Busy. Please wait.

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 

Username is available taken
show password


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove ads
Don't know
remaining cards
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
restart all cards

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


Case NameDescription
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