Negligence Flashcards
Anns v Merton
The generalisation of the tort of negligence culminated in Anns v Merton (overruled by Murphy) which saw L Wilberforce set out a new test which set forth proximity as a function of foreseeability as opposed to an additional component - problematic and too wide
Donoghue v Stevenson
General theory of a duty - This secured the independence of tort from contract (privity of contract would have stopped the action here) - and it recognised a general tort of negligence, not specific to duty situations - also ‘neighbour’ principle and foreseeability and proximity, which are still at the core today
Caparo v Dickman
Outlined what the new approach would be and clearly rejecting Anns - ‘ingredients’ not tests - 1. foreseeability, 2. proximity, 3. it must be ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to impose a DOC
Haley v London Electric Board
The damage caused must be reasonably FORSEEABLE, even if not to a specific person, and the duty must relate to a particular kind of harm which the D could reasonably foresee
Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council
Proximity - this concerns relationships, they do not need to know one another but know that their actions could cause damage to the C - here, there was no DOC as it would have been to the whole of Bangladesh - plus, the council would have needed a degree of control over the water supply, which they didn’t - just research
Watson v British Board of Boxing
Here there was sufficient proximity and a DOC owed to supervise boxing matches correctly - plus they were the only board in the UK who had the authority to change this
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank
Fair, Just and reasonable - here the negligence of the bank meant that £2million was loss, which was owed to CCE - it was unjust and unreasonable to impose a duty, especially seeing as the freezing of the accounts was made my court order from CCE anyway, and the bank had no choice but to comply with it
Mitchell v Glasgow CC
Would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on all landlords to warn about the meeting attempting to resolve tenant issues, by imposing a duty landlords would be less likely to attempt to resolve things
Spartan Steel v Martin
Economic loss - the Ds owed the Cs a duty not to damage their property and to pay for that damage but not for any lost profits
Hedley Byrne v Heller
Recovery for economic loss for negligent misstatement without any exemption of liability - 1. special relationship, 2. voluntary assumption of responsibility, 3. reliance on the advice by the party, 4. that reliance was reasonable
Esso Petroleum Co v Mardon
‘Special relationship’ - relying on the advice by Esso that he would sell 200 000 gallons of petrol, when he only sold 78 000 gallons, meant that Esso owed the C a DOC
Dean v Allin & Watts
Voluntary assumption of responsibility - in knowing that Mr Dean was not taking independent advice the solicitor knew that he was being relied upon and without recommending to do so he had assumed responsibility - also stressed that the solicitors knew he was novice at business matters, there was no conflict of interest between the two
Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service
The relationship was not sufficiently proximate when relying on advice given years previous concerning a vasectomy -
Omega Trust Co v Wright Son & Pepper
Under the Hedley principle, a disclaimer will be effective where the C could reasonably have been expected to understand it e.g. by being in business or already having conducted a transaction of this kind
Smith v Eric S Bush
Surveyors who negligently surveyed a family home were still liable even with a disclaimer due to the nature of the family being very likely to rely on the information and be unaware if it was negligent
Caparo v Dickman (reliance)
Reliance under Hedley Byrne is specific reliance and it must have been reasonable to have relied, moreover, if information was provided for one purpose, but it was in fact used for a different purpose, then this will not be reliance
White v Jones
Gorham v British Telecomm
Recovery without reliance - ‘the wills cases’ - recovery of pure economic loss without reliance and concerning acts or services - this was also post-Murphy – how can someone rely on something they do not know about, as is often the case for wills? L Goff - HB - – seems to have been extended to insurance cf G v BT
Barrett v Ministry of Defence
A DOC will be implied where there is an assumption of responsibility e.g. by being an employer or by certain actions towards the injured party, i.e. by beginning to care for someone
Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC
Where a D creates a dangerous situation, the courts impose a positive duty to deal with that danger
Stansbie v Troman
Liability for acts of third parties - proximate relationship - i.e. existing circumstances - e.g. contract or things said or done
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co
Relationship of proximity between D and third party who causes damage to C - here the boats were the only way of getting off the island when the boys escaped so the yacht owners were at particular risk, which is a necessary element - cannot be the public at large
Haynes v Harwood
Liability for actions of a third party where a dangerous situation has been created - NB this must be a ‘special risk’ like the horse bolting after children throwing stones at it, the horse may have bolted anyway
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation
A property owner must take reasonable steps to prevent danger on their land created by a third party where they knew or had reason to know that such danger was present
