Negligence Flashcards
Caparo v Dickman
A novel duty situation arises when there is:
(1) reasonable foresight of harm
(2) sufficient proximity of relationship
(3) it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
Donoghue v Stevenson
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour
Neighbour are persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question
The Nicholas H
Held not to be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on a non-profit-making society of maritime surveyors
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
The police was held not to owe a duty of care to any individual as their duty is to the public at large
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
Here the police was held to owe a duty of care to the prisoner, as the police had assumed responsibility towards him. The claimant was not a mere member of the public, but someone who had been entrusted to the care of the police
Osman v UK
To grant an immunity to the counterpart can constitute an infringement of the right to a fair trial (art. 6 ECHR).
The approach of English courts was held in Z v UK not to breach art 6 ECHR
The police might have a duty to take positive action to protect an individual’s right to life (art 2 ECHR) where they were aware of a ‘real and immediate risk’
Brooks v Commissioner of the police for the metropolis
The police cannot generally be held liable for careless conduct in investigating crime
Osman v Ferguson
(With reference to Hill) The relevant policy considerations still apply even where the police has received advanced warning that a particular individual posed a danger to the plaintiffs
Bourhill v Young
Passer-by walks to the accident scene and suffers shock and miscarriage –> No duty of care owed to the passer-by because she was not a foreseeable victim
Haley v Lonodn Electricity Board
Blind man walked into a hole –> the duty of care owed by persons excavating a highway was to ensure the reasonable safety of all persons whose use of the highway was reasonably foreseeable
Stovin v Wise
The highway authority knows that a junction is dangerous and a traffic accident happens –> no duty of care owed to road-users to alleviate the danger
East Suffolk Rivers v Kent
Sea wall was breached. Defendant has no duty, but a statutory power to repair it. It took a long time to repair it. Q: liability for teh extra period of flooding? –> No. If no duty is owed, even careless intervention triggers no liability, unless intervention makes matters worse
Home Office v Dorset Yacht
Boys with previous criminal record damage a yacht –> Home Office held liable because it had control over the boys
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation
An occupier’s duty does not extend to keeping his premises locked up so securely as to prevent vandals getting in and damaging adjoining property.
The crucial point was that the defendants did not have any control over the vandals who were breaking in (note differences with Dorset Yacht)
Bolton v Stone
The relevant standard of care is that of an ordinarily careful man in the defendant’s position
Bolam v Friern Hospital
Doctors must meet the standard of their profession. This principle applies to everyone who exercises a special skill
Nettleship v Weston
Here the court adopted the standard of a qualified driver, instead of the less demanding standard of the learner driver
Wells v Cooper
A householder who attempts a job normally done by a professional is negligent if the job should not even have been attempted without appropriate training
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
The standard is tailored to the task or post, not to the doctor’s individual level of experience
Mullin v Richards
A child defendant will be expected to show such care as can reasonably be expected of an ordinary child of the same age
Paris v Stepney BC
In assessing the standard of care the magnitude of the risk must be taken into account (facts: half-blind worker loses his other eye)
Latimer v AEC
In assessing the relevant standard of care, the cost and practicability of precautions must be taken into account. Facts: workers slipped on slippery floor, due to previous heavy storm. Decision not to close down the relevant part of the factory held to be reasonable on a cost-benefit analysis
Watt v Hertfordshire
In assessing the relevant standard of care, the purpose of the defendant’s activity must be taken into account. If human life is at stake, a defendant may be justified in taking abnormal risks
Re The Herald of Free Enterprise
A commonly accepted practice can be held to be negligent. Facts: cross-Channel ferry sank. Practice not to check whether bow door is closed before setting sail
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
But for test: but for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the harm to the claimant have occurred?
Bonnington v Wardlaw
(Swing grinders/pneumatic hammer case) In a multiple cause case the claimant does not need to show that the defendant’s breach of duty was the only cause of the damage to the claimant, or even the main cause. The claimant simply has to show that it materially contributed to the damage
McGhee v National Coal Board
In cases of scientific uncertainty, it suffices for the claimant to show that the defendants had materially increased the risk of teh claimant contracting dermatitis
Holtby v Brigham
Claimant developed asbestosis over a period of time during which he had worked for several different employers. He sued one of them –> claimant succeeded, as the employer had made a material contribution to his damage
Fairchild v Glenhaven
(mesothelioma case) Where two or more employers have caused the harm, but it cannot be said because of scientific uncertainty who among them caused the harm, the claimant is entitled to recover against both employers
Scott v Shepherd
defendant threw a firework in a crowd; X and Y pick it and threw it away; eventually the claimant was injured –> no actus interveniens, because instinctive reaction
Knightley v Johns
accident at the end of the tunnel. Police inspector orders the claimant (a constable) to drive back against the traffic. Claimant is injured –> intervening act by the police inspector
McKew v Holland
The defendant’s negligence had weakened the claimant’s leg. When the claimant descended a steep staircase without handrail, his leg gave way and he suffered further injuries –> claimant acted unreasonably and broke the chain of causation
Wieland v Cyril
defendant had injured the claimant, who was fitted with a neck-collar. Consequently the claimant fell down the stairs –> no intervening act, as the claimant acted reasonably
The Wagon Mound (1)
the test for remoteness of damage is one of reasonable foreseeability –> if a reasonable person would not have foreseen the damage it cannot be recovered.
Remember the two provisos!
Hughes v Lord Advocate
First proviso to Wagon Mound: similar in type rule. Facts: boy falls in a hole and suffers bad burns due to paraffin lamp explosion
Robinson v Post Office
Second proviso to Wagon Mound: egg-shell skull rule
Smith v Baker
A worker knowing of a certain risk does not accept it merely because he continues working
Haynes v Harwood
rescuers do not accept the risk if they act under a compelling (moral) duty and their conduct in all the circumstances is reasonable and a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s negligence
Pitts v Hunt
A claim must fail when the character of the enterprise is such that it is impossible for the court to determine the appropriate standard of care
Froom v Butcher
Contributory negligence seatbelts
Capps v Miller
Contributory negligence crash helmets
OWens v Brimmel
Contributory negligence drunken drivers
Goughv Thorne
Contributory negligence children
BAker v Hopkins
Contributory negligence rescuers
Murphy v Brentwood
Economic loss suffered acquiring a defective item of property is not recoverable
Spartan Steel v Martin
Only consequential economic loss, i.e. loss following from physical damage to property belonging to the claimant, can be recovered. (Opposition to pure economic loss)
Hedley Byrne v Heller
A duty of care arises in a case of negligent statements causing pure economic loss when there is a special relationship between the persons giving and receiving the advice
Caparo v Dickman (economic loss)
Assumption of responsibility is present when: (1) the adviser knew the purpose for which the advice was required (2) the adviser knew the advice would be communicated to the advisee (3) the adviser knew that the advisee was likely to act on the advice without independent inquiry (4) the advice was acted upon by the advisee to its detriment
Chaudhry v Prabhakar
no duty of care will be owed in respect of advice given in social situations because there is no assumption of responsibility
Spring v Guardian Assurance
Extension of Hedley Byrne to cases where the negligent statement was not made to the claimant (former employer reference case)
White v Jones
Duty of care owed by a solicitor to potential beneficiaries under a will he was delayed in drafting
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates
A claimant can rely on a claim in tort even though he also has a contract with the defendant
Smith v Bush
When assessing reasonableness of a disclaimer the factors in Sch 2 UCTA 1977 should be taken into account
Page v Smith
A primary victim is someone who was actually involved in the accident. He either was in the actual area of danger or he reasonably believed to be in danger.
Primary victims are owed a duty of care in relation to their pure psychiatric harm provided the risk of physical injury was foreseeable
Alcock v South Yorkshire Police
Secondary victims can recover their psychiatric harm only if (1) basic conditions for primary victims are fulfilled (2) psychiatric harm was foreseeable (3) proximity of relationship (4) proximity in time and space (5) proximity of perception
McLaughlin v O’Brian
Proximity in time and space held to be present (claimant arrived at the hospital one hour after the accident and saw her family in oil and mud)
White v South Yorkshire Police
With regard to psychiatric harm, a rescuer does not hold a special status. Same rules for primary/secondary victims apply
