Chapter 23- Liability in negligence Flashcards
What happened in Donoghue v Stevenson and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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)
What happened in Caparo v Dickman and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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)
What happened in Kent v Griffiths and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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)
What happened in Bourhill v Young and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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)
What happened in McLoughlin v O’Brien and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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)
What happened in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and what area of law doe sit relate to?
- 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)
What happened in Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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)
What happened in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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)
What happened in Nettleship v Weston and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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)
What happened in Mullin v Richards and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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)
What happened in Paris v Stepney Borough Council and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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?)
What happened in Bolton v Stone and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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?)
What happened in Latimer v AEC Ltd and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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?)
What happened in Roe v Minister of Health and what area of law does it apply to?
- 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?)
What happened in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council and what area of law does it relate to?
- 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?)
What happened in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee and what area of law does it relate to?
- 3 night watchmen went to hospital after drinking 4th mans tea
- Nurse called duty dr who didn’t examine them, but said visit gps
- 1 man went home and died a few hrs later from arsenic poisoning
- Widow sued hospital claiming the dr was negligent
- She was able to prove the dr owed her husband a duty of care and that by not examining him, the dr had broken the duty
- HOWEVER, evidence showed that by the time her husband got to hospital it was already to late to save his life
- This meant that the death wasn’t caused by the dr’s breach of duty of care and so the claim failed
- (Damage=’but for’ test)
What happened in The Wagon Mound and what area of law does it apply to?
- Fuel oil had been negligently spilled from the D’s ship into Sydney Harbour
- This flowed towards the claimant wharf where welders were carrying out repairs to another ship
- 2 days later the oil caught fire because of sparks from the welding
- The fire spread to the wharf and burnt down
- It was decided that, although damage done to the wharf by oil spilled was reasonably foreseeable, fire damage was not
- This type of damage was too remote from the original negligent act of spilling the oil
- (Remoteness of damage)
Hughes v Lord Advocate
-Workman left manhole unattended covered with a tent and paraffin lamps nearby
-Claimant (8yr) climbed into the hole
-As they climbed out, they knocked a lamp over which caused an explosion which badly burnt the claimant
-Defendants denied liability
-Court decided that the boy could claim as it was foreseeable that a child would do what he did
-Injury was foreseeable even though explosion was not
(Type of injury to be foreseeable)
Doughty v Turner Asbestos
-Claimant was injured when an asbestos lid knocked into a vat of molten metal
-Chemical reaction caused an explosion which burnt the claimant
-Scientific knowledge at the time couldn’t have predicted the explosion so the burn injuries weren’t reasonably foreseeable
-It could be seen that knocking something into the molten metal might splash but the claimant’s injury was caused by something different
(Type of injury to be foreseeable)
Smith v Leech Brain and Co.
-Due to the defendants’ negligence, a man was burnt on the lip by molten metal in a factory
-The man had an existing precancerous condition
-The burn brought about the onset of full cancer and the man died
-Widow claimed against the defendants
-Court decided that as a burn was reasonably foreseeable, because of the eggshell skull rule the defendant was liable for the man’s death
(Take victim as you find him)
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks
-Claimant was hit and injured by 6 heavy bags of sugar which fell from defendant’s warehouse
-The claimant didn’t know why the bags fell
-He could only show his injuries
-The elements of res ipsa loquitur were present;
*sacks fell from warehouse under d’s control
*heavy sacks don’t fall unless there is negligence
*no other explanation for the bags to fall
-Defendant was liable
(Res ipsa loquitur)
Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council
-Woman trapped in a public toilet
-Tried to escape after failing to call for help
-She was injured when she tried to escape over the toilet door and the toilet roll holder gave way as she stood on it
-Court decided that the local council was liable for its negligent maintenance but the damages were reduced by 25% because of the way she tried to escape
(Contributory negligence- defence)
Jayes v IMI Ltd
-Claimant lost a finger at work while cleaning a machine with the guard off
-Employers were liable for the breach of health and safety rules by failing to ensure there was a guard on the machine
-But the claimant was found to be 100% contributory negligence as he admitted it was his fault for taking the guard off
(Contributory negligence- defence)
O’Connell v Jackson
-Damages reduced by 15% when the moped rider was injured and suffered greater injuries because he wasn’t wearing a crash helmet
(Contributory negligence- defence)
Stermer v Lawson
-Consent was argued when the claimant borrowed the defendant’s motorbike
-Defence failed as the claimant hadn’t been properly shown how to use the motorbike and didn’t therefore know the risks
(Consent- defence)
Smith v Baker
-Worker was injured when a crane moved rocks over his head, causing some to fall on him
-Defence consent failed
-Workman had already done all that he could in complaining about the risks involved in the work taking place above his head
-He had no choice but to continue work and did not give his consent to the danger
(Consent- defence)
Haynes v Harwood
-Defendant failed to tether his horse correctly
-Policeman was injured trying to restrain the animal and wasn’t acting voluntarily
-He was acting under a duty to protect the public
-Defence of consent could not be used
(Consent- defence)
Sidaway v Governors of the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals
-C suffered neck, arm and shoulder pain
-Surgeon got her consent for an operation but failed to fully explain all the risks
-She developed an illness that occured in less than 1% of cases and she argued that she didn’t consent to this
-HoL decided that consent in medical cases doesn’t require a detailed explanation of remote side effects
-The doctor wasn’t liable
(Consent- defence)
