GoConqr hat ein neues Design! Sag uns, wie es dir gefällt.

Kostenlos registrieren

Karteikarten

Cases

Emily Greig Law of Tort Level 3 Englisch 69 Karten

Karten in diesem Stapel (69)

  1. 1Which case created a specific tort which imposes liability on a person who brings something onto his land that is "likely to do mischief if it escapes"?Rylands v Fletcher.
  2. 2Which case defined negligence as failing to act in the way that a reasonable man would have acted in such circumstances?Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.
  3. 3Which case established the neighbour test?Donoghue v Stevenson.
  4. 4Which case established the three-stage test?Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman.
  5. 5Which case supports reasonable foreseeability?Smith and Others v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd.
  6. 6Which case establishes that a defendant will not be liable for an omission to act (subject to later exceptions)?Smith and Others v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd.
  7. 7Which two cases supports proximity for establishing whether a duty of care exists?1. Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman.
    2. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control.
  8. 8Which case supports "fair, just and reasonable" for establishing whether a duty of care exists?L and Another v Reading Borough Council and Others.
  9. 9Which case supports that the courts are reluctant to impose on public authorities liabilities towards individuals?Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
  10. 10Which two cases support that police immunity is not absolute?1. Osman v United Kingdom; and
    2. Z and Others v United Kingdom.
  11. 11What cases support rescuers in relation to public policy?Ward v T E Hopkins and Son Ltd; Baker and Another v T E Hopkin and Son Ltd.
  12. 12Which case established that the law has never recognised a duty towards a mere bystander?Bourhill v Young.
  13. 13Which case supports the successful claim for damages for psychiatric harm in a rescuer situation?Chadwick v British Railways Board
  14. 14Which case established that damages could be paid to someone who was not physically proximate to the accident but who suffered nervous shock as a result of the accident if was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the accident?McLoughlin v O'Brian.
  15. 15Which case established that the principles set out in McLouchlin v O'Brian could not be extended to anyone other than parents, spouses and children (subject to exceptions in certain cases)?Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire.
  16. 16Which case established that normal sorrow and grief are not claimable harm?Hinz v Berry.
  17. 17Which case supports that the primary victim of psychiatric harm does not have to distinguish between physical or psychiatric harm being foreseeable?Page v Smith.
  18. 18Which case established that in order for a secondary victim to claim pure psychiatric injury the victim must have suffered sudden shock, the psychiatric injury must have been reasonably foreseeable to a person of reasonable fortitude and proximity (relationship, physical and perception)?Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire.
  19. 19Which case held that rescuers who suffered only psychiatric injury are no longer classed as primary victim?White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.
  20. 20Which case held that workplace stress does not need to be triggered by a sudden shock?Walker v Northumberland County Council.
  21. 21Which case is the foundation for breach of duty?Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.
  22. 22Which case demonstrates that a defendant cannot use his lack of skill or knowledge as a defence against breaching a duty?Nettleship v Weston.
  23. 23Which case supports that courts will assess a child against the standard of a reasonable person of the same age?Mullin v Richards.
  24. 24Which case supports that where the defendant has particular experience or expertise the standard expected will be higher?Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee.
  25. 25Which case demonstrates that a medical professional will not be held liable if it can be shown that he acted in accordance with the views of one accepted professional body?Whitehouse v Jordan.
  26. 26Which case qualified the test established by Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee whereby a court can form a view as to whether a particular medical view is one that can reasonably be held?Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority.
  27. 27Which case supports a medical professional's duty to explain?Chester v Afshar.
  28. 28Which case held that the knowledge, skill and intelligence of the defendant are judged objectively, and he is expected to possess the intelligence and general knowledge of a reasonable person in his position at the time the event occurred?Roe v Minister of Health.
  29. 29Which two cases illustrates the magnitude of risk?1. Bolton v Stone; and
    2. Hilder v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Limited.
  30. 30Which case supports the vulnerability of the claimant being a factor in assessing the standard of care?Paris v Stepney Borough Council.
  31. 31Which case supports that the importance of the defendant's objective being a factor in assessing the standard of care?Watt v Hertfordshire County Council.
  32. 32Which case supports that the cost of avoiding harm is a factor in assessing the standard of care?Latimer v AEC.
  33. 33Which four cases demonstrate the "but for" test principle?1. Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (Arsenic poisoning but died anyway).
    2. Holt v Edge (fell in shower).
    3. Gouldsmith v Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust (fingers amputated).
    4. Palmer v Cornwall County Council (throwing stones at birds in school).
  34. 34Which three cases established the "but for" test in practice?1. Page v Smith.
    2. Chester v Afshar.
    3. Gregg v Scott.
  35. 35Which case demonstrates the "where the injury is indivisible" issue?Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority.
  36. 36Which case supports the "material increase in risk" test?McGhee v National Coal Board.
  37. 37Which case established that (where the claimant has worked for numerous employers that used asbestos) the claimant only had to prove one employer's negligence had materially increased the risk of contracting the mesothelioma in order to recover full damages from that employer?Fairchild and Others v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.
  38. 38Which case held that the claimant (who has mesothelioma) could recover from each defendant only a proportion of those damages for his disease, based on the contribution that the defendant's conduct had made to his chances of contracting the illness?Barker v Corus (UK) plc.
  39. 39In which two cases did the court hold that the Fairchild/Barker/3 exception continues to apply to mesothelioma even if there is only one potential defendant and it is therefore sufficient to show that the defendant's conduct "materially increased" the risk of harm?Sienkiewicz (Administratix of the Estate of Enid Costello Deceased) v Greif (UK) Limited / Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore.
  40. 40Which two cases support that different considerations apply if the claimant's second injury occurs when he is doing something that he would not have been doing had it not been for the first injury?1. Baker v Willoughby; and
    2. Jobling v Associated Dairies.
  41. 41Which case reconciled Baker v Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Dairies?Rahman v Arearose Ltd.
  42. 42Which case supports that a third party intervening act must be reasonably foreseeable on the objective test at the time of breach?Knightley v Johns.
  43. 43Which case was it held that a novus actus interveniens was not sufficient to remove all liability from the original tortfeasor?Rouse v Squires and Others.
  44. 44Which case supports the general rule that medical treatment may reduce the original defendant's liability for the injury, but not remove it completely, because the original injury put the victim in a situation where he was at risk from negligent medical treatment?Webb v Barclays Bank PLC and Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust.
  45. 45Which case supports that the reason the test for an intervening act of the claimant is more demanding than an intervening act of nature or third party is because the courts try to protect claimants from undermining their own rights (i.e. the act of claimant must be entirely unreasonable in the circumstance)?Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council.
  46. 46Which case shows that a claimant who has already suffered some harm must take care not to worsen his own situation?McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd.
  47. 47Which case shows that deliberate self-harm will not necessarily break the chain of causation?Corr (Administratix of Corr Deceased) v IBC Vehicles Ltd.
  48. 48Which case was similar to McKew v Holland & Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd but had a different outcome (i.e. by not asking for help did not break the chain of causation)?Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd.
  49. 49What is the leading case on legal causation which established the test for remoteness is whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the type or kind of damage that occurred when he acted negligently?The Wagon Mound.
  50. 50Which two cases support the "thin skull" rule in relation to personal injury?1. Smith v Leech Brain; and
    2. Robinson v Post Office.
  51. 51Which case supports the "thin skull" rule in relation to a person's poverty?Lagden v O'Connor.
  52. 52Which is the leading case on the control test for establishing vicarious liability?Yewens v Noakes.
  53. 53Which three cases support the organisation test for establishing vicarious liability?1. Cassidy v Minister of Health.
    2. Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald and Evans.
    3. Whittaker v Minister of Pensions.
  54. 54In which case did the multiple test originate in for establishing vicarious liability?Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Limited v Minister of Pensions.
  55. 55Which test stated "there is no single satisfactory test governing the question whether a person is employee or self-employed"?Hall (Inspector of Taxes) v Lorimer.
  56. 56Which case established that an employer-employee relationship could only exist if there was a "mutuality of obligation" (i.e. employer bound to offer work and employee bound to accept work)?Carmichael v National Power.
  57. 57Which case held that an agency worker was an employee of the client who had control over his day-to-day work?Motorola Ltd v Davidson and Another
  58. 58Which case held the degree of delegation of work permitted by a contract is an important factor in classifying employer-employee relationship?MacFarlane and Another v Glasgow City Council.
  59. 59Which case established that an Employment Tribunal should only imply a contract of employment in cases where it is necessary to do so?James v London Borough of Greenwich.
  60. 60Which case held that there are cases where the relationship between and individual and an organisation is "akin to employment" meaning it would be fair to hold organisation vicariously liable for tortious act of individual?JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust.
  61. 61Which case held that two organisations could be held jointly vicariously liable for an employee?Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants (FC)
  62. 62What is the leading case involving a "lent" employee?Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd.
  63. 63What case relates to a sub-contractor's liability?Biffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese GMBH and Others.
  64. 64Which case also established that two organisations could be held jointly vicariously liable for the same action of a worker?Viasystems (Tyneside) Limited v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and Another.
  65. 65Which case illustrates a "frolic of one's own"?Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd
  66. 66Which case demonstrates that the specific actions that caused the harm were forbidden by the employer, but the main "underlying" acts at the time were part of the person's employment, thus being a lawful act being carried out in an unauthorised way, consequently making the employer liable?Kay v ITW Ltd.
  67. 67Which case supports that when the tortious act is closely connected to the tortfeasor's role in the organisation the employer will be vicariously liable (even when it is outside the course of employment)?Gravil v Carroll and Another.
  68. 68Which case stated (in connection with intentional torts committed in the course of employment) that the test is whether the acts "were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable"?Lister v Hesley Hall.
  69. 69Which case expanded the principle of liability in Lister v Hesley Hall?Maga v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham.

Informationen

Beschreibung
Level 3 Law of Tort Karteikarten am Cases, erstellt von Emily Greig am 17/05/2018.
Erstellt von
Emily Greig
Aufrufe
0
Bewertung

Feedback

Worum geht es?

Wie gefällt dir das neue Design?

Dein Eindruck