UK · Year 2 · Tort Law
Breach, Causation & Economic Loss
Standard of care and tricky causation.
Space flip · ← → navigate · S save
Show all 9 questions and answers in this book
1.Bolton v Stone [1951] — held?
No breach where the risk of injury (a cricket ball leaving the ground) was so small that a reasonable person would not have taken precautions.
[1951] AC 850 (HL)
2.Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] — held?
The gravity of potential harm is relevant: the employer should have provided goggles to a worker already blind in one eye.
[1951] AC 367 (HL)
3.Nettleship v Weston [1971] — held?
A learner driver is judged by the standard of a reasonably competent driver.
[1971] 2 QB 691 (CA)
4.Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] — principle?
Eggshell skull rule: the defendant is liable for the full extent of harm, even if aggravated by the claimant's pre-existing condition, provided the initial type of harm was foreseeable.
[1962] 2 QB 405
5.Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] — principle?
If the type of harm is foreseeable, it does not matter that the precise manner in which it occurred was not.
[1963] AC 837 (HL)
6.Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] — held?
In mesothelioma cases, materially increasing the risk of the disease is sufficient for causation where several employers exposed the claimant to asbestos.
[2002] UKHL 22
7.Chester v Afshar [2004] — held?
A surgeon's failure to warn of a risk was treated as causing the injury even though the patient would probably have had the operation later anyway.
[2004] UKHL 41
8.Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin & Co [1973] — held?
Pure economic loss (lost profits on melts that could not be processed during a power cut) was not recoverable in negligence.
[1973] QB 27 (CA)
9.Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] — held?
Overruled Anns v Merton [1978]; a local authority owes no duty in negligence for pure economic loss from a defective building.
[1991] 1 AC 398 (HL)