Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/12

Click to flip

12 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Donoghue v Stevenson
Snail in bottle causes illness. Sues manufacturer. Lord Atkin's neighbour principle. "Who then, in law, is my neighbour?" "Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my actions that I ought reasonable to have them in contemplation..."
Anns v Merton London Borough Council
Lord Wilberdick expands upon the above test. Formulates a two step test: 1. Proximity and foreseeability. 2. Any policy considerations why a duty of care should not be imposed. Also, no need to rely on analogous cases, possible to find novel duties of care.
Caparo Industries v Dickman
Rejects the liberal approach set out in Ann's. Prefers instead an incremental approach. Duty of care can be found in previous cases. 3 step test: 1. Proximity. 2. Foreseeability. 3. Policy considerations. (4. Duty found in analogous cases).
Kirby v Burke & Holloway
Adopts neighbour principle in Ireland.
Ward v McMaster
LA conducts survey of house says it's A-ok. Subsequently becomes clear there are serious structural defects in the house. Sues LA for negligence. McCarthy J eschews incremental approach, stating that it suffers from a 'temporal defect'. Opts instead for the approach in Ann's. However, separates out the first step into 2: 1. Proximity. 2. Foreseeability. 3. Policy considerations, but they would have to be very strong indeed.
Glencar Explorations plc v Mayo County Council
Renewable mining licence granted. Mining ban subsequently instituted. Sues for negligence. Keane J refuses the appeal. Rejects the approach set out in Ward stating that the comments may not have formed part of the ratio. Opts instead for the approach outlined in Caparo Industries. Adds the qualification of the duty being "just and reasonable". Therefore, English and Irish approaches are unified on the duty of care.
Childs v Desormeaux
Canadian case. Do party hosts owe a duty of care to drivers who may encounter their guests? Desormeaux goes to party, drinks 12 beerz in 2 hours. Goes to drive home. Host inquires if his bro is ok. He says he is. Gets into a car accident killing 1 injuring another. Injured sues hosts.
McLachlin CJ refuses to impose a duty of care in such a situation. Draws a distinction between commercial and social hosts (statutory duties, ability to monitor, perverse incentive). In imposing liability on third parties there are 3 situations in which this may arise: 1. Creation/control of the risk.
2. Paternalistic control over party.
3. Implied duties from commercial enterprise or public function.
Themes: creation of risk, control of the risk, the autonomy of the parties, reliance on control of the risk.
None of these apply to such a context apart from the autonomy of the driver.
Flanagan v Houlihan
Man goes to pub, gets drunk, drives home, gets into car accident killing 1 injuring another, plus himself. In addition to suing his estate, the injured party sues the pub owners. Considers case law from other common law jurisdictions: canada = willingness to impose a duty in such situations. UK and Aus = reluctance to do so apart from situations where it is plain that the person is too intoxicated to drive. Also, on the facts of the case the duty could not be imposed: they were not present when he left the pub, evidence suggested he may have been drinking before arriving there, he had previously decided not to drive home because he was too drunk. Concerns about placing unfair burdens on publicans.
Wall v Hegarty and Callnan
Irish solicitors have a duty of care towards those they are making out a will for. Failed to have two witnesses present. Solicitor held to hold a duty to possible beneficiaries.
White v Jones
Solicitors fail to draft a new will which would inherit daughter. Solicitors must owe a duty of care, potential for a "stark lacuna" if such a duty did not exist.
Spring v Guardian Assurance plc
Job reference = "kiss of death". Duty of care owed by former employer.
Hill v Chief Constable of WY
Mother of last victim of yorkshire ripper. Sues police for negligence in their investigation. Should have caught him earlier. Money would be donated to charity - vindicatory justice. Refuse the claim - duty of care owed to the community at large, not specifically to the plaintiffs daughter. Policy considerations.