Negligence Cases Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson
Original but overruled duty of care principle.
The defendant manufacturer had owed Mrs Donoghue a duty of care not to cause her injury.
Caparo v Dickman
Three criteria must be satisfied.
The damage must be foreseeable.
There must be proximity of relationship between the parties.
It must be fair, just and reasonable for such a duty to exist.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
o The Caparo test is now to be applied in novel situations and not to create or deny duties of care which have been previously found by the courts.
o If you have an established duty situation you should use the case law and do not need to go further.
Stovin v Wise
o The fact that the cause of the accident was the omission of the council to remove the projecting bank of earth, and not a positive act, was a major factor in concluding there was not a duty of care.
Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC
o A fire brigades statutory powers to act could not be converted into a common law duty.
o A brigade was not under a duty to answer a call for assistance nor to take care to do so.
OLL v Secretary of State for Transport
o While attempting to perform rescues at sea the coastguard owed no duty of care in respect of the misdirection of its own personnel or other rescue organisations involved.
Alexandrou v Oxford
o In the absence of any special relationship the police do not owe a duty of care to a shopkeeper to investigate properly when burglar alarms are activated.
Kent v Griffiths
o An ambulance service could owe a duty of care to an individual member of the public once an emergency phone call providing the personal details of the person had been accepted by the service.
o Can be distinguished from the police force and fire service as they serve to protect the public.
o This service was more akin to that which was provided by hospitals to individual patients.
Haynes v Harwood
o The defendant was held to owe a duty of care as he had created a source of danger by leaving his horses unattended in a busy street.
Topp v London Country Bus Ltd
o A driver left his bus along with the ignition keys in a layby near to a pub.
o The bus was stolen and whilst driven by the thief hit and killed the plaintiff’s wife.
o The court of appeal held that no duty of care arose.
o The theft was not a foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence.
o Proximity between the bus company and the deceased was doubtful and it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
o It would appear that it was crucial to the decision that the defendant had not been aware of the nature of the clientele of the pub.
Watson v BBBC
o A governing body of a sport had a duty to insist on arrangements for sporting events, held under its aegis, to ensure proper access to medical aid.
o They had undertaken responsibility for the welfare of all those fighting under the boards rules.
Barrett v Ministry of Defence
o Action arose in a navy base where there was a culture of drinking.
o The plaintiff’s husband collapsed while drunk.
o The duty officer arranged for him to be taken to his room where he was left unsupervised and later died owing to choking on his own vomit.
o The MOD was not held to be under a general responsibility to prevent its employees from excessive drinking.
o When the deceased had fallen ill however a relationship of care had been undertaken leading to a duty.
Surtees v Kingston Upon Thames
o Test of reasonable foreseeability must be decided in relation to the person to whom it has been applied.
o The foster mother had been performing normal household duties and the injury to the claimant wasn’t reasonably foreseeable.
o To hold the foster-parents liable would impose an impossibly high standard to which few parents could measure up.
Harris v Perry
o Impossible to preclude all risk that children might injure themselves or each other.
o Impractical for parents to keep children under constant supervision.
Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis
o The duty a teacher is the same as that of a careful parent.
o In this case they had acted as they might have been expected to and the blame for the accident couldn’t be laid with them.
o The ability of the child to get into the street whilst the teachers back was turned did however indicate some lack of care or precautions which might reasonably be required.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington
o A hospital authority which provides a casualty department owes a duty of care towards persons presenting themselves there complaining of illness.
Goldman v Hargrave
o There is a general duty of care on an occupier of land, on which a hazard to his neighbour arises, to do what is reasonable in the circumstances to remove or reduce the hazard.
Haynes v Harwood
o The defendant was liable for the injury to a police officer who attempted to stop the horses and save a woman and child.
o It was foreseeable that he would attempt to halt the danger.
Baker v TE Hopkins
o Defendant was liable not only in respect of the employees but also in respect of the death of the doctor.
o Was the natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s negligence toward the employees that someone would attempt to rescue them.
Videan v British Transport Commission
o An occupier owed the trespasser a duty to take care not to injure a trespasser whose presence was foreseeable or could reasonably be anticipated having regard to all the circumstances.
o A duty of exercising reasonable care to guard against infliction of reasonably foreseeable injury.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht
o Special facts that justified imposing third-party liability.
Strong relationship of control between the defendant officers and the borstal boys.
Extent of defendant’s duties in terms of both the potential victims to whom they could apply as well as the possible harm covered.
• Limited by the geographical surroundings.
The incident, including the resultant harm, could qualify as highly foreseeable in the circumstances.
• Of relevance was the character of the boys in question, in terms of their tendency to engage in harmful conduct.
o Authority for the existence of a duty to control the actions of a third party to prevent harm being caused to a particular class of victims in situations where:
There is a very strong relationship of authority and control between the responsible defendant and irresponsible third-party perpetrator.
That the claimant comes within a narrowly defined class of potential victims.
That the harm causing conduct of the third party was at least something that was very likely to occur in the circumstances.
Ellis v Home Office
o Duty on those responsible for prisons was to take reasonable care for the safety of those within, including those within against their wish or will, of whom the plaintiff was one.
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
o By taking the man into custody the police had assumed a duty of passing information that might affect his well-being on to the prison authorities.
Reeves v Commissioner for the Police of the Metropolis
o A deliberate act of suicide was not a novus actus interveniens negating the casual connection between the breach of duty and death.
o Though persons of sound mind were generally taken to be responsible for their own actions, in rare situations a duty could be owed to such persons to prevent them from self-harm.
o Duty represented an exception to the rule that a deliberate act by a person of sound mind taking advantage of the defendant’s negligent act would destroy the causative link.
Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
o The police were under a duty to take reasonable steps to identify whether a prisoner presented suicide risk.
o Obligation to take reasonable care to prevent a prisoner from taking his own life only arose where the police knew or ought to have known that the prisoner presented a suicide risk.
Palmer v Tees
o Proximity required for a duty of care as between a hospital and the victim of a patient only arises if the victim is a member of an identifiable at-risk group.
Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority
o A convicted criminal may not sue the Health Authority for failing to take care of him and allowing the commission of an offence.
o It would be against public policy to allow such a claim.
Gray v Thomas Trains
o Due to the claimant’s criminal acts he could not claim damages against the defendant who had admitted negligence.
o If an order for mental detention had been made purely for the defendant’s mental condition and not for the criminal behaviour the maxim might not apply but that wasn’t the case here.
