Delict Case Law Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Most important Delict Case
Case: Mrs Donoghue discovered a decomposed snail in a ginger beer (manufactured by Stevenson) that was bought for her by her friend. She claimed she suffered Gastro-enteritid and a psychiatric injury (distress). Mrs D sued the manufacturer
HELD: The manufacturer was liable because it was foreseeable that a customer, even one that Stevenson did not have a direct contract with, would incur a loss as a result of the decomposed snail, either physical and/or emotional. Lord Aitken ruled that everybody owes a duty of care to their neighbour. He explained that he determined a person’s neighbour to be anyone they could reasonably foresee as being harmed by their conduct.
Bourhill v Young (1943)
Important to remember. The case established a distinction between secondary & primary victims.
Also an example of not foreseeable circumstances. She was not owed a duty of care.
Case: Mrs B is pregnant and on a tram in Edinburgh. Accident between motorcycle and car…Mr Y dies and injury to others. Mrs B gets off tram to take a look at carnage (lots of blood) She then miscarries her baby, claims PTSD and sues the estate of Mr Y as he was speeding
HELD: No duty of care owed by Mr Y to Mrs B due to lack of foreseeability
Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)
Reasonably Foreseeable
Case: Manhole in Edinburgh – covered with bright tent and paraffin lamps. Child takes lamp down manhole and there is an explosion
HELD:There was a duty of care as the accident was foreseeable and reasonable precautions were not taken.
Smith v Littlewoods (1987)
Not foreseeable
Case: Trespassers entered a disused cinema and lit a fire. Fire spread to a neighbouring building.
HELD: There was no duty of care as trespassers actions (lighting fires) not foreseeable
Kay’s Tutor v Ayr and Arran Health Board (1987)
Causation
Case: Child admitted to hospital with Meningitis and accidently given an overdose of penicillin. Child becomes deaf. Defendants argue deafness caused by meningitis not penicillin.
HELD: Causation was not penicillin
Rouse v Squires (1973)
Breaking the chain of Causation
Case: Allen has an accident with his lorry on motorway - Rouse stops his lorry and turns headlights on so that other drivers can see there has been an accident. Squires arrives at scene, does not realise there has been an accident (despite there being headlights focused on the accident specifically to warn others) and thinks it is slow moving traffic. He goes to overtake and kills Rouse.
HELD: Squires is responsible for the death of Rouse but what about the original driver Allen? Is he to be blameless? On further appeal, Allen was held partially (one quarter) responsible
Bolton V Stone (1951)
Seriousness of harm (adequate precautions)
Case: Mrs B in her garden near a cricket ground. Hit by a cricket ball which had cleared a 17ft fence which had been erected by the cricket club
HELD: Precautions were adequate as potential injury was low risk – all others suggested by the pursuer were not realistic
Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the Yorkshire Police (1992)
Duty of care for nervous shock (Primary & Secondary Victims)
Use this case for questions relating to phycological trauma or nervous shock.
Case: Based on the Hillsbourgh disaster which was televised. Too many fans, game stopped after 6 minutes. 95 people crushed to death and 400 injured.
Police paid compensation to primary victims but not secondary. Pursuers had relationships with primary victims and claimed they suffered psychiatric shock as a result of harm to primary victims some witnessed in person and others on TV.
3 tests confirmed:
- Are they capable of suffering psychiatric harm from negligence
- How close were they in terms of time and space
- How was the injury caused
Caparo industries PLC v Dickman (1990) (Famous audit case) Economic Loss (deliberate harm)
Case: Caparo looking for a majority shareholding in Fidelity. Takeover succeeds only for Caparo to discover Fidelity is a failed company. Caparo sue auditors who had given a clean audit report for not exercising reasonable care.
HELD: No special relationship between C and auditors who did not know that their report was being relied upon.
Hedley Byrne Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964)
Liability for Negligent statements or negligent advice
Hedley Byrne (Client) seeks a solvency reference from Heller (Bank).
Heller gives solvency reference “without liability” (can’t sue them if something goes wrong). Hedley Byrne accepted the reference on that basis. Had they not done that then a duty of care would have existed depite the fact there was no contract for the solvency reference.
Held: The court argued there was no duty of care owed only due to the fact that Hedley Byrne accepted the terms of Heller.
Spring v Guardian Assurance plc (1994)
Liability for Negligent statements or negligent advice
Case: Spring used to work for GA and GA gave a negative reference to a future employer (claimed spring committed fraud…not true)
HELD: There was a duty of care and it was foreseeable that Spring would suffer harm as a result of a negative reference.
