Breach of Duty Cases Flashcards
Roe V Minister of Health 1954
An anaesthetic was kept in glass ampoules. At the time it was not known that visible cracks could appear in the glass which could make the anaesthetic be contaminated. Some used on Claimant during an operation and as a result she became paralysed.
COURT HELD: The claimant was unsuccessful in recovering damages as there was no way the hospital could foresee that the Claimant would be injured as they didn’t know of the danger, therefore there was no breach of duty.
Roe V Minister of Health 1954
An anaesthetic was kept in glass ampoules. At the time it was not known that visible cracks could appear in the glass which could make the anaesthetic be contaminated. Some used on Claimant during an operation and as a result she became paralysed.
COURT HELD: The claimant was
Bolton V Stone
Stone owned a cricket pitch. During a game, a cricket ball was hit outside the cricket ground and hit a passenger by injuring him. B sued S claiming that he owed duty of care. Evidence showed that balls had only ben hit out 6 times in the last 30 years therefore the risk was very minimal.
COURT HELD: Due to the minimal risk there was no duty of care owed.
Haley V London Electricity Board 1965
D was carrying out work in a street which was used frequently by blind people. D’s employees dug a hole in the road and they warned the road users by warning signs, which were clearly not visible to the blind.
COURT HELD: There was a breach of duty as there was clearly a known risk, and they failed to prevent the danger which could have easily have been done by placing barriers around the hole.
Paris V Stepney Borough Council 1951
Claimant blind in one eye. Employer failed to give him goggles. The claimant’s good eye was damaged and therefore became totally blind. The employers breached there duty.
COURT HELD: The employers should have taken greater care to protect the C as he was more vulnerable and should have provided him with safety goggles, even though at the time it was not thought to be necessary to provide other workers with them for the type of work that was being undertaken.
Latimer V AEC Ltd 1953
D’s factory became flooded due to a leak. Floor was slippy so D put sawdust on the floor. Claimant still slipped and suffered injuries.
COURT HELD: No breach of duty as the claimant had taken reasonable steps to avoid the injury and the only way the injury could have been completely prevented was to close the factory and it was unreasonable to expect the defendant to do this.
Nettleship V Weston
D a learner driver went out for her first lesson supervised by a friend. Crashed her car into a lamppost and C was injured.
COURT HELD: Even learner drivers are to be judged against the standard of the reasonably competent driver.
