| Facts/Ratio | Case | Any extra bits. |
|---|
| Pleural plaques - show asbestos exposure - just a warning sign - sue for ticking time bomb? no - not physically ill - just worried about it. snap out of it. | |
| 2 categories - primary and secondary victims - injured claimant involved as participant/witness or bystander | |
| Physically unhurt - ME chronic from accident - test is 'was it reasonable foreseeable.. risk of personal injury, physical or psychiatric' - generous for primary victim | |
| Lewisham train disaster - rescuer - generous | |
| police tried to help the dying - injury? CA win, HL lose - only primary victim if exposed/reasonably believed yourself to be - to danger of physical injury... | |
| Wembley construction - rush to injured man - improbable M believed he was at risk, if so unreasonable | |
| But... if D's negligence leads to a genuine and reasonable belief that you caused the injury.. then you are primary victim... | |
| the text for secondary victims - i. relationship love and affection, proved if not parent/engaged/married - cain and abel - prox of time and space - 8hrs too long (2 ok) iii. prox | |
| father by biker bedside - 14 days to die - shock? no - gradual development - death expected not surprising... | |
| floodgates were too efective - pathological grief after son death - asleep with him - seizure - D negligent treatment - coma - brain damage - to other hospital - life support off - | |
| mother of 16 - RTA extreme reaction - rush to scene - cannot see body - 2 hrs later at mortuary - kind policeman stopped claim? no - immediate aftermath - 'uninterrupted sequence' | |
| pysch damage - sex abuse by foster child - negligent D gave them despite request - HL - 'immediate aftermath' - depends on sitaution | |
| self-inflicted injuries owe no DOC to secondary victims... policy - dad fireman at son crash | |
| pre-Alcock - property - leave BG to sort boiler - come home, house on fire - pysch injury - can recover (Gas assumed responsibility for injury...) | |
| wasn't us it was our computer that spammed you... no. | |
| 'D wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm' husband broke 2 legs in RTA - shock - joke - liable | |
| The rule int he above is silly - you must show personal injury not just distress - strip search not enough... not deliberate humiliation just sloppy | |
| Silence be a threat? yes - 'does your intentional action cause the reasonable apprehension of physical attack' | |
| non-striking miners - threatened - shouldn't have worried - police there and fabric of bus - not imminent enough | |
| who's the occupier? not in statute - this case tells us... who is control of the premises? more than one is possible... | |
| owner knows field used as shortcut - in goes 'savage' horse - visitor or trespasser - no express persmission - public did this as matter of course - implied - no steps to take use | |
| there is a limit to implied responsibility - late october evening 5 and 7 year old playing by unguarded sewer trench in wasteland - parents should be responsible | |
| lyme regis - algae covered wall - slipps and sues - no shut up - common knowledge - duty to warn only if without it wvisitor would have been unaware of nature/extent of risk | |
| 63 year old on splat wall - injured by negligent - sue contractor and insurance - bankrupt - hospital - asked about policy done enough | |
| indoor climber - jumps from wall to wall - falls - should have warned me falling from great height is dangerous - no - obvious inherent risk in activity | |
| my home is my castle - unless i intend to injure - mantraps etc. no liabilityq | |
| Not so simple - not all trespassers are villains - kids? basic duty to them because people, not guests... | |
| trespassing child over 7ft fence - skylight - should he have known? need actual knowledge of primary facts, police report etc. w/o knowledge, no. | |
| swimmer jumps breaks neck - lake did present risk because of state of lake/permission - just a lake - no need to warn of obvious danger... very rare for occupier to have duty to wa | |
| Dr owe DOC to 3rd party? P's daughter abducted assualted murdered by A under care of D's staff... failed to diagnose risk of sexual offences v. children - HL - cannot strike out ac | |
| failed sterilisation of woman with visual disabilitis - additional costs of raising NOT allowed by HL - conventional non-compensatory £15k to mark injury and loss | |
| Dr owe DOC of costs of raising child 0-18? no - policy - child not a wrong. Rees the exception... | |
| adult of concious and sound mind 'completely at liberty to decline to undergo treatment, even if the result of his doing so will be that he will die.' | |
| Prengant woman competent to make decision whether to consent & free to delclien treatment even if at death of child - 'needlephobia' - BUT needlephobia shows not of sound mind... g | |
| don't assume everyoen with mental problems is incapable of deciding for themselves, depends, paraonid schizophrenic has enough understanding of proposed amputation to refuse consen | |
| mentally handicapped in sexual relationship - if body of Drs think in her interest... | |
| negligence or Breach of statute - to provide goggles - not insisted warn - DOC not satisfied... | |
| non-delegable - sending employer onto someone else's premises, still liable, McDermid v Nash yes, also older authority... | |
| draws a line - employee sent to Saudi Arabia too far - employer has no control there - other side of the world exception | |
| industrial safety legislation breached - turns it into a tort in itself - breach of statutory duty - negligence and strict claims alongside... | |
| causation escape - wouldn't have used the harness if provided - burden of causation remains in breach of statute - she has to prove he'd have used it... | |
| 'would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally?' | |
| 'ordinary man' - neither overly cynical or naive | |
| 'particular section of the community' no good - must be society generally - 'ought to be thinking' according to court and what actually thinking tension... | |
| 'does not depend on the intention of the defamer but the fact of defamation' | |
| must refer to the claimant, poor old Camberwell man... | |
| must be substantially correct - ok exaggerated prison sentence/fine by a small bit but the gist was there... | |
| fair comment - should really be honest comment - and 'proper journalistic material' defence | |
| Right to use highway only for certain purposes - racing tout watching training - public highway across privat eland - exceeding right to use highway | |
| Crane over land - trespass - stops him developing even though not using it - charge whatever... | |
| aerial photo - right to exclude? no - planes - s.76 Civil Aviation Act - don't own airspace | |
| Squatters into council housing - argue defence of necessity - would have been on street otherwise - no - not necessity... | |
| quarry exploding everywhere - blasting - 48 members 7 families - ok AG will bring your claim... | |
| Deformities from pregnancy exposure to toxic material - P's reclamation and decontam program in Corby- public nuisance DOESN'T exclude personal injury | |
| everyday noise - sue landlord - inadequate soundproofing - if not a tort against creator neither against landlord | |
| motor boats - substantial interference - injunction? limiting granted - size of boat and days | |
| character of area - storage depot - mixed industrial - acid smuts - vehicles etc... follows the one below | |
| copper fumes - trees - if physical damage NOT dependent on area - unreasonable in any context | |
| Loss of custom - economic loss - time of interference - not reasonable to work at night and sleep in day - hotel lost business | |
| LA laid drainage pipe trespassed so doing on C's land - blocked after storm - single flood - ONE bit of damage but continuity of THREAT - that is the nuisance | |
| d interfered with percolating water on his land to stop P - malice cannot make a lawful act tortious - a sign of the times? | |
| guns fired near breeding foxes - kill young - firing shotguns unreasonable even if not abnormally sensitive | |
| nuisance from natural phenomena - obligation to put out the tree? | |
| natural erosion - threatened building - employer should do what reasonable - SUBJECTIVE duty - depends on capacity of defendant... | |
| wife of property manager permitted to live on premises - injured by nuisance vibrations - no right to sue nor would he | |
| property interest necessary to sue - occupation not sufficient - parents not children can sue | |
| Problem family let house by LA - did landlord authorise? no - mere foreseeability not enough... but next case? | |
| land let for go karting - LA knew - foreseeable - purpose was go-karting... | |
| Landlord let defective property under agreement putting obligation on T to repair - cannot escape liability - ought to have known dangerous - had control... | |
| statute is defence - refinery set up under (Bad drafting - not strictly interepreted) private act of parliament - AOP subjects people's rights to highger level of interference... | |
| disused naval dockyard into commercial port - planning permission changes character of area - balance community interest vs. individuals | |
| but pig farm and holiday homes, does not change nature of area... | |
| saying C came to the nuisance is no defence... | |
| yes sewage is harsh but there is a fair scheme of resource allocation - convention compliant - not unreasonable | |
| UK - heathrow does not overstep balance between convention rights of individuals and community interest - within bounds of discretion | |
| 'brings onto his land and collects anything liable to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril - must be non-natural - something liable to do mischief, escape, affect ti | |
| no escape here - damage in WWII munitions factory... ultra hazard | |
| basin on 3rd floor blocked danger - special use not ordinary - rule doesn't apply where escape due to malicious act of 3rd party | |
| leather tannery 1.3m from borehole - percolated solvent - need reasonable foreseeability - it was not here. but it was non-natural use of land... | |
| can RvF do anything private nuisance can't? probably not bu tjust in case... water pipe council - natural/ordinary use - RvF not absorbed though.. only possible use, single piece o | |
| Murder allegation in civil trial - won't undermine criminal | |
| cannot complain of the inevitable jostling of society/physical contact used to attract person's attention or welcome them | |
| threates but restrained before got near chair of meeting - not imminent enough | |
| the miners again - bus, and whilst we're here, remember Wilkinson and Wainwright... | |
| charge must be reasonable on leaving premises... 'reasonable condition' | |
| store detective detained someone - not policeman with arrest on suspicion - only valid if actually committed - tort | |
| sentencing - governor calculates according to law at the time - law changes - no fault - followed all guidance but strict - tort | |
| police hold beyond time limit - failed to follow procedure even though they could have done on the facts - tort - strict. | |
| Kettling is lawful to avoid breach of peace under Art 5 | |
| general rule, no recovery for PEL - damage to someone else's property... | |
| damage to the melt lost is recoverable... other stuff no... | |
| someone else's injury, footballer leg broken... | |
| you need with negligent misstatement, i. special relationship. ii. akin to contract, iii. voluntary assumption of risk. iv. reasonable reliance | |
| tests for HB - i. d aware of nature of transaction P had in mind ii. D knew advice would get to C iii. knew likely C would rely on it | |
| Defective products - donoghue, anns, then... defect in item you have purchased NO - not tort - but exceptions... | |
| Consumer protection - nothing could be done to stop hep risk - stil liable | |
| burn because cup lid came off and burnt? No? | |
| lid on the detergent wasn't up to FSA standards for child-proof - but 'what persons generally entitled to expect' met that... not Reasonably F... FSA = guideline not law | |
| when does the defect take place? hip... not in the manufacturer... not liable on but for... s.4(1)(d) | |
| development risks... must be completely impossible to prevent the defect - not P's objective knowledge, but needs to accessible. 5(6) explained by the directive 7(e) | |
| damages aim for full and fair compensatio - lump sum.. | |
| only go exemplary, above damage, when i. public official, ii. profit from tort, iii. statute | |
| compensation subject to mitigation and remoteness, in this case, not profit, just how much in interest in other bank, petrol... | |
| this case, fraudulent, natural and direct, hairdresser, what you'd have got from investing in other business | |
| this case, expectation that they'd take reasonable care to ensure benefits pass | |
| 17.5k for loss of amenity, more if fully conscious | |
| insurance is NOT deducted | |
| if employee keeps paying, that is deductible... | |
| the mum is worth as much as dad.. lets make... v mark _____ (manger) | |
| gratuitous services ARE recoverable | |
| dance partner - she died - her earnings are recoverable, his are PEL | |
'A' Game
Common Passwords
Fast Food Restaurants
