Torts Cases

Card Set Information

Author:
wombatsky
ID:
23776
Filename:
Torts Cases
Updated:
2010-06-16 11:29:45
Tags:
torts cases
Folders:

Description:
Torts
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user wombatsky on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. Battery
    Lagana Case
  2. Beyond everyday life
    Collins v Wilcock
  3. Positive act
    Innes v Wylie
  4. Direct Contact
    Reynolds v Clarke
  5. Intentional Battery
    Gray v Barr
  6. Intentional Act does not need to injure plaintiff, as long as intent was there
    Bunyan v Jordan
  7. Consent
    McNamara v Duncan
  8. Consent - Capacity
    Re F (Mental Patient Sterilisation)
  9. Development stage recongised
    Gilleck Case
  10. Consent needs to be freely given
    Sisters of Charity Case
  11. Consent given must not be exceeded
    Murray Case
  12. Assault - D has the means of carrying out threat
    Stephens v Myers
  13. Imminent Contact
    Zanker v Vartzokas
  14. Apprehension reasonable (doesn't matter if fear felt)
    Brady v Schatzel
  15. False Imprisonment - Def. positively contributed to lack of liberty
    Dickenson v Waters Ltd
  16. Assault - Not necessary if the def. actually intended to carry through the threat
    Hall v Fonceca
  17. No reasonable venue of escape from imprisonment
    Bird v Jones
  18. Def. convinces pl. he has no means of escape/compens another to stay in a given place against will
    Symes v Mahon
  19. Does not need to be aware of loss of liberty to be false imprisonment
    Murray v Ministry of Defence
  20. Does not require physical constraint - could be total submission
    Symes v Mahon
  21. Defence to Trespass to Person - Mistake: No difference if mistake is one of fact or law
    Basely v Clarkson
  22. Self defence: reasonable appropriate force to prevent harm - reasonable to defend oneself
    Bennett v Dopke
  23. Self defence: Force used in doing so was reasonable
    Fontin v Katapodis
  24. Self defence - def continue use violence after danger
    Symons Case
  25. Defence of another - Reasonable to protect other person this way?
    Saler Case
  26. Amount of force reasonable at all times
    Goss v Nicholas
  27. Defence of One's Property
    Norton v Hoare
  28. Defence of one's property: Reasonable belief that force is essential to end trespass
    Scott v Brown
  29. Provocation - Statutory
    Criminal Code Section 269
  30. Provocation - Case Law
    White v Connolly
  31. Inevitable Accident
    Public Transport Commission NSW v Perry
  32. Citizen's Arrest Statutory
    Criminal Code (Qld) 1899 Section 545
  33. Occupier has right to land statutory
    Property Law Act 1974 Section 180
  34. Trespass to land protect ownership of land + privacy/security of owner
    Emcorp Pty Ltd v ABC
  35. Land includes airspace for ordinary use + structures on land
    Delaney v T.P Smith Ltd
  36. Trespass to land - Direct interference
    Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corporation
  37. Cause foreign matter to come in contact with land = trespass
    Beckwith v Shordike
  38. Intrusion to airspace
    Kelson v Imperial Tobacco Co Ltd
  39. Transient intrusions
    Graham Case
  40. Lack of consent trespass - unjustifiable entry or interference
    Halliday v Nevill
  41. Remedies for trespass: Aggravated damages
    Greig v Greig
  42. Injunctions
    Graham H Roberts Pty Ltd Case
  43. Irreparable harm suffered if injunction refused
    Lincoln Hunt Australia Pty Ltd v Willesee
  44. Abatement by self help
    Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse Co Ltd
  45. Defence to trespass = necessity
    Cope v Sharpe
  46. Defence to trespass = retake wrongfully withheld chattels
    Blades v Higgs
  47. Defence to trespass = Eject from land on a person no longer right to remain there
    McPhail Case
  48. Defence to trespass = inevitable accident = no fault on the part of the defendant
    Letang v Cooper
  49. Defence to trespass = lawful authority: statute allows
    Amstad v Brisbane City Council & Ward
  50. Taking googs out of possession of another
    Brewer v Drew
  51. Moving goods out of possession of another
    Kirk v Gregory
  52. Damaging/Destroying goods
    in marriage of Michiel's
  53. Bringing one person into contact with the goods
    Foulds Case
  54. Directing a missile at the goods/causing goods to come into harmful contact
    Hamps v Darby
  55. Unauthorized use of goods
    Penfolds Wine v Elliot
  56. Trespass to Goods Direct: Locking a person's goods in the room once they've placed them i ntehre is not trespass to goods
    Hutchins v Maughan
  57. No trespass in the case of accidental contact where no damage is done
    Wilson v Marshall
  58. No liability for acciental trespass to good which is not negligent
    Manton v Brocklebank
  59. Trespass is intentional irrespective of whether the def. knew that the act was trespass
    Colwill v Reeves
  60. Plaintiff must be in possession of the good at the time of the unlawful interference
    Penfold Wines v Elliot
  61. Possession: Power of exercising physical control
    Minnamurra Racing Services v Rogerson
  62. I
  63. Intention to exercise such control on one's own belief
    Pollock v Wright
  64. Bailee can sue in trespass
    Peachey v Wing
  65. Bailor with right to possession can sue in conversion or detinue but not in trespass
    Penfold Wines v Elliot
  66. Action on the case: Circumstances where violation of chattels not protected by trespass, conversion, detinue, or tort of negligence
    Mears Case
  67. Pl. must have possession of an immediate right to possession at the time of conversion
    Gordon v Harper
  68. Not a requirement that the def. intended to deny pl. rights in conversion
    Finesky Holdings v Minister for Transport in WA
  69. Licensee of good are bailees and may be able to sue in conversion
    Northam v Bowden
  70. Finder has greater right to chattel against later possessors
    Armory v Delamirie-Chimney
  71. Conversion: To steal or seize under legal process without justification
    Joule Ltd v Poole
  72. Move chattels to an unreasonable place with consequent risk of loss
    Fouldes Case
  73. Deprive pl. use of goods for however a short period of time
    IANSA Case
  74. Pl. hands over goods under duress
    Grainger v Hill
  75. Refusal to surrender goods upon lawful and reasonable demand
    Eason v Newman
  76. Intentional destruction of goods in possession of another
    Prismex Technologies Pty Ltd v Keller Industries Pty Ltd
  77. Person in actual possession entitled to recover full value of those goods
    BBMB Finance Ltd v Eda Holdings Ltd
  78. Precise sequence of events leading to pl. injury need not be foresseable
    Chapman v Hearse
  79. Unforeseeable: Person has not fallen within a reasonable sphere or risk and therefore no duty of care has arisen
    Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad
  80. DOC Employer to Employee
    Edith Cowan University Case
  81. DOC Occupier to Tenant
    Thompson v Woolworths
  82. DOC Motorist to other road users
    Manley v Alexander
  83. DOC Teacher to student
    Hornberg v Horrobin
  84. DOC Doctor to patient
    Gold v Haringey Health Authority
  85. Lord Atkin's Neighbour Principle!
    THAT SNAIL DONOGHUE V STEVENSON
  86. Ann's Two Step Approach
    Clarke Case
  87. Proximity
    Jaensch v Coffey
  88. Reasonable Person
    Wyong Shire Council v Shirt
  89. Reasonable Foreseeable (Breach of DOC) Case Law
    Wyong Shire Council v Shirt
  90. Reasonable Foreseeable Breach of DOC Statute
    CLA Section 9 a b
  91. Standard of care: Judged against the standard of a hypothetical reasonable person not against the conduct of others
    CLA 9(1) c
  92. Inexperience is not an excuse
    Nettleship v Weston
  93. People with special skill exempt from the rule of a reasonable person Statutory
    CLA Section 22
  94. Children not reasonable person
    McHale v Watson
  95. Probability of Harm Occurring
    Bolton v Stone
  96. Magnitude/Gravity of Risk
    Paris v Stepney Borough Council
  97. Burden of Precautions
    Caledonian Colliers Ltd v Spiers
  98. Social Utility of Defendants Conduct
    Watt v Hertfordshire
  99. Res Ipsa Loquitur
    Scott v Londa and St Katherines Dock Co
  100. Causation - Pl. onus to prove damages on balance of probabilities Case law
    Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services
  101. Causation - Pl. has onus to prove damages on balance of probabilities Statute
    CLA Section 12
  102. Factual Causation Statute
    CLA Section 11 12
  103. But for Test case law
    Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee
  104. But For Test Statute
    Section 11 1 of CLA
  105. Common sense test statute
    Section 11(2) of CLA
  106. Common Sense Test Case Law
    March v Stramere
  107. 3rd party invervention
    Chapman v Hearse
  108. 1st party intervention
    Haber v Walker
  109. Causation - Injury is relavently connected to breach of duty
    Chappel v Hart
  110. Reasonable Foreseeability Test
    The Wagon Mount No 1
  111. Type of Damage Test
    Hughes v Lord Advocate
  112. Egg shell skull rule
    Dulieu v White & Sons
  113. Volenti Non Fit Injuria - Risk accepted freely and voluntarily
    McPherson v Whitfield
  114. Mere perception of the existence of danger will not establish volenti: Pl. must have fully comprehended the extent of the risk
    Chapman v Hearse
  115. Contributory Negligence Case Law
    Joslyn v Berryman
  116. Contributory Negligence Statute
    CLA Section 23 24
  117. Plaintiff was careless for own safety
    MacPherson v Whitfield
  118. Contribution to injury: Plaintiff's negligence was the cause of injury
    Froom v Butcher
  119. Obvious Risk Statute
    CLA Section 12 ~ 19
  120. Exemplary Damage Statute
    CLA Section 52
  121. Punitive damages Statute
    CLA Section 52
  122. Pecuniary Loss Statute
    Section 54-55 CLA
  123. Pecuniary Loss Case Law
    Wright v British Railways Board
  124. Losses - special and general damages
    Ilkiw v Samuels
  125. Loss of amenity statute
    Section 61 CLA
  126. Loss of amenity case law
    Teubner v Humble
  127. Pain and suffering
    Teubner v Humble
  128. Loss of expectation of life
    Skelton v Collins
  129. Material fact of decisive nature needed to extend limitation
    Randel v Brisbane City Council
  130. Time starts at commencement of original tort even if subsequent acts doen to that chattel in cases of detinue or conversion
    QLD v Stephenson
  131. Limitations of Actions Statute
    Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview