Occupierdepended on1)Occupation,OR 2) control FREEA defencewhere theblame for thedamage atissue isapportioned. The purposeof the tort ofprivatenuisanceS.2(4)(a)Bolton vStone;Castle v StAugustineLinks [1922]A newintervening act– which is abreak in thechain ofcausationKennawayvThomson[1981]Wilsons vClydeCoal[1938]Smith vLeech-Brain & CoLtd [1962Transco plc vStockportMetopolitanBoroughCouncil [2004] • The type ofdamage caused• The way in whichthe damage wascaused• The extent ofdamage caused Andrea v Selfridge &Co Ltd [1938], Halseyv Esso Petroleum[1961], De Keyser’sRoyal Hotel v Spicer[194], Kennaway vThomson [1981]CambridgeWater Co vEasternCountiesLeather plc[1994]Voluntaryassumptionofrisk/consentas a defenceSim vStretch[1935];s.1(1) of theDA 2013Provides adefinitionfor privatenuisanceBenjaminv Storr[1874]Illegal activity(a defencewhere C isengaging inillegal activity)TangibleInterferenceMalone vLasky;Hunter vCanaryWharfThat thedamage isunreasonableYes,unders.1(3)OLA 1984 1. Provision ofcompetent staff ofmen;2. Adequate plant andequipment;3. An effective system;and4. A safe place of work FREESwaine vG NorthernRy Co[1864]Tetleyv Chitty[1986]FREECook vSquare[1992]Hughes vLordAdvocate[1963]TheWagonMoundNo.1Occupierdepended on1)Occupation,OR 2) control FREEA defencewhere theblame for thedamage atissue isapportioned. The purposeof the tort ofprivatenuisanceS.2(4)(a)Bolton vStone;Castle v StAugustineLinks [1922]A newintervening act– which is abreak in thechain ofcausationKennawayvThomson[1981]Wilsons vClydeCoal[1938]Smith vLeech-Brain & CoLtd [1962Transco plc vStockportMetopolitanBoroughCouncil [2004] • The type ofdamage caused• The way in whichthe damage wascaused• The extent ofdamage caused Andrea v Selfridge &Co Ltd [1938], Halseyv Esso Petroleum[1961], De Keyser’sRoyal Hotel v Spicer[194], Kennaway vThomson [1981]CambridgeWater Co vEasternCountiesLeather plc[1994]Voluntaryassumptionofrisk/consentas a defenceSim vStretch[1935];s.1(1) of theDA 2013Provides adefinitionfor privatenuisanceBenjaminv Storr[1874]Illegal activity(a defencewhere C isengaging inillegal activity)TangibleInterferenceMalone vLasky;Hunter vCanaryWharfThat thedamage isunreasonableYes,unders.1(3)OLA 1984 1. Provision ofcompetent staff ofmen;2. Adequate plant andequipment;3. An effective system;and4. A safe place of work FREESwaine vG NorthernRy Co[1864]Tetleyv Chitty[1986]FREECook vSquare[1992]Hughes vLordAdvocate[1963]TheWagonMoundNo.1

Tortious Bingo - Call List

(Print) Use this randomly generated list as your call list when playing the game. There is no need to say the BINGO column name. Place some kind of mark (like an X, a checkmark, a dot, tally mark, etc) on each cell as you announce it, to keep track. You can also cut out each item, place them in a bag and pull words from the bag.


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
  1. Occupier depended on 1) Occupation, OR 2) control
  2. FREE
  3. A defence where the blame for the damage at issue is apportioned.
  4. The purpose of the tort of private nuisance
  5. S.2(4)(a)
  6. Bolton v Stone; Castle v St Augustine Links [1922]
  7. A new intervening act – which is a break in the chain of causation
  8. Kennaway v Thomson [1981]
  9. Wilsons v Clyde Coal [1938]
  10. Smith v Leech-Brain & Co Ltd [1962
  11. Transco plc v Stockport Metopolitan Borough Council [2004]
  12. • The type of damage caused • The way in which the damage was caused • The extent of damage caused
  13. Andrea v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1938], Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961], De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer [194], Kennaway v Thomson [1981]
  14. Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]
  15. Voluntary assumption of risk/consent as a defence
  16. Sim v Stretch [1935]; s.1(1) of the DA 2013
  17. Provides a definition for private nuisance
  18. Benjamin v Storr [1874]
  19. Illegal activity (a defence where C is engaging in illegal activity)
  20. Tangible Interference
  21. Malone v Lasky; Hunter v Canary Wharf
  22. That the damage is unreasonable
  23. Yes, under s.1(3) OLA 1984
  24. 1. Provision of competent staff of men; 2. Adequate plant and equipment; 3. An effective system; and 4. A safe place of work
  25. FREE
  26. Swaine v G Northern Ry Co [1864]
  27. Tetley v Chitty [1986]
  28. FREE
  29. Cook v Square [1992]
  30. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]
  31. The Wagon Mound No.1