Define These Constitutional Law Terms Flashcards

Literal - Whiteley v Chappell 1869 -impersonated a dead person to vote. Found not guilty as the dead person is not entitled to vote and has no legal rights once they cease to exist. Mischief - Smith v Hughes 1960. The Street Offences Act made it an offence to solicit men in a public place. A woman was found guilty who had tapped on the balcony and hissed at men, even though she wasn’t in a public place, the men were. The judge did not believe there was a relevant distinction between the balcony or standing in a doorway.

Mercer v. Denne 1905 - prevented mercer building houses on the beach due to fishermen's customs of drying their nets on that beach. New Windsor Corporation v Mellor (1975) - - won the right of residents to engage in sports and pastimes in the centre of new windsor Hutton v Warren 1836 - a decision was made based on not a contract between the landlord and farmer, but to contract with reference to those known usages .

Salamon v Salamon 1897 - Salomon loaned the company and when the company had financial difficulties, it was held that he took preference over ordinary creditors - he was separate from the company even though he completely dominated it. Gilford Motor Company v Horne 1933 - the court prevented Horne using the company he formed as a front. He had a restriction in his contract with Guildford that he would not poach customers if he left. He formed a new company and the company poached the customers. His argument that it was the company and not him was rejected.

Bradford Corporation v Pickles 1895 - the corporation refused to buy Pickles land so he pumped water out of his land which would normally flow into the corporations reservoir. His action was lawful and even though he had improper motive, did not make his action unlawfulHollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett 1936 - after a dispute, the defendant fired guns on his own land to interfere with the foxes breeding. The firing of guns is not unreasonable, but done for this purpose it became unreasonable and the defendant was held liable in nuisance.

Letang v Cooper 1965 - a man negligently drove his car over the legs of the sunbathing claimant. The act in trespass failed, it was not intentional - only negligence was possible

Tubervile v Savage 1669 - the words spoken cancelled out the assault - the defendant put his hands on the sword and said he would have attacked the claimant if it werent for the judges present. There was no assault because the threat would not be carried out due to the presence of the judges.

• Meering v Graham White Aviation Co 1919 - the man was persuaded to remain in an office by the works police, he was unaware that he would have been prevented from leaving if he tried to, he recovered damages even though he wasn’t aware he was falsely imprisoned.

Hayden v Smith 1610 - cutting down another persons trees, Wright v Ramscott 1667 - beating his dog, Damps v Darby 1948 - shooting another persons racing pigeons

Smith v Stone 1647 - 2 men threw a 3rd onto land of the defendant. 2 men were trespassing. The 3rd man was not - he was not intentionally on the land.Harrison v Duke of Rutland (1893) - a man interfered with the Dukes grouse shoot from a road passing the dukes estate. He was held to be a trespasser because he abused his right to cross the land in doing soDavies v Bennison 1927 - defendant shot at a cat on the roof of the house. It was trespass to goods (the cat) and trespass to land.

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company 1856 - omission to do something which a reasonable man wood or would not do. Negligence is a failure to take care where the law demands care should be taken. Careless behaviour is not always negligent -Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co v McMullan 1934 - negligence means more than careless conduct - concept of duty, breach and damage applies. For an action in negligence; a duty of care owed, breach of that duty, damage suffered.

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 - a snail was found in ginger beer- the seller could not have known as the bottle was opaque - she sued the manufacturers and won. The manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer. The neighbour principle was also established - the rule ‘love your neighbour’ becomes law. Foreseeability

Wilsher v Essex Health Authority - junior doctor was held negligent and his inexperience was no defence - when he injured a premature baby. Bolton v Stone 1951 - negligence and nuisance case - a person was hit by a cricket ball whilst waiting at a bus stop. The balls had rarely ever left the grounds. It was held the cricket club were not negligent as the risk of injury was small and the cost of preventative measures would have not been justified.

Overseas Tankship UK ltd v Morts doc and engineering co ltd 1961. Case often cited as the Wagon Mound. Test on foreseeability, the damage was too remote as the it was not reasonably foreseeable. The oil spilt from the ship, spread to claimants wharf where they were welding. The sparks ignited the oil. The type of damage (fire) was not foreseeable although a duty of care was owed to the wharf for the contamination..In Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd 1961 - worker had cancer of the lip activated when a blob of molten metal struck him via an employee. He died. The death caused by a trivial injury was unforeseeable, but the employers were fully liable. Although foreseeability is the main test - causation is still important. Hogan v Bentinck Colliery 1949 - claimant injured at work, thumb was amputated as a result of faulty medical diagnosis. The liability for the loss of thumb did not apply to the employers - the medical negligence was a new cause.

Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners 1963 - claimant sued the bank for giving a good credit reference about a company where in fact the company was in trouble. A claim for negligent misstatement - advice - would have been successful had the bank not included ‘without responsibility’ in their letter. The case however formed rules - Hedley Byrne rules White v Jones 1995 - 2 daughters were cut out of a will. Prior to dying the father contacted the solicitor asking him to put them back in. The work wasn’t done when the father died. The daughters sued the solicitor - although they didn’t rely on his advice, he had assumed responsibility for them in their fathers instructions.

Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute 1966 - defendants allowed germs to escape from the lab causing spread of disease, the auctioneers lost a great deal of business. The court ruled that no duty of care was owed to the auctioneer - only the cattle owners. Spartan Steel and Alloys v Martin and Co Contractors Ltd 1973 - defendants cut through an electricity cable, the court ruled they could claim for physical damages and profit on the metal claimed for, but the future losses were purely financial and not related to the physical damage suffered.

Duliey v White 1901 - pregnant wife of a pub landlord suffered shock when their employee drove a van into the pub, child born prematurely and was disabled.Bourhill v Young 1943 - it was held that the action could not succeed unless the claimant was in the area of potential danger. Page v Smith 1996 - the primary victim only needs to prove some injury was foreseeable, not that psychiatric illness was foreseeable. She suffered ME after an RTA - ME did not have to be foreseeable given that some form of personal injury was