Negligence

Question 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 1

Duty of care; lord Atkin: Must take reasonable care to avoid act/omissions which you can reasonably foresee would injure neighbour

• Wide rule: neighbourhood principle, all cases negligence
• Narrow rule: manufacturer owes DoC to consumer Obiter: 3 part test 1/ DoC 2/ Breach 3/ Damage (still used) (+ type of harm: here physical harm, actionable)

Question 2

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 2

Duty of care; Overruled Anns; Lord Bridge

Foreseeability + Legal proximity + fair, just reasonable DoC → Test confirmed in Murphy

Question 3

Rothwell

Answer 3

Duty of care; Damages are given for injuries that cause harm” ≠ harmless; you cannot get damages for psychiatric injury related to fear of possible having once a disease

Question 4

Dixon v Bell

Answer 4

Duty of care; Guns: Owner must them w/ utmost care. Responsible for damage if csq of lack of care, even if caused by 3rd Party

Question 5

Ogwo v Taylor

Answer 5

Duty of care; D caused fire. DoC owed to firemen. Volenti not applicable.

Question 6

Barrett v MoD

Answer 6

Duty of care; Exception to no duty of care when omission; Officer extremely drunk. No DoC, but once an officer assumed responsibility for him, DoC arose. (injury alone is not enough)

Question 7

Topp v London

Answer 7

Duty of care; Bus company left a bus with the keys in ignition for 8h. 3P steals bus, runs over woman, killed.
→ No DoC owed for acts of 3P (+unforeseeable)

Question 8

Mulcahy v MoD

Answer 8

Duty of care; Army. No DoC in battle conditions. For same reason, employer does not have to provide safe system of work.

Question 9

Yearwood v Bristol NHS trust

Answer 9

Duty of care; Property damage actionable. Here sperm = property

Question 10

Alcock v CC of south Yorkshire police

Answer 10

Duty of care – Psychiatric illness;
Hillsborough disaster (football): Primary ≠ Secondary victims
- 1 = immediately or mediately involved as a participant
- 2 = passive and unwilling witness
3 requirements for secondary victims:
1. Class of persons = tie of love & affection
2. Proximity: geographical + temporal (≠ TV report)
3. Shock caused by sight/hearing of event or aftermath
Rescuers: 1ry v, policy reasons: they should be encouraged

Question 11

White v CC of south Yorkshire police

Answer 11

Duty of care – Psychiatric illness; Only recognised psychiatric conditions = cause of action
→ Here: PTSD (case: police officers of Hillsborough disaster) Rescuers ≠ primary victims, they are only if in the zone of physical danger
→ 1 Chadwick / 2 Alcock / 3 White = the law.

Question 12

Page v smith

Answer 12

Duty of care – Psychiatric illness;
C in recovery of psychiatric condition. Car accident, driver negligent. Not injured, but triggered condition, unable to work. To recover, there must be:
Foreseeability + proximity + personal injury
→ As C = primary victim, irrelevant that kind of harm foreseen (physical) ≠ harm actually suffered (psychiatric).
→ Eggshell rule applies for primary victims

Question 13

Chadwick v British Railways Board

Answer 13

Duty of care – Psychiatric illness; Negligent train crash. C volunteered as a rescuer for several h. → The defendant owed Mr Chadwick a duty of care since it was reasonably foreseeable that somebody might try to rescue the passengers and suffer injury in the process

Question 14

Dooley v Campbell

Answer 14

Duty of care – Psychiatric illness; Responsibility. Crane driver, materials fell bc of employer. He thought he injured someone, felt responsible, suffered psychiatric harm. He felt responsible, foreseeable that would develop psychiatric illness.

Question 15

Hunter v British Coal

Answer 15

Duty of care – Psychiatric illness; Limits scope of ‘responsibility’ cases. C Learnt of accident from someone. Must witness the accident.

Question 16

W v Essex County Council

Answer 16

Duty of care – Psychiatric illness; Foster parents, stated didn’t want child w/ sexual offence record. Got one w/out knowing. Abused children. Parents could be primary victims, because guilt of bringing the adolescent home

Question 17

McLoughlin v O’Brian

Answer 17

Duty of care – Psychiatric illness; No DoC owed to mere bystanders. D cannot be expected to compensate the world at large.

Question 18

Greatorex v Greatorex

Answer 18

Duty of care – Psychiatric illness; 1V does not owe DoC to 2V in relation to self-inflicted harm.

Question 19

Hatton v Sutherland

Answer 19

Duty of care – Psychiatric illness; Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are no special controls on claims for psychiatric (or physical) injury or illness arising from the stress of doing work an employee has to do.

Question 20

Spartan Steel & Alloys

Answer 20

Duty of care – Pure Economic Loss; General rule: can’t recover for PEL.
Power cut, resulting in damages of some alloys + unable to work. Entitled to recover for the property damage, loss of profit resulting from its diminished value, but not inability to work (PEL). Denning: Ordinary ppl: insurance or work more. ‘this is a healthy attitude which the law should encourage’ (protestant work ethic, justifying PEL rule)

Question 21

Junior Books

Answer 21

Duty of care – Pure Economic Loss; Real property; C’s architect had D lay the floor. Unusable, had to be relaid. C ≠ K with D. Still sued successfully. C relied on D, D knew, damage caused was foreseeable and direct csq; sufficient degree of proximity

Question 22

Murphy

Answer 22

Duty of care – Pure Economic Loss; Real property; House built on faulty foundations approved by Council. Sold at a loss when cracks to the walls appeared

To hold a local authority to a common law duty of care to avoid putting a purchaser of a house in a position in which he would be obliged to incur such economic loss against policy.

Question 23

D&F Estates v Church Commissioner for England and others

Answer 23

Duty of care – Pure Economic Loss;
General rule: claim for defective product/ premises is a claim for pure economic loss (unless or until physical injury or damage to property results)

If you buy a house that has a hidden defect, and if that defect causes other damage to the house, it is possible to say that damage to the other thing is a physical damage – Complex Structure Theory

But if the hidden defect is discovered before any damage is caused, there is no longer any room for the application of the Donoghue v Stevenson principle.

Question 24

Hedley Byrne

Answer 24

Duty of care – assumption of responsibility; PEL; Advertisers preparing campaign for ©, approached their bank for a credit reference. Gave satisfactory reference w/out checking, © went into liquidation. Sued the bank for negligent advice (failed bc exclusion of liability in reference)
→ duty of care based on a “special relationship” between the representor and the representee.
→ representation in question untrue
→ representor must have acted negligently
→ representee must have relied in a reasonable manner
→ reliance must have been detrimental
Claim for PEL suceeded

Question 25

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates

Answer 25

Duty of care – assumption of responsibility; PEL; Extends principle beyond provision of information/advice. Includes performance of other services. (here: policies)

Question 26

White v Jones

Answer 26

Duty of care – assumption of responsibility; PEL; Lawyers negligently drafted will. Bs lost their inheritance. Thought no K, HoL prepared to identify special relationship with them. Jones had assumed responsibility.
(very limited use of the case)

Question 27

Smith v Eric Bush

Answer 27

Duty of care – assumption of responsibility; PEL; Chimney case; Surveyor failed to advice on structural defect of house. Hedley unhelpful here, only in cases where law deem the maker of the statement to have assumed responsibility; extended Hedley Byrne liability to proximate third parties

Question 28

Caparo

Answer 28

Duty of care – assumption of responsibility; PEL; Audits not for the purpose of taking over company.
In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:

1) harm must be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s conduct (as established in Donoghue v Stevenson),
2) the parties must be in a relationship of proximity, and
3) it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability

Question 29

Stovin v Wise

Answer 29

Duty of care – Omissions; Dangerous intersection, accident. Council had failed to make it safe. No liability for mere omissions

Question 30

Gorringe v Calderdale

Answer 30

Duty of care – Omissions; local Authority failed to paint SLOW on road, accident. No liability. A DoC cannot arise from a broad public law duty.

Question 31

Yetkin v Mahmoof

Answer 31

Exception to no duty of care when omission: Creation of the risk; D = council. Planted shrub at pedestrian crossing, failed to maintain, diminished visibility, accident occurred → Liable

Question 32

Capital Counties v Hampshire

Answer 32

Exception to no duty of care when omission: Assumption of responsibility; Professional rescuers: No duty to rescue, only duty not to make things worse. Here: fire service, no proximity bc DoC owed to public, not D. However, liable for turning off sprinklers.

Question 33

Kent v Griffiths

Answer 33

Exception to no duty of care when omission: Assumption of responsibility; Ambulances: part of health service, DoC owed to particular claimants, not the public at large; ambulance delayed with valid reason

Question 34

Special relationship

Answer 34

Exception to no duty of care when omission: Special relationship; young child released early from school. Run over by lorry during school hours. Liable.

Question 35

Reeves v Commissioner of Police

Answer 35

Exception to no duty of care when omission: Special relationship; Suicidal prisoner case. DoC because special relationship.

Question 36

Exception to no duty of care when omission: Special relationship;

Answer 36

Exception to no duty of care when omission: Occupation of land & Dangerous things; Occupier negligently failed to extinguish fire on his land, spread to neighbour’s property. “Measured duty” on occupiers to remove hazards to their neighbours.

Question 37

Topp v London Country Bus

Answer 37

no duty of care when 3rd parties’ act: Bus company left a bus with the keys in ignition for 8h. 3P steals bus, runs over woman, killed.
→ No DoC owed for acts of 3P (+unforeseeable)

Question 38

Smith v Littlewoods

Answer 38

no duty of care when 3rd parties’ act: Disused cinema owned by ©, trespassers set fire. Damages to neighbouring houses → No duty to prevent vandals causing unforeseeable harm (cf: Lamb v Camden)

Question 39

Home Office v Dorset Yacht

Answer 39

Exception to no duty of care for acts of 3P; special relationship; Boys in a youth detention centre. Brought to island with officers to work. Tried to escape, crashed a boat.
→ Control creates special relationship, entails responsibility