of contractor (OL)

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings: occupier must check work of contractor is complete (OL)

Staples v West Dorset CC: If danger is obvious D does not have to warn V

Herrington: occupiers now owe a duty of care to trespassers

Ratcliffe v McConnell: danger must be not obvious for trespassers (OL)

Higgs v Foster: occupier does not owe a duty of care if they have no reasonable belief to believe a trespasser would be there

Keown v Coventry Healthcare: claimant knew the danger and proceeded (no duty owed)

Westwood v Post office: warning signs were enough to warn a reasonable adult

Hunter v Canary Wharf: TV signal can be a nuisance

Coventry v Lawrence: Noise can be a nuisance

Crown river cruises ltd v Kimbolton fireworks: the duration can be short if there is physical damage

Robinson v Kilvert: sensitivity of the claimant is a mitigating factor (PN)

Sturges v Bridgman: The location of the nuisance can be a mitigating factor (PN). Also sets out the defence of prescription

Christie v Davey: malice is an aggravating factor (PN)

Miller v Jackson: public benefit for a nuisance will be a mitigating factor (PN)

Allen v Gulf oil refining: defines what is meant by statutory authority (PN)

Hawley v Luminar: a case that sets out what the control test is.

Stevens, Jordan and Harrison ltd v McDonald and Evans: the case that sets out the integration test

Ready mixed concrete: case that defines what is meant by the multiple test

Rose v Plenty: defines what is meant in the course of employment

Hilton v Thomas Burton: states what is meant by a frolic of their own

Beard v London general omnibus: states by what is meant by the course of employment

Twine v Bean’s express: states what unauthorised act with no benefit to employer is

Lister v Hesley Hall: the case that set out the contemporary approach (OL)

Christian brothers: criteria for relationship akin to employments

Mohamud v WM Morrisons: states what is meant by close connection between tort and relationship (contemporary approach) (OL)

Stockport v Metropolitan Borough council: require a legal interest in the land (RvF)

Giles v Walker: defines what is meant by brought onto the land (RvF)

Hale v Jennings: defines by what is meant by foreseeable to escape (RvF)

Transco PLC v Stockport: states non natural use of land as something unnatural and extraordinary (RvF)