Formative Cases

Question 1

Donoughue v Stevenson 1932

principle and case description

Answer 1

Establishes the Neighbourhood Principle.
Mrs Donoughue visited a cafe with her friend and drank a bottle of ginger beer with a decomposing snail in it - made a claim against the manufacturer despite not having a direct contract with them.

Question 2

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman 1990

principle

Answer 2

Establishes the Caparo Test - for the establishing a duty of care and breach.

Question 3

Reavis v Clan Line Steamers LTS 1925

principle and case description

Answer 3

Establishes that there must be a close tie of affection to claim as a secondary victim
A ferry sunk, and all members of an orchestra died on the way to their performance; their employer Mrs Reavis sued as she lost money, however as their employer she could not be a secondary victim.

Question 4

Page v Smith 1996

principle

Answer 4

Establishes the fact that, to claim nervous shock, you must have been directly there

Question 5

Vernon v Bosely 1997

principle

Answer 5

Establishes the fact that ‘recognised psychiatric harm’ must be diagnosed

Question 6

Alcock v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police 1992

principle and case description

Answer 6

Establishes that shock must be singular and can be perceived through technology
Family members of those killed at the in the Hillsborough incident claimed that, while they were not there, viewing this through the TV and radio gave them psychological injury; as this was them perveiving it through sight and sound, this was allowed.

Question 7

McLoughlin v O’Brian 1983

principle and case description

Answer 7

Establishes the fact that you can claim after seeing the aftermath of the event
Mrs McLoughlin’s husband and children were in a car accident, and she saw their severely injured bodies when they arrived at the hospital via ambulance; she developed depression and anxiety from this, and the courts decided that this perception of the event was singular and shocking, and that she had a close tie of affection to the victims.

Question 8

Bourhill v Young 1942

principle and case description

Answer 8

Established the idea that, if claiming as a primary victim, you must be in immediate danger.
Young crashed his motorbike and died across the street from Mrs Bourhill, who could not see the accident but heard it; she claimed to have a ‘fit of nerves’ that caused her to miscarriage. She made a claim against this, however the duty of care did not reach her as she was not in the immediate danger - secondary instead.

Question 9

Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943

principle

Answer 9

Established the test for reasonable foreseeability in breaches of duty of care

Question 10

Waugh v James K Allan 1964

principle

Answer 10

Establishes the idea that any action that breaches the duty of care must have been voluntary

Question 11

Maloco and Smith v Littlewoods Organisation 1987

principle

Answer 11

Establishes the idea that reasonable foreseeability and liability is mitigated when they have put in place reasonable preventions

Question 12

Titcher v British Railways Board 1984

principle

Answer 12

Establishes the idea that, if you have voluntarily and knowingly put yourself in harm’s way, then the consequences are your won fault