Duty Of Care Cases

Question 1

Bourhill v Young

Answer 1

C saw blood from a motorcycle crash and suffered a miscarriage.

Held, no duty of care on the grounds of foreseeability.

Question 2

Maguire v Harland

Answer 2

C developed mesothelioma from her husband being exposed to asbestos at work.

Held, no duty of care on the grounds of foreseeability.

Question 3

Hall v Gwent

Answer 3

Practical joke caused the flair up of psychosis, such that X killed CC.

Held, no duty of care on the grounds of foreseeability.

Question 4

Spartan Steel v Martin

Answer 4

Power cut caused ruined metal and a loss of profits.

Held, no duty of care for the loss of profit on the grounds of proximity.

Question 5

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 5

Negligent accounts were published online, which CC relied upon.

Held, no duty of care on the grounds of proximity.

Question 6

Sutradhar v NERC

Answer 6

Report issued by DD on water in Bangladesh was relied upon by CC.

Held, no duty of care on the grounds of proximity (and policy).

Question 7

The Nicholas H

Answer 7

Ship negligently classified as in good condition, sank.

Held, no duty of care on the grounds of fairness, justice and reasonableness: a defensiveness argument

Question 8

Darnley v Croydon

Answer 8

C was negligently told of a 4h wait at A&E.

Held, no duty of care on the grounds of fairness, justice and reasonableness: a defensiveness argument.

Question 9

D v East Berkshire

Answer 9

Children were negligently taken away from their CC parents.

Held, no duty of care on the grounds of fairness, justice and reasonableness: a defensiveness argument.

Question 10

SXH v CPS

Answer 10

An asylum seeker was arrested.

Held, no duty of care on the grounds of fairness, justice and reasonableness: a defensiveness argument.

Question 11

G v Winnipeg

Answer 11

D mother sniffed glue during pregnancy.

Held, no duty of care.

Question 12

McFarland v Tayside HB

Answer 12

Negligent sterilisation caused the birth of a healthy child.

Held, no recovery for cost of bringing up child on the grounds of fairness, justice and reasonableness.

Question 13

Parkinson v St James

Answer 13

Negligent sterilisation caused the birth of an autistics child.

Held, recovery available for cost of bringing up child.

Question 14

Rees v Darlington MS

Answer 14

Negligent sterilisation caused the birth of a healthy child.

Held, no recovery for cost of bringing up child with extra care needed because of the mother’s disability, on the grounds of fairness, justice and reasonableness.

Question 15

Stovin v Wise

Answer 15

Car accident caused when DD Health authority did not cut a hedge.

Held, no duty of care for the pure omission.

Question 16

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 16

Final victim of the Yorkshire ripper guessed she would be the next victim, and informed the police. Police did not catch the murderer.

Held, no duty of care for the pure omission.

Question 17

Palmer v Tees HA

Answer 17

X discharged despite him informing D of voices telling him to kill a child.

Held, no duty of care on the grounds of foreseeability.

Question 18

Capital & Countries v HCC

Answer 18

Fire brigade turned sprinklers off so there was more damage.

Held, duty of care existed despite omission for creating the danger.

Question 19

Barnes v HCC

Answer 19

Schoolchildren were unsupervised.

Held, duty of care existed despite omission for assumption of responsibility and control.

Question 20

Barrett v MoD

Answer 20

Drunk serviceman was moved upstairs where he died.

Held, duty of care existed despite omission for assumption of responsibility.

Question 21

Dorset Yacht v HO

Answer 21

Young offenders escaped DD and caused damage to CC’s boat.

Held, duty of care existed despite omission for assumption of responsibility and control.

Question 22

Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police

Answer 22

Confidential information was given by C to the DD policeman regarding gang activity with assurance that it would remain secret. Negligently left in back of car.

Held, duty of care existed despite omission for assumption of responsibility.

Question 23

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales

Answer 23

C called 999, regarding imminent death threat, but her call was downgraded by accident.

Held, no duty of care for there had not been an assumption of responsibility.

Question 24

Stansbie v Troman

Answer 24

D left the door unlocked to a house he was working on, so thieves entered.

Held, duty of care existed despite omission on the grounds of a contractual obligation.

Question 25

Topp v London Country Bus

Answer 25

DD employee left his keys in the bus, following which PP stole the bus and negligently drove over C.

Held, no duty of care for it was not foreseeable that PP would drive negligently.