Case Details: Weeks 1-4 Flashcards
Letang v Cooper [1965]
The claimant was sunbathing in the car park. The defendant drove over the claimant’s legs with his car. For technical reasons relating the claim was for trespass to the person, rather than negligence.
Held: that there was no trespass to the person as the defendant’s act was not intentional. Either intention OR carelessness
Fowler v Lanning [1959]
The intention requirement relates only to the original touching. The claimant does not need to prove that the defendant intended harm to result from his actions.
Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1969]
Fagan unintentionally drove his car onto PC Morris’s foot. When asked to move, he initially refused, and turned off his engine. After being requested to move several times, he reluctantly acquiesced. It was held, inter alia, that (1) battery could be inflicted through the medium of a weapon (in this case, a car) and that (2) although the original act was unintentional, it became a criminal act and would also be tortious from the moment of the necessary intention to inflict unlawful force.
Scott v Shepherd (1773)
The defendant threw a lit squib into a market. The squib was thrown on several times, before exploding and injuring the claimant (causing him to lose the use of one eye).
Held: The court said that the physical contact was still direct, and the people in the middle (who threw the squib on) didn’t interfere with the directness
R v Cotesworth [1704]
Spitting held to be an application of force.
Collins v Wilcock [1984]
A police officer grabbed the arm of a woman suspected of being a prostitute
Held: Since he was not exercising his power of arrest he could not hold her as that went beyond what is acceptable physical contact to engage someone’s attention
Wilson v Pringle [1987]
School boys, practical jokes. Added consideration of hostility.
Held: to establish a claim in battery, the claimant must prove that there has been a direct and intentional application of force, arguably with some degree of hostility, to which the claimant has not consented.
R v Ireland [1997]
Repeated silent phone calls.
Held: It was held in this case that receiving a phone call and then nobody talking can be scary and can lead you to believe an imminent battery is coming your way. Lord Hope was claiming in the case that a climate of fear was being created by a silent phone call. Was an assault.
R v St George [1840]
Empty gun pointed at claimant, still apprehension of immediate battery.
Held: Was an assault.
Stephens v Myers (1830)
Facts: At a parish meeting they voted for a person to leave. He said to them that he would rather chuck the chairman out of his char than leave and advanced upon him. However, he was stopped from chucking him out of his chair by the church warden.
Held: This was held to constitute an assault - it does not matter that he did not actually chuck the chairman out of his chair
Thomas v NUM [1986]
Facts: The claimants were being transported by bus through the picket line at their colliery. The bus was protected from the pickets by a police cordon. The load noises and banging lead to claimant claiming assault.
Held: Not assault, not able to immediately be hurt.
Tuberville v Savage [1669]
Facts: A man put his hand on his sword (which is an aggressive act) and said to another man, ‘if it were not assize time he would not take that language from him’. However, as it was assize time (i.e. the judges were in town) that cancelled out his threat, so the claimant could not reasonably apprehend force. The case also shows that there must actually be a threat and not just a conditional threat
R v Wilson [1955]
Defendant said “get the knives out”.
Held: This counted as assault.
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2009]
Prison officers at a prison went on strike. As a result, Iqbal was locked up 24/7 for a few days. The question for the court was whether or not Iqbal had been falsely imprisoned.
Held: Prison Officers have not duty to release the prisoners and let them out, so when they do not let prisoners out of their cells they are not falsely imprisoning them. Thus, Iqbal lost his claim.
Bird v Jones (1845)
Bird was stopped from crossing a bridge as a boat race was going on and to access the bridge you had to pay.
Held: The court said that this was not false imprisonment because his movement was not totally restricted. Patterson J put it succinctly: “imprisonment… is a total restraint of the liberty of the person, for however short a time, and not a partial obstruction of his will”
Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988]
The claimant was suspected of raising money for arms for the IRA. The army attended her house at 7am to arrest her. When the claimant asked if she was under arrest, the corporal did not reply. Before leaving the house at 7.30 am, the corporal told the claimant that she was under arrest. Claimed that her restraint until 7.30 am was false imprisonment as she did not know that she was to be arrested.
Held: not accepted by the court as it was reasonable to wait that amount of time.
Archibald Nugent Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Company, Ltd [1910]
The claimant refused to pay one penny to leave a ferry. The claimant sued the defendant company for false imprisonment.
Held: claim failed, not completely restricted.
Wilkinson v Downton [1897]
A man, by way of practical joke, went up to a married woman and said her husband has had a serious accident and both his legs are broken. He intended her to believe it and she did believe it, causing her to suffer a violent nervous shock as a result.
Held: Although there is no battery or assault, he did something to cause a reaction, which caused her harm, so she was able to sue.
Wainwright v Home Office [2002]
The claimants were a mother and her son who suffered from learning difficulties. Both had gone to visit the mother’s other son at Armley Prison in Leeds. They were taken to one side to be searched on suspicion of smuggling in drugs. Both claimants had suffered emotional distress.
Held: both had consented to be searched so could not claim battery. Applying the Wilkinson v Downton rule, the judge at first instance awarded damages to both claimants. The Home Office appeal was allowed.
Chatterton v Gerson [1981]
The doctor failed to explain possible consequences of an operation on a first operation, and on a subsequent corrective operation.
Held: The failure to explain the general nature of an operation made the patient’s consent void.
In Re F [1990]
Defendant branded his initials into his wife’s buttocks with a hot knife.
Held: It was further held that consensual activity between a husband and wife in the privacy of their own home was not a matter for criminal investigation or conviction. Therefore, consent was a valid defence to s 47. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.
Lane v Holloway [1968]
This case involved an altercation between a 23-year old male defendant, and a 64 year old male claimant. The older man verbally abused the defendant’s wife. Upon the claimant striking the defendant, the defendant retaliated with such force that the claimant required hospitalisation
Held: Defendant’s attempts at defence were unsuccessful as his reaction had been out of proportion to the attack upon him by the elderly claimant.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
The appellant drank a bottle of ginger beer which was bought for her by her friend. The bottle was opaque and after she had drunk most of it she discovered it contained the remains of a decomposed snail. The appellant instead sought to sue the manufacturer, alleging that she had suffered shock and severe gastro-enteritis as a result.
Held: The House of Lords held that a manufacturer was under a duty to the final purchaser or consumer to take reasonable care to ensure the article was free from any defect which would be injurious.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970]
A group of young offenders were on an island and the officers, instead of supervising them, went to bed. Seven offenders decided to escape and took a yacht which collided with another yacht owned by the claimant. The offenders were unlikely to have any money to pay compensation, so an action was instead bought against the Home Office.
Held: There was negligence, the police officers had a duty of care in the particular given circumstances.
White v Jones [1995]
The claimants quarrelled with their father and then reconciled. Father called his solicitors to ask them to change his will to give his daughters each £9,000. Despite calling to remind his solicitor two months later, the will was not altered in time, and the father died. The claimants brought an action in negligence against the solicitors alleging that a duty of care was owed to them.
Held: There was a duty of care, and there negligence.
Anns v Merton LBC [1978]
Council failed to take care in inspecting the building, which meant the building was not stable. The claimant claimed for the cost of repair of each individual flat in the building.
Held: Lord Wilberforce said that we do not need to look for a prior category of duty to see if a duty of care exist; we just need a test to determine whether there is a duty
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]
An auditing firm was negligent in auditing the books of Fidelity. Caparo took over Fidelity, and then conducted another audit of the company and find there is in fact substantial loss. Caparo claims they paid too much for the shares and suffered a financial loss and is alleged the accountants owed a duty of care to investors and potential investors.
Held: The House of Lords held that no duty of care was owed by the auditors to those who are contemplating making a purchase of shares. The House of Lords also created the leading authority on the test for duty of care.
⇒ Lord Oliver said a duty of care may be imposed if 3 requirements are satisfied (a three-stage test):
1. The claimant must be reasonably foreseeable
2. There must be a proximity of relationship between the claimant and the defendant
3. Must be fair, just, and reasonable
Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005]
Claimant was present at the racist killing of his friend Stephen Lawrence, and was also been subjected to abuse and attacks. He brought a claim against the Commissioner for the failure to provide him adequate protection, support and assistance. He suffered ptsd which he claimed was exacerbated by the treatment he received from the police.
Held: Ultimately the claim failed. The case of Hill v CC Yorkshire precluded the imposition of a duty of care.
Murphy v Brentwood (1991)
The defendant local authority had negligently approved plans for the footings of a house. The claimant purchased the property, but some time afterwards it began to subside as a result of defects in the footings. The claimant was unable to afford the required repairs, and was forced to sell the property as a loss. He also claimed damages for the health and safety risk which the defects had caused to himself and his family during the time they lived at the property.
Held: as the damage suffered by the claimant was neither material nor physical but purely economic, the defendant was not liable in negligence.
Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951)
Doctor and patient relationship has a duty of care
Wilson v English (1938)
Employer and employee relationship has a duty of care
ICI v Shatwell (1965)
Employee - employee relationship has a duty of care
Alexandrou v Oxford (1993)
Police – No duty to attend a call.
Kent v Griffiths (2000)
Ambulance Service – If they respond it must be in a reasonable time
