1. P broke his pelvis during an electro-convulsive therapy
2. P claimed that the hospital should have given him relaxant drugs for the therapy session
3. Held:Court held the D not liable
4. Principle:Acted in accordance with the standards of reasonably competent medical men at the time

• Pr: Bolam
• F:
  1.  D for prescribing penicillin which caused the death of the P’s daughter.
  2. Doc not make any inquiry to patient medical history
• H: D liable

• Pr: Bolam
• F:
  1. P was paralysed after a surgical operation
  2. P was asked to sign two blank forms before the operation 
  3. No explanation was given
• H:  No consent was actually given by the P as he was not fully informed of the treatment.

1. Diagnosis and treatment
2. Failure to warn a patient of the risk

• Pr:Bolam
• F:
  1. 1% that Patient would be paralized
  2. Patient not informed
  3. Paralized
• H:?

• Pr: Roger Whitaker
• F: P paralyzed and not been told about risk
• H: D liable

• Pr: Roger Whitaker
• F:

1.  
   1. D lawyer to P to act out in purchase of land
   2. P suffer loss due to Neg of D

• H: D Liable

P:roger whitaker to legal profession.

F: P claimed lawyer neg therefore held liable

H: princple of rondel. immunity of lawyers.

p: roger whitaker

f:

1. student pricked in thigh stabbed in eye
2. teacher held liable.

H:

1. not laible
2.  teacher's duty is not a duty of insurance against harm but only a duty to take reasonable care

P: roger whitaker. 

P: Roger whitaker

F: student hurt in piano class.

H: 

P: Roger whitaker

H: liable. standard of care of learned and begginer are equal.

P: Roger whitaker.

H:

• P: Roger Whitaker
• Exception: The case seems to place a higher standard of care.

1.  
   1. Road accident between bus and  car
   2. Happened when the driver of car pulled out to the right into the path of the oncoming bus in order to avoid accident with another car in front of him which suddenly stopped because of the parked lorry blocking his way.

•  

  H: The court held that the driver was negligent for driving at an excessive speed, which was why he was faced with the emergency situation when the other car suddenly stopped.

   

1. Magnitude of the risk
2. Current knowledge
3. The utility of the D’s conduct
4. Practicability of precautions
5. General and approved practice

1.  Gravity : seriousness of the injury 
2. Frequency: likelihood of its occurring 

Pr: Magnitude of Risk

F:

1. P hit by criket ball
2. Happened 6 times in 30 yearsa

H: D not Neg due to min of risk.

Pr: Magnitude of risk

F: criket balls continuly damaged property of P

H: D Neg due to magnitude of risk

Pr: Magnitude of risk

F:

1. P working in area with lots of splinters
2. Suffered injury
3. D did not provide googles

H:

1. D liable
2. Higher standard of care due to seriousness of injury

Famous quote: 

1.  P paralyzed after syrgey due to leakage of Disinfectant
2. At that time, was not known that the disinfectant can seep throught ampoules
3. This was standard procedure

H: not liable

Pr: Utility of Jacks conduct

F:

1. Heavy jack needed to save women
2. Fire fighter carried jack in unsuitable lorry
3. Fire fighter hurt in proccess

H: 

Pr:Utility of D's conduct

F: 

1. D allowed children to play foot ball in feild
2. Feild next to high way
3. Motorcyclist killed by ball

H:

1. D liable
2. Risk of Social utility of keeping children of highway was not out weighed by the danger posed to ppl on the highway. 

1. In deciding whether the D had breach the duty, the court will take into account the step taken by the D to reduce, minimize or avoid the risk.
2. Generally precautions should proportionate to the risk.

Pr: Practicality of Precautions

F:

1. Heavy rain caused soil and water to be on floor of factory
2. Precaution of sawdust
3. P slipped and injured

H: Not liable as all precautions taken

Pr: Practicality of precautions

F: Allegation that not enough precautions take for ppl to be away from steps of train

H: Non liable. Enough precaution of sign boards and warnings

Pr: General approved practise

F: Window cleaner fell

H: Although job was common practise. should have provided safer system. Liable

Pr: General and approved practise

F:

1. Did not use cross bar to lift plank
2. Injured

H: Liable cuz neve taught how to use corssbar.

1. Neogh Soo Oh & Ors v Rethinasamy (liable) 
2. Mohd Nor Dagang v Tetuan Mohd Yusof (non liable)

1. Government of Malaysia v Jumat Mahmud & anor (non liable)
2. Mohd.Raihan v Govt. of Malaysia (liable)
3. Zazlin Zahira v Louis Marie  (non liable)

1. Nettleship v Weston (liable)
2. Roberts v Ramsbotton (laible)
3. KR Taxi Service v Zaharah (nonliable)
4. Zainab v Gan Eng Hwa  (liable higher standard of care)

1. Bolton v Stone (laible)
2. Paris v Stepney Borough Council (liable)

Watt v Hertfordshire Country Council  (laible)

Hilder v Associated Portland Cement Management  (liable)

1. Latimer v A.E.C.Ltd (non liable)
2. Hamzah & Ors v  Wan Hanafi  (non liale)

• General Cleaning Contractor v Christmas
• Aik Bee Sawmill v Mun Kum Chow

1. Neogh Soo Oh & Ors v Rethinasamy
2. Mohd Nor Dagang v Tetuan Mohd Yusof

1. Government of Malaysia v Jumat Mahmud & anor
2. Mohd.Raihan v Govt. of Malaysia
3. Zazlin Zahira v Louis Marie  

1. Nettleship v Weston
2. Roberts v Ramsbotton
3. Zainab v Gan Eng Hwa