click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Tort 1
Negligence
Term | Definition |
---|---|
Donoghue v Stevenson | Snail case - neighbour principle |
Caparo v Dickman | 3 part test for duty |
Haley v LEB | Duty owed to blind man |
McLoughlin v O'Brien | There was proximity - 'immediate aftermath' |
Bourhill v Young | Not foreseeable or proximate - fishwife |
Griffiths v Lindsay | Taxi driver - not FJR to impose duty |
Hill v CC W Yorks | Not FJR to impose duty on police - Ripper |
Bolton v Stone | Cricket club - no breach |
Watt v Herts CC | Firefighter - utility |
Mullins v Richards | Standard of care for kids |
Bolam v Friern | Standard of care for experts |
Blythe v B'ham Waterworks | Standard of the reasonable man |
Nettleship v Weston | Learner driver must meet standard of competent driver |
Latimer v AEC | Slippery floor and sawdust |
Paris v Stepney | Goggles! |
The Oropesa | NOT a novus actus interveniens |
Barnett v Chelsea | No factual causation |
Wilkin-Shaw v Fuller | Stranger broke the chain |
Smith v Leech Brain | Thin skull rule |
Wilsher v Essex AHA | 5 possible causes of child's blindness |
Fairchild v Glenhaven | Mesothelioma - all employers liable |
Hughes v Lord Advocate | Extent of damage needn't be foreseeable |
The Wagon Mound | Damage may not be too remote |
Ward v Tesco | Yoghurt - res ipsa loquitur |
Robinson v CC W Yorks | Caparo test only needed in 'novel' situations |
FB v Alexandra Hospital | New Dr judged by standard of competent Dr |
Montgomery v Lanarkshire | Dr must consult patient over treatment |
Bolitho v CHHA | Adapts the Bolam test |