Tort Law

• Donoghue v Stevenson: Owe a duty of care to anyone affected by your act.
• Lord Atkin: Neighbour Principle.
• Caparo v Dickman: Test for the imposition of a duty of care.
• Robinson v CCWY: If there is a precedent on point, it should be followed and the duty is established accordingly.
• Kent v Griffiths: Foreseeable damage?
• Bourhill v Young: There can be proximity in either time and space or relationship.
• McLoughlin v O'Brian: Immediate aftermath
• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: Fair, just, and reasonable.
• Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks: "The reasonable man is the ordinary person performing the particular task, reasonable competently."
• Nettleship v Western: Learners are judges at the same standard of the competent, more experienced person.
• Bolam v Friers Hospital Management Committee: Professionals are judges at the standard of the profession.
• Mullin v Richards: The standard of a reasonable person of the D's age at the time of the incident.
• Paris v Stepney: Special characteristics
• Bolton v Stone: Low risks
• Haley v London Electricity Board: High risks
• Latimer v AEC: The cost of precaution needs to be relative to the size of the risk.
• Roe v Minister of Health: If there was no way of knowing the risk, then there is no breach of duty.
• Watt v Hertfordshire CC: If there's an emergency, there is no time for appropriate precautions, therefore no breach of duty.
• Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital: "But for" test.
• The Wagon Mound: Type of damage has to be foreseeable.
• Hughes v Lord Advocate: If the type of damage is foreseeable, then the way in which it occurs is irrelevant.
• Smith v Leech Brain and Co: Eggshell skull rule.
• Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council: Taking foolish steps can take around 25% off.
• Jayes v IMI Ltd: Damages can be reduced by 100%
• O'Connell v Jackson: Not wearing a helmet can have a 15% reduction
• Froom v Butcher: Not wearing a seatbelt can be a 25% reduction.
• Revill v Newberry: A criminal act leading to the tort can lead to a reduction of 66%.
• Stermer v Lawson: C must have full understanding of the risk.
• Smith v Baker: Volenti won't succeed if C has no choice but to accept the risk.
• ICI Ltd v Shatwell: If C acts against employer's orders or statutory rules then Volenti is likely to succeed.
• Wheat v E. Lacon and Co: More than one occupier.
• Harris v Birkenhead Corporation: Can be the owner even if you haven't taken possession yet.
• Bailey v Armes: Can be no occupiers.
• Laverton v Kiapasha: Occupiers need to take reasonable care.
• Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell: Things must be kept in reasonably good condition.
• Glasgow Corporations v Taylor: The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
• Phipps v Rochester Corporation: Parent supervision being poor can lead to the parents being liable.
• Roles v Nathan: Occupational hazards aren't the occupiers fault.
• Haseldine v Daw and Son: If the work is specialist, then it is reasonable to give it to a specialist firm.
• Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club: Occupier must check if the person being hired is competent.