Negligence Flashcards
What is the law on negligence?
Donoghue v Stevenson
Lord Atkin: formulated the “neighbour principle” in this case which has become trite law but was notably controversial. It was the case that a principle should be brought in where a duty of care principle arises.
HL: held there was no case to answer.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
The man suffered dermatitis in a delicate place from wearing woollen underpants purchased in a store.
Held: a chemical was used that had not been removed from the garment prior to sale and this amounted to negligence with liability arising. It followed on from the context of food and drink seen in Donoghue. They tried to make sure that the area was not seen as too broad as this could be problematic
Andrews v Hopkinson
Hopkinson sold the car to Andrews telling him it was good and would not cause any issues. He sold it to a finance company who went onto sell it to Andrews, there was no contractual relationship between both of them.
Held: car had significant mechanical defects that would have been apparent when inspected. Andrews commenced legal proceedings against him and the injuries sustained in the crash. Even with no contract he had third party liability for negligence
Hill v James Crowe
Rejected the idea that liability could only arise from food materials, and that it applies to a wide range of things and may even include packaging (broad scope to help those who are liable avoid accountability)
Stennet v Hancock
Defendant negligently repaired a lorry that veered off and hit a passerby (claimant).
Brown v Cotterill
A tombstone was erected and fell on a Child playing nearby and caused severe injuries.
Herschtal v Stewart
The possibility of an examination cannot preclude liability. The defendant sold a defective car and the rear came off when driving it. He sustained nervous shock (can result in liability) and the mechanics were responsible for its negligent footing.
Held: was unlikely it had been checked because the party wanted the car straight away. Therefore, he was successful.
Harley v Dyke
Passenger was injured as a result of a defective car. The car was sold without any warranty and this was a fair warning.
Haseldine v Daw and Sons Ltd
This case involved whether a landlord was liable to injury suffered by the claimant as a result of using the lift in the landlords property. He hired the engineers to repair it and the reason for the accident was one of the engineers failing to repack the machine properly
Held: landlord not liable he was only responsible for making sure the lift was reasonably safe which was demonstrated by him employing competent engineers to inspect it.
Holmes v Ashfield
A hairdresser did the plaintiffs hair with a dye that came with a labelled bottle and instructions. The P contracted dermatitis. It said on the bottle that the dye might be harmful and for a test to be used but the hairdresser did not make the test. The plaintiff was awarded damages against the hairdresser and the manufacturer, of whom appealed.
Held (on appeal): a manufacturer who puts a dangerous article on the market must take reasonable steps to prevent any person coming into contact with it getting injured, but it was not necessary in every case. The warning was sufficient to imitate the danger of the dye
Watson v Buckley
A distributor was held liable because a duty was owed to the end user and they were careless to promote the product as safe without having tested it. They cannot escape liability by saying they were not the original creators of the negligence. They knew it was designed to be used by the end users and had a reasonable duty to ensure it was safe. They failed to uphold this. Watson could have also had a successful case against the manufacturer
What is the law on omissions?
Omissions can result in claims of negligence
What is the law on reasonable care?
Liability is not solely based on whether there is any ‘fault’. It can also be if the manufacturer has not taken reasonable care.
Evans v Triplex Glass
Evans asked for his car to have toughened glass made by the company. A year later, the windows smashed and injured him, his wife and his son. He failed to establish that the manufacturers have breached their duty. It was because in that year, it was not established whether he had done something to the windows himself, so it could not be established whether it was the manufacturer or the fitters.
Due diligence defence
must prove that they took reasonable steps to a void the default occurring and that they had not been negligent.
Piper v JRI Manufacturing
Claimant had undergone a hip replacement, the prothesis shed into two. the claimant suggested that the prosthesis was defected. the Manufacturer argued that it was not when it was not supplied to the hospital. they showed that the defect would have been picked up by the inspection system (quality control).
Murphy v Brentwood DC
HL: Overrules the decision in Anne v Merton LBC. The defendant (LA) did not inspect the foundations of a building adequately, leading to it becoming unstable. The claimant could not raise money for repairs and ended up at a loss. He sought to recover, this, but failed as it was purely economic loss.
Woolsley v Tambrands
Allegation that tampons resulted in TSS. The claimant used the tampons for a number of years. Persons were advised what to do if symptoms manifested, with instructions clear on the back. She said they failed to warn her adequately about the risk of using them. The judge found that the box met the requirements, the manufacturer took the necessary steps to say that a duty had been owed.
Richardson v LRC Products
Condom failed and resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. A condom was used in a pair that were married. and they made a claim based on the fact that the product was defective for the costs of bringing up the child. It failed in its purpose and resulted in a child. It was found that nobody can
Abouzaid v Mothercare
A Childs eye is damaged when a sleeping bag knocks of the buggy and hits them in the eye. Mothercare argued that reports of this type of injury were never brought to their attention and the design was essential to its working, and thus it was not defective.
Court of Appeal: rejected the claim and held that there must be a defect in the product because this type of injury was so uncommon.
