| Facts/Ratio | Case | Any extra bits. |
|---|
| Yorkshire ripper - police may have acted negligently - but no duty of care. | |
| Does Art 2 change things? - no - threats made kn own to place - not clear enough imminent threat | |
| Barrister immunity - didn't cut his ear off, bit it off! | |
| Barrister immunity removed | |
| 'reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee likely to injure neighbour' | |
| 'not necessary to bring the facts within those of previous situation' 1. neighbour test - proximity 2. policy considerations | |
| 1. damage foreseeable 2. sufficient relationship of proximity 3. fair, just and reasonable to impose DOC - 'the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and | |
| DOC rules governing medical facilities at boxing matches insufficient - could have avoided brain injury | |
| Bank released what should have been frozen money - no negligence, won't invade contempt of tort | |
| Asked bookie to block account - didn't - gambled - there was a DOC (fails for causation) | |
| Geologists in Bangladesh - looking for specific pollutants - miss arsenic - proximity? large number of people - gone over for different job. | |
| 1937 Factory act - every dangerous piece of machinery fenced - won't work - gives parliament chance to fix | |
| Liable even though normal procedure - not left arm please - no consent - battery | |
| Liable even though reasonably believed no risk... Circus | |
| Strictly liable for health safety of employees even when lent out | |
| 'no obligation to take reasonable care to avoid the unforeseeable' - must not view a 1947 accident through 1953 spectacles | |
| 17 foot high fence - small risk - cost disproportionate - reasonable care - hit on head by cricket ball | |
| jockey in race - careless in breach of rules - no liability - context of fast moving contest - rule breaking relevant not determinative | |
| acceptable to use left hand drive american ambulance w/o indicators in war | |
| No justification for running a tiny risk when so easy to protect against | |
| Statute - made occupiers liability species of negligence | |
| Workshop (in france?) assumed no need for eye protection - blind one eye - more vulnerable - extra precaution necessary | |
| D is entitled to take accoutn of victims capacity to avert risk - blind forseeable - but shoudl tak estick?! hole in rd - insufficient protection here... | |
| If an expert, entitled to assume they'll know the risks... carbon monoxide | |
| Lift accident, delegable duty - claim against contractor | |
| Car - cannot plead incompetence as defence - inexperience may be defence regarding injury to instructor not pedestrians | |
| hypoglaecemia - crash into shop - no reason why shouldn't escape liability with gradual disabling event - did not know and could not have - no fault - not liable | |
| irreversable brain damage - too hard and too long - Dr not departed from practice | |
| colts scrum - not volenti - consented to safe rules - x3/4 amount of normal collapse - foreseeable...not consented to negligence | |
| 'skill of ordinary practioner of the profession' - reasonable school of thought - first instance | |
| Court could in theory evaluate expert evidence - say a whole profession was wrong - dr decides not to do minor surgery to help breathing - brain damage - reasonable dr | |
| Bolam standard applies to giving advice - Dr only negligence if doesn't tell you the risks a reasonable Dr would | |
| Western publications warned of side effect - you need to be aware of them - but even GPs wouldn't have picked them up here... | |
| Solicitor failed to raise issue and obtain contract desired - chance of negotiating - loss of chance does feed into damages - probably only medical | |
| Weak knee - down stairs - original tortfeasor? real and effective cause? his action was unreasonable - take own weakness into account. Break causation. | |
| You must foresee another's negligence and expect them to make matters worse - chain of causation not broken to original damage - (apportionment of damages largely with T2 though) | |
| But - reckess driving - does break the chain | |
| Just history really - 'natural and direct consequences' - intentional and strict liability | |
| Reasonable foreseeability test comes in - kind/extent distinction | |
| Child with lamp - explosion - what forseeable? burn - exploision just a big burne - type/extent | |
| 'physical injury' forseeable - very broad - bizarre sequence of events doesn't matter - boat crush | |
| Injury - PTSD - suicide 6 years later - foreseeable | |
| 'Eruption of liquid' not foreseeable - splash would have been... | |
| Egg-shell skull - 'take victim as you find them' - negligent burn on employee's lip - cancer - death - liable. | |
| foreseeable - policy - squatters - her fault for not securing | |
| leg injury on faulty ladder - tetanus jab - 30sec needle in not 30min test - 5 days later - reaction, brain damage - reasonable dr would have made no difference | |
| new years eve - vomiting - go home - arsenic dead - negligent - would have made no difference | |
| Dr advised C to have op - reluctantly agrees - no negligence in op. paralysed - very small but known risk - no warning - could have had op in future... Duty broken was right to cho | |
| Loss of 25% chance of recovery- would have happened anyway... | |
| chance of long term survival of cancer down - 45% in prompt treatment lived 10 years - not good enough... | |
| partial disability overwhelmed by total loss - 2 years after accident BEFORE damages calculated - leg shot and amputated - only cause damage up to t2? no - would be shortful... 2nd | |
| ' ' overwhelmed by disease - back injury at work - back disease - liability stops when disease damage overtakes tort | |
| exposure to dust from 2 machines - one operated tortiously in statutory breach - material contribution test | |
| excessive oxygen - additional risk of blindness - no - 6 possible reasons - failed to prove Dr caused damage/ causing damage/putting someone at risk different | |
| the exception - showers - medical evidence breaks down - lengthened exposure may not make difference to dermatitis - exceptionally allows additional risk | |
| mesothelioma - various employees - breach of duty in negligence - cannot show which exposure caused illness - just materially increased risk - proved all medicine could prove - all | |
| liability under the above is not joint and several - (proportionate liability) Comp Act 2006 s.3 reverses this but ONLY for mesothelioma - this still applies elsewhere... | |
| CN used to a complete defence - changed thanks to statute | |
| CN IS available in assault but NOT fraud... | |
| 100% CN is not possible - these chaps actually blocked ex turpi causa and volenti - motorbike joy riding | |
| 2 things when deciding what % CN - causal effect and blameworthiness of individual - CN finding at all = C failed to take care of own safety | |
| If C fails to take care, CN operates even though accident occuring was not that against which precauations normally directed - hitching lift on back of vehicle | |
| seatbelt - failure to take care is objective - individual's unreasonable view is discounted... - 'question is not what was cause of accident... what was the cause of the damage' - | |
| 20% reduction here, knew driver of car had been drinking, brimms to the full... | |
| Children may be CN - depends what dangers child of particular age might appreciate - red indian game petrol | |
| pre 1945 case - unwilling to find volenti - complete defence - passenger with drunk driver - not consented... NB - 1970 RTA - plead volenti in road traffic cases | |
| light aircraft - 17 whiskies - that's natural selection not an accident - you, fortunate idiot, were volenti | |
| volenti does not apply to industrial injuries - consent must be freely given, pressure on employee removes freedom of choice | |
| but in extreme circumstances it does - blows himself and bro up in breach of statute and rules | |
| defence not appropriate when the act was the very thing the defendant needed to protect - suicide in cell | |
| knows of vicious racist dog - facial injury - goes in yard - volenti - knew risk - very harsh | |
| Exclusion clause at entrance acts as condition of entry - just has to give reasonable notice of exclusion - all bound then even if they do not understand its significance - shortcu | |
| lawful visitor - fewer rights than trespasser - exclusion - thrown up in air - cannot be volenti does not know of the negligence in ropes - exclusion works (pre UCTA) | |
| sought to rely on disclaimer - site misrepresented in size - reasonable - P was sophisticated purchaser - had opportunity to read form... | |
| Medical consent - full disclosure of risk not required, only basic outline of treatment - Sidaway etc measure negligent failure to disclosure limited risk, not the battery though.. | |
| Photographer trampled at horse trials - no tort as no negligence - pushing horse to the limit - no defence needed... injured by reasonable conduct | |
| Illegality - capable of barring claim - he started the fight and came off fatally worse... | |
| P injured in RTA escaping scene of crime - thousands lost for a couple of radios... not every crime enough - cause/connection test - blocked if you have to plead illegal act as par | |
| P manslaughter after discharge from pyschiatric care - sues carers - kills someone - illegality - has to plea crime | |
| shotgun in shed - protecting his property - illegaility doesn't bit - pensioner used extreme force... 1984 act, won't treat them as outlaws, but 2/3 CN... | |
| burglar jumps out window - you didn't stop me! - blocked by illegality... | |
| brain damage in negligent car crash - depression + headaches - heroin - overdose - worse brain damage - broke the chain, voluntary - also unreasonable and illegal | |
| naked man shot dead by police - what level of knowledge to plead self-defence? honestly held unreasonable belief sufficient? not at common law... (DOC though?!) | |
| child molesting - 'not premised on any culpable act or omission on part of employer...best understood as a loss-distribution device' | |
| implied term of contract of employment - NB insurance implications - can go to employee for indemnity - circular, ridiculous and rare | |
| harbour - crane driver- original employer liable - look at circumstances of case - heavy burden of proof to shift to E2 | |
| employee told how to behave by general employer AND E2 - both control - BOTH vicariously liable - split difference - impossible to see | |
| heavy burden of proof is met and E2 is liable! | |
| whether warden's torts were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold employer vicariously liable... close connection/fair and just | |
| Employee negligently smoking when discharging tanker - explosio - people smoked in 1942 - part of his dutis | |
| Went home to get knife - but still in course of employment, connected to his duties... | |
| Theft of silver bar from crate he was told to fumigate before - India - vicarious - connected to what he was employed to do | |
| Liability for independent contractors - exceptionally when... non-delegable duty - e.g. safety in worksplace | |
| pregnant publican - van - shock early birth - brain damage - feared for her safety - recoverable | |
| that last case overuled the initial rule - railway crossing near negligent miss - no to 'mere terror' | |
| Extended the publican - fear for OTHERS safety now... school - round the corner - crash - can recover for what you saw... CA | |
| pregnant fishwife off tram - not within the DOC area - no threat - 'endure the calamities of modern life' and ' cannot be expected to compensate world at large' | |
| husband and 3 kids - 1 killed - rush to hospital 2hrs - covered in blood, tar, oil - does D owe mother DOC? 3 restrictions... i. emotional tie ii. proxy in time and space iii. own | |
| more detail there after hillsborough - i. class - relationship of love and affection, ii. prox 'immediate aftermath', iii. means - own unaided senses.. (if more salacious tv, sue t | |
| Not mere anxiety of grief and sorrow - yes for nervous shock or recognized psychiatric illness caused by breach of DOC - floodgates/fraud | |
Famous Foursomes
'A' Game
Fast Food Restaurants
