Negligence Flashcards
Caparo v Dickman
The plaintiff’s takeover bid was informed by the annual audit of the company’s accounts. They were faulty and he lost profit.
Lord Bridge established the three-stage test for duty of care in novel situations, requiring (1) foreseeable damage, (2) proximity between the parties, and (3) that the existence of a duty would be ‘fair, just and reasonable’. This is the current approach.
Donaghue v Stevenson
The ‘neighbour principle’, based upon foreseeability, was the first general principle for determining duty of care in negligence. The so-called ‘narrow ratio’ from Donoghue established the liability of manufacturers to those injured by their products.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
It was claimed on behalf of a victim of a serial killer that the police had owed her a duty of care and that their failure to conduct criminal investigations adequately had been the cause of her death. The House of Lords held that no such duty existed.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co
A group of young offenders on an outing escaped and caused damage to the plaintiff’s yacht. It was held that the Home Office, whose employees should have been controlling the youths, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The ‘neighbour principle’ was applied to extend duty of care to create liability for damage caused, not directly, but by a third party over whom the defendant had been expected to exercise control.
Osman v Ferguson
Police failed to respond adequately to fears raised by a campaign of harassment against the plaintiff’s family and murder resulted. Despite proximity and foreseeability the Hill policy factors led to a finding of no duty of care. Note the contrary outcome of the case before the ECtHR.
Smith v Littlewoods
The defendant did not adequately protect his disused property. It was broken into by vandals who lit a fire which damaged neighbouring premises. The House of Lords held that there was no liability both for reasons of lack of duty and lack of breach.
HB v Heller
This case founded the tort of negligent misstatement, but there was no liability here owing to the disclaimer. Duty of care was determined by finding the special relationship.
Murphy v Brentwood
The faulty foundations on the plaintiff’s house led to cracks and a loss in profit when he sold it after ten years.
Anns was overruled. This type of damage was pure economic loss and not recoverable. The only remedy would have been in contract.
Spartan Steel v Martin
The loss of power caused by cutting the cable to a factory affected the operation of three furnaces melting steel.
Compensation was permitted for the furnace containing the damaged ore but not for loss of profits linked to empty furnaces. Illustrates the difference between property damage and pure economic loss.
Alcock v CC South Yorkshire
White v CC South Yorkshire
Hillsborough Stadium disaster, a group of relatives and witnesses suffering psychological injury sued the responsible police in negligence.
All claimants - unsuccessful -did not fulfil the three main criteria for finding a duty to a ‘secondary victim’.
1) close relationship of love to the *DEARNESS
2) proximity to the event/ immediate aftermath *NEARNESS 3)direct personal perception of the event *HEARNESS
White - faile as criteria for Alcock was not met
Bourhill v Young
Pregnant fish wife
D had owed no duty to C in respect of her injury, which was unforeseeable as she was outside the range of danger. The law must expect a degree of fortitude from the public.
Dulieu v White
This was the first successful English claim for psychiatric damage.
pregnant barmaid suffered shock horse/cart was driven through the window.
C was awarded damages on the basis of her foreseeable fear for her own safety.
Hambrook v Stokes Bros
A mother died following shock she sustained having seen a runaway lorry heading for her children and hearing things which led her to believe that they had been hit.
Following the authority of Dulieu, it was held that liability could be extended to shock suffered due to fear for the safety of others. It may have been significant that this fear was for her children and that she experienced the event at first hand.
McFarlane v EE Caledonia
C suffered shock following his exposure to an oil rig explosion and fire. Because he was not in danger, he was not a primary victim and did not involve himself sufficiently in the rescue to qualify as a rescuer.
His claim was unsuccessful.
McLoughlin v O’Brian
A mother arrived at the hospital two hours after her family had been injured in a car accident and the shock of what she saw led to severe psychological illness. The House of Lords unanimously ruled in her favour on the basis that although she had not witnessed the accident, she had seen the ‘immediate aftermath’.
Bolton v Stone
C was hit by a cricket ball hit over a fence and into the road where she was standing.
No Doc owing to the unforeseeability of such an accident combined with the high cost of avoiding it.
This ‘borderline’ decision, by the House of Lords, illustrates the way that courts expect the reasonable person to assess the risk of a given situation.
Mullins v Richards
Two 15 yr old girls fencing with plastic rulers in school - one lost eye sight in 1 eye
‘The standard by which [his] conduct is to be measured is not that to be expected of a reasonable adult but that reasonably to be expected of a child of the same age, intelligence and experience.’
Nettleship v Weston
Act not Actor
A driving instructor successfully claimed in negligence against a pupil when he was injured in an accident she caused on her third lesson.
The DoC of a learner driver is same of the reasonably competent and experienced driver.
Overseas Tankship (UK) v The Miller Steamship Co [1966] 2 All ER 709, PC (‘The Wagon Mound (No 2)’)
Fire occurred after unlawful discharge of oil by D
The Privy Council held that although such a fire was unlikely it was nevertheless foreseeable
Lack of any worthwhile purpose in the defendant’s discharge of the oil and the low cost of avoidance was weighed against the great extent of potential damage in finding that in the circumstances there had been a breach of duty. This event also gave rise to a very important case on the subject of causation in negligence.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
The issue relating to breach was to what extent the inexperience of the doctor could be taken into account.
Junior Dr. administered an excess amount of oxygen to baby.
The applicable standard of care related not to the person, nor to the task, but to the post occupied within the medical care team. Within the ambit of the post, no further account would be taken of relative inexperience.
Wooldridge v Sumner
This standard has also been applied between participants in sport.
Photographer at horse show hurt by horse -
difficult to exercise ‘reasonable care’.
No breach of duty unless the sportsman had shown ‘a reckless disregard of the spectator’s safety’.
Baker v Willoughby
C suffered injury to leg - before compensation leg had to be amputated due to seperate incident -
The HoL held that, despite the second damage, the defendant’s liability should be regarded as continuing and the original damages award was upheld. This decision was called into some doubt by that in Jobling
Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea HMC
C died from negligence of hospital - arsenic poisoning - established that C would have died anyway
According to the but-for approach to causation, the defendant’s negligence had not caused the death. This case is a classic example of the but-for test in operation.
Chester v Afshar
Risks of back surgery 1 -2% of permanent damage - Dr. failed to warn of risks
The HoL relaxed the but-for approach on the basis that it is important to compensate patients damaged following medical negligence. This, like Fairchild, was a policy decision.
Fairchild v Glenhaven
Claimants contracted abestos related illness from varios employers
A majority of the House of Lords departed from the ‘all or nothing rule’ and held each employer jointly and severally liable and followed the McGhee ‘increase of risk’ approach. There was a strong policy element in this departure and it is expected to be confined to exceptional cases.
Gregg v Scott
Early cancer diagnosis missed - chances decreased from 42% to 25%.
Fairchild was not followed. The claimant’s chances of survival had never been 51% or more and compensation would not be based upon mere ‘loss of a chance’. According to the ‘all or nothing’ approach - C failed to prove causation - claim failed
