Case Law

Question 1

Donoghue v …

Answer 1

Stevenson

Question 2

Donoghue Year?

Answer 2

1932

Question 3

Material facts of Donoghue case

Answer 3

1. Store sells bottle of ginger beer to consumer
2. Consumer gives bottle of ginger beer to friend
3. Ginger beer is in a dark opaque glass with seal
4. There is a snail in the glass
5. The friend (claimant) suffers from gastro-enteritis and sues

Question 4

Legal issue of Donoghue case

Answer 4

1. It’s not a question of contract because the purchaser was not wronged via snail juice soda
2. 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

Question 5

Decision in Donoghue case

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Major legal concepts of Donoghue

Answer 6

Proximate relationship (‘neighbour principle’); duty of care

Question 7

Who decided Donoghue?

Answer 7

Lord Atkin

Question 8

Who heard the Donoghue appeal?

Answer 8

House of Lords

Question 9

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)

Answer 9

Duty of care - doctor/patient

Doctors must act in accordance with established medical practice based on responsible medical professionals. Treatment must be logical.

Question 10

Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English (1937)

Answer 10

Duty of care - employer/employee

Includes three aspects: providing proper materials, employing competent workers and providing valuable supervision.

Question 11

Nettleship v Weston [1971]

Answer 11

Duty of care - road users

Standard for drivers is the same for every driver

Question 12

Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire (1989)
Robinson v Chief Constable West Yorkshire (2018)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Answer 13

Three factor test to establish novel duty of care

1. Was damage reasonably foreseeable
2. Was there a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant
3. Is it just, reasonable, and fair to impose a duty of care

Question 14

Smith v Littlewoods (1987)

Answer 14

No liability for pure omissions

D bought cinema, vandals broke in and set fires. D not held liable for damage at adjacent property.

Question 15

Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995]

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Home Office v Dorset (1970)

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954)

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd., [1952]

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Bonnington Castings Ltd. v Wardlaw (1956)

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Gregg v Scott (2005)

Answer 21

Loss of chance

If recovering for future chance or trying to avoid future loss, more than 51% chance needed

Question 22

Wagon Mound (1961)

Answer 22

Reasonable foreseeability - remoteness

Kind of damage must be reasonably foreseeable. Extent/precise manner of damage need not be reasonably foreseeable.

Question 23

Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1962)

Answer 23

Thin skull rule

Tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him.

Question 24

Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991)

Answer 24

Overrules Ann v Merton

You can’t claim damages for pure economic loss under tort - would open floodgates. You have to claim under contract.

Question 25

D&F Estates Ltd. v Church Commissioners for England (1989)

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011]

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964)

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1968)

Answer 28

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.