Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Negligence
| Case Name | Description |
|---|---|
| Le Lievre v Gould | requirement of duty of care first formulated |
| Donoghue v Stevenson | snail in ginger beer - neighbour principle |
| Hedley Byrne | negligent misstatements |
| Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club | borstal wardens - omissions |
| Anns | two stage test: sufficient relationship of proximity based on reasonable foreseeability; considerations of why there should not be a duty |
| Junior Books v Veitchi | allowed recovery for PEL caused by subcontractors |
| Governors of Peabody v Parkinson | local authority + drains - Anns not of definitive character |
| Leigh & Sillavan v Aliakmon SHipping | cargo damaged due to poor stowage - Anns applied to novel situations rather than established ones |
| Caparo | three stage test: reasonable foreseeability, proximity of relationship, fair just and reasonable. liability of auditors |
| Murphy v Brentwood | overruled Anns (same facts) |
| Ward v McMaster | endorsed Anns test in Ireland |
| Glencar | adopted Caparo in Ireland |
| Candler v Crane | refused to allow recovery in the absence of fiduciary relationship |
| Hamilton v Clancy | public servant sent telegram w/incorrect prices |
| Macken v Munster & Leinster Bank | bank held liable for inducing to sign promissory note based on negligent advice |
| Hedley Byrne | created liability for negligent misstatements - special relationship, special skill, reliance, voluntary assumption, damage |
| Bank of Ireland v Smith | applied Hedley Byrne in Ireland - estate agent |
| Chaudry v Prabha | liability can arise between friends - specific free advise, aware of reliance |
| WB Anderson v Rhodes | agent's liability |
| Woods v Martins Bank | bank liable for advice re: creditworthiness of customers |
| Banque Financiere v Westgate Insurance | duty cannot arise for mere failure to disclose |
| Smith v Bush | liable where high degree of probability some other identifiable person will rely upon advice |
| Business Computers International v Registrar of Company | no duty owed to adversary in litigation |
| Al Kandari v JR Browne | solicitor may step outside role + assume liability (passport) |
| Ross v Caunters | solicitor's duty to testator may be extended to beneficiaries |
| White v Jones | disappointed daughters |
| Hemmens v Wilson Browne | disappointed mistress |
| Wall v Hegarty | applied Ross v Caunters in Ireland |
| James McNaughten Paper Group v Hicks Anderson | liability ofaccountants |
| Yuen Kun Yue v AG for Hong Kong | position of investors |
| McMahon v Ireland | applied Yuen Kun Yue in Ireland |
| Spring v Guardian Assurance | duty to take reasonable care when preparing reference |
| Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service | no liability to woman who became pregnant after stating vasectomy was successful |
| Ministry of Housing v Sharpe | liable to both purchaser and Ministry for failing to register charge |
| Brice v Brown | able to recover once a reasonably strong-willed person would have suffered nervous shock |
| Victoria Railway Commanders v Coultas | unable to recover as no physical injury |
| Byrne v Southern & Western Railway | able to recover for fear of personal injury to himself |
| Page v Smith | created primary/secondary victim distinction - eggshell skull |
| Hambrook v Stoke Bros | fear of injury to relatives |
| Bourhill v Young | fear of injury to strangers |
| Boardman v Sanderson | able to recover as within foreseeable are of shock - knew he was on the premises |
| White v CC for South Yorkshire | police officers at Hillsborough disaster unable to recover |
| Curran v Cadbury's | shock suffered due to causing conveyor belt to start - allowed recovery (Bridge) |
| Fletcher v Commissioners of Public Works | fear of lung disease - no shock requirement |
| Greatorex v Greatorex | no recovery for case taken by relative |
| McLoughlin v Jones | professional negligence causing shock |
| Attia v British Gas | damage to property causing shock |
| W v Essex CC | foster child abused children |
| Barrett v Enfield | allowed foster child take case against foster care system |
| McGloughlin v O'Brian | Bridge test allowed recovery - reasonable foreseeability test |
| Jaensch v Coffey | rejected considerations of physical proximity between accident + immediate aftermath |
| Alcock v Wright | Hilsborough disaster case |
| Mullaly v Bus Eireann | fell within Wilberforce but preferred Bridge - Ireland |
| Kelly v Hennessy | endorses Jaensch approach - Ireland |
| Tame v NWS | no recovery for pure psychiatric harm |
| Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring | duty to father extended to children |
| Annets v Australian Stations | allows for gradual causing of nervous shock |
| Cattle v Stockton Waterworks | refused recovery where negligence caused decrease in financial benefit |
| Simpson v Thompson | rejected concept of contractual relational economic loss - proprietary interest |
| The Oakhampton | charterer of vessel who is bailee of goods on that vessel may recover |
| Bennets Case | insufficient proprietary interest in salvaged ship |
| Main v Leask | may recover in joint venture (fishing crew) |
| Burgess v Florence Nightingale Hospital | cannot have proprietary interest in another person |
| CNR v NPS | allowed recovery for quasi-joint venture - sufficient proximity re: physical/geographical/personal knowledge |
| Boyd v Greater Northern Railway Company | able to recover under tortious head of public nuisance |
| The World Harmony | charterers by demise and time charters distinction unaffected by Hedley Byrne |
| Spartan Steels v Martin | could recover for losses flowing directly from loss of power, but not subsequent disruption |
| Dominion Tape of Canada v LR | able to recover for wages - positive outlay |
| Caltex Oil | able to recover for positive outlay - specific and identifiable individual whose loss was reasonably foreseeable |
| Yumerovski v Dani | able to recover for lost flights due to special knowledge |
| Perre v Apand | five stage test - reasonable foreseeability, determinate liability, reasonable burden, vulnerability, knowledge |
Created by:
maevb
Popular Law sets