Liability In Negligence (chaper 21) Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) - dead snail
. Claimant went to a cafe and got a drink and found dead snail at the bottom
. She suffered physical injuries and mental anguish from it
. She sued the manufacturers of the drink in negligence, claiming they owed her a duty of care
. Established the neighbour principle
Caparo v Dickman (1990) - take over company
. Claimant company wanted to take over another company, because after looking at the accounts they saw it was making a profit
. After the purchase they saw a large loss
. They sued in negligence for their loss
. House of Lords set the 3 part test and decided the defendant didn’t owe a duty of care as the accounts were prepared for fidelity not statutory reasons
Kent v Griffiths (2000) - asthma attack
. Claimant had an asthma attack but they didn’t arrive on time, so they suffered a respiratory arrest
. Court decided it was reasonably foreseeable that claimant would duffer further illness if ambulance didn’t arrive
. There was no good reason reason why it didn’t come, so they failed a duty and they were liable.
Bourhill v Young (1943) - still-born baby
. Pregnant woman heard accident, so she approached the scene and saw blood and suffered from shock
. She then gave birth to a still-born baby, so sued relatives of dead motorcyclist
. Under neighbourhoods test she had to prove she was proximate to motorcyclist so he owed a duty of care
. House of Lords decided he was not proximate and didn’t owe her a duty of care
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990) - Yorkshire ripper
. Yorkshire ripper, serial killer, had been been murdering women in Yorkshire in north england
. Claimants daughter was his last victim before he was caught
. By time of her death, police failed to arrest him
. Claimant said police owed her a duty of care
. House of Lords said police and victim didn’t have proximate relationship, so they didnt owe a duty of care
. Police knew he would strike again, but couldn’t have guessed who victim is
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018) - elderly lady
. Elderly lady walking and injured by police who was trying to catch a drug dealer
. Defendant claimed saying it was a novel case and police owed claimant duty of care
. It was proposed that the caparo test which applied will only impose a duty when it’s fair, just and reasonable to do so.
Nettleship v Weston (1971) - driving lessons
. Westron asked neighbour to give her driving lessons
. On her 3rd lesson she hit a lamp post, which fell and injured Nettleship
. Decided that Weston should be judged by standard of competent driver, not experienced driver so she was liable
Mullins v Richards (1998) - plastic rulers
. Two girls were play-fighting with ruled
. One snapped and fragments went into Mullins eye, resulting her loosing her sight
. Decoded that Richard’s had to meet standard of 15 year old schoolgirl (not reasonable adult)
. As she reached required standard, she didn’t breach duty of care
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957) - broken pelvis
. Claimant suffered consent form for treatment but didnt get told the risk of broken bones while receiving shock and not given relaxant drugs
. While receiving treatment, suffered a broken pelvis
. Opinion favoured use of relaxant drugs should be used if there’s reason to do so
. In Bolams case, it was decided that doctors had followed one of these course of action, there had been no breach of the duty of care
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) - blind eye
. Claimant was known to be blind in on eye
. He was given work by employers which involved small risk of getting injury to his eyes
. While doing work, his good eye was damaged and was left totally blind
. His employers were held to have broken their duty of care to him
Bolton v Stone (1951) - cricket ball
. Cricket ball hit claimant in street as she passed cricket ground
. There was 17 foot high fence around the ground
. Balls had been hit out of ground only 6 times in 30 years
. Decided cricket club had done everything it needed to do in view of low risk, it had not breached duty to claimant
Latimer v AEC ltd (1953) - factory floor
. Factory floor was slippery with mixture of water and oil, workers were evacuated
. Sawdust on the floor minimised risk of slipping
. One worker slipped and was injured
. Court decided there was no breach of duty
. Factory owners had taken all reasonable care to reduce injury
. No requirement on them to eliminate every possible risk to their employees
Day v High Performance Sports (2003) - experienced climber
. Claimant was experienced climber but fell from indoor climbing wall and suffered serious injuries
. She became frozen in her position, way manager rescued her was inappropriate causing her fall
. Decided that manage and centre had not breached their duty of care towards claimant in view of emergency and the need to rescue her
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969) - A&E
. Watchmen went to hospital after getting sickness from drinking tea made by another man
. They were recommended to go home and see their own doctors
. One of them died after a few hours later of being poisoned
. His widow sued hospital, claiming hospital was negligent in examining her husband causing his death
. Doctors breached the duty by not carrying out examination
. But evidence showed by the time they called hospital it was too late so he would’ve died whatever treatment he got
. Meant his death was not caused by breach of duty and her claim failed
Wagon Mound (1961) - fuel oil
. Fuel oil had been spilt negligently from defendants ship into Sydney harbour
. Two days later, oil caught fire because of sparks from welding
. Decided damage done to wharf by spilled oil was reasonably foreseeable, fire damage was not
. Type of damage was too remote from original negligent act of spilling oil
