Articles of SCC and Cases for Midterm Flashcards
Duty of Care
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562, UKHL 100
Facts of the Case:
- Plaintiff (Mrs. Donoghue [MD]) drank from a bottle of ginger beer bought to her by a friend in a café
- Bottle was opaque (not transparent) and when she dumped the contents into a glass she noticed a decomposed snail at the bottom
- Snail made her sick
- There was no contract between MD and the beer manufacturer (Stevenson) so she had to seek compensation through the tort of negligence.
Decision & Rationale:
- Court created close relationship outside of contract
- Needed physical harm to establish damage
- House of Lords said Stevenson owed MD a duty of not wanting to cause her injury. Sometimes referred to as “neigborhood principle”
- Created binding precedent that would be used in common law
1. Negligence is a distinct element of tort law
2. Duty of care in tort does not require a contract
3. Manufacturers owe duty to those who intent to buy their product
Duty of Care
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. Was there enough closeness? Does the disclaimer save the bank?
Facts of the Case:
- Mr Hedley worked as an advertiser for Hedley Byrne & Co (HB&C) and was personally liable for the costs of orders
- Hedley asked Company X’s bank if company X was good for the money
- Bank said yes but that they were not responsible if they were wrong
- Hedley made the order but company X failed and HB&C lost money, economic loss, no physical damage (can’t appeal to Donaghue)
- HB&C sued the bank for the wrongful advice
Decision & Rationale:
- When an entity claims to be an expert on something, they must be careful with the advice they give because people will rely on that advice.
- Nonetheless, since the bank made the disclaimer, they could not be held liable
- Appeal was dismissed
Duty of Care
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605. Did auditors and directors of company X owe duty of care to Caparo industries as existing shareholders or as potential investors? Was there enough closeness between both parties to find that the duty was owed?
Facts of the Case:
- Caparo Industries bought assets of company X believing they were making a lot of money
- Bought so much they eventually acquired company X
- When they found out that company X was not making as much money as it appeared they took action, saying there was fradulent misrepresentation and negligence under sections 236 and 237 of the Companies Act 1985
Decision & Rationale:
- Appeal by defendants allowed, duty of care not owed to the plaintiffs
For the opposite to be the case there/it must be:
1. Enough closeness in the relationship of the parties
2. Knowledge that in the absence of reasonable care a party will be injured
3. Fair, just, and reasonable for defendant to owe duty
- Since financial reports were not made for potential investors or shareholders, auditors did not owe duty to people who might have investment decision based on the report
Sources of Law
Fairchild v Glenhaven (2002)
Facts:
- Three people developed lung cancer due to being exposed to asbestos during their employment by different employers
- Asbestos exposure, even once, can insert fibers into the lungs that can develop into cancer
- Severity of the cancer is not impacted by length of exposure
- Court had to determine which employer was most liable for the asbestos exposure
Decision & Rationale:
- Liability could not be established and High Court ruled in favor of defendants
- “But for” test used (but for the existence of X, would Y have happened?)
- Supreme Court said that if claimants could prove that one employer materially contributed to the asbestos exposure, then liability could be established
- Denying liability due to the failure of the “but for” test was deemed unjust and thus a different test was used
- Defendants jointly liable with this test
Sources of Law
Barker v Corus (2006)
Difference
- Parties who contributed to the risk were held severely but not jointly liable
- Each tortfeasor is liable to compensate for the loss only to the extent that each was responsible for the cause
Statutory Law to the Rescue:
- Compensation Act of 2006, Section 3, was made to overturn this ruling
- Sued tortfeasor has the right to seek help in compensating the defendant from all other tortfeasors proportionate to the risk they created in their working environments
- Only for cases of mesothelioma
Legal Personality
Paradiso & Campanelli v. Italy
Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy (2015):
- In cases of use of surrogate (no connection of either parent to child)
- The father must be physically connected to the child, otherwise, it will be taken away and given up for adoption
- Considered a form of kidnapping
Articles on the General Duty of Care and Contracts
Articles 1089 to 1094
Sources of obligations (contracts, law)
Articles on the General Duty of Care and Contracts
Article 1124
Consequences to breach of contract
Articles on the General Duty of Care and Contracts
Articles 1382 & 1902 (1903)
Consequences of property damage (1903 = 1902 on negligence)
Articles on the General Duty of Care and Contracts
Articles 1930 to 1939 and 1966 to 1972
Prescription of Actions
Articles on the General Duty of Care and Contracts
Articles 1961 to 1965
Prescription of movables
Lack of existence for prescription of boundaries and inheritance
Articles on the General Duty of Care and Contracts
Rome I
Choice of law respected
Articles on Source of Law
Article 6
Ignorance of the law does not excuse incompliance
Articles on Sources of Law
Article 7
Actions against mandatory rules will be considered null and void under the law
Articles on Legal Personality
Article 16
Primacy of person, their dignity, and human rights
