cases

Question 1

watt vs Hertfordshire county council

Answer 1

social importance of the activity

Question 2

the wagon mound

Answer 2

not too remote from the breach, of a foreseeable type

Question 3

eastern counties leather

Answer 3

the escape must be reasonably foreseeable and preventable for an action in drylands and fletcher to succeed

Question 4

Blyth v Birmingham water works

Answer 4

omitting to do something a reasonable person would do or doing something a reasonable person wouldn’t do

Question 5

coventry vs Lawrence

Answer 5

the courts upheld that private nuisance can exist in situations where the act is unreasonable even if it is permitted by the local council

Question 6

mcfarlanne

Answer 6

claimant must show a recognised psychiatric injury resulting from shock

Question 7

perky v Hendricks transport ltd

Answer 7

third party

Question 8

hughes v lord advocate

Answer 8

it is not necessary to foresee the precise chain of events leading to the breach

Question 9

shiffman

Answer 9

this amounted to an escape

Question 10

malone v laskey

Answer 10

in order to bring a claim in nuisance a c must prove that have an interest in the land they claim their use or enjoyment has been interfered with

Question 11

hill v cc of West Yorkshire

Answer 11

it must be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

Question 12

jolly v sutton

Answer 12

an occupier must be prepared for children to be less mindful than adults

Question 13

Goldman vs Hargrave

Answer 13

a d may still be liable for damages caused by natural occurrences if they fail to take reasonable steps

Question 14

bourhill v young

Answer 14

no proximity

Question 15

Darby v national trust

Answer 15

where there is an obvious risk there is no duty to warn

Question 17

smith v bush

Answer 17

statements made in a professional context may give rise to an action for damages under economic loss

Question 18

bottomless vs todmorden

Answer 18

d was still liable as he had not checked the contractors insurance

Question 19

roles v Nathan

Answer 19

d was not liable as c were experts

Question 20

barnett v Chelsea hospital

Answer 20

damage must be caused by the breach

Question 21

wheat v Lacon

Answer 21

both the brewery and managers owed a duty of care

Question 22

giles v walker

Answer 22

there is no liability for something that naturally accumulates on the land

Question 23

st helens smelting co vs tipping

Answer 23

where there is physical damage to property the locality principle is irrelevant

Question 24

kent v Griffithsm

Answer 24

damage must be reasonably foreseeable

Question 25

Latimer v aec

Answer 25

cost of precautions

Question 26

London borough of southwark vs mills

Answer 26

a claim for nuisance must prove that the interference was substantial and unreasonable

Question 27

hinz v berry

Answer 27

worry panic fear terror will not amount to psychiatric injury

Question 28

bolam v friend hospital management committee

Answer 28

a professional will be judged by the standard of a reasonable person in that profession

Question 29

mullin v richard

Answer 29

a child will be judged at the standard of a reasonable child

Question 30

transco v stockport mbc

Answer 30

although the use of land was non natural, it was not unusual or exraordinary either

Question 31

mcloughlin v o Brian

Answer 31

there was proximity

Question 32

Caparo v dickman

Answer 32

d had no knowledge of cs existence let alone reliance

Question 33

bliss v hall

Answer 33

definition (private nuisance

Question 34

corsairs v Taylor

Answer 34

heavy rain was classed as an act of god

Question 35

bolton v stone

Answer 35

the greater the degree of risk involved the greater the level of care required

Question 36

chaudry v Prabhakar

Answer 36

as c believed d was knowledgeable about cars there was reliance

Question 37

hicks v cc of South Yorkshire

Answer 37

psychiatric injury must be foreseeable

Question 38

miller v Jackson

Answer 38

cricket

Question 39

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 39

whether or not the nuisance was established before the claimant moved in is irrelevant

Question 40

Behrens

Answer 40

claimants can claim for psychiatric injury if it is foreseeable and caused by the ds negligence

Question 41

Paris v Stepney borough

Answer 41

potential seriousness of injury

Question 42

read v Lyons

Answer 42

there was no escape

Question 43

mcloughlin v o Brian

Answer 43

psychiatric injury can be caused by witnessing a traumatic event involving a close family member

Question 44

Hedley byrne

Answer 44

a negligent misstatement may give rise to an action for damages for economic loss

Question 45

smith v leech brain

Answer 45

nor is it necessary to foresee the extent of the damage

Question 46

revill vs Newbury

Answer 46

the duty can extend to those who exceed their permission

Question 47

donoghue vs folkstone

Answer 47

it would be reasonable to guard against that risk in the summer but not at that time of year

Question 48

Ratcliffe v mcconnel

Answer 48

locks and warning signs were sufficient so d was not liable

Question 49

Keown vs coventry

Answer 49

the premises were not dangerous so d was not liable