DELICT CASES Flashcards
Case Name on Front Area of Law & Ratio on Back
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Duty of Care (Foreseeability); ‘one must take care to avoid acts or omissions, which are reasonably foreseeable and likely to injure your neighbour’
Home Office v Dorset Yacht (1970)
Duty of Care Defined: Where the defender is under a duty to protect the pursuer, he will be liable if he fails to do so.
Anns v Merton LBC (1978)
Duty of Care (Proximity); established a need for a sufficient relationship of proximity in the reasonable contemplation of whether the defenders carelessness caused the damage in question.
**Caparo v Dickman (1990) ‘The Caparo Test’
Duty of Care (approach every DOC problem with this criteria; Duty of Care Requires: (Per Lord Bridge)
1) Foreseeability
2) Proximity
3) Fair, Just, and Reasonable to impose a duty?
Bourhill v Young (1942)
DOC (foreseeability) - bystander of Motorcycle accident - shock of witnessing induced her to having a stillborn child.
‘Negligence in the air will not do’ - Lord Macmillan
‘the duty is owed to whom injury may reasonably and probably be anticipated if the duty is not observed.
Palgraf v Long Island Railroad Company (1928)
REMOTENESS OF INJURY CASE: Dynamite explosion was too remote for claim - TSA official could not have known that it would do such harm to Ms. Palgraf.
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council (2009)
Agressive tenant kills neighbour after being warned by G.C.C.; Held, not fair, just, and reasonable to put liability on GCC to warn - too far opening up of liability. Also, DUTY TO PREVENT HARM TO 3RD PARTIES - Foreseeability of harm is not of itself enough for imposition of DOC.
Murphy v Brentwood (1991)
PURE ECONOMIC LOSS - Physical harm caused requires justification, causing economic loss does not. Plaintiff bought a house built in a ditch - dodgy foundation, clear errors in design. Sold House at 35 K less than purchased for. RATIO (L.Bridge) =If a builder errects a structure containing a latent defect which renders it dangerous to persons/property - he will be liable in tort for injury to persons or damage to property. (*New NHBC Certificate of 10 year guarantee now exists).
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964)
&
Smith v Bush (1990)
(indirect misrepresentation via a 3rd party)
RATIO = Negligent misrepresentation even though entirely honest, can give rise to a DOC if it causes pure economic loss. (In the absence of a disclaimer)
Concerns plaintiff asking for bankers credit reference of Hellers company before loaning money. Bank deems Hellers company to be of sound financial position. Plaintiff invests and it turns out Heller’s goes bust. The choice to invest was based on the bankers reference which as it turns out was negligent (even though honest). However, the bank had an express disclaimer that they cannot be held liable based on giving references. Held, Plaintiffs couldn’t claim against the bank based on the disclaimer.
R2 = Duty of care may arise where:
P seeks information from D as a party possessed of a special skill (credit check);
P trusts D to exercise a due care;
D knew or ought to have known that reliance was being placed on D’s skill and judgment.
(no disclaimer = liability arises)
_____________________
Smith = bought her house on the strength of a survey report (a negligent one as it turns out). Ratio = Sufficient proximity between the parties because the surveyor knows who will be effected by a mistake on his part.
Spring v Guardian Assurance (1995)
Negligently prepared Reference from a previous employer.
RATIO: in the case of an employee or ex-employee the damage is clearly foreseeable if a careless reference is given; there is as obvious a proximity of relationship in this context as can be imagined. F, J, and Reasonable here.
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates (1995)
Duty in Delict may arise where there was nothing in the pre-existing contract that might exclude the claim in tort; e.g. like in Hedley Byrne. They were time barred from claiming breach of contract so they used delict instead.
Alcock v Chief Constable (1992)
PSYCHIATRIC HARM - RATIO = PRIMARY VICTIMS CAN CLAIM DAMAGES IN LIGHT OF PSYCHIATRIC HARM EVEN IF NOT PHYSICALLY INJURED.
2 categories of victims:
primary - involved immediately as a participant
Secondary - no more than a passive and unwilling witness of injury caused to others.
Robertson v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board (1995)
Psych Harm/ PROXIMITY OF SECONDARY VICTIMS - Concerned co-worker claiming psych harm. RATIO = Established criteria for a DOC for Secondary Victims = 1) close tie of love and affection 2) sec victim must be present or at its immediate aftermath 3) victims psych harm must be caused by direct perception of the injury to the other party.
Chadwick v BRB (1967)
Status of Victim Exception - Chadwick was near a huge train crash and was not a rescue worker; he took it upon himself to enter the train and save many lives, while also seeing many horrible deaths.
Held, as a result of his being there immediately after the crash and operating at considerable danger to himself, he was held to be a primary victim as a result of the defenders negligence.
Barber v Somerset (2004)
______________________
Flood v Uni. of Glasgow (2010)
Pyshchiatric harm in the workplace, NOT an ad hoc event (continuous effect). Claimant teacher working 70 hrs/week, shook a student, left school, couldn’t get a job elsewhere. Held, School officials should have taken initiative in easing the pressure on barber.
_________________
Flood = part-time 32 hour contract worker working 100 hours per week. Informed her boss, nothing changed. Won damages.
Stovin v Wise (1996)
Public Authority - Statutory Framework within which the public authority was operating.
Accident at blind corner crossing. Statutory authority to order the junction safer - but they never did. Held, too open ended a duty, will divert resources away from council’s more important functions.
(in analyzing the statute - was there an intent to confer a right to compensation for breach? NO.)
JD v EastBerkshire Health (2005)
Public Authority - Dr/Social workers wrongly accuse parents of child abuse. Held, NO DOC between parents and Dr’s, not enough proximity.
Yorkshire Ripper Case (1989)
Osman v UK (2000)
OMISSIONS and the POLICE
Ripper = 20 murders, last murder of Ms Hill. Ms Hill’s mom brought a claim against the police, saying had they done their jobs adequately they would have caught the the ripper before he killed her daughter. Held, NO DUTY OF CARE - NOT SUFFICIENT PROXIMITY BETWEEN POLICE AND A GENERAL CLASS OF PEOPLE; TOO WIDE, UNREASONABLE LIABILITY.
OSMAN = Closer proximity of police versus teacher here, where teacher formed unhealthy relationship with student (he had a crush on) and ultimately killed said students father.
HELD, again TOO WIDE, UNREASONABLE LIABILITY. Unreasonable to burden the police force with criminal activity as a whole.
“Duty may exist only if it can be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known”
Gibson v Strathclyde Police (1999)
POLICE / ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
Bridge collapses, police only cordon off one side. Someone falls off the other side. Based on assumption of responsibility, the police took on specific liability for that bridge. Held, Damages allowed.
Burnett v Grampian Fire & Rescue (2007
FIRE BRIGADE / ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY - RATIO = duty not only to put out the fire, but also not to make the situation worse. Assumption of Responsibility enables a DOC. Contrast with Eng Case:
CAPITAL V HAMPSHIRE CC - No duty to put out the fire but a DOC exists if they make the situation worse
Kent v Griffiths (2001)
AMBULANCE ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY: DOC is more persuasive with ambulances, Case concerns ambulance taking 38 mins to get to pregnant lady, had a miscarriage. RATIO = amy services owes a DOC after they take a call toward a specific individual - more persuasive because it is specific between official and patient, higher duty bc of nature of specific relationship.
