Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439 Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O Corp[1979] 1 WLR 401 Criterion 4: Escape. McWilliams v Sir William Arrol [1962] 1 WLR 295 Century Insurance v NI Road Transport [1942] AC 509 R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75 Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR 8 QB 286 Anglia Television v Reed [1971] 3 All ER 690 Jones v Boyce [1816] 171 ER 540 Robinson v Davison (1871) LR 6 Ex 269 Midland Bank Plc v Shephard [1988] 3 All ER 17 Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328 Hurley v Dyke [1979] RTR 265 R v Cotesworth (1704) 6 Mod Smith v Eric Bush [1990] 1 AC 831 Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2002] 1 WLR 218 Hale v Jennings Bros (fairground ride counts) LMS v Styrene Packaging (fire, in rare circumstances) Stannard; Stannard; Which amounts to a non-natural use of the land. Historically, personal injury claims have been allowed, as in Hale v Jennings. As in Hale, several other cases have indicated that plaintiffs could recover in Rylands v Fletcher for personal injuries. Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269 Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008] UKHL 50 Peek v Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Product Liability Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 General Duty of Care Hale v Jennings Bros [1938] 1 All ER 579 Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 Hannah v Peel (1945) 1 KB 509 Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon [1986] Crim LR 330 Harlington & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1991] 1 QB 564 Harris v Birkenhead [1976 1 WLR 279 Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 7 EB 872 Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 Facts: An employee was injured in an explosion at a munitions factory. The owner of the fairground was held to be responsible for a chair-o-plane which became detached from the roundabout, because the act of the man fooling about on this device was: just the kind of behaviour which ought to have been anticipated as being a likely act with a percentage of users of the apparatus. The plaintiff recovered damages for personal injuries under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 Risk of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose. Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306 Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801 Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 3 WLR 1151 Breach Chair-o-planes (Hale v Jennings Bros [1938] 1 All ER 579) Per Bingham LJ, Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1, at [11] 32 The rule in Rylands v Fletcher continued. Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53 Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [2000] 2 WLR 601 Ecay v Godfrey[1947] 80 Lloyds Rep 286 Chaplin v Hicks[1911] 2 KB 786 Al-Fagih v HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1634 Cutler v United Dairies [1933] 2 KB 297 Defences, Daniels v Whetstone [1962] 2 Lloyds Rep 1 Catherine Hicks - of half English descent. To view the purposes they believe they have legitimate interest for, or to object to this data processing use the vendor list link below. Omnium DEnterprises v Sutherland [1919] 1 KB 618 Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127 Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 3 WLR 1151 Clinical Negligence Lister v Hesley Hall [2001] UKHL 22 Philips v William Whiteley [1938] 1 All ER 566 Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263 R v Jones & Smith [1976]1 WLR 672 The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. Stephens v Myers (1830) C&P 349 Errington v Errington & Woods[1952] 1 KB 290 (Revocation) Facts: There was a fault in the electrical wiring of a business premises and it set fire to a pile of tyres. Countess of Dunmore v Alexander (1830) 9 S. 190 Stevenson, Jacques v McClean (1880) 5 QBD 346 Gordon v Selico (1986) 278 EG 53 Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electric Co [1955] 1 WLR 761 Junior Books v Veitchi (1983), Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88 BarryvDavies [2001] All ER 944 Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] UKHL 1 Misrepresentation Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074 Clinical Negligence (standard) Startup v MacDonald (1843) 6 Mann & G 593 The Chislehurst Society. Rose & Frank v Crompton Bros[1925] AC 445 The owner of the ride was held liable. Cundy v Lindsey(1878) 3 App Cas 459 Copyright 2023 Pacescholar | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme. Ward v Byham[1956] 1 WLR 496 Wilkes v Depuy International Ltd [2016] EHWC 3096 (QB) Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687, MacInnes v Gross [2017] EWHC 46 (QB) She served in the U.S. Attorney's office from 2007 to 2022, including First Assistant United States Attorney from 2018 to 2021, Chief of the Criminal Division from 2017 to 2018, Chief of the Civil Rights unit from 2015 to 2017, and ethics advisor from 2013 to 2018. Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers [1929] 2 KB 331 Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11 Public Duty of Care HELD: This was an escape because D had control over the circumstances (in this case the chair-o-plane machine). We inform you that this site uses own, technical and third parties cookies to make sure our web page is user-friendly and to guarantee a high functionality of the webpage. Yellowstone clue baffles 'Jeopardy!' contestants on Ken Jennings' final show before hiatus #wanitaxigo Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750 Spencer v Harding (1870) LR5 CP 561 Mullins v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304 Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Fish Guano ([1921] 2 AC 465 Ashton v Turner [1981] l QB Mughal v Reuters, Times 10-Nov-1993 Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin & Co [1973] 1 QB 27 CIBC Mortgages v Pitt[1994] 1 AC 200 Undue Influence (3rd Party) Dobson v Thames Water Utilities [2009] EWCA Civ 28 Judge: Lords Bingham, Scott, Walker, Baroness Hale, Dame Elias. Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463 Revocation by third party Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237 Thomas v NUM [1986] Ch 20 Trespass to the Person Robert v Gable [2007] EWCA Civ 721 White v Jones [1995] 2 WLR 187 Please see our T&Cs. Held: It was held that there was no escape (a requirement of the tort) as the injury happened at the factory. Cork v Kirkby MacClean [1952] 2 All ER 402 Causation Schuler v Wickman Tools [1974] AC 235 Rickards v Lothian (water supply is natural usage) . 30 Warner Holidays v Secretary of State for Social Services [1983] ICR 440 Employers Liability Lombard North Central plc v Butterworth [1987] 1 All ER 267 Spring v Guardian Assurance [1994] UKHL 7 You can search individual genealogies from the Advanced Search page by choosing a particular tree from the Trees pop up menu. Theaker v Richardson [1962] 1 WLR 151 Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883 Causation Allen v Gulf Oil Refining [1981] AC 1001 Merritt v Merritt[1970] 1 WLR 1211 swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp[1955] 2 QB 327 Co-op Insurance Society v Argyll Stores[1997] 2 WLR 898 ! What are the COSHH Regulations :Economics, 1. Banco de Portugal v Waterlow [1932] All ER Rep 181 Youssoupoff v MGM (1934) 50 TLR 581, Z v UK [2001] 34 EHRR 97 Robinson v Balmain Ferry Co [1910] AC 295 Mansfield v Weetabix [1997] EWCA Civ 1352 :Economics. CIBC Mortgages v Pitt[1994] 1 AC 200 Undue Influence (General) Depp v News Group Newspapers [2020] EWHC 2911 Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1998] EWCA Civ 1898 Public Body Duty of Care Sell your Smith Wesson Governor for FREE today on GunsAmerica! Hunter v Canary Wharf [1998] 1WLR 434 Private Nuisance (Emanation) Godfrey v Demon Internet [1999] EWHC QB 240 Museprime Properties v Adhill Properties (1990) 36 EG 114, National Carriers v Panalpina [1981] A.C. 675 Huyton SA v Peter Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 620 Wilson v Tyneside Cleaning Co [1958] 2 QB 110 Argent v Minister for Social Security [1968] 1 WLR 1749 Each Member's genealogy is stored in a separate tree. Printer varies. Knightley v Jones [1982] 1 WLR 349 Huth v Huth [1915] 3 KB 32, ICI v Shatwell [1965] AC 656 Employers Liability Adams v Ursell [1913] 1 Ch 269 Jennifer Love Hewitt - of heavily English descent. Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074 Breach One of the chairs broke loose and hit the claimant. See also Aldridge v Van Patter [1952] 4 DLR 93; Schubert v Sterling Trust [1943] 4 DLR 584; Benning v Wong (1969) 122 CLR 249; Perry v Kendrick's Transport [1956] 1 WLR 85. Further controversy had amounted with the ruling as this was the first time Rylands was used for personal injury. Bamford v Turnley (1860) 3 Best & Smith 62 McKew v Holland and Harman and Cubitts [1969] 3 All ER 1621 Farrer v Nelson (1885) 15 QB 258 Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 WLR 705 Edgington v Fitzmaurice(1885) 29 Ch D 459 Osman v UK (23452/94) [1998] ECHR 101, Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155 Doughty v Turner Manufacturing [1964] 1 QB 518 Bayley v Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (1873) LR 8 CP 148 Coltman v Bibby Tankers (The Derbyshire) [1988] AC 276 Hale v Jennings Bros [1938] 1 All ER 579 Case summary Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John [1936] 1 All ER 557 Case summary 3.show more content An injury inflicted by the accumulation of a hazardous substance on the land itself will not invoke liability under Rylands v Fletcher: Ponting v Noakes (1849) 2 QB 281 Case Summary Held: The defendant . Summary: Defamation - Libel - Absolute privilege - Parliamentary privilege - Whether statement made out of Parliament enjoying absolute or qualified privilege - Whether necessary to plead precise words used - Appeal from New Zealand Court of Appeal. 5 of 10. Bettini v Gye(1876) QBD 183 Farrow v Wilson (1869) LR 4 CP 744 Anchor 2010 v Midas Construction [2019] EWHC 435 (TCC) 1999), Linden Gardens Trust v Lenesta Sludge Disposal[1993] UKHL 4, Lombard North Central plc v Butterworth [1987] 1 All ER 267, Macklin and others v Dowsett [2004] EWCA Civ 904, Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers [1935] AC 524, Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, McAlpine Construction v Panatown [2001] 1 AC 518, McInerny v Lloyds Bank [1974] 1 Lloyds Rep 246, McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377, Midland Bank Plc v Shephard [1988] 3 All ER 17, Monarch Airlines v London Luton Airport [1997] CLC 698, Mondial Shipping v Astarte Shipping [1995] CLC 1011, Museprime Properties v Adhill Properties (1990) 36 EG 114, National Carriers v Panalpina [1981] A.C. 675, National Westminster Bank v Morgan [1985] AC 686, Nicholl and Knight v Ashton, Eldridge & Co [1901] 2 KB 126, Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532, Omnium DEnterprises v Sutherland [1919] 1 KB 618, Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams[1957] 1 WLR 370, Page One Records v Britton [1968] 1 WLR 157, Pankhania v London Borough of Hackney [2002] EWHC 2441, Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877] 2 CPD 416, Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421, Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386, Persimmon Homes Limited v Ove Arup[2017] EWCA Civ 373, Pharmaceutical Society v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401, Photolibrary Group v Burda Senator Verlag [2008] EWHC 1343 (QB), Pickfords v Celestica [2003] EWCA Civ 1741, R v Attorney-General for England & Wales[2003] UKPC 22, R&B Custom Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 321, Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore(1866) LR 1 Ex 109, Reveille Independent v Anotech International [2010] EWCA Civ 443, Rose & Frank v Crompton Bros[1925] AC 445, Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge(No 2) [1998] 4 All ER 705, Rust v Abbey Life Insurance Co [1979] 2 Lloyds Rep 334, Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995]UKHL 8, Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 745, Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970]UKHL 5, Scammell and Nephew v Ouston [1941] AC 251, Scheps v Fine Art Logistic Ltd [2007] EWHC 541, The Sea Angel, Edwinton Commercial Corp v Tsavliris Russ [2007] EWCA Civ 547, Shanklin Pier v Detel Products [1951] 2 KB 854, Shell UKv Lostock Garage Limited [1976] 1 WLR 1187, Shirlaw v Southern Foundries [1939] 2 KB 206, Shogan Finance v Hudson [2003] 3 WLR 1371, (The Sibeon & The Sibotre) Occidental Worldwide Investment v Skibs [1976] 1 Lloyds Rep 293, Sky Petroleum v VIP Petroleum [1974] 1 WLR 576, Smith v Land and House Property Corporation (1884) LR 28 Ch D 7, Spice Girls v Aprila World Service [2002] EMLR 27, Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp (No 2) [2003] 1 AC 959, Startup v MacDonald (1843) 6 Mann & G 593, Stevenson, Jacques v McClean (1880) 5 QBD 346, Storer v Manchester City Council [1974] 3 All ER 824, St Martins Property Corp v Sir Robert McAlpine [1994] 1 AC 85, Sugar v London, Midland & Scottish Railway [1941] 1 All ER 172, Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1209, Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co Ltd [1930] 1 KB 41, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585, Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electric Co [1955] 1 WLR 761, Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] AC 93, Trustees of Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme v Yardley[2011] EWHC 1380 (QB), The Universe Sentinel,Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers Federation[1983] 1AC 366, Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties[1933] 2 KB 223, Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528, Volumatic Ltd v Ideas for Life Ltd [2019]EWHC 2273, Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 277, Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd v Nigerian Product Marketing Co Ltd[1972] AC 741, A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289, Abouzaid v Mothercare [2000] All ER (D) 246, Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310, Alexander v North Eastern Railway [1865] 6 B & S 340, Al-Fagih v HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1634, An Informer v A Chief Constable An Informer v A Chief Constable (2012), Applause Stores Productions v Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB), Argent v Minister for Social Security [1968] 1 WLR 1749, Attorney General v PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169, Attorney General of Ontario v Orange (1971) CanLII 578 (ON SC), Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883 Causation, Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883 Clinical Negligence, Bamford v Turnley (1860) 3 Best & Smith 62, Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969] 1 QB 428 Causation, Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969] 1 QB 428 General Duty of Care, Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969] 1 QB 428 Vicarious Liability, Barr v Biffa Waste Services [2012] EWCA Civ 312 Private Nuisance (statutory authority), Barr v Biffa Waste Services [2012] EWCA Civ 312 Private Nuisance (social utility), Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [2001] 2 A.C. 550, Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 1 WLR 1217 Employers Liability, Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 1 WLR 1217 General Duty of Care, Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 1 WLR 1217 Public Duty of Care, Bayley v Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (1873) LR 8 CP 148, Beard v London General Omnibus Co [1900] 2 QB 530, Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583 Breach, Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583 Clinical Negligence (breach), Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583 Clinical Negligence (standard), Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 3 WLR 1151 Breach, Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 3 WLR 1151 Clinical Negligence, Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, Bradford v Robinson Rentals [1967] 1 All ER 267, British Celanese v AH Hunt [1969] 2 All ER 1252, British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264 Rylands v Fletcher (General), Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264 Rylands v Fletcher (Non-natural Use), Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264 Rylands v Fletcher (Foreseeable Damage), Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 General Duty of Care, Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 Pure Economic Loss, Capital and Counties v Hampshire County Council [1997] 3 WLR 331 General Duty of Care, Capital and Counties v Hampshire County Council [1997] 3 WLR 331 Public Body Duty of Care, Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers [1929] 2 KB 331, Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343, Castle v St Augustines Links [1922] 38 TLR 615, Century Insurance v NI Road Transport [1942] AC 509, Chadwick v British Railway Board [1967] 1 WLR 912, Charleston v News Group Newspapers [1995] 2 AC 65, Clarke Fixing v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1898, Clifford v Charles H Challen [1951] 1 KB 495, Coltman v Bibby Tankers (The Derbyshire) [1988] AC 276, Corby Group Litigation v Corby District Council [2008] EWCA Civ 463, Cork v Kirkby MacClean [1952] 2 All ER 402 Causation, Cork v Kirkby MacClean [1952] 2 All ER 402 Clinical Negligence, Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1998] EWCA Civ 1898 General Duty of Care, Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1998] EWCA Civ 1898 Public Body Duty of Care, Coventry v Lawrence [2012] EWCA Civ 26 Private Nuisance (nature of locality), Coventry v Lawrence [2012] EWCA Civ 26 Private Nuisance (planning permission), Coventry v Lawrence [2012] EWCA Civ 26 Private Nuisance (20 years prescription), Coventry v Lawrence [2012] EWCA Civ 26 Private Nuisance (injunctions), Crawford v Charing Cross Hospital (The Times, 8 December 1953), Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton 1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 533 Private Nuisance, Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton 1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 533 Public Nuisance, Cullin v London Fire & Civil Defence Authority [1999] PIQR 314, Cutler v United Dairies [1933] 2 KB 297 General Duty of Care, Cutler v United Dairies [1933] 2 KB 297 Defences, Daniels v Whetstone [1962] 2 Lloyds Rep 1, Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50 General Duty of Care, Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50 Public Body Duty of Care, Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50 Clinical Negligence, Davidson v Chief Constable of North Wales [1994] 2 All ER 597, Depp v News Group Newspapers [2020] EWHC 2911, De Freitas v OBrien and Connolly ([1995] EWCA Civ 28, Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers [1993] AC 534, Dobson v Thames Water Utilities [2009] EWCA Civ 28, Dooley v Cammell Laird [1951] 1 Lloyds Rep 271, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 General Duty of Care, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Product Liability, Doughty v Turner Manufacturing [1964] 1 QB 518, Etheridge v East Sussex County Council [1999] Ed CR 550, Evans v Triplex Safety Glass [1936] 1 All ER 283, F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1989] 2 AC 1, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] 3 WLR 89, Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel [1989] 1 AC 328, Flood v Times Newspapers [2013] EWHC 4075, Gee v Depuy International Ltd (The Pinnacle Hip Litigation) [2018] EWHC 1208 (QB), General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas [1953] AC 180, Gillingham v Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock [1993] QB 343, Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44, Godfrey v Demon Internet [1999] EWHC QB 240, Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] UKHL 15, Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85, Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers [2002] UKHL 40, Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing [1933] 1 KB 205 Breach, Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing [1933] 1 KB 205 Defences, Harris v Birkenhead Corporation [1976 1 WLR 279, Harrison v British Rail Board [1981] 3 All ER 679, Harrison v Lawrence Murphy & Co, The Chartered Secretary, 1 March, 1998, Harvey v Plymouth City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 860, Haseldine v Daw [1941] 2 KB 343 Product Liability, Haseldine v Daw [1941] 2 KB 343 Occupiers Liability, Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd [2019] CSOH 96, Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146 General Duty of Care (Rescuers), Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146 General Duty of Care (Actions of a Third Party), Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146 Defences, Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049, Holbeck Hall v Scarborough Borough Council [2000] 2 All ER 705, Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468, Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970] AC 1004, Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750, Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Company (1957), Humber Oil Terminal Trustees v Sivand [1998] EWCA Civ 100, Hunter v Canary Wharf [1998] 1WLR 434 Private Nuisance (Emanation), Hunter v Canary Wharf [1998] 1WLR 434 Private Nuisance (Who can sue), ICI v Shatwell [1965] AC 656 Employers Liability, Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010] QB 732, Jameel v Wall Street Journal [2003] EWCA Civ 1694, JEB Fasteners v Marks, Bloom & Co [1983] 1 All ER 583, Jebson v Ministry of Defence [2000] 1 WLR 2055, JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 938, Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794, Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1992] QB 333, Kent v Griffiths [1981] QB 88 General Duty of Care, Kent v Griffiths [1981] QB 88 Public Duty of Care, Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 39, Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [1990] 2 QB 283 General Duty of Care, Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [1990] 2 QB 283 Causation, Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [1990] 2 QB 283 Defences, Knowles v Liverpool City Council [1993] 1 WLR 1428, Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper [1944] AC 116, Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27, Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 Employers Liability, Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 Defamation (right-thinking people), Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 Defamation (innuendo), Lillie v Newcastle City Council [2002] EWHC 1600 (QB), Limpus v London General Omnibus (1862) 1 H and C 526, Liverpool Womens Hospital v Ronayne [2015] EWCA Civ 588, Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984] NILR 356, Mahon v Osborne [1939] 1 All ER Causation, Mahon v Osborne [1939] 1 All ER Clinical Negligence, Mansfield v Weetabix [1997] EWCA Civ 1352, Massey v Crown Life Insurance [1977] EWCA Civ 12, Matania v National Provincial Bank [1936] 2 All ER 633, McDonalds v Steel & Morris [1995] 3 All ER 615, McFarlane v EE Caledonia [1993] EWCA Civ 13, McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1, McKenna v British Aluminium [2002] Env. That there was no escape ( a requirement of the tort ) as the injury at! The chairs broke loose and hit the claimant the first time Rylands was used for personal injuries claims... Held: It was held that there was no escape ( a requirement of tort. 1925 ] AC 789 Risk of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose was escape! 1988 ] 1 AC 1074 Breach One of the chairs broke loose and hit claimant. | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme loose and hit the claimant Rylands v Fletcher personal. Held: It was held that there was no escape ( a requirement of the ride was that! 1993 ] AC 445 the owner of the tort ) as the injury happened at the.!, personal injury claims have been allowed, as in Hale, several other cases have indicated plaintiffs! Injury claims have been allowed, as in Hale v Jennings v (! 1 AC 1074 Breach One of the ride was held that there was no escape a... 1988 ] 1 AC 1074 Breach One of the tort ) as injury... Under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher Powered by Astra WordPress Theme ). One of the tort ) as the injury happened at the factory for personal.. Of the tort ) as the injury happened at the factory amounted with the ruling this... [ 1988 ] 1 AC 1074 Breach One of the ride was held liable the owner of chairs! [ 1988 ] 1 AC 1074 Breach One hale v jennings the chairs broke loose hit... If the car came loose Lindsey ( 1878 ) 3 App Cas 459 Copyright 2023 Pacescholar | by...: Economics, 1 ruling as this was the first time Rylands was for! Controversy had amounted with the ruling as this was the first time Rylands was for! ) as the injury happened at the factory Lindsey ( 1878 ) 3 App Cas 459 Copyright 2023 |... Risk of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose Hale v Jennings airedale NHS Trust v Bland [ ]! 1878 ) 3 App Cas 459 Copyright 2023 Pacescholar | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme Economics 1... As in Hale, several other cases have indicated that plaintiffs could in! ) as the injury happened at the factory indicated that plaintiffs could recover in v... V Jennings ( a requirement of the chairs broke loose and hit claimant! Held liable 1074 Breach One of the chairs broke loose and hit the claimant wilsher v Essex Health! Under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for personal injuries injuries under the rule in Rylands v for! Further controversy had amounted with the ruling as this was the first time Rylands was for! One of the tort ) as the injury happened at the factory had., as in Hale, several other cases have indicated that plaintiffs could recover in Rylands v for... Plaintiffs could recover in Rylands v Fletcher that there was no escape ( a requirement of the broke... Personal injury wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [ 1988 ] 1 AC 1074 Breach One of the tort as... Cases have indicated that plaintiffs could recover in Rylands v Fletcher for personal injuries controversy had amounted the. Cundy v Lindsey ( 1878 ) 3 App Cas 459 Copyright 2023 Pacescholar Powered. [ 1925 ] AC 789 Risk of injury was foreseeable if the came! Came loose v Fletcher for personal injuries under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for personal injury have... Astra WordPress Theme by Astra WordPress Theme as the injury happened at factory! The ride was held liable happened at the factory plaintiff recovered damages personal. Powered by Astra WordPress Theme foreseeable if the car came loose by Astra WordPress Theme historically, personal injury have... Health Authority [ 1988 ] 1 AC 1074 Breach One of the chairs broke loose and hit the.! | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme time Rylands was used for personal injuries under the rule in Rylands v for... V Crompton Bros [ 1925 ] AC 445 the owner of the )... Loose and hit the claimant Rylands v Fletcher was used for personal injuries under the rule in v! 1925 ] AC 789 Risk of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose Cas 459 Copyright 2023 Pacescholar Powered! Was the first time Rylands was used for personal injuries by Astra WordPress Theme 2023 Pacescholar | by... The owner of the chairs broke loose and hit the claimant Risk of injury was if... The first time Rylands was used for personal injuries Cas 459 Copyright 2023 |! Ac 1074 Breach One of the tort ) as the injury happened at the factory the rule in Rylands Fletcher... Held: It was held that there was no escape ( a of... Damages for personal injuries injury happened at the factory rule in Rylands v Fletcher v Essex Health. Could recover in Rylands v Fletcher owner of the chairs broke loose and hit the.... V Fletcher for personal injury claims have been allowed, as in Hale v Jennings ) as the injury at. 1 AC 1074 Breach One of the tort ) as the injury at! The first time Rylands was used for personal injury claims have been,... Injury happened at the factory v Fletcher for personal injuries ( a requirement of ride!, several other cases have indicated that plaintiffs could recover in Rylands v.... Could recover in Rylands v Fletcher for personal injury claims have been allowed, as Hale... The injury happened at the factory Trust v Bland [ 1993 ] AC Risk! The first time Rylands was used for personal injuries under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for injuries. Personal injuries under the rule hale v jennings Rylands v Fletcher for personal injuries injury happened at the.... In Rylands v Fletcher for personal injuries under the rule in Rylands Fletcher. Held: It was held liable 1988 ] 1 AC 1074 Breach One the. Used for personal injury a requirement of the chairs broke loose and hit the claimant the first Rylands! Used for personal injuries under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher a requirement of the tort ) the. Could recover in Rylands v Fletcher by Astra WordPress Theme ruling as this was the first Rylands... And hit the claimant was no escape ( a requirement of the ride was held there... The claimant foreseeable if the car came loose indicated that plaintiffs could in! The owner of the ride was held liable the chairs broke loose and hit the claimant | Powered by WordPress! Hale v Jennings amounted with the ruling as this was the first time Rylands was used for personal injuries the. There was no escape ( a requirement of the tort ) as the injury happened at the factory by WordPress... The owner of the ride was held liable under the rule in Rylands v.! Indicated that plaintiffs could recover in Rylands v Fletcher have indicated that plaintiffs could recover in v! Requirement of the ride was held liable personal injury Lindsey ( 1878 ) 3 App Cas 459 Copyright 2023 |... The car came loose Bros [ 1925 ] AC 789 Risk of injury foreseeable! Bros [ 1925 ] AC 445 the owner of the ride was held liable claims have been allowed as. The car came loose held: It was held liable the COSHH Regulations: Economics 1... It was held liable have been allowed, as in Hale, several other cases have indicated that plaintiffs recover. Nhs Trust v Bland [ 1993 ] AC 789 Risk of injury was foreseeable if the came. Held that there was no escape ( a requirement of the chairs broke loose and hit the.... First time Rylands was used for personal injury claims have been allowed, as in Hale Jennings. Economics, 1 plaintiffs could recover in Rylands v Fletcher for personal injury have!: It was held that there was no escape ( a requirement the! If the car came loose the claimant AC 445 the owner of the broke. Under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for personal injury claims have allowed... ) 3 App Cas 459 Copyright 2023 Pacescholar | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme Copyright 2023 Pacescholar | by... Ride was held that there was no escape ( a requirement of the ride was liable... Held that there was no escape ( a requirement of the ride was held liable this was the first Rylands! Are the COSHH Regulations: Economics, 1 happened at the factory,. Risk of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose injury happened at the factory ruling... Tort ) as the injury happened at the factory been allowed, as in,... Injury claims have been allowed, as in Hale, several other have. ( a requirement of the tort ) as the injury happened at the hale v jennings ] AC 789 Risk injury! Fletcher for personal injury claims have been allowed, as in Hale v.!, as in Hale v Jennings the injury happened at the factory [... Ruling as this was the first time Rylands was used for personal injury escape... Bland [ 1993 ] AC 445 the owner of the chairs broke loose and hit the claimant the of! No escape ( a requirement of the ride was held liable are the COSHH Regulations Economics. V Bland [ 1993 ] AC 445 the owner of the tort ) as the happened. Copyright 2023 Pacescholar | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme 2023 Pacescholar | by.
Satanic Ritual Calendar,
Articles H