Busy. Please wait.
Log in with Clever
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
Sign up using Clever
or

Username is available taken
show password

Your email address is only used to allow you to reset your password. See 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.

Torts Cases

Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in each of the black spaces below before clicking on it to display the answer.
        Help!  

Case
Principle
Venning v Chin (1974) 10 SASR 299   show
🗑
show Affirms negligent trespass in Australian law. Negligent trespass carries the same burden of proof as trespass/intentional tort — ie the plaintiff must prove the facts/directness of the act, and the defendant must prove lack of fault.  
🗑
show Trespass must be by voluntary action.  
🗑
show The relationship between the injury suffered and the act must be sufficiently direct.  
🗑
Scott v Shepherd (The Squib Case) [1773] 96 Eng. Rep. 525   show
🗑
show In a sporting context, actions outside the rules of the game are not subject to implied consent.  
🗑
Morris v Marsden (1952) 1 ALL ER 925   show
🗑
show An unintentional action can become intentional.  
🗑
show In determining damages for defamation, social media's amplification of the 'grapevine effect' may be taken into consideration.  
🗑
show Pulling a chair out from beneath a person is sufficiently direct to constitute battery.  
🗑
show Consent is assessed objectively.  
🗑
show Contact falling within everyday acceptable standards does not constitute battery.  
🗑
Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] UKHL 14   show
🗑
Myer Stores & Ors v Soo (1991) 2 VR 597   show
🗑
Symes v Mahon [1922] SASR 447   show
🗑
Hart v Heron [1984] Aust Torts Reports 80–201 (NSWSC)   show
🗑
Ruddock v Taylor [2003] NSWCA 262   show
🗑
Flewster v Royale (1808) 1 Camp 187   show
🗑
March v E & MH Stramare Pyt Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506   show
🗑
Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614   show
🗑
Platt v Nutt (1988) 12 NSWLR 231   show
🗑
McHale v Watson (1966) 115 CLR 199   show
🗑
show For false imprisonment to be proved, restraint must have been total.  
🗑
show A person's liberty may be temporarily surrendered under contractual arrangement.  
🗑
show False imprisonment must follow directly upon the defendant's act.  
🗑
Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958] 1 WLR 623   show
🗑
Slaveski v Victoria [2010] VSC 441   show
🗑
Zanker v Vartzokas (1988) 34 A Crim R 11   show
🗑
show Threats made over the phone may constitute assault depending on surrounding circumstances.  
🗑
R v Ireland [1997] QB 114   show
🗑
Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v Hepburn [2002] EWCA Civ 1841   show
🗑
show Employers may be vicariously liable for exemplary and aggravated damages.  
🗑
show An intermediate discretionary act between the defendant and a third party restraining the plaintiff will break the directness required for vicarious liability in false imprisonment.  
🗑


   

Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
 
To hide a column, click on the column name.
 
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
 
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
 
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.

 
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
Created by: Torts