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

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