Negligence Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Mrs Donoghue and her friend went into the Wellmeadow Cafe in Paisley owned by Mr Minchella. Mrs Donoghue’s friend ordered two ice creams and two bottles of ginger beer. The bottles of ginger beer were not of clear glass type where it was possible to see contents. Mrs Donoghue poured the contents of her bottle of ginger beer over ice cream and remains of decomposed snail slid out from the ginger beer bottle. Mrs Donoghue also claimed she had suffered a psychiatric injury as a direct result of her experience. She did not have a contract with Mr Minchella, the cafe owner, as her friend has purchased the ginger beer. The bottle had been sealed from the time it left the manufacturer. Mrs Donoghue argued that a manufacturer of goods owed to a duty of care to anyone who might use the products.
HELD: manufacturers owed a duty of care to anyone who might use their products and suffer loss, injury or damage as a direct result. Manufacturers must make sure that their products are safe when they leave the factory. The ginger beer manufacturers Mrs Donoghue personally would use their product, but they know that someone would use the product and be harmed if it contained impurities like the remains of a decomposed snail.
Bourhill v Young (1942)
Young was speeding along Colinton Road in Edinburgh on a motorcycle when he collided with a care and was killed. The occupants of the car were injured as a result of the crash. Mrs Bourhill, a pregnant fishwife, was getting off a tramcar that Young had passed just minutes before he hit the car. Mrs Bourhill did not personally witness the accident happening. However, rather foolishly, after hearing the noise from the crash, made her way up the road to see what had happened. Mrs Bourhill saw the wreckage from the crash and bloodstains on the road. She claimed this sight and noise had caused her to suffer a psychiatric injury (PTSD), which resulted in her miscarrying her pregnancy.
HELD: by the House of Lords that Young did not owe duty of care to Mrs Bourhill. Young was certainly negligent in the way he drove his motorcycle at a dangerous speed. Any reasonable person ought to have known that if Young lost control of his vehicle there was a great risk of him colliding with other road users who were nearby. Furthermore, there was every chance that these road users who were in the path of the collision would suffer injury or damage to their property as result of Young’s failure of driving safely. Mrs Bourhill was no where near the scene of the accident and was therefore not planed in immediate danger by Young’s behaviour. A person as sensitive as Mrs Bourhill claimed to be should not have rushed up the road to see the aftermath and had placed herself in a dangerous position.
Hunter V Hanley (1955)
The pursuer was injured as a result of a doctor breaking the hypodermic needle that was being used to administer the injection. The pursuer claimed that she had been injured due to the doctor’s negligence. At first instance, the pursuer’s civil action failed - mainly because the judge had misdirected the jury by stating that the doctor’s conduct would have to amount to something like gross negligence in order to establish liability. The pursuer appealed against this decision.
HELD: by the inner house of the court of session that the doctor had fallen below the requisite standard of care and was, therefore, liable for injuries suffered by the pursuer. Lord President Clyde established the following test for medical negligence claims: 1. the pursuer must show that there is a usual and normal medical practice; 2. the pursuer must show that the defender failed to follow or adopt this practice; and 3. the pursuer must show that the course of action taken by the doctor is not one that a professional person of ordinary skill would have followed if he had been acting with ordinary care.
Hughes V Lord Advocate (1963)
The defenders had statutory authority to open a manhole in Edinburgh street for the purpose of carrying out repairs to telephone cables located below the street. The defendants workers placed a brightly coloured tent over the manhole and surrounded it with paraffin warning lamps. The workers led the manhole unattended at approximately 5 pm on a winter’s evening. The pursuer, who was 8 years old, and his uncle, who was 10, decided to enter the tent and go down the manhole. They took one of the paraffin lamps to light their way. When they re-emerged from underground, one of the boys knocked the lamp into hole, which caused a huge explosion. The force of the explosion caused the pursuer to fall back into the hole and suffered several injuries. Both the court of session at first instance and on appeal dismissed the pursuer’s claim for damages. The pursuer appealed to the house of lords.
HELD: by the house of lords that the defenders were liable for the pursuer as the accident was completely foreseeable and reasonable precautions had not been taken to guard against the harm that had occurred. Lord Pearce referred to the tent and paraffin lamps as a dangerous allurement that had been left unguarded. Lord Pearce went on to say although the exact ship of the disaster was hard to predict, all the elements were present: a partially closed tent, the lamps, the ladder, a cavernous hole - ‘a setting well fitted to inspire some juvenile adventure that might end in calamity’
Hedley Bryne Ld v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964)
Hedley Bryne were advertising agents and Heller were merchant bankers. Hedley had a client, Easipower, who was a customer of Heller. Hedley hd contracted with Easipower to run an expensive advertising campaign and they wished to know if Easipower had the funds in the bank to meet the advertising bill. Hedley approached Heller, as Easipowr’s bankers, to confirm that it had money to pay the bill in its bank account. Heller confirmed that Easipower was solvent. Admittedly, Heller said the value of the work that Hedley was proposing to carry out with Easipower’s behalf was bigger that anything it had ever seen in the account. Heller also said that the reference was given without any liability. Relying on the reference, Hedley went ahead with the campaign and assumed personal liability for the advertising costs. Later, Easipower became insolvent leaving £17,000 in advertising cost still owed to Hedley. Heller was sued by Hedley for issuing negligent advice.
HELD: by the house of lords that, luckily Heller, the disclaimer excluded the duty of care that it would normally have owed to Hedley. However, if Heller had failed to issue the disclaimer it would have been liable to Hedley despite the fact there was no contract or fiduciary relationship between them.
Spring v Guardian Royal Assurance plc (1994)
The pursuer, an ex-employee of GRA was prevented from gaining new employment in the insurance industry because Guardian Royal provided a prospective employer of the pursuer with a negligent employment reference. The reference claimed that the pursuer had committed fraud while he had been working for Guardian Royal. This was not true; the pursuer had merely been incompetent in carrying out his duties for GR.
HELD: by the house of lords GR owed the pursuer a duty of care and it was foreseeable that he would suffer harm as a result of the negligent reference. Clearly, the pursuer and GR has a soecial relationship - that of employer and employee
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)
Caparo owned a large number of shares in a company called Fidelity. Caparo wished to take over Fidelity and bought more shares in the company. When the takeover bid has succeeded, Caparo discovered that Fidelity was practically a failed company. Caparo claimed that it only launched the takeover bid because it relied on figures provided by Fidelity’s auditors in their annual report, which by law has to be carried out. This report claimed that Fidelity had made good profit, but this was not the case. Caparo sued the auditors for not exercising reasonable care when drawing up their report.
HELD: by the house of lords that the auditors’ report was drawn up as requirement od law to provide existing shareholders with important information about the company. The report was not the benefit of outsiders who wished to invest in the company nor existing shareholders who wished to increase their holding in the company. Lord Bridge stated that there was no special relationship between Caparo and the auditors. The auditors did not know that their report was being relied upon by Caparo to guide in its decision to buy more shares. Lord Bridge admitted, that there may be situations where the defender knows the information that he has provided will reach the pursuer and that the pursuer will rely upon it for a specific purpose and that it will be reasonably foreseeable that reliance upon this information will cause loss to the pursuer
Smith v Leech Brain & Co (1962)
The pursuer, who was employed as a galvaniser, was splashed with molten metal as a result of the defender’s negligence and he suffered a serious burn to his lip. The pursuer had a pre-cancerous condition that the burn triggered off and he went on to develop cancer. The pursuer later died as a result of the cancer and his widow raised an action against the defender for negligence.
HELD: Lord Parker, found the defender to be liable for all the consequences of his negligence to the pursuer.
