Flashcards
Chapter One Cases: Case-Details
Cards in this deck (19)
- 1Caparo v Dickman (Duty of Care)THREE POINTS OF DUTY OF CARE
Reasonable foresight of harm
Sufficient proximity of relationship
Fair, just, reasonable to impose duty - 2Caparo v Dickman (Misstatements)RULES FOR ESTABLISHING A CLAIM:
The statement would be communicated to the claimant
The statement would be made specifically in reference to transaction
The claimant would reasonably rely on the statement when deciding to proceed on transaction - 3Caparo v Dickman (Facts)D (Auditor) audited F (a company). C had shares in F. After D's audit results were published, C purchased more shares in F. The audit results were a misstatement; C suffered great financial loss. C was able to recover from D based on misstatements.
- 4Donoghue v Stevenson (Facts)Ms. Donoghue had a ginger beer purchased for her by a friend. Snail remains found in bottle after drinking. D fell ill. Case against manufacturer. But D wasn't purchaser, ultimately she was consumer.
- 5Donoghue v Stevenson (Principles)NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
NARROW RULE
Manufacturer owes duty of care to ultimate consumer - 6Stansbie v Trotman-Liability of third parties
-Painter left door open in bulding he was working in
-Theft/damage occurred
-Builder liable
-Only if there was a failure to take reasonable care to guard against what actually happened - 7Smith v Littlewoods-Liability of third parties
-Vacant cinema arson
-Adjacent buildings damaged
-Cinema owner not liable
-Could not have foreseen arson - 8Smith v Littlewoods (Principle)Cinema owner could have been liable if:
-There was a "special relationship" between claimant and defendant
-The defendant negligently created a source of danger and it was reasonably foreseeable
-The defendant knew or was capable of knowing that the third party had created a danger or risk of danger and did not stop it - 9Mitchell v Glasglow City Council (Facts)A's neighbour, B, was harassing him, threatening to kill him. A sought help from local authority, who threatened to evict B. B continued his behaviour. The local authority warned B again at a meeting that he was going to be evicted. B then killed A. A's family sued the local authority, but the LA had no legal duty to protect A.
- 10Mitchell v Glasgow City Council (Principle)Situations where there may be liability in negligence to criminal acts of another:
-Where there is vicarious liability
-Where the defendant had an obligation to supervise the third party
-Where the defendant created the risk of danger
-Where there is an assumption of responsibility for the victim - 11Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd- Misstatements
- Advertising company hired to complete work for small business
-Beforehand, AC requested reference on business from a bank
-Bank supplied reference without checking
-Work was done by AC
-SB liquidated
-AC suffered financial loss
-Were able to recover from bank based on misstatement - 12Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd. v Martin-Factory melting steel into "melts"
- Power cut from road works, melt in process was destroyed, losing the company money, plus time power was out company could have made four melts
-Company could only recover for the melt that was destroyed
-Torts will only recover for money lost from physical damage - 13Anns v Merton Borough London Council-Tenants were building flats
-The council approved foundations that were too shallow
-Tenants had to pay additional cost to make flats safe to live in
-Council owed tenants duty of care for economic loss - 14Murphy v Brentwood-Anns overruled
-Similar facts
-Cracks in concrete foundations made property sell for less
-Not based on safety, for pure economic value reason - 15Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire- Hillsborough Disaster
-Psychiatric injury must be caused by a sudden event, or shock
Three factors for duty of care in psychiatric injury:
-Foreseeability: It must be reasonably foreseeable that a person with normal fortitude in the position of the claimant would suffer illness from the shock
-Proximity: There must be temporal and spacial proximity of the victim in relation to the victim
-How the shock was caused - 16Page v Smith-Laid out primary and secondary victims
-Claimant was involved in an accident with defendant
-Accident caused claimant to suffer onset of mental illness
-If mental illness occurs to victim directly involved in incident, physical harm need not occur - 17McLoughlin v O'Brien-Claimant's family was in road accident
-She found out 2 hours later, went to hospital
-Her daughter had died, she saw her other children and husband covered in oil and mud as they were at the scene
-Success in suing for shock because of nature of finding out - 18Burton v Islington Health Authority-Duty of care to unborn babies applies after their birth
-If negligence causes injury in utero and the child is born with disabilities which would not have otherwise been present, child could sue for negligence
-If mother is wounded and it affects the baby's health at birth, entitlement to duty - 19Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire-Yorkshire ripper killed 13 victims
-Family of victim sued police for not catching the Ripper
-Police owe a duty of care to the general public, not to specific victims
Information
- Description
- Flashcards on Chapter One Cases: Case-Details, created by rachel.mannen on 12/04/2015.
- Created by
- rachel.mannen
- Views
- 2
- Rating