Cases Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Case facts:
Friend brought a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream.The ginger beer contained a decomposed snail. The victim suffered from a personal injury. She commented a claim against the manufacture of the ginger beer.
Point of law:
Her claim was successful. This case established the modern law of negligence and established the neighbour test.
Capri v Dickman (1990)
Case facts:
Capro industries purchased shares in fidelity plc in reliance of the accounts which stated that the company had made a pre-tax profit, but they actually made a loss. Capro brought an action against the auditors claiming they were negligent in certifying the accounts.
Point of law:
No duty of care was owed. There was not sufficient proximity between Capro and the auditors since the auditors were not aware of the existence of Campari nor the purpose for which the accounts were being used by them.
Kent v Griffiths (2000)
Case facts:
Claimant was having an asthma attack and her doctor attended at home and called an ambulance. Ambulance didn’t arrive till an hour later and she had suffered respiratory arrest.
Point of law:
It was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer harm from failure of the ambulance to arrive.
Mcloughlin v O’Brian (1983)
Case facts:
Claimants husband and children involved in a car accident due to a lorry driver negligently s trucking into them. One of the children were killed. The mother suffered severe shock, organic depression and a personality change after seeing the injuries. She brought action against the defendant for the psychiatric injury she suffered. Court of Appeal held that no duty of care was owed.
Point of law:
The appeal was allowed and the claimant was entitled to recover for the psychiatric injury received.
Bourhill v Young (1943)
Case facts:
The claimant was a pregnant fishwife. Defendant died from the collision of two motorcycles. The claimant heard the collision but didn’t see it. The claimant later went pat where it happened where there was still a lot of blood and she went into shock and her baby was still born. She brought a negligence claim against the defendants estate.
Point of law:
No duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant. there was no sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant when the incident occurred.
Hill v Chief constable (1988)
Case facts:
Hill was the final victim of Peter who had committed 13 murders and 8 attempted murders over a five year period. Hills mother made a claim against the Cheif constable on the grounds that the police had been negligent in their detetction.
Point of law:
No duty of care was owed.
Capital Countries v Hampshire (1997)
Case facts:
The fire officer at the sprinkler a fire order the sprinkler system in the building to be turned off. This caused the fire to spread.
Point of law:
The court held it was fair, just and reasonable to recognise a duty of care against the fire brigade and found them liable.
MPC v Reeves (2000)
Case facts:
Martin Lynch committed suicide whilst in a police cell. He had attempted suicide earlier that day in the cells at the magistrates. A police officer checked on him but left the hatch open and Lynch was later found having his shirt ligature secured by the open hatch. He died a week later. The defendant argued that as Lynch was a sound mind his voluntary and informed act of suicide broke the chain of causation.
Point of law:
Act of suicide was the very thing that the police were under duty to prevent to treat this an an intervening act would deprive the duty of any substance and therefore the defendant was liable.
Orange v Chief constable of West Yorkshire
Case facts:
There is an increased risk of suicide among prisoners compared to those in the community - general duty to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety. The obligation to stop a prisoner taking his own life deliberately only arose when the custodian knew or ought to have known that the individual prisoner presented a suicide risk.
Point of law:
So in this case no known risk of suicide -not been negligent by not removing his belt
Blythe v Birmingham waterworks
Case facts:
Point of law:
Sets out the standard of the reasonable man establishing the reasonable man test. It states that the “defendant will be judged against a reasonable man performing a task reasonably competently”
Mullins v Richards
Case facts:
Point of law:
Confirms that the objective standard of care will be lower for children and they will be judged against the reasonable child of their age
Paris v Stepney
Case facts:
A man who was blind in one eye lost his sight in the other due to metal damaging his eye.
Point of law:
The claimants characteristics increased the standard of care owed, but the defendant didn’t take any precautions such as providing google
Bolton v Stone
Case facts:
A cricket ball was hit out of the ground and hit a passer by, happened 6 times in 30 years.
Point of law:
Due to the low risk of the injury there was no breach of duty.
Bolan v Friern
Case facts:
Point of law:
Confirms that professionals owe a higher standard of care and states that professionals will be judged at the standard they are working at.
Watt v Herefordshire
Case facts:
firefighters were injured by lifting gear to rescue a woman from underneath a car.
Point of law:
Court held that the fireman was ready to take the risk of using the vehicle to save life. The befit of the risk outweighed the risk itself so a lower standard of care was owed.
Nettleship v Weston
Case facts:
Point of law:
Confirms that a learner drive is held to the standard of care that of a reasonably competent driver
AEC v Latimer
Case facts:
A factory was flooded and mixed with oil making it slippery, the claimant slipped and was injured.
Point of law:
The defendant did owe a duty of care to their employees brut took reasonable precautions and therefore there was no breach.
Wells v Cooper
Case facts:
Point of law:
Roe v Minister of Health
Case facts:
Point of law:
As the risk of the anaesthetic becoming contaminated was unknown, the defendant had not breached their duty by not protecting against it.
Haley v London Electricity Board
Case facts:
a blind person was walking along a route he knew well and fell down a trench he had been warned of.
Point of law:
the court held that it was foreseeable that a blind person might be in the area and injured
Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital
Case facts:
A man ha a stomach act due to arsenic positioning but the man was not examine and was sent home.
Point of law:
The hospital owed him a duty of care to examine him, however no breach of duty as it is unlikely that they could have done anything to help if they had examined him.
Wagon Mound
Case facts:
Defendant spiky a quantity of oil whilst refuelling another ship, and oil spilt to the claimants wharf. He was welding and a hit of molten metal fell and ignited the oil which severely damaged the wharf.
Point of law:
Defendant did not know that the oil could set alight so the court held that it was too remote and not foreseeable.
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Case facts:
Point of law:
Foreseeable damage in an unforeseeable way
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
Case facts:
Point of law:
Holley v Sutton
Case facts:
Point of law:
Lamb v Camden London BC
Case facts:
Points of law:
Fairchild v Glenhaven funeral services
Case facts:
claimants developed mesothelioma by exposure to asbestos dust. They had worked for a number of employers and were unable to prove during which employment the disease had been contracted.
Point of law:
Each employer had materially increased the risk of contracting the disease and all were liable.
Smith v Littlewoods
Case facts:
A cinema was closed but vandals started a fire which damaged two houses either side.
Point of law:
A reasonable person in the position of the defendant would not foresee that if he took no action to keep the premises fully secured that they would be set on fire.
Smith v Leech Brian
Case facts:
piece of molten metal splashed onto his face which triggered pre-existing ancestors condition and he developed cancer and died.
Point of law:
liable for his death. Any other claimant would only suffer a burn but the defendant has to “take their victim as they find them”
Mahon v Osbourne
Case facts:
A patient died shortly after an abdominal operation and post-morgen emanation found a swab in his body.
Point of law:
Negligence had been established.
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks
Case facts:
The claimant was injured by being hit by a bag of sugar which fell from the defendants warehouse
Point of law:
It is sufficient for the claimant to prove that the defendant was negligent,which they did. The proof of breach was shifted to the defendant to show that he was not negligent.
