CASE LAW Flashcards
Eastern Counties Leather v
Cambridge Water [1994] 1 All ER 53
ECL was an established leather processing company in Sawston,
Cambridgeshire
in the process of de-greasing leather hides, the tannery had, in common
with other tanneries, used the solvent perchloroethene (“PCE”) since the
1960s
until 1976, PCE had been delivered in 40 gallon drums and tipped into a
tank
in the process of this being done, there were frequent spillages of small
amounts of PCE, which it was estimated amounted to at least 1000
gallons in total spilled over the period 1960–1976
the PCE seeped through the floor of the tannery, and into the chalk
aquifer (underground water source) below
little was known about the effects of such solvents at that time, but it later
emerged that such pollutants are persistent and can remain in the aquifer
for between 15 and 30 years
Cambridge Water was a statutory water company which purchased a bore
hole near to the tannery in 1976 - the water was found to be “wholesome”
however, following the adoption of an EEC Directive in July 1985,
drinking water with PCE levels in excess of 1µg per litre (now 10µg per
litre) would not be regarded as “wholesome” water
it was discovered that water taken from the borehole had PCE in excess
of 30µg per litre
Cambridge Water sued ECL in negligence, nuisance and under the strict
liability rule
Cambridge Water sued for the expenses incurred in establishing the new
borehole and sought an injunction (same as interdict in Scotland) to stop
ECL from continuing its activities
Decision
at first instance ECL won their case. However, this decision was
overturned by the court of appeal. Therefore, it was appealed to the
House of Lords.
the House of Lords upheld the appeal and ECL was found not to be liable
for the damage caused, since it had to be shown that the damage was
“reasonably foreseeable” at the time the spillages of PCE occurred
the actions for damages in negligence and nuisance failed at first instance
because of the lack of foreseeable harm, and an injunction was refused
since the existing tanning process was no longer causing pollution
the court accepted that damage (groundwater contamination) had been
caused by a dangerous thing (PCE) brought onto land - HOWEVER - it
had to be shown that the type of harm caused by the PCE (groundwater
contamination) had been “reasonably foreseeable”
Hancock v Roberts
the claim related to ill-health suffered as a consequence of asbestos dust released from
the factory - June Hancock was diagnosed as suffering mesothelioma in 1994 which is
an incurable asbestos-related cancer - it can take 10 to 50 years for mesothelioma,
only caused by exposure to asbestos dust, to show
• Mrs Hancock was exposed to asbestos between 1938 and 1951 while living and
playing as a child near the J W Roberts factory in Armley, Leeds - the company is a
subsidiary of T&N plc, once the world’s largest manufacturer of asbestos products
• Mrs Hancock argued that J W Roberts knew of the dangers of asbestos during the
period she was exposed to it and that it should therefore have taken steps to protect its
workers and people in the local community
• it was argued that the firm had not been aware that the Roberts factory posed a risk to
nearby residents
• company minutes from 1933 had been produced as evidence which suggested that the
dust risks were realised
• Mrs Hancock sued the company after watching her mother die from mesothelioma
contracted from the Roberts factory which closed in 1958
• it was held that J W Roberts knew of the harmful effects of asbestos as early as 1933,
and so should have protected people who lived in the Armley area from that date - J
W Roberts owed duty of care to the people who lived near their factory - they were in
breach of that duty of care - T&N were ordered to pay £65,000 in compensation to
Mrs Hancock
Campbell Construction Limited v Scottish Water 2015 SLT
following an escape of water from a mains pipe belonging to Scottish Water, Campbell
Construction Limited, in its capacity as assignee for a housing association, raised an
action against Scottish Water seeking compensation for flood damage to a
construction site owned by the housing association. The claim for compensation was
made under section 10 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980.
The court granted decree in favour of Campbell Construction Limited for the sum of
£140,000 in respect of the damage caused by the escape of water.
A claim for compensation under section 10 must be made within 24 months after the
date on which the damage is alleged to have occurred.
Weir v East of Scotland Water Authority 2001
liability should attach to East of Scotland Water Authority as a result of the alleged
failure of contractors they had engaged to detect a dead fox within one of the water
pipes they were engaged to inspect. It was claimed that this has resulted in
unwholesome water being supplied to the homes of those affected. Weir claimed that
East of Scotland Water were in breach of their statutory which was claimed to strict.
The court rejected this argument and held that section 8 was for the benefit of society
generally and did not impose a duty on the pursuers individually. Furthermore, it did
not confer any private right of action for damages. In any event, the court was of the
view that other remedies were available both at common law and under section 10 of
the 1980 Ac
McColl v Strathclyde Regional Council 1985 SC 225
Strathclyde Regional
Council were the statutory water authority acting under sections 6(1) and 8 of the
Water (Scotland) Act 1980 which imposed a duty to supply wholesome. Strathclyde
Regional Council added fluoride to the water supply with a view to improving the
general dental health of the populace. McColl sought an interdict to prevent the
addition of fluoride to the water supply on the following grounds:
the fluoridation was ultra vires (beyond Strathclyde Regional Council’s
statutory powers)
it would be a nuisance which might harm consumers
the addition of fluoride would constitute a breach of Strathclyde Regional
Council’s duty to provide wholesome water
fluoridation was unlawful in that it would be supplying a medicinal product for
a medicinal purpose without a statutory products licence
The court found that the word “wholesome” in sections 6(1) and 8 of the Water
(Scotland) Act 1980 was to be interpreted as relating to water which was free from
contamination and pleasant to drink. The fluoridation of the water supply was,
therefore, ultra vires (beyond Strathclyde Regional Council’s statutory powers) since
it did not facilitate the supply of wholesome water.
Following the introduction of the Water Fluoridation Act 1985 which allows water
authorities, at the request of health authorities, to add fluoride to the water supply
subject to certain conditions, the decision in McColl v Strathclyde Regional Council
was nullified.
Under section 6(2) where a duty to supply water exists, the pipes carrying the water
supply require to be taken to such points “as will enable the relevant buildings to be
provided with the water supply to be connected to the supply at a reasonable cost;
but this subsection shall not require Scottish Water to do anything which is not
practicable at a reasonable cost . . .”
The Water Industry Commission for Scotland has a duty under Section 6(3) to
determine disputes (if requested to do so by any aggrieved person) as to whether
water can be supplied at a reasonable cost or whether anything is or is not
practicable at a reasonable cost. The Water Industry Commission for Scotland also
has a duty to determine the point or points to which pipes must be taken to allow
buildings to be connected at a reasonable cost.
Williams v Hemphill 1966 SC
A lorry and a driver were hired to pick up some BB boys and their equipment from summer camp – the driver’s employer instructed him to take the boys from Benderloch to Glasgow by the usual route – the boys persuaded the driver to deviate from his route through Dollar (they wanted to see some girl guides) and while deviating an accident happened and some boys were injured – the case was brought by the father of one of the boys who had not asked the driver to deviate – the employer argued that they were not vicariously liable for the driver’s negligent driving and that the deviation had taken the driver outwith the scope of his employment – held the court decided that the driver’s job was to take the boys to Glasgow – at the time of the accident he was still doing that, although in an unauthorised way – the deviation was not for his own purposes and so he was still within the scope of his employment
Kirby v NCB 1958 SC 514
an employee on a smoke break had caused an explosion in a mine – smoking was forbidden due to the inherent safety risks posed by such an activity – in such circumstances, the employer was not vicariously liable for the negligence of the employee – the dicta of Lord Clyde is important in determining what is construed as being conducted within the course of employment
Poland v John Parr & Sons 1927 1 KB 236
An employee though that a boy was stealing from the back of his employer’s wagon – he hit him and the boy fell under a wheel and was injured – obviously, the driver was not employed to assault boys – that was not part of his job – held that he had acted in that way to protect his employer’s property and so this brought the act within the scope of his employment – the act was impliedly authorised by his employer
Rose v Plenty 1976 1 ALL ER 97
A milk float driver knew that children must not under any circumstances be employed to help on his milk round – there was a notice to this effect displayed in the dairy – Rose, a 13 year old boy, was injured helping the driver on his round – the employer’s protested that it was expressly forbidden to have anyone on the milk float and so, when the accident happened, the driver was outwith the scope of his employment – held that the boy was there on the float to help the driver do his job, further the employer’s interests and so it was within the scope of the driver’s employment
Muir v Glasgow Corporation [1943] AC 448
Church party had permission to use Glasgow Corporation tearoom – tea urn inexplicably dropped – pursuer was scalded – Glasgow Corporation owed a duty of care to the pursuer – had this duty of care been breached? – held the manageress had taken reasonable care and could not be expected to prevent all accidents
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
A cricket batsman hit the ball for six over a seven foot high fence and struck Miss Stone almost 100 yards away – this resulted in injury to her – no-one had previously been injured – evidence was led to the effect that the ball had only ever gone over the fence six times in the last 30 years – held the claim failed – such an accident was reasonably foreseeable, but the chance of it happening was very small – the reasonable person would not have done anything further to avert the risk
Ward v Tesco Stores Limited [1976] 1 WLR 810
Ward slipped on yoghurt in the defendant’s store – Tesco Stores were unable to provide an explanation of how this occurred – they also failed to satisfy the court that they had appropriate measures in place for dealing with such spillages – res ipsa loquitur applied – held Tesco were not able to demonstrate that they were not at fault and were accordingly found liable for the injury sustained
Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] 2 QB 405
While he was at work, a piece of molten metal struck Smith on the lower lip, causing a burn – the burn was the triggered the development of cancer, in tissues which were pre-cancerous – Smith died from the condition three years later – Smith’s widow claimed damages – held the risk of a burn was reasonably foreseeable – a defendant must take his victim as he found him – the test of the defendant’s liability was not whether they could reasonably have foreseen that a burn would cause cancer, but whether they could reasonably foresee the burn itself – the employers were liable for Smith’s death
