Chapter 23- Liability in negligence Flashcards
1
Q
What happened in Donoghue v Stevenson and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Ms D’s friend bought her a ginger beer at a cafe
- She began drinking some of it, she poured the rest out and saw a dead snail
- She suffered both mental and physical injuries
- She sued the manufacturer in negligence claiming that they were at fault in the manufacturing process and owed her a duty of care
- In HoL Lord Atkin set the test for when a person would be under a duty to another, saying ‘you must take reasonable care to avoid the acts or omissions which you could reasonably foresee’
- (Duty of care= The neighbour principle)
2
Q
What happened in Caparo v Dickman and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Claimant company wanted to take over another company
- They looked at the statutory accounts prepared for Fidelity by the defendant, which showed a profit
- Based on these they decided to purchase
- After completing the purchase they looked at the books and showed a loss
- They sued the defendant
- HoL set the 3-stage test for owing a duty of care
- Decided that defendant didn’t owe the claimants a duty of care as the accounts were prepared for Fidelity and for statutory reasons
- (Duty of care= The Caparo test)
3
Q
What happened in Kent v Griffiths and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Ambulance was called to claimant who suffered an asthma attack
- The ambulance failed to arrive for no obvious reason
- As a result the claimant suffered a respiratory arrest
- Court decided it was ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that the claimant would suffer further illness
- A duty of care was owed by the ambulance service when they failed to do so
- Duty of care was owed when they initially accepted the call
- Liable to pay compensation
- (Duty of care= Reasonably foreseeable)
4
Q
What happened in Bourhill v Young and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Pregnant woman saw accident were a motor cyclist died
- She suffered such shock she gave birth to a still born
- Sued relatives of motor cyclist
- Under neighbour test she had to prove she was proximate or close to the motor cyclist so that he owed her a duty of care
- HoL decided that he could not anticipate that if he was involved in an accident it would cause mental injury to a bystander and so didn’t owe a duty of care
- (Duty of care= Proximity of relationship)
5
Q
What happened in McLoughlin v O’Brien and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- When she was at home, the claimants family were involved in a serious road accident
- Accident was caused due to negligence of the lorry driver
- 1 child died at the scene
- She saw her family at hospital before they were treated, as a result she suffered severe shock, depression and a personality change
- She claimed against the defendant for psychiatric injury
- HoL decided that the lorry driver owed a duty of care and extended the class of persons who would be considered proximate to the events to those who came within immediate aftermath of the event
- (Duty of care= Proximity of relationship)
6
Q
What happened in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and what area of law doe sit relate to?
A
- Serial Killer (Yorkshire Ripper) murdered many women
- Claimant’s daughter had been the last victim
- By the time of her death the police already had enough information to arrest the killer but failed to do so
- Mother claimed police owed a duty of care to her daughter
- HoL decided that the relationship between the victim and police was not sufficiently close for the police to owe a duty of care and that it was not fair, just or reasonable for the police to owe a duty of care to the general public
- The police knew the killer might strike again but they had no way of knowing who the victim might be
- (Duty of care= Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty)
7
Q
What happened in Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Claimant suffered with a mental illness
- Treatment at time was to receive an electric shock (ECT)
- Signed consent form but not told about risk of broken bones
- Not given relaxant drugs so suffered a broken pelvis
- 2 opinions; 1 favoured the use of relaxant drugs in every case and the other was that drugs should only be used if there was a reason to do so
- Court decided that as the hospital had followed one of these courses of action, it hadn’t breached it’s duty of care
- (Breach of duty= Objective standard of care and the reasonable person= professionals judged by profession)
8
Q
What happened in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Claimant gave birth to son but due to complications he was born with cerebal palsy
- Claimed damages against hospital
- Appeal to Supreme Court focused on doctors failure to disclose the risks and obtain informed consent
- Court was invited to depart from precedent and to reconsider the duty of a doctor
- Court decided that the doctor was under a duty to disclose the risk
- The doctor could have withheld info about the risk if it was harmful to the patients health but this wasn’t the case
- The doctor should have taken care the patient understood the considerations for each type of birth
- Patients should be treated as adults who are capable of understanding that medical treatment is uncertain of risks and living with the consequence of their choices
- (Breach of duty= Objective standard of care and the reasonable person= professionals judged by profession)
9
Q
What happened in Nettleship v Weston and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Arranged with neighbour to give her driving lessons
- On 3rd lesson she failed to straighten up after turning a corner
- Hit a lamppost which fell on car and injured Mr N
- Court decided that she should be judged at the standard of the competent driver not at the standard of the inexperienced learner
- (Breach of duty= Objective standard of care and the reasonable person= Learners judged at the standard of an experienced person)
10
Q
What happened in Mullin v Richards and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- 2 aged 15 year old girls
- play fighting with plastic rulers
- 1 ruler snapped and fragments entered victims eye
- Caused her to be blind in that eye
- Court decided that the defendant had to meet the standards of a 15 year old school girl
- She reached the required standards and hadn’t breached her duty of care
- (Breach of duty= Objective standard of care and the reasonable person= children and young people)
11
Q
What happened in Paris v Stepney Borough Council and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Victim was blind in 1 eye
- Employers gave him work which involved a small risk of injury to the eyes
- Not given protective goggles
- While doing the work his good eye was damaged and he became totally blind
- Employers were held to have broken their duty of care to him
- (Breach of duty= Risk factors= Any special characteristics?)
12
Q
What happened in Bolton v Stone and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Cricket ball hit lady passer-by in the street outside a cricket ground
- 17 foot fence
- The ball had only been hit out of ground 6 times in 30 years
- Due to the small amount of times, the cricket club had done everything it needed to in view of the low risk and it hadn’t breached it’s duty of care
- (Breach of duty= Risk factors= Size of risk?)
13
Q
What happened in Latimer v AEC Ltd and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Factory became flooded
- Floor very slippery
- Workers evacuated
- Sawdust spread over most-used areas to minimise risk of slipping
- Despite this 1 worker slipped and was injured
- Court held that their was no breach of the duty of care
- Owners had taken reasonable steps to reduce risk
- No need to incur expense to eliminate every possible risk
- (Breach of duty= Risk factors=Appropriate precaution?)
14
Q
What happened in Roe v Minister of Health and what area of law does it apply to?
A
- Anaesthetic kept in glass tubes which were sterilised by cleaning solution after each use
- Not known that invisible cracks could occur in glass tubes
- Caused anaesthetic to become contaminated
- Claimant became paralysed
- As the risk wasn’t known court decided that there was no breach and claimant couldn’t claim
- (Breach of duty= Risk factors=Risks known about at the time of accident?)
15
Q
What happened in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Claimant was a firefighter
- Road accident near station
- Had to release a woman trapped under a lorry
- Jack was needed, but the normal vehicle needed for carrying the jack wasn’t available
- Flatbed truck used but couldn’t secure jack
- Claimant was injured when the jack slipped and fell on him
- Court decided that the fire service hadn’t breached it’s duty of care because it was an emergency situation
- (Breach of duty= Risk factors=Public benefit to taking the risk?)
