7050960
Description
Flashcards by Angel Nicole , updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Angel Nicole
over 7 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Caparo v Dickman 1990 | Lord Bridge in the House of Lords: In order to establish a duty of care a three stage test applied to all types of negligence: a) Foreseeability b) Proximity c) Fair, Just and Reasonableness |
| FORESEEABILITY | FORSEEABILITY |
| Bourhill v Young 1942 | The D negligent rode motorbike under tram, killed himself. Claimant 45 feet away, behind another tram, heard screams, later saw blood. Suffered shock, had miscarriage. Held; not reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer harm as she was outside the area foreseeable risk. |
| Pearson v Lightning 1998 | D playing 8th hole on golf course, hit ball near to 9th green, separated by row of trees. D's next shot deflected off a tree, hit claimant in eye, claimant playing 9th green, 80 yards away. D shouted 'fore'; sued for negligence. Held the shot was difficult, risk of deflection, would have foreseen risk of injury. |
| PROXIMITY | PROXIMITY |
| Yuen Kun You v Attorney General of Hong Kong 1987 | Lord Keith: foreseeability in itself is not enough to lead to a duty of care because otherwise, there would be liability on the part of one who sees another about to walk over a cliff with his head in the air, and forbears to shout a warning. |
| Osman v Ferguson 1993 | Teacher pestering 15 year old boy, followed him home, damaged house, drove car at his car. P told police, education authority he would do something mad prosecution for motoring offence. P went to boy's house shot, him and father, father died, boy sued police for negligence. Held: Close proximity between family and police, against public policy to impose duty, police would have to divert resources. |
| Osman v United Kingdom 1998 | The family took the case to ECHR claiming breach of art 2 (right to life) and art 6 (rich to a fair hearing) Art 2 - immediate risk to life of identified individual, police did not know of any threat so no breach Art 6 - CA had refused to hear claim so there was a breach. |
| Watson v British Boxing Board of control 1999 | W, a boxer, suffered brain haemorrhage during a boxing match, left with permanent brain damage. sued BBBC for negligence not providing specialist doctor. BBBC did not organise boxing matches but matches un according to BBBC rules. BBBC knew people relied on their rules and failing to provide a specialist doctor was a breach of duty. |
| Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorks 1988 | C was a mother of last victim of 'Yorkshire Ripper' sued police for negligence, not arresting Peter Sutcliffe earlier. Police owed duty to public to prevent crime. Court had to consider whether police owed duty and whether there was proximity Held police had no control over slutcliffe, victim one of many at risk, no relationship not liable as to be liable would divert resources. |
| (Capital counties plc v Hampshire 1997) The Hampshire Case | The fire brigade were called to fire in large building, officer believing there was no sprinkler system ordered sprinklers to be turned off. The fire caused 2M damage. Argued that as a matter of public policy they could not be liable. Held: D was liable. |
| (Capital counties plc v Hampshire 1997) The London Fire Brigade Case | Film company deliberately caused an explosion on waste ground. Fire brigade called and checked all fires were out. Did not check claimant's premises, later damaged by a fire caused by debris from explosion. Held D was not liable. |
| (Capital counties plc v Hampshire 1997) The West Yorkshire Case | Fire brigade called to fire in school next to D's church. Fire hydrants did not work, Fire spread and burned down the claimant's church. Held D was liable. |
| Kent v Griffiths 2000 | Pregnant claimant suffered asthma attack, called doctor. Arrived and dialled '999' for ambulance. Took 40 mins, as result of delay, suffered heart attack, suffered brain damage and lost baby. Sued for negligence. D argued on basis of Capital Counties, not under duty to respond to emergency call, only liable if they made claimant's position worse. Held: ambulance was more like the service provided by NHS than police and fire service. Once a call from individual accepted that established a duty of care. Delay was a breach of that duty. |
| Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorks 2014 | Two plainclothes police officers approached suspected drug dealer, tried to arrest him. Put up a struggle, group barged into claimant. C knocked into ground and injured. Sued police for negligence. Held there was foreseeability, proximity, and it was just and reasonable to impose duty on the police. Police not liable because of principle of police immunity. There was a public interest in not imposing a duty which could stop the police arresting drug dealers. Not negligent. |
| Micheal v Chief Constable of S Wales Police 2015 | C called 999, her ex had found her with another man and threatened to hit her. 15 mins later she phoned again and was heard screaming. When police arrived 8 mins later she had been stabbed to death. Call had been passed on and categorised as needing a response in 1 hr. Held: Police not liable negligence, could be a claim for breach of art 2, could be decided at trial. |
| FAIR, JUST AND REASONABLE | FAIR, JUST AND REASONABLE |
| Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence 1996 | First Gulf War (1990s) commander ordered an artillery gun to be fired whilst C was standing in front of it. C's hearing was damaged and sued MOD in negligence. Held: tests for foreseeability and proximity were satisfied. As a matter of policy no duty could be imposed on a gun crew firing at an enemy in time of war (battle conditions) |
| Smith & Others v MOD 2013 | Two claims: a) Soldiers in a B British tank were injured when another fired on it. Claim that MOD were negligent, not fitting equipment to recognise other tanks. b) Soilders in Land Rovers injured when roadside bombs exploded. Claim Land rovers not properly protected, negligence and breach of art 2. Held: a) decision about equip made before military action - MOD could not claim combat immunity b) Policy decisions made at high level in the MOD, decisions made on battlefield will not breach art 2. Claim for something in between these two could be successful |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.