Unit 4 LAW04 - Criminal Law or Tort, and Concepts of Law
Summary
A Level Law Tort Case Summary List
5 views 0 purchase
Course
Unit 4 LAW04 - Criminal Law or Tort, and Concepts of Law
Institution
AQA
Summary list of tort cases needed for A level law. Includes case name, topic linked, facts and point of law. An essential to help you remember all the cases needed to boost your grade!
Unit 4 LAW04 - Criminal Law or Tort, and Concepts of Law
All documents for this subject (57)
Seller
Follow
milliejolliffe38
Content preview
CASE NAME TOPIC FACTS POINT OF LAW
Robinson (2018) Duty of Care Always use case law to see
if there is a duty of care in
place. Comparisons and
analogies can be used.
Nettleship v Weston Duty of Care Learner driver crashed Always use case law to see
(1971) and injured her instructor if there is a duty of care in
who wad the passenger. place. Comparisons and
All drivers have a duty of analogies can be used –
care to other drivers. could be used for anyone
Learners are held to the training in something
same standard as a
competent driver.
Hill v Chief Constable of Duty of Care Mother of Yorkshire Always use case law to see
West Yorkshire (1988) Ripper’s final victim sued if there is a duty of care in
police for negligence in place. Comparisons and
catching and detaining analogies can be used –
him. Held that police were could be used for any
not liable as this would floodgates situation
make them liable for
every potential victim of
crime.
Donoghue v Stevenson Duty of Care Decomposed snail found Previously the neighbour
(1932) in ginger beer that test established if there
claimant’s friend brought was a duty of care – must
her from a café. take reasonable care to
Developed neighbour avoid acts or omissions
principle. which you reasonably
foresee would be likely to
injure your neighbour.
Your neighbour is anyone
so closely and directly
affected by your act that
you ought to reasonably
have them in your
contemplation.
Caparo v Dickman (1990) Duty of Care Established Caparo 2 part
test for establishing a duty
of care: reasonable
foreseeability, proximity
and fair just and
reasonable.
Langley v Dray (1998) Duty of Care High speed car chase The consequence must be
resulted in crash. This was reasonably foreseeable for
a reasonably foreseeable a duty of care to be owed.
consequence, so duty of
care owed.
Bourhill v Young (1943) Duty of Care D’s negligent driving The consequence must be
caused a care crash. reasonably foreseeable for
Bourhill witnessed the a duty of care to be owed.
aftermath of the crash and
sued D for birthing a
stillborn child. No duty of
care owed as this was not
a reasonably foreseeable
consequence.
,Kent v Griffith (2000) Duty of Care C suffered asthma attack, The consequence must be
called ambulance which reasonably foreseeable for
avoidably arrived late a duty of care to be owed.
causing more damage.
Duty of care owed as
more damage was a
reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the delay.
Hill v Chief Constable of Duty of Care Mother of Yorkshire There must be a
West Yorkshire (1988) Ripper’s final victim sued sufficiently proximate
police for negligence in relationship between
catching and detaining claimant and defendant in
him. Held that police were time, location, and
not liable as not sufficient context.
proximity to Hill as a
particularly at-risk victim.
Mcloughlin v O’Brien Duty of Care C sued D for psychiatric There must be a
(1983) harm after seeing her sufficiently proximate
family dead or injured relationship between
from a car crash caused by claimant and defendant in
his negligent driving. Duty time, location, and
owed as the relationship context.
was sufficiently proximate.
Mulcahy v Ministry of Duty of Care Soldier became partially It must be fair, just and
Defence (1996) deaf whilst training reasonable to impose a
without sufficient hearing duty.
protection being provided.
Held it was unreasonable
to impose a duty on MOD
for soldier injury.
Kent v Griffith (2000) Duty of Care C suffered asthma attack, Omission can be a duty
called ambulance which when a task has been
avoidably arrived late started as it must then be
causing more damage. finished with care.
Duty of care owed from
omission as paramedics
had accepted the call so
were expected to finish
the task with care.
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Duty of Care Hospital had admitted a Omission can be a duty
Management Committee patient but discharged when a task has been
(1969) him before finishing started as it must then be
treatment. He died. There finished with care.
was a duty by omission as
they had not finished
treatment with care.
Self v Ilford & District Duty of Care Hospital staff failed to act Omission can be a duty
Hospital Management for patient when there is a when there is a personal
Committee (1970) patient/doctor relationship with
relationship with an expectation of protection
expectation of protection from harm.
of harm.
Knight v Home Office Duty of Care Prison staff failed to act Omission can be a duty
(1990) for inmate when there is a when there is a personal
prison staff/inmate relationship with
relationship with an expectation of protection
, expectation of protection from harm.
from harm.
Smith v Littlewoods Duty of Care C suffered loss when his Omission can be a duty
Organisation (1987) property was damaged when harm is caused by a
due to arson on the third party who the
neighbouring property defendant should have
which was derelict and control of.
brought by the D’s
pending development.
Home Office v Dorset Duty of Care Young criminal from Omission can be a duty
Yacht Co Ltd (1970) borstal worked when harm is caused by a
unsupervised and third party who the
escaped, stealing and defendant should have
crashing a yacht. Yacht co control of.
sued Home Office as they
should have had control of
prisoners.
Glasgow Corporation v Breach of Duty Reasonable man test is
Muir (1943) used for the standard of
care owed. The
reasonable man does not
suffer from personal
quirks and exhibits neither
over-confidence nor over-
cautiousness
Blyth v Birmingham Breach of Duty Objective test – D’s
Waterworks (1856) characteristics not taken
into account
Bolam v Friern Barnett Breach of Duty C consented to electric Bolam Test – no duty has
Hospital Management shock therapy for mental been breached where
Committee (1957) illness, not told of risk of there is a substantial body
broken bones and not of opinion in the
given relaxant drugs, two profession to support D’s
medical opinions for how course of conduct
treatment should be
carried out either with or
without drugs, as hospital
had followed one opinion
no breach of duty
Bolitho v City and Hackney Breach of Duty Child suffered respiratory Adds to Bolam Test – must
Health Authority (1997) failures; consultant called be considered whether
but did not arrive before the substantial opinion is
patient died. Proved that logical
even if the consultant had
arrived the child would
have died anyway so no
breach of duty
Nettleship v Weston Breach of Duty Learner driver crashed Lord Denning – A learner’s
(1971) into lamppost which fell incompetent best is not
and injured her instructor. good enough, must drive
Learner had breached as any other driver with
duty sill, experience and care
Herald Free Enterprise Breach of Duty Zeebrugge car ferry left Must be considered
(1987) with bow doors not shut, whether standard practise
took on water and sank, is good enough practise
D’s claimed this was their
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller milliejolliffe38. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.57. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
