NEGLIGENCE

Question 1

The courts laid down a general principle of duty of care which would be used to determine liability against the defendant who did or omitted to do some of the acts with the consequences to third parties when it was reasonable to expect that those acts or omissions would negatively affect the third party.

Answer 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 2

It was held that there was no duty of care concerning the plaintiff because there was nothing to suggest even in the eye of the vigilant that it contained explosives that would explode and cause injury.

Answer 2

Palsgraf v LongIsland rail road

Question 3

It was held that the defendant ought to have foreseen that blind persons would be exposed to injury and therefore they had a duty of care and it was required of them to take precautions.

Answer 3

Haley v London Electricity Board.

Question 4

It was held that there was a legal duty of care expected of the defendant to take care that he did not emerge onto the road in a manner that would cause injury to other users

Answer 4

Bencivenga v Amimo

Question 4

It was held that it was foreseeable that children of tender age would be attracted to such trenches and therefore the defendant should have taken the necessary precautions.

Answer 4

Miriti v Firoze constructions ltd

Question 5

It was held that the defendant had a legal duty of care to ensure that the information that would get to the plaintiff was accurate and would not lead to loss if relied upon by the plaintiff. However because the Defendant had absolved himself from the liability the plaintiff could not succeed.

Answer 5

Hedley Bryne & Co ltd v Heller & partners and Co

Question 6

Pure economic loss - It was held that whereas a duty of care would be imposed concerning the solidified metal there was no duty of care concerning the melting operations that were not done because this consisted of pure economic loss which in law is not foreseeable. where injury to the plaintiff is pure economic loss, it is not foreseeable therefore no duty of care exists. A pure economic loss is the profit or benefit that the plaintiff might have gained if the defendant had not been negligent

Answer 6

Spartan Steel Alloys v Martin and Co

Question 7

Candler v Crane, Christmas and company

Answer 7

It was held that there was a legal duty of care regarding the death of lobsters but the plaintiff could not recover the profit he would have made from the business since it was pure economic loss.

Question 8

Causing emotional distress - The plaintiff suffered shock to the nervous system which produced severe and permanent physical consequences. It was held that a legal duty of care be imposed on a person who makes a statement to another negligently or recklessly and which results in severe emotional distress. In this case the plaintiff’s injury was a direct foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.

Answer 8

Wilkinson v Downtown.

Question 9

It was held that even though the motorcyclist was negligent concerning the car which he collided with, he did not owe a duty to the plaintiff because she was not in his line of vision. Further she did not perceive the collision and she was not herself put into reasonable apprehension and immediate bodily harm.

Answer 9

Bourhill v Young

Question 10

Limiting duty of care based on public policy - The queen’s bench struck out the writ and statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action. The court of appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
It was held that it would be against public policy to impulse such a duty because even though it might result into certain benefits to the public it would lead to the police conducting their investigation in a defensive manner.

Answer 10

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police.

Question 11

Breach of duty of care ( reasonable mans test - It was held that under the circumstances the doctor had acted reasonably as expected of him to ensure that there was no risk in the patient. The doctor was not in breach of the duty of care owed to the patient.

Answer 11

Roe v Minister of Health

Question 12

Where the defendant holds himself to have a skill that he does not have
If the defendant holds himself to posses certain skills when in fact he does not, to establish a breach of duty he will be measured on the standard of a reasonably qualified member of the field in question. The degree and skill required will not be measured by the Defendant’s degree of personal competence. The defendant was not liable since he had acted by the level of skill expected of a reasonably skilled amateur carpenter under the same circumstances.

Answer 12

Wells v Cooper.

Question 13

Where a person engages in a transaction in which he offers himself out as a professional - It was held that since they had become the owners of the ship, they must be measured at the standard of reasonable ship owners. Where a person participates in a transaction in which he offers himself out as a professional, the degree of skill and care would be about the competence associated with the proper discharge of the duties of that profession.

Answer 13

The Lady Gwendolen

Question 13

Causation - Magnitude of the risk - The likelihood of a ball being struck out of the ground was rare and therefore the defendant was not required to do anymore than he had already done.

Answer 13

Bolton v Stone

Question 13

the magnitude of the risk - the likelihood of injury - It was held that the conditions were such that the likelihood of injury to passers-by was high therefore the defendant should have taken additional precautions.

Answer 13

Hilder v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturing Co.

Question 14

The seriousness of injury - It was held that concerning the plaintiff, the defendant should have taken greater precautions because the injury to him was likely to result in total blindness as opposed to an injury to a person with two eyes working under the same circumstances.
The House of Lords stated that the duty to take reasonable steps by an employer to prevent injury to employees is owed to each employee individually.

Answer 14

Paris v Stepney Borough council

Question 15

Factors of Breach - Importance of objective to be attained. During World War 2 the plaintiff was injured in a collision with the defendant’s ambulance. The ambulance was left-hand drive vehicle which was not fitted with signals. The accident happened when the defendant turned after attempting to signal with her hand. The court of appeal found that converting the left-hand drive vehicles would have been prohibitively difficult and expensive, by providing an ambulance service during wartime, the defendant was acting in the public interest and this value to society meant that there was a lower standard of care required .

Answer 15

Daborn v Bath Trammways motors co ltd.

Question 16

Practicability of precaution - In a claim of negligence the plaintiff argued that because the defendant could not eliminate the risk of injury then the defendant should have closed the entire factory. It was held that such a requirement would be too burdensome for Defendant considering that Defendant had done all they could to reduce the risk of injury closing the factory was not practical

Answer 16

Latimer v AEC ltd

Question 17

proof of Breach of Duty of care under section 107 (1) of the Evidence Act cap 80 whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent upon the existence of facts must prove that those facts exist. Balance of probabilities - this means that the plaintiff’s evidence must be in such as it is enough to tip the scales slightly over onto his side.
The plaintiff suffered partial paralysis in her face while carrying out surgery on her left ear. The surgeon cut a facial nerve. Expert evidence showed that this was a risk that was inherent in such operations whether they were performed with the greatest expertise or not. It was held that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden and the suit was dismissed.

Answer 17

Hilder v Mersey Regional Health Authority.

Question 18

Certainly! Let’s break it down in simple terms:

1. Negligence Claim:
   
   • When someone sues another person for causing personal injury due to negligence (carelessness), they need to provide reasonable evidence of that negligence.
   • This evidence convinces the judge to allow the case to go to a jury trial.
2. Management Responsibility:
   
   • If the thing (situation or activity) that caused the accident was under the control of the defendant (the person being sued) or their employees, it matters.
   • Normally, accidents don’t happen if those in charge take proper care.
3. Reasonable Evidence:
   
   • If the accident occurred despite proper management, it suggests that someone wasn’t careful.
   • In such cases, the absence of an explanation from the defendant can be seen as evidence that they didn’t take enough care.

Remember, it’s about showing that someone didn’t act carefully and caused harm.

Answer 18

Scott v London and St Katherine and Docks

Question 19

Conditions for Res Ipsa Loquitor - The cause of the accident should be something under the control of the defendant or his servants. The plaintiff was driving a dust-car belonging to the Defendant, it flipped and he got injured it was held that he could not rely on res ipsa loquitor because the plaintiff was the one in control of the dust car.

Answer 19

Turner v Mansfield cooperation.

Question 20

It was held that Res Ipsa Loquitor was to apply since the Defendant was in control of the train

Answer 20

Gee v Metropolitan railway

Question 21

The accident would not have occurred if there was proper management. It was held that common experience shows that a barrel of flour cannot just fall from a window unless those who oversaw it were negligent.

Answer 21

Bryne v Boadle

Question 22

Absence of explanation - It was held that RIL could not apply since a reasonable explanation had been given which rebutted the presumption of negligence on the defendant.

Answer 22

Mg Chun Pul v Lee Chuen Tat.

Question 23

The court of appeal held that the defendant was liable. The court set out the test for establishing causation. If the harm would not have happened but for the breach of duty, the breach would have caused the harm in the sense required under the tort of negligence. If the harm would have occurred anyway even if the defendant had not been in breach, the breach is not a cause of the harm. In this matter, had appropriate railings been installed the claimant would not have fallen off the platform while having the epileptic seizure. The defendant breach therefore resulted in the accident, the claimant’s damages were reduced to reflect his contributory negligence in failing to inform his employers of his conditions.

Answer 23

Cork v Kirby Maclean ltd

Question 23

Factual causation - But for test - It was established that regardless of the measures that the doctor would have taken the plaintiff’s husband would have died anyway and therefore, the but-for- test was not justified and therefore the defendant was not liable.

Answer 23

Bernett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital.

Question 24

It was held that the plaintiff could not recover damages for the loss caused by the heavy weather because the severity of the weather was unforeseeable and therefore it was improper to hold that the loses caused by the storm were attributable to the negligence of the defendant.

Answer 24

Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government.

Question 25

It was held that it was a common practice for a dhow to sail at night and that the accident resulted from the storm but not the defendant’s negligence.

Answer 25

Besson v Allibhoy

Question 26

Intervening act of a third party - The shooting was an intervening event, which was not caused by his negligent driving and the amputation of the man’s leg meant that the defendant could not be held accountable for any loss since the damage he had done previously no longer existed.

Answer 26

Baker v Willoughby.

Question 27

Intervening act of the plaintiff- It was held that the defendant was not liable for the subsequent injury because the chain of causation had been broken by the conduct of the plaintiff. The plaintiff unnecessarily put himself in a dangerous situation.