Flashcards
Cases
Cards in this deck (28)
- 1Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire? - What was held (3)?Mother of Yorkshire ripper victim sued police.
- Held that it was reasonably foreseeable but there was no duty of care by the police
- No proximity
- Against public policy. - 2A J Allan v Strathlyde Fire Board - What was held?Fire reignited following day.
- Not liable as they had not made matters worse. - 3Aitken v Scottish Ambulance ServiceAmbulance arrived late.
- Held liable as they gave info and advice they established a relationship of proximity. - 4Hedley Byrne v HellerAsked bank to get info regarding financial state of a firm.
Info was erroneous.
Plaintiff lost money.
- Held they would have been liable. - 5Where does a duty arise in Hedley Byrne v Heller? - What must there also be?Where someone applies a special skill for the assistance of someone else.
- Must be close proximity. - 6Caparo v DickmanAdvise is required for a specific purpose
Knows advise will be communicated
Knows advise is likely to be acted upon
Acts on advise - 7White v JonesSolicitors failed to prepare new will
- Held a duty of care existed - 8Spartan SteelElectricity supply cut off to steel factory
- Held they were entitled to recover for the physical damage but not the lost profits. - 9Murphy v Brentwood - What is this authority for?Building authority failed to notice foundations were inadequate depth.
Walls began to crack.
- Held not liable
- If a building is negligently constructed you must consider it as one entity.
- Injury inflicted by builder to any part automatically ranks as pure economic loss. - 10Page v Smith - Once it was established that a duty of care existed, what didn't matter?Car crash victim suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome.
Condition became permanent.
- HoL held defendant liable.
- Whether the injury was physical or psychiatric. - 11Alcock - What were the 3 requirements?Hillsborough disaster.
- Class of persons
- Proximity
- Way shock was caused - 12WhitePolice brought claims for secondary shock at Hillsborough.
- Held they were to be treated as secondary victims. - 13Robertson v Forth Road BridgeWorker blew from van over the bridge.
Pursuer witnessed it
- Held that since they had not been participating they ranked as bystanders. - 14Nettleship v WestonAsked friend for driving lesson.
Crashed.
- Held the defender was to be judged as a general driver and was therefore liable. - 15Glasgow Corp v Muir - What is the test for standard of care? - What is the courts approach?Manager gave permission to church party to use tearoom.
Child was scaled when a tea urn overturned.
- Impersonal.
- Objective. - 16Bolton v StonePlaintiff struck by cricket ball.
Cleared a 17 foot fence.
- Held that since the likelihood of the injury was small the defender had not breached their duty of care. - 17Paris v StephneyPlaintiff had one good eye.
Struck by a chip from a bolt.
Claimed he should've been provided goggles.
- Held it was necessary for the employer to take into account any consequences of an accident occurring to the plaintiff. - 18Which case established the but-for test?Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
- 19McGhee v National Coal BoardContracted dermatitis from brick dust on his skin.
Employees did not provide washing facilities.
- Held he could succeed if he proved that the state of affairs was brought about by the employees failure. - 20Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral ServicesContracted mesothelioma.
Could have came from two employers.
Unable to prove which employer.
- Held he could succeed as it had materially contributed. - 21Barker v CorusHeld appropriate to apportion liability between defendants in accordance with the degree of risk they subjected claimant too.
- 22Sienkiewicz v GreifSome came from employment, some came from location of home.
- Held learning in Fairchild and Barker applied and defender was liable. - 23Re PolimisDirectness test.
- 24Wagon MoundForeseeability test.
- 25Hughes v Lord AdvocateManhole, paraffin lamp.
- Held defenders were liable.
- Not necessary to foresee precise serious of events, type of harm was enough. - 26Jolley v SuttonChild injured by abandoned boat on council estate.
- Held that although the injury was unexpected it fell within the council's duty of care. - 27Titchener v British Railways BoardKilled crossing railway track.
- Held not liable as there was a sign warning of danger.
- Defendant had willingly accepted risk. - 28Lister v Hesley HallWarden of boarding school sexually assaulted claimant.
- HoL held there was sufficient connection between the work the warden was employed to do and the act of abuse.
Information
- Description
- Delict Flashcards on Cases, created by Jordan Quigley on 01/05/2018.
- Created by
- Jordan Quigley
- Views
- 0
- Rating