cases Flashcards
learn them all
*Donoghue v Stevenson
Product Liability - ultimate consumer neighbour principle
Authority that manufacturer of ANY product owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer
Limitations - duty only extends to latent defects, duty to prevent harm to consumer’s person or property.
D went to café with friend. The friend bought D a bottle of ginger -opaque glass. Decomposing remains of snake in the bottle. D becomes ill. PROBLEM - no contractual remedy for D. it was found - the ultimate consumer could sue in delict, duty of care owed to D, breach of duty due to carelessness, relationship was sufficiently proximate.
*Kay’s Tutor v Ayrshire & Arran Health Board
Factual causation
Child suffering from meningitis, overdose of penicillin. Severe convulsions but recovered. Suffered deafness.
Could not prove causa sine qua non (but for?). Action failed.
*Bourhill v Young
To whom a duty of care is owed to
Secondary victim
LEADING CASE
Y motorcyclist drove too fast, overtook stationary tramcar on the near side. Crashed into a car, which was turning right into side street some 50 feet from tramcar. Y was killed. Accident was accepted to be Y’s fault.
Time of the accident B was on the far side of tramcar - did not SEE the accident, only heard it. Saw the blood on the road. Claimed that shock of the accident caused her to miscarry.
Y did not owe B a duty of care. She was out with the area if risk of potential physical harm.
General rule established - no duty of care to prevent secondary victims from suffering mental harm; liability only extends to primary victims
*McFarlane v Tayside Health Board
Professional Negligence - Negligence Misstatements and Advice
Wrongful conception.
Birth to healthy child after failed conception. Rejected at first instance, accepted in second instance (all damages given), and accepted but limited in third instance.
House of Lords accepted that unplanned conception is breach of duty and mother could recover solatium and derivative economic loss for loss of earnings during pregnancy
HOWEVER principle of non-recoverability for cost of bringing up a healthy child.
*Muir v Glasgow Corporation
To what respect is the duty owed
Standard of Care
Proximity: Scope of Duty of Care
A - manageress of tearoom gave permission to a school picnic to host in the establishment due to rain spoiling their outdoor picnic.
Access tearoom through narrow passage.
Urn with boiling water carried through passage.
Urn dropped and scalded several children.
Never established how urn was dropped
Action against Glas Corp as A’s employers.
Accepted A owed DoC.
House of Lords found that A was only liable for those consequences of her actions which a reasonable person in her position would have in contemplation.
Standard of care - standard of the odinary reasonable man.
Test established for cope of care - the reasonable foresight of the hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the defender as opposed to what the defender actually foresaw.
No absolute standard, degree of care varies with the risk
*Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Duties are owed to identifiable persons or persons within a reasonably well defined class as being reasonably likely to be affected by the defender’s conduct.
Mother of the last victim of the Yorkshire Ripper brought action against the Chief Constable.
Found no duty to be owed - no proximity, not fair just or reasonable to impose a duty
*Bolton v Stone
Duties are owed in respect of harm that would have been within the defender’s contemplation as being reasonably likely to follow from their conduct.
In 30 YEARS a cricket ball has been hit out of cricket ground 6 TIMES.
No negligence found in lack of precautions.
Reasonable person could not foresaw.
The Wagon Mound No2
Failure to guard against foreseeable, but improbable risks may require justification.
*Hughes v Lord Advocate
Scope of Duty
AUTHORITY
Workmen left manhole uncovered and unattended. Outside of manhole was a ladder, a rope, and paraffin warning lamps.
Two boys snuck in - tripped over the lamp which caused an explosion. One suffered severe burns.
Experts deemed the explosion was not reasonably foreseeable.
Accepted the workmen were careless for leaving the manhole unattended.
Sufficient to establish breach.
Authority that the scope of duty will extend to the kind or type of injury which is a reasonable and probable consequence of the defender’s careless act or omission
Fact that the injuries were more severe and the explosion were not anticipated is irrelevant.
The type of injury and the possibility of an accident was reasonably foreseeable.
Duty of care owed and breached,
Where the harm of the type covered by the duty arises there may be liability notwithstanding the fact that the precise circumstances under which the harm was incurred could not have been foreseen.
McWilliams v Archibald Arrol & Co
Causa sine qua non - factual causation
Employers not provided safety belt. Steel erector.
Fell and died.
Would not have worn belt even if It was provided.
Widow raised action.
Breach - not providing safety belt.
Action failed - could not prove causa sine qua non.
McKillen v Barclay-Curley & Co Ltd
The thin skull rule
Thin skull rule - no duty arises from pursuer’s unknown susceptibility, defender must “take the victim as he finds him/her”
*Nettleship v Weston
Standard of Care - learner driver
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Expected to meet the same standard as an experienced driver.
Nothing will suffice short of an agreement to waive any claim for negligence.
Waugh v James K Allan Ltd
To breach a duty the conduct must have been voluntary
Driver of lorry did not purposefully swerve lorry which injured pedestrians.
Driver died at the wheel; conduct not voluntary
Paris v Stepney BC
The potential magnitude of harm if injury occurs
Employee not given googles got splinter in his good eye, other eye blind. Resulted in total blindness. Not normal practice to provide googles. However known weakness.
Extra precautions should have been taken - breach found
Lamond v Glasgow Corporation
Probability of Injury - Bolton v Stone
6,000 golf balls played onto footpath each year therefore it is foreseeable - breach found.
St George v Home Office
The potential magnitude of harm if injury occurs
Prisoner known to suffer from epilepsy, going through withdrawal, prison allocated them top bed.
Resulted in injury - breach found.
Latimer v AEC Ltd
What would be considered to be reasonable precautions
Floor slippery due to flood in factory, floor covered in sawdust except a small portion. Employee slipped on that portion which caused injury.
Danger not such to enforce on employer, acted reasonably.
Brisco v SofS for Scotland
What would be considered to be reasonable precautions
Employer claims employee are in breach of duty in failing to give instructions on not throwing - no breach found.
Harris v Perry
Setting the standard
11-year-old boy and another child attempted to do somersault and broke his arm.
Supervisor backs were turned. No constant surveillance necessary.
No breach
Collins v First Quench Retailing Ltd
What would be considered to be reasonable precautions
Employee worked alone on off-licence, following armed robbery suffered depression and PTSD.
Claimed employer should have provided safety glass.
Employer negligent for making her work on her own.
Anderson v Imrie
Setting the standard
8-year-old left unsupervised, and suffered brain injury. Occupier of farm looking after the boy and their son.
Occupiers liability.
*Sayers v Harlow UDC
Novus actus interveniens
Contributory negligence
Plaintiff entered public toilet. Door locked. Banged on door and put hand out of window to attempt to get attention.
15 min later - attempted to escape through space between top of the door and roof.
Left foot on toilet right foot on toilet roll, one hand on the toilet cistern and other on the top of the door.
Couldn’t squeeze out - lost balance and fell.
Courts held that it was reasonable that anyone in her position would attempt to escape.
No novus actus interveniens and defendant’s breach was the causa causans of accident.
Her carelessness did contribute - contributory negligence. 25% less damages
McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts
Novus actus interveniens
Pursuer injured leg whilst at work - workplace accident.
Employers negligent. Consequences of accident leg would get numb and give away.
Leg went numb and gave away whilst going down stairs.
Decided to jump and injured other leg.
Employers liable for the first injury but not for second injury since there WAS novus actus interveniens.
*McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd
Factual causation
Husband died of lung cancer - smoke cigarettes. Cannot prove that husband would not have died if not smoked.
As a consumer he had choice and is aware of the dangers due to packaging making it clear of dangers.
Brown v Rolls Royce
What if there is a common practice
Common practice - provide barrier cream.
Employees commonly come into contact with oil and other substances.
Barrier cream not provided in this case.
Medical evidence provided - alternative provisions such as washing facilities.
Contracted dermatitis - question of whether it was due to breach or not, washing facilities was available not effective.
Employer had done what was reasonable in the circumstances.
Allan v Barclay
Remoteness - Foreseeability
The grand rule on the subject of damages is that none can be claimed except such as naturally and directly arise out of the wrong done, and such, therefore as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the view of the wrongdoer.
Simmons v British Steel plc
Remoteness - Foreseeability
Liability limited to foreseeable consequences.
*Kyle v P&J Stormonth-Darling
Remoteness – loss of chance
deprivation of legal right.
Failure to lodge appeal papers by solicitors, which meant appeal being abandoned. Liable.
*Campbell v F&F Moffat
Remoteness – loss of chance
utterly speculative.
Compensation of loss of redundancy payment. Employment terminated, place closed down. All employees given redundancy payment.
Too remote.
McDyer v The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited
Occupier’s Liability
Wifi not loading - continue later.
*Gregg v Scot
Remoteness – loss of chance
no remedy simply for reduction in the chance of recovery from illness.
Negligence of GP - lump benign. Referred 9 months later - lump cancerous.
Treatment delayed by 9 months - argued loss of chance of recovery.
Unable to prove failure to survive was caused by diagnosis and cancer
*Scott v London and St. Katherine’s Docks
Man got hit on the head with a sugar packet, originally found no liability.
In the appeal -
3 elements:
1) Defender sole control of offending thing
2) That the incident would not have occurred had due care been taken
3) No explanation given by defenders as to how incident happened.
*Ward v Tesco Stores
Occupier’s Liability
3 elements:
1) Defender sole control of offending thing
2) That the incident would not have occurred had due care been taken
3) No explanation given by defenders as to how incident happened.
Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
Occupier’s Liability -
No liability for the intentional actions of trespassers
Titchener v British Railways Board
Occupier’s Liability - Duty of Care,
Defences - Volenti non fit injuria
Dawson v Page
Occupier’s Liability
Legal control over a property
Taylor v Glasgow Cooperation
Occupier’s Liability - dangers
A child eating poisonous berries - young child and no sign pointing out danger - no reasonable care not taken.
Tomlinson v Congleton
Occupier’s Liability - dangers
Swimming in a lake - swimming prohibited - no duty breached since obvious dangers in nature.
Michael Leonard v The Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority
Occupier’s Liability - dangers
Falling down a hill - family on visit - 12 year old badly injured - not determine how he was injured - danger not unusual - no breach.
*Cox v Ministry of Justice
Employer’s liability.
Vicarious Liability
The Control Test
Catering managed by the prisoner, someone got negligently injured. Prison was found liable since there was sufficient control.
Test -
1) Wrongdoer acting on behalf of defender
2) Wrongdoer’s activity is connected to defender’s business
3) Employing wrongdoer for activity, defender has created risk of delict being committed.
Taylor Neilson Barratt v Spice Lounge (Scotland) Ltd
Occupier’s Liability - Defences - contributory negligence
Young woman walking took a shortcut that was not meant for people walking there. Badly injured. Company was occupiers. Sufficient light on road - reasonable care taken.
*Various Claimants v The Institute of the Brothers of Christian Schools
Vicarious Liability
Sexual assaults made by brothers in a Christian school.
School found liable since the brother were within their property. While not technically employees - relationship akin to employees enough.
Employer-employee relationship -
1) Relationship between defender and wrongdoer
2) Relationship must be connect to their act/omission - ‘in the course of employment’
*Kerby v National Coal Board
Employers’ Liability - In the course of employment
Miners on break - went to smoke - prohibited place - caused explosion.
Were on break - outside bounds of employment
Course of employment -
1) Employer authorised act?
2) Employee authorised to do work - did in manner not authorised?
a. Employer still vicariously liable here - within scope of employment.
3) Has employee acted outside scope of employment?
Century Insurance Co. v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board
Employers’ Liability - In the course of employment
Employee light cig on transport of fuel.
Employer found liable.
Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell
Employers’ Liability - Vendettas or Frolics
Left station and went to bar where ex was working and attempted to shoot her and shot someone else.
Employer found liable since it was negligent for giving him firearm.
Not found vicariously liable since he left station - frolicking on his own.
- Acting on personal vendetta making it difficult to establish vicarious liability
Mohamud v Morrisons
Employers’ Liability
Staff member abused someone.
Employer not found liable.
*Lister v Hensley Hall
Employers’ Liability - Close Connection
Sexually abused someone within their care, courts found that since action was within such close scope of employment that employer found liable.
Close connection -
1) Wrongful behaviour that is closely connected to employment can be counted as within the scope of employment
2) Thus, employer can be vicariously liable
Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica
Employers’ Liability - Vendettas or Frolics
Man using phone box, police officer shouted at him and asked to use phone. Man refused and police opened fire. Employer found liable since police officer was abusing his power.
- Close connection between the employment and the activity can be made through purporting to be acting in course of employment
Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English
Employers’ Liability - Employer’s Duty of Care to Employees
Man crushed to death whilst working.
Employer delegated the safety precautions to another employee.
Cannot happen under Unfair Contract Terms Act s.16
Kennedy v Cordia (Services)
Employers’ Liability -Employer’s Duty of Care to Employees
Home carer slipped and fell on icy grounds and injured himself.
Raised action for not establishing danger and not giving precautions and were aware of previous injury occurring there. Found liable.
Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd. and Another Respondents
Employers’ Liability - Safe Equipment
Employee injured by defective hammer. Defect occurred after hammer had been brought by reputable supplier - no liability.
- No liability for a defective tool that was sourced from reputable manufacturers and suppliers.
McGregor v AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Employers’ Liability - Safe Systems and Competent Employees
Warehouse operator injured when receiving something from a high shelf. Incentive to work faster. Ladders present but not always where they’re needed.
Employers found liable.
* Employers have a duty to provide and implement a safe system of working.
*Hatton v Sutherland
Employers’ Liability - Psychiatric Injury
Man employed as teacher - told if he wanted to maintain salary, he had to take on extra work which negatively affected his mental health.
This led to him having to take time off work and after complaining nothing changed.
Due to stress, he could no longer work as a teacher.
Employer found liable
* Employee must show that there were reasonable steps that the employer did not take
Keen v Tayside Contracts
Employers’ Liability - Psychiatric Injury
Roadworker sought PTSD damages, had to attend emergency site to help out emergency workers.
The site had four badly burnt corpses.
Claimed PTSD did not qualify the nervous shock test
Wilson v Merry & Cunningham
Employers’ Liability - Safe Systems and Competent Employees - duty to employ competent individuals
minor killed in explosion of coal mine.
Owners had appointed someone else to look after that particular bit.
Since they had employed someone else, they had duty to employ someone competent.
A (and others) v National Blood Authority
Product Liability - contaminated blood
Infected blood given to patients who did then get sick.
Courts found that to be considered a defective product - no state of the art defence - expected
B (a child) v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd
Product Liability - hot drinks
Reasonable amount of risk.
Child got hot drink spilled on them
Worsley v Tambrands Ltd
Product Liability - tampons
Woman got toxic shock from tampons - warning on box - warnings sufficient to the risk.
*Caparo v Dickman
Professional Negligence
Medical Negligence
Auditors were the professionals and the negligence led to the loss
*Hunter v Hanley
Medical Negligence - Standard of Care
Not enough to prove deviation from normal practice but to prove that no professional would act that way.
Three part test -
1. Usual and normal practice
2. Must be proved that defender deviated
3. Must be proved that no ordinary professional of ordinary skill would have taken that course if acting with ordinary care.
*Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Professional Negligence - Standard of Care
Given electroconvulsive therapy without any relaxant drugs which caused injury. Not negligent simply because of a different opinion. No other doctor would act that way. Judged by ordinary case.
Test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill.
A man need not possess the highest expert skill - sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.
No negligence simply where there is a contrary body of opinion.
Gordon v Wilson
Professional Negligence -different bodies of opinion
Provides illustration of the formidable difficulties facing a pursuer in an action of medical negligence, particularly where there are conflicting bodies of professional opinion.
Argued doctor was negligent in delaying to refer patient to specialist.
One body of opinion agreed with the pursuer and one body of opinion agreed with the defender.
Professional negligence cannot be established by preferring one body of opinion over another.
*Honisz v Lothian Health Board
Professional Negligence - different bodies of opinion
Professional negligence cannot be established by preferring one body of opinion over another.
R v Bateman
Professional Negligence - Ordinary skill
There is no expectation of exceptional skill.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
Professional Negligence - inexperienced professional
Medical Negligence
Baby given air by jr doctor. Doctor gave too much and the baby got a retinol issue.
Court held jr doctor at the same standard as a doctor - Nettleship v Weston
*Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Board of Governors
Professional Negligence - Inexperienced Professional
Standard between neurosurgeon and doctor - still separate by profession.
JG Martin Plant Hire Ltd v Macdonald
Contract Law and Delict
Action on both aspects of law.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd*
Professional Negligence - Negligence Misstatements and Advice
Reasonable foreseeability criterion
Established that a party may be liable for negligent advice.
Wrong advice lead to economic loss
Necessary to show -
* Pursuer relied on the statement made by the defender
* Defender reasonably knew or ought to have known that the pursuer would rely on it
* Making statement expressly or impliedly undertook responsibility for it.
Close proximity
Galoo Ltd v Bright Graham Murray
Professional Negligence - Negligence Misstatements and Advice
Mere foreseeability not sufficient here.
Duty arise only if auditor was expressly made aware that a particular lender or bidder would have rely on the accounts without independent inquiry.
Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service
Professional Negligence - Negligence Misstatements and Advice
Need for pursuer to establish that they were going to rely on defender’s statements emphasised.
Vasectomy - patient assured they need no contraception. Patient got partner pregnant.
Action failed - not proximate enough to doctor, only patient can sue not partner.
When advice given to the patient it is not foreseeable for the advice to be relied on by someone else.
Steel v NRAM
Professional Negligence - Assumption of Responsibility for Statements
Reliance on misstatement and the assumption of responsibility for the accuracy of a statement on the part of the defender.
Company X bought 4 units and were represented by S and needed a secure loan – provided by NRAM.
X sold units one by one, told S and asked him to relay that to NRAM.
S made misstatement that the full loan was to be paid off. N dissolved security on this misstatement.
X went into liquidation and N lost all possibility of regaining the funds
SC held that S did not owe N a duty of care - no own inquiry made.
Lender acted unreasonably since misrepresentation laid in their knowledge field. No assumption of responsibility on S. reasonably suspect them to make their own inquiry,
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd
Professional Negligence
Expansion of Hedley Byrne criteria
Managing agents were conducting the financial affairs of the claimants, it was alleged that they managed their affairs with a lack of due care, which resulted in losses.
So rather than advice being relied on, there was reliance on the provision of services -> claimants were relying on the assumption of responsibility for sorting the financial affairs.
Assumption of responsibility principle laid out in HB is not confined to statements, but may also apply to any assumption of responsibility for the provision of services.
When the claimant entrusts the defendant with the conduct of his affairs, the claimant can be said to have relied on the defendant to exercise due skill and care in such conduct.
*Barnett
Breach of duty
Causa sine qua non
Medical Negligence - Duty of Care
Plaintiff husband drank a cup of tea and became violently ill because of poison. Doctor refused to treat husband telling him to see his own.
Husband died - Breach of duty
Held that although defendant was in breach - hospital is not liable since he would’ve died regardless.
No obligations to a stranger/’non-patient’
Duty imposed once the doctor has assumed responsibility for the care of the patient.
Not causa sine qua non of the death.
Darnley
Medical Negligence - Duty of Care
Assaulted, head injury. Waiting time hours.
No difference between staff and medical professionals.
Bolitho
Medical Negligence
Gloss on Bolam
2-year-old had respiratory distress. Register failed to show up.
Cardiac arrest and brain damage. Doctor defended that they would not intubate even if there were there - only way to avoid cardiac arrest. Opinion has to have a logical basis.
One body agreed another disagreed.
Courts are no longer allowed to accept the views of the medical profession out of hand.
Montgomery
Medical Negligence
Support for patient autonomy.
*McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board
Medical Negligence
Medical Negligence
Confirms that the Bolam test remains in place where a doctor decides whether to disclose alternative treatments
Sabri-Tabrizi v Lothian Health Board
Medical Negligence - novus actus interveniens
Pregnant twice after failed sterilisation. Performed negligently. Second pregnancy not claimed since it was not foreseeable since she knew she was not sterilised.
*Pidgeon v Doncaster Health Authority
Medical Negligence - Contributory negligence
Medical Negligence - Contributory negligence
Defenders’ negligence not ended due to patient but damages reduced since patient did not attend GP appointment - failure to participate.
Reduction for contributory negligence
Medical Negligence - Contributory negligence
psychiatric harm
Walker v Northumberland City Council
Psychiatric Harm - what kind of ‘shock’ is actionable
teacher case
Failure to relive workload pressure, who then returned to work which led to a mental breakdown. Actionable.
Dooley v Cammell Laird and Co Ltd
psychiatric harm
Crane driver, rope of crane snaped which caused it to fall and though he killed the worker. Claimed psychiatric harm.
Victim must show that their harm was caused in breach of a duty of care to guard against personal injury
*Simpson v ICI
psychiatric harm - definition of shock
Psychiatric Harm - Definition of Shock
Explosion at workplace, did not develop a psychiatric condition. Couldn’t claim.
Needs to show that there is either a visible disability or provable illness or injury followed
*Page v Smith
Primary Victims
Psychiatric Harm - Definition of Shock
Psychiatric Harm - Definition of Shock, Primary Victims
Road traffic accident no physical injury. Due to accident medical condition was reactivated.
Must be some serious medical disturbances outside the range of normal human experience.
Plaintiff within area of potential physical harm regarded as a primary victim. Therefore duty of care owed.
Does not matter if he did not suffer physical harm or that psychiatric harm was not foreseeable.
Duty of care to prevent mental harm arises whenever the pursuer is primary victim.
Dulieu v R White & Sons
Psychiatric Harm - Primary Victims
Psychiatric Harm - Primary Victims
Sever shock when a horse van was negligently driven into a bar where she worked. Suffered from their own safety. Pregnant women ended up giving birth early.
Court allowed recovery of damages
Hambrook v Stokes
Psychiatric Harm - Secondary Victims
Psychiatric Harm - Secondary Victims
Employee left lorry running, which ran down the hill.
H heard accident killed one her children which caused her to die.
Claim succeeded due to what she heard and saw.
Distinction was drawn between shock caused by what the mother saw ‘with her own eyes’ and what she had been told by bystanders, wherein liability would be excluded.
*McLoughlin v O’Brian
Psychiatric Harm - Secondary Victims
Psychiatric Harm - Secondary Victims
Husband and three children injured in accident. One died. M not informed till afterwards. Suffered psychiatric injury.
Claim allowed.
First instance was found against - secondary victim.
Second - necessary degree of proximity; seen effects of the accidents. Therefore, duty owed to secondary victim.
Risk of psychiatric harm to the pursuer must be reasonably foreseeable but other factors must be present which shows a sufficient degree of proximity between parties.
Test to restrict liability - judicial safety valve -
* Class of persons
* Close in time and space
* How the shock was sustained
*Alcock et al v Chief Constable South Yorkshire
Involved the Hillsborough football disaster.
action raised by spectators and those watching on TV and radio.
Test in McLoughlin reviewed
Test established -
* Close tie of love and affection - between secondary and primary victims
○ Close familial ties
* Presence at the event or the immediate aftermath
* Direct perception
○ Shock in the context involves sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event
Robertson v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board
Psychiatric Harm - Alcock Criteria
R and colleague had spent nearly all of their working lives together, and went for a drink together once a week.
A large piece of metal sheeting was being moved in the back of a van, when the wind picked up and R colleague was blown over the side of the bridge.
Sudden tragic loss, action failed.
No close ties was the reason it was unsuccessful.
Young v McVean
Psychiatric Harm - Alcock Criteria
Y passed the scene of a car accident seeing the badly damaged car, therefore witnessing the immediate aftermath.
Y was later informed her that their son died in the wrecked car.
Action failed - no direct perception.
Wilkinson v Downton
Psychiatric Harm - Intentional
Falsely told W their husband had a serious accident - intended that this was believed - held liable for shock and medical expenses
Re (a minor) v Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust
Psychiatric Harm - Alcock Criteria
Concerned a mother and grandmother who alleged they both suffered PTSD after the mother experienced and the grandmother witnessed the negligent and traumatic delivery of the mother’s child.
Infant suffered a brain injury during the protracted birth.
Liverpool Women’s Hospital v Ronayne
Psychiatric Harm - Alcock Criteria
Husband who witnessed his wife suffer complications over a 36-hour period as a result of a negligently performed hysterectomy.
Did not satisfy criteria - cumulation of shock through period of time does not satisfy the criteria.
Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Respondent)
P suffered cardiac arrest which two daughter witnessed - 14 months prior went to doctor for chest pains. Earlier medical negligence leading to manifestation.
E - could not breath. GP though it was due to exertion. Parents watched her die - lung diseases.
E - failed diagnosis. Mother found her dead and left a voicemail, undiagnosed pneumonia.
Person cannot be shielded by the medical profession. Doctors do not owe duty to the family - non-patients.
Insufficient proximity.
Attia v British Gas plc
Psychiatric Harm - Property Damage
Psychiatric Harm - Property Damage
A engaged BG to install central heating in their home - returned home to find their loft on fire resulting in the house and its contents becoming extensively damaged.
Fire caused by the defender’s negligent installation of the central heating.
A claimed nervous shock sustained after seeing this damage.
Does not need to satisfy the criteria. Any mental harm suffered due to ordinary negligence can be claimed if it is foreseeable.
X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council
Liability of Public Bodies - Statutes and Common Law
Liability of Public Bodies - Statutes and Common Law
GN v Poole BC
Liability of Public Bodies - Statutes and Common Law
Morrison Sports Ltds v Scottish Power
Liability of Public Bodies - Statutes and Common Law
*Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Liability of Public Bodies - Omissions, Police
Two police officer, a suspect. In public with others, suspect struggles police struggles too. They all fell on old lady who was injured.
Can there be negligence, is it justiciable? Courts accepted it was operational matter.
Reasonably foreseeable the suspect would struggle. Found liable for negligence.
LANDMARK CASE.
Gibson v Orr
Sole survivor in a car accident. Police told bridge collapsed. Went to one side and left.
Nothing done on the other end.
A police side on both ends.
Accident occurred.
Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council
Turned off sprinkle system.
Contributed to destruction of building.
Not successful in the statutory but successful in negligence, created danger.
Fire service NOT OBLIGED to answer a call. Perspective of resources.
Bolton v Glasgow City Council
Tenant killed by neighbour, does local authority owe a duty of care.
*Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Liability for Harm Caused by the Criminal Acts of Third Parties – The Police
Yorkshire ripper murdered 13 women - final victim’s mother brought action against police - suing for not apprehending the killer.
No duty of care owed
Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex
Liability for Harm Caused by the Criminal Acts of Third Parties – The Po
Liability for Harm Caused by the Criminal Acts of Third Parties – The Police
Threatened by ex-partner. Reported to the police. Police did some investigation. Threats carried out. Hit in the head with a hammer. No duty, investigation was sufficient. Unreasonable for police to be liable for every complainer.
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales
Liability for Harm Caused by the Criminal Acts of Third Parties – The Po
