Negligence: Duty of care - special harm

Question 1

Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000]

Answer 1

Dyslexia: illness (developing). Local authorities (LA) liable due to non-diagnosis and no help for all of school life.

Question 2

Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd [2007]

Answer 2

Asbetos iasymptomatic pleural plaques which can cause deformed lungs and is very dangerous. Can develop into a fatal disease. No symptoms yet so held to be no personal injury. Potential victims must wait.

Question 3

Dulieu v White and Sons [1901]

Answer 3

Miscarriage caused by shock when horse-drawn van negligently driven into bar. D caused strong fear which led to illness despite no physical injury. Definition of a primary victim is reasonable fear for one’s own health and safety

Question 4

Page v Smith [1996]

Answer 4

Expands the definition of a primary victim. There was a collision: personal injury foreseeable but only property damage caused. C suffered aggravated recurrence of pre-existing myalgic encephalomyelitis. C didn’t fear for safety/life, yet suffered shock because passenger was a family member.

Question 5

Chadwick v British Railways Bd [1967]

Answer 5

Volunteer rescuer living near scene of rail disaster. Ran to help and helped all night. Eventually became ill out of mental trauma and exhaustion. C can be treated as a primary victim because there is a strong human compulsion to help. Furthermore, he was in constant danger because the wreckage could have fallen on him at any time.

Question 6

Frost v CC S.Yorkshire [1999]

Answer 6

Hillsborough disaster claim by police officer who wasn’t in area of physical danger. Held that in Chadwick there was a physical danger of collapsing wreckage. Rescuers have no special category, must be primary victims and have reasonable fear for one’s own safety. no special DoC owed by emergency services to their employees. Unsuccessful claim as not in fear for health and safety.

Question 7

Bourhill v Young [1949]

Answer 7

C heard crash but did not see it and was not in area of danger. Suffered shock causing stillborn child. Claim rejected as D did not owe a duty of care to C

Question 8

McCoughlin v O’Brian [1983]

Answer 8

Witnessed the ‘immediate aftermath’. Family of claimant severely injured and one died, yet C didn’t see the accident. Expanded DoC to secondary victims. Conditions: close ties with immediate victim and witnessing the immediate aftermath.

Question 9

Taylor v A.Novo (UK) Ltd [2013]

Answer 9

Shock by witnessing mother’s collapse and death caused by injury 3 weeks earlier. Not successful as not immediate. Must be close relationship of love and affection

Question 10

Brice v Brown [1984]

Answer 10

Mother and daughter in car accident. Mother developed neurotic condition for fear for her daughter; neither injured or at risk so unsuccessful claim.

Question 11

Attia v British Gas PLC [1987]

Answer 11

C witnessed her home being engulfed in flames. No immediate danger to anyone. Claim accepted as the negligent engineer owed her a duty of care via a contract.

Question 12

Alcock v Chief Constable of S.Yorkshire Police [1991]

Answer 12

Hillsborough disaster case that confirms McCoughlin. Close ties of love and affection between C and immediate victim.
Sufficient ‘immediate aftermath’
‘Normal fortitude’ requirement
Policy trying to limit number of claims

Question 13

McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd [1994]

Answer 13

Piper Alpha oil rig disaster. Horrific nature of event doesn’t dispense Alcock controls. Workers on boat towards oil rig saw explosion and knew friends had died. No love/affection so not a victim.

Question 14

Hatton v Sutherland [2002]

Answer 14

Work-related stress; no immediate victim/fear. Psychiatric harm can be compensated due to employers’ duty to protect. ‘Normal fortitude’ does not apply.

Question 15

Leach v CC Gloucestershire

Answer 15

Serial killer case and young worker exposed to horrific details of his confessions. Became ill and won her case.

Question 16

Al-Kandari v JR Brown and Co [1988]

Answer 16

Negligence of solicitor who didn’t get the right order. Ex-husband then took the children abroad and mother became ill.

Question 17

McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999]

Answer 17

Child born healthy:
Insufficient sterilisation; pain and suffering and immediate expenses covered for inconvenience. However, not right to give compensation for birth as it’s not an injury, it’s a blessing. However, private autonomy has been violated.

Question 18

HL Parkinson v St James Hospital Trust [2001]

Answer 18

Child born disabled:

Similar principle to McFarlane, yet more money given for the upbringing of the child. Low degree of foreseeability

Question 19

McKay v Essex AHA [1982]

Answer 19

Duty of care owed to unborn child?:
Mother had rubella so high risk of child being disabled. Doctor didn’t check so no option of abortion. Claim raised on behalf of the child - doctor owed duty of care not to be born - injury?
Impossible to accept that death is better than life with disability so claim was unsuccessful.

Question 20

Greystoke Castle, The [1947]

Answer 20

Exceptional case that allowed for compensation of economic loss. Property damaged so fisherman suffered loss of earnings. Was a unique/one-off case do can’t really make exceptions for joint ventures.

Question 21

Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964]

Answer 21

Third-party refused to pay back money and claimant never got money. Donoghue and Stevenson is about physical injury, so should not be expanded.

Question 22

Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd v Martins and Co Ltd [1973]

Answer 22

Claimants have a problem as damage not their property. Only physical damage can be claimed. Not loss of profit - physical damage can be more limited. If purely economic; not compensated. Not C’s own property, then not pure economic loss.

Question 23

Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd [1986]

Answer 23

Could get compensation for market value of lobster; but not from additional loss of profit.

Question 24

Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995]

Answer 24

C employed in insurance and wanted to change. Must get positive reference for this position. Employer gave a mistaken negative reference and C couldn’t get new job. Duty of care and liable to the person for future loss of earnings.

Question 25

White v Jones [1995]

Answer 25

Solicitor owed DoC to third party receivers of will.

Question 26

Sebry v Companies House and another [2015]

Answer 26

Creditors told director falsely that his company had gone bankrupt. Was there a DoC for not making an error/loss? Accepted that there was due to dependence and diligence.