FREEFREEThat thedamage isunreasonableA defencewhere theblame for thedamage atissue isapportioned. Hughes vLordAdvocate[1963]KennawayvThomson[1981]TheWagonMoundNo.1Andrea v Selfridge &Co Ltd [1938], Halseyv Esso Petroleum[1961], De Keyser’sRoyal Hotel v Spicer[194], Kennaway vThomson [1981]Swaine vG NorthernRy Co[1864]Transco plc vStockportMetopolitanBoroughCouncil [2004] Occupierdepended on1)Occupation,OR 2) control FREECambridgeWater Co vEasternCountiesLeather plc[1994]Voluntaryassumptionofrisk/consentas a defenceIllegal activity(a defencewhere C isengaging inillegal activity)S.2(4)(a)Smith vLeech-Brain & CoLtd [1962A newintervening act– which is abreak in thechain ofcausationBolton vStone;Castle v StAugustineLinks [1922]Sim vStretch[1935];s.1(1) of theDA 2013Tetleyv Chitty[1986]Cook vSquare[1992]1. Provision ofcompetent staff ofmen;2. Adequate plant andequipment;3. An effective system;and4. A safe place of work TangibleInterference• The type ofdamage caused• The way in whichthe damage wascaused• The extent ofdamage caused Benjaminv Storr[1874]Malone vLasky;Hunter vCanaryWharfProvides adefinitionfor privatenuisanceThe purposeof the tort ofprivatenuisanceYes,unders.1(3)OLA 1984 Wilsons vClydeCoal[1938]FREEFREEThat thedamage isunreasonableA defencewhere theblame for thedamage atissue isapportioned. Hughes vLordAdvocate[1963]KennawayvThomson[1981]TheWagonMoundNo.1Andrea v Selfridge &Co Ltd [1938], Halseyv Esso Petroleum[1961], De Keyser’sRoyal Hotel v Spicer[194], Kennaway vThomson [1981]Swaine vG NorthernRy Co[1864]Transco plc vStockportMetopolitanBoroughCouncil [2004] Occupierdepended on1)Occupation,OR 2) control FREECambridgeWater Co vEasternCountiesLeather plc[1994]Voluntaryassumptionofrisk/consentas a defenceIllegal activity(a defencewhere C isengaging inillegal activity)S.2(4)(a)Smith vLeech-Brain & CoLtd [1962A newintervening act– which is abreak in thechain ofcausationBolton vStone;Castle v StAugustineLinks [1922]Sim vStretch[1935];s.1(1) of theDA 2013Tetleyv Chitty[1986]Cook vSquare[1992]1. Provision ofcompetent staff ofmen;2. Adequate plant andequipment;3. An effective system;and4. A safe place of work TangibleInterference• The type ofdamage caused• The way in whichthe damage wascaused• The extent ofdamage caused Benjaminv Storr[1874]Malone vLasky;Hunter vCanaryWharfProvides adefinitionfor privatenuisanceThe purposeof the tort ofprivatenuisanceYes,unders.1(3)OLA 1984 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. FREE
  2. FREE
  3. That the damage is unreasonable
  4. A defence where the blame for the damage at issue is apportioned.
  5. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]
  6. Kennaway v Thomson [1981]
  7. The Wagon Mound No.1
  8. Andrea v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1938], Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961], De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer [194], Kennaway v Thomson [1981]
  9. Swaine v G Northern Ry Co [1864]
  10. Transco plc v Stockport Metopolitan Borough Council [2004]
  11. Occupier depended on 1) Occupation, OR 2) control
  12. FREE
  13. Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]
  14. Voluntary assumption of risk/consent as a defence
  15. Illegal activity (a defence where C is engaging in illegal activity)
  16. S.2(4)(a)
  17. Smith v Leech-Brain & Co Ltd [1962
  18. A new intervening act – which is a break in the chain of causation
  19. Bolton v Stone; Castle v St Augustine Links [1922]
  20. Sim v Stretch [1935]; s.1(1) of the DA 2013
  21. Tetley v Chitty [1986]
  22. Cook v Square [1992]
  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. Tangible Interference
  25. • The type of damage caused • The way in which the damage was caused • The extent of damage caused
  26. Benjamin v Storr [1874]
  27. Malone v Lasky; Hunter v Canary Wharf
  28. Provides a definition for private nuisance
  29. The purpose of the tort of private nuisance
  30. Yes, under s.1(3) OLA 1984
  31. Wilsons v Clyde Coal [1938]