Case Law Flashcards
Donoghue v …
Stevenson
Donoghue Year?
1932
Material facts of Donoghue case
- Store sells bottle of ginger beer to consumer
- Consumer gives bottle of ginger beer to friend
- Ginger beer is in a dark opaque glass with seal
- There is a snail in the glass
- The friend (claimant) suffers from gastro-enteritis and sues
Legal issue of Donoghue case
- It’s not a question of contract because the purchaser was not wronged via snail juice soda
- Does manufacturer have duty of care to inspect bottles before they’re filled –> does a manufacturer, should they manufacture a good that cannot be examined, owe a duty of care to a consumer to make sure the good won’t result in injury to consumer
Decision in Donoghue case
The House of Lords held:
(1) DUTY: Negligent manufacturer owes a duty of care to someone other than contracting party
(2) BREACH: The manufacturer was negligent and breached duty of care as it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product’s safety would lead to harm to consumers.
(3) CAUSATION: The breach led to gastro-enteritis. There was a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers.
Major legal concepts of Donoghue
Proximate relationship (‘neighbour principle’); duty of care
Who decided Donoghue?
Lord Atkin
Who heard the Donoghue appeal?
House of Lords
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)
Duty of care - doctor/patient
Doctors must act in accordance with established medical practice based on responsible medical professionals. Treatment must be logical.
Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English (1937)
Duty of care - employer/employee
Includes three aspects: providing proper materials, employing competent workers and providing valuable supervision.
Nettleship v Weston [1971]
Duty of care - road users
Standard for drivers is the same for every driver
Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire (1989)
Robinson v Chief Constable West Yorkshire (2018)
Duty of care - police officers
No duty of care is owed by police to victims of crimes
Duty of care is owed when police have created a dangerous situation
Caparo v Dickman (1990)
Three factor test to establish novel duty of care
- Was damage reasonably foreseeable
- Was there a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant
- Is it just, reasonable, and fair to impose a duty of care
Smith v Littlewoods (1987)
No liability for pure omissions
D bought cinema, vandals broke in and set fires. D not held liable for damage at adjacent property.
Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995]
Person who undertakes a task assumes a duty to act carefully in performance
The defendants did not owe a duty of care to prevent the claimant from consuming alcohol but the defendants did assume responsibility for the claimant once he had collapsed and become incapable of looking after himself
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)
General standard of care is that of the reasonable man
Negligence is omission to do something a reasonable man would do, or doing something a reasonable man would not do
Home Office v Dorset (1970)
Reasonable foreseeability
It was reasonably foreseeable that the borstal boys would cause damage. It was reasonable to expect that the officers would prevent the borstal boys from creating damage.
Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954)
Defendant’s objective is important
D was a fireman - didn’t secure jack in their hurry to save a woman - not found to be in breach.
Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd., [1952]
Factual causation
But for test
If the damage would not have happened but for a particular fault, then that fault is the cause of the damage
Bonnington Castings Ltd. v Wardlaw (1956)
Cumulative causes
Material contribution = more than de minimis
Claimant couldn’t prove “but for” causation but it was more than probable that the dust materially caused the injury
Gregg v Scott (2005)
Loss of chance
If recovering for future chance or trying to avoid future loss, more than 51% chance needed
Wagon Mound (1961)
Reasonable foreseeability - remoteness
Kind of damage must be reasonably foreseeable. Extent/precise manner of damage need not be reasonably foreseeable.
Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1962)
Thin skull rule
Tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him.
Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991)
Overrules Ann v Merton
You can’t claim damages for pure economic loss under tort - would open floodgates. You have to claim under contract.
D&F Estates Ltd. v Church Commissioners for England (1989)
Complex Structure Theory
The liability of a builder for defective structure can only arise if the defect remains hidden until the defective structure causes personal injury or damage to property other than the structure itself
In a complex structure, elements of the structure can be considered distinct and one part can cause damage to another
Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011]
LJ Jackson said four principles can be discerned from the authorities:
(i) Economic loss which flows directly and foreseeably from physical damage to property may be recoverable.
(ii) One of the recognised categories of recoverable economic loss is loss of income following damage to revenue generating property.
(iii) Loss of future business as a result of damage to property is a head of damage which lies on the outer fringe of recoverability.
(iv) The court awards damages based on what is fair and reasonable between the claimant and defendant
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964)
Negligent misstatement
A duty of care arises when a skilled person gives advice to another who he knows or should know will place reliance on it
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1968)
But for test
Claimant’s husband goes to doctor for vomiting. Doctor doesn’t examine him. Husband dies of arsenic poisoning. Doctor is negligent, but did he cause the death? No! Even if doctor examined him he still would have died.
