Cases

Question 1

(Duty of care) What are the facts in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?

Answer 1

C and a friend went to a cafe in Scotland and the friend ordered a ginger beer for C
C drank some of the beer from the opaque bottle but as she poured the rest into a glass a decomposed snail fell out of the bottle
C claimed she suffered from shock and sickness and wanted compensation
As the contract was between the friend and the seller, C sued the manufacturers for negligence instead
Court held that the lack of contract between C and the manufacturer would not stop the claim
C’s claim was successful

Question 2

(Duty of care) What are the facts in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970)?

Answer 2

A group of young Borstal inmates were taken to Brownsea Island in Poole Harbour for weekend leave and training
5 of the boys escaped their guards during the night and they found C’s yacht club
They vandalised several yachts
The Home Office was sued for the alleged negligence of their employees in failing to restrain the boys
HOL held that the wrong had not been committed by D but by the boys
D was responsible for the boys and their actions were foreseeable
Claim was successful

Question 3

(Duty of care) What are the facts in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)?

Answer 3

A 76 year old woman was injured in a scuffle between 2 police officers and a drug dealer in a shopping centre
The CoA decided to apply the Caparo test and it was decided that It was not right to impose a duty of care on the police in this case
On appeal to the Supreme Court, there was a duty found as it was a breach of duty to cause physical injury

Question 4

(Duty of care) What are the facts in Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2012)?

Answer 4

A ‘voluntary’ patient in a hospital’s mental health unit was suffering from severe depression and had known suicidal tendencies
Doctors negligently gave her weekend leave
During this leave, she killed herself
Upon her parents action against the hospital, it was held that the relationship between their daughter and the hospital imposed a duty of care

Question 5

(Duty of care) What are the facts in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council (2009)?

Answer 5

A negligence action was brought on behalf of the deceased tenant of social housing managed by the defendants
He was murdered by a fellow tenant following a long campaign of abuse which the defendants were aware of
It was decided that it was not fair, just or reasonable to impose this on a public authority coping with the huge burden on antisocial behaviour among tenants

Question 6

(Breach of duty) What are the facts in Nettleship v Weston?

Answer 6

D was a learner driver on their 3rd driving lesson from a friend (C)
D began to panic, mounted the pavement and hit a lamppost
C suffered an injury to their leg and sued D
D argued standard of care should be lowered for learner drivers as they were less experienced
It was held that the learner driver is expected to meet the same standard as a reasonable qualified driver

Question 7

(Breach of duty - probability of damage) What are the facts in Bolton v Stone?

Answer 7

C injured by a cricket ball outside her house
Cricket pitch was surrounded by a 17ft fence
A witness living in the area said that he had found balls outside the pitch 5-6 times in 30 years
No breach, likelihood was low, taken reasonable care

Question 8

(Breach of duty - magnitude of harm) What are the facts in Paris v Stepney?

Answer 8

C only had sight in one eye
During employment at a garage, splinter of metal went into his good eye, blinding him
Employer didn’t provide goggles
Breach of duty
Seriousness of harm to C was much greater than to people with 2 eyes
Duty was only owed to this particular claimant

Question 9

(Breach of duty - practicality and cost) What are the facts in Latimer v AEC?

Answer 9

C worked in factory, slipped on the floor
Factory had flooded due to bad weather
D put warning signs, mopped and put sawdust down
No breach
D had taken reasonable precautions to minimise risk
The only other option was to shut the factory, which was unreasonable and an unnecessary loss of profits

Question 10

(Breach of duty - social utility and conduct) What are the facts in Watt v Hertfordshire?

Answer 10

C was a fireman
A woman was involved in an accident and trapped under a lorry 200-300 yards from the station
The fire services were called, they needed a lorry jack
The vehicle for carrying the jack was unavailable
The fire chief ordered C and his colleagues to lift the jack onto a different truck
The truck braked, the jack fell on C’s leg causing serious injury
No breach - emergency and utility of C’s conduct in saving a life outweighed the precautions

Question 11

(Breach of duty) What are the facts in Bolam v Friern Hospital?

Answer 11

C sustained fractures during electro-convulsive therapy
Hospital failed to give muscle relaxants or restraints
Failed to notify of risks
Witnesses agreed in opposition to the muscle relaxants and said that less restraints reduces the risk of fractures
It was the practice of the doctor to not warn of risks unless asked to do so
Not liable

Question 12

(Causation in fact) What are the facts in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management?

Answer 12

Some men attended the hospital complaining about feeling unwell after drinking tea
The men were sent home from the hospital without examination
One man died of arsenic poisoning
The doctors should have diagnosed the poisoning
Breach wasn’t the cause of death - the man was too far gone so would’ve died even with a diagnosis

Question 13

(Causation in fact) What are the facts in Brooks v Home Office?

Answer 13

Claimant was a female prisoner who was pregnant with twins
High risk pregnancy
Poor development of one twin
A referral to a specialist took 5 days, but she lost the baby on day 2
Claimed the HO was liable, 5 day delay was below the standard of care
Denied - courts argued that 2 days was a reasonable wait for someone outside of prison, baby died within the two day period so the delay didn’t cause the death

Question 14

(Causation in fact - loss of chance) What are the facts in Hotson v East Berkshire Area HA?

Answer 14

Boy taken to hospital with a knee injury, no apparent injury was found
Returned the hospital 5 days later, hip injury diagnosed and treated
Also developed a problem with blood supply which led to pain and deformity
There was a 25% chance that a proper initial diagnosis would have diverted the blood supply issue
Held - it was not proven that the hospital caused the condition, had to reach 51% or higher

Question 15

(Causation in fact - loss of chance) What are the facts in Siddiqui v University of Oxford?

Answer 15

Claimant sued uni claiming that negligent teaching led him to lose the chance of a prestigious legal career
He received a low 2:1 instead of a high 2:1 or 1st
Failed to win a place at an American university
Lost jobs with legal firms
Teaching wasn’t found to be negligent - many factors led to his circumstances
The legal firms that he had spent time working for called him rude, late and claimed he had little to no IT skills

Question 16

(Causation in fact - more than one cause) What are the facts in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw?

Answer 16

Steel dresser contracted pneumoconiosis due to silica dust from pneumatic hammer and swing grinder
Statutory duty was applied to the grinders
The issue was whether the dust had come from the hammers or the grinders
On the balance of probability, dust from the grinders materially contributed to the injury, causation was established
Dust was a material cause

Question 17

(Causation in fact) What are the facts in McGhee v National Coal Board?

Answer 17

Worker suffered skin disease after years of working in a brick kiln - there were no showers to rinse off the dust
Negligence was established, but causation was in doubt
The defendant argued that the job inevitably involved exposure to dust - it was innocent exposure rather than wrongful exposure
Found in favour of the claimant

Question 18

(Causation in fact) What are the facts in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd?

Answer 18

Claimant was negligently exposed to asbestos by 2 employers
Suffered from mesothelioma
Defendant wasn’t liable as the claimant couldn’t establish which defendant caused the damage

Question 19

(Causation in law) What are the facts in Wagon Mound No 1?

Answer 19

The defendant’s vessel (The Wagon Mound) leaked furnace oil at a wharf in Sydney Harbour
Some cotton debris became embroiled in oil and sparks from welding ignited the oil
The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of other boats and the wharf
It wasn’t foreseeable that the oil on the water would catch fire but it was foreseeable that the fouling would cause damage
Defendant was held liable
This was appealed to the Privy Council
The fire damage wasn’t foreseeable so no liability was found
The damage that was foreseeable was the oil damage
The damage that occurred was fire damage
The types of damage were not the same so there was no liability

Question 20

(Causation in law) What are the facts in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd?

Answer 20

Asbestos lid was knocked into a vat of molten liquid
Explosion occurred, claimant suffered burns
This was an unknown chemical reaction at the time
The damage was too remote - the explosion wasn’t foreseeable
May have been foreseeable that a scald from the liquid may occur

Question 21

(Causation in law) What are the facts in Hughes v Lord Advocate?

Answer 21

Defendants left a manhole uncovered, protected only by a tent and paraffin lamps
A child climbed into the hole
When climbing out, the child knocked one of the paraffin lamps
The lamp fell into the manhole and caused an explosion
The child was burned
Defendant said the damage wasn’t foreseeable as they didn’t foresee the children playing around the lamps
Defendant was liable for the consequences as it didn’t matter how the damage occurred

Question 22

(Causation in law) What are the facts in Tremain v Pike?

Answer 22

Claimant was employed by defendant farmers
Contracted Weil’s disease through contact with rats urine
All other diseases caused by rats were associated with rat bites or food contamination - it was unknown that a disease could be caused by rats urine at that time
Weil’s disease is very rare in humans
Claimant alleged that he became infected by using or washing in contaminated water or when handling hay bales when there was a rat infestation
Claimed damages on the grounds that he contracted the disease as a result of negligence as the defendants failed to control the infestation
Claim was dismissed - there was no breach as the possibility of the disease arising from the presence of rats was not a possibility that the defendants ought to have reasonably foreseen
The possibility of the disease was too remote

Question 23

(Causation in law) What are the facts in Jolley v Sutton?

Answer 23

A boat was left abandoned for 2 years beside a block of flats on land owned by the defendants council
The council was aware of the boat and had plans to remove it but the plans hadn’t been implemented
The boat was rotten at the time
2 boys (13 and 14) started to repair the boat using a car jack and wood
The boat fell from the jack and crushed the claimant causing spinal injuries, paraplegia and major complications
Sought damages in negligence and breach of statutory duty
The defendants argued that the paralysis was too remote
CoA claimed the damage was not foreseeable
HOL argued that child’s play shouldn’t be underestimated so the defendants were liable

Question 24

(Causation in law - thin skull rule) What are the facts in Smith v Leech Brain Co?

Answer 24

Claimant suffered a burn on his lip when molten metal splashed it at work
Defendant employer should have provided a proper shield
Burn healed but caused a premalignant condition to activate a cancerous growth leading to the claimant’s eventual death
Claimant had a proven disposition to cancer
Condition may have never become malignant if the burn didn’t happen
Held that the defendants were liable for the death of the claimant

Question 25

(Causation in law - thin skull rule) What are the facts in Robinson v Post Office?

Answer 25

Claimant suffered a cut on his left shin due to the defendants negligence
Doctor gave an anti tetanus injection, but the claimant was allergic to it and developed encephalitis
The defendants denied liability for the second injury
Doctor denied negligence
Judge found the doctor to be negligent as he had not given a test dose
However the claimant wouldn’t have reacted to a test dose
The doctor’s negligence didn’t cause or contribute to the encephalitis
Defendant was liable for both the first and second injury

Question 26

(Causation in law - actions by the claimant) What are the facts in McKew v Holland?

Answer 26

The plaintiff was injured in a work related accident for which his employer was responsible
Knowing that his leg was weak, he attempted to descend a steep staircase with no handrail
His leg gave way and he fell down the stairs, breaking his ankle
It was held that the plaintiffs own unreasonable behaviour broke the chain of causation so the employer was not liable for the effects of the second accident

Question 27

(Causation in law - actions by the claimant) What are the facts in Weiland v Cyril Lord Carpets?

Answer 27

As a result of the defendants negligence the plaintiff had to wear a neck brace
The neck brace restricted her ability to wear her glasses
This caused her to miss a step on the stairs and fall down the remaining steps, causing further injury
It was held that her conduct had not been unreasonable and so the defendant was liable for the additional injuries caused by the fall

Question 28

(Causation in law - natural events) What are the facts in Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government?

Answer 28

The defendant caused a collision which meant that the claimants ship needed repairs which would take around 10 days
Temporary repairs were undertaken in England but the ship sailed to the US for further repairs
The boat was caught in a severe storm in the Atlantic and this caused an extra 30 days of damage
The plaintiffs claimed that it was the defendant’s fault that the ship sustained the damage but the actual storm was found to break the chain of causation
The defendants were only liable for the repair costs for the first collision

Question 29

(Causation in law) What are the facts in Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals Ltd?

Answer 29

Industrial chemicals were marketed and supplied with an inadequate warning of their explosive nature when coming into contact with water
When the plaintiffs were washing the test tubes which contained the chemicals, an explosion occurred which caused loss of life and extensive property damage
The type and extent of the chemical reaction were unforeseeable, neither made the outcome too remote

Question 30

(Causation in law - actions by third parties) What are the facts in The Oropesa?

Answer 30

A collision between 2 steamships was partly the defendant’s fault
The master of one ship[ set out in a lifeboat along with some of his crew to go to the other ship to discuss how to deal with the emergency
The lifeboat capsized leading to the deaths of 9 men
The defendants argued that the masters action of setting out in the lifeboat broke the chain of causation
The court argued that this was an emergency situation created by the defendants and for their liability to cease a new cause would be necessary

Question 31

(Causation in law) What are the facts in Rahman v Arearose Ltd?

Answer 31

Rahman was working in a fast food restaurants owned by the first defendants when he was the victim of an assault which left him injured
In hospital, an operation was performed on his right eye and due to the admitted negligence of the surgeon, Rahman los sight in that eye
The second defendants were the NHS Trust, who accepted full responsibility for the loss of sight caused by their employee, the surgeon
The judge found that both causes worked together to make the situation worse
For the psychological aspect of damages, the first defendants were 25% liable and the second defendants were 75% liable
For the physical aspect of damages, the second defendant bore total liability

Question 32

(NAI - act of a third party) What are the facts in Stansbie v Troman?

Answer 32

Decorator working alone in a house ran out of wallpaper
Went out to buy more, left the front door of the property open
Thief broke in and stole property
Claimant sued for damage
Decorator was liable for the loss as he failed to guard against the possibility of theft

Question 33

(NAI - act of the claimant) What are the facts in Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner?

Answer 33

C’s partner was arrested and found to be a suicide risk
Found no evidence of mental illness
No special precautions were taken by police
Man in question hung himself in the police cell
Police agreed that they owed a duty of care but that the suicide was an act of the claimant that broke the chain of causation
Rejected - police were meant to prevent the suicide so it couldn’t be an NAI
Contributory negligence was established

Question 34

(Defences - contributory negligence) What are the facts in Jones v Livox?

Answer 34

C was riding on the towbar at the back of the tractor
Another vehicle hit the back of the tractor, causing injuries to C
The damages that C was entitled to were reduced due to contributory negligence
C was partly responsible as he chose to ride on the towbar

Question 35

(Defences - contributory negligence) What are the facts in Froom v Butcher?

Answer 35

C wasn’t wearing a seatbelt in the car, accident occurred
His injuries were significantly worse beach he hadn’t worn a seatbelt
Had his damages reduced by 20% for not wearing a seatbelt

Question 36

(Defences - contributory negligence - children) What are the facts in Gough v Thorne?

Answer 36

A young girl was signalled across the road by a lorry driver
As she was crossing, she was hit by a car which was attempting to overtake the lorry
Court found that there was no contributory negligence as the girl was only 13

Question 37

(Defences - ex turpi) What are the facts in Ashton v Turner?

Answer 37

C was injured when D crashed the car he was a passenger in
Crash occurred after they both committed a burglary and D (who had been drinking) was driving negligently trying to escape
Judge dismissed C’s claim saying that public policy will not recognise that one participant in a crime owed a duty to another participant

Question 38

(Defences - volenti) What are the facts in Smith v Baker?

Answer 38

C was employed on a construction site for a railway
Crane would move rocks over his head while he worked
He and the employer were aware of the risks and the employee complained several times
A rock fell on C’s head causing injury
D claimed that C carried on working despite the rise so therefore he was not liable
Judge dismissed this saying that it was not a genuine freedom to be at work as C needed money

Question 39

(Defences - volenti - suicide) What are the facts in Barnett v Ministry of Defence?

Answer 39

C’s husband was a naval officer celebrating his 30th birthday by drinking with friends
Became extremely drunk, passed out in a chair
Senior officer saw him and told a petty officer to take him back to the cabin and keep an eye on him
Officer did so, placed him in recovery position
Despite the officer checking on him multiple times, C’s husband choked during the night and was found dead the next morning
Volenti couldn’t be used as a defence for breach assumed by the officer
As he was so drunk, volenti couldn’t operate
Had the officers left him in the chair, volenti could operate as he placed himself there
As they had assumed responsibility for him and moved him to a different location, volenti couldn’t be used