negligence & nervous shock Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
Lord Atkins established neighbour test - “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure those who are so closely and directly affected by you act that you ought to have them in your contemplation when doing acts or omissions”
Bourhill v Young 1943
driver did not owe a duty of care to the pregnant lady as it was her own “morbid curiosity” that brought her to the scene
Caparo Industries v Dickman 1990
established proximity test - reasonably foreseeable harm, sufficient proximity, just fair & reasonable to establish duty
Watson v British Boxing Board 2001
the boxing board owed the boxers a duty of care to supply adequate ringside medical care
Smolden v Whitworth & Nolan 1997
referee had a duty of care to stop collapsed scrum in rugby game
Calvert v William Hill 2008
gambling shop did not owe a duty of care to stop an addict from opening up a new account
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 2008
police owed a duty of care to society as a whole, not just to the last victim of the Yorkshire Ripper
Blyth v Birmingham WaterWorks 1856 `
Baron Alderson - “negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club 1933
Greer - the reasonable man is “the man on the Clapham omnibus”
Glasgow Corp v Muir 1943
Macmillan - the reasonable man is “presumed to be free from both over apprehension from over confidence”
Nettleship v Weston 1971
learner drivers owe the same duty of care as qualified drivers
Haley v London Electricity Board 1964
the board owed more of a duty of care to make people in the blind area more aware of the hole - visual awareness not enough
Bolton v Stone
the 17ft wall around the cricket ground limited the likelihood of the risk of the ball going over (5 times in 40 years)
Paris v Stepney BC
the magnitude of risk towards the one eyed welder was much greater so they owed more of a duty
Watt v Hertfordshire CC
(reason for taking risk) social utility outweighed the risk
Latimer v AEC Ltd
the sawdust on the wet floors was enough as anything else would have meant they had to close so the practicality outweighed cost
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957
as long as there are a percentage of people in the same profession who would do the same, there is no breach of duty
Gates v McKenna 1998
the hypnotist had done the same as everyone else so despite the flashbacks, there was no breach
Phillips v Whiteley 1938
piercer used same sterilization techniques as others in the same profession so there was no breach
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis 1955
those working with children have a higher standard of care
Mullin v Richards 1998
children will be compared to children of the same age
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee 1969
claimant had too much arsenic for the hospital to be able to save him even if they had have checked him when he first got there
Wilshire v Essex HA 1987
it could not be proven that the baby was born blind due to the maladministration of oxygen under causation
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services 2002
compensation was reduced due to contributory negligence
The Wagon Mound 1961
established that claims are allowed for “reasonably foreseeable consequences of the breach” - not reasonably foreseeable
Bradford v Robinson Rentals 1967
foreseeable damage even if extreme (frostbite)
Morris v Murray 1990
consent used as a defence as the man agreed to get in the plane
Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority 1997
doctors can be negligent even if they acted the same way as everyone else if courts felt they had not weighed up all pros and cons
Roe v Ministry of Health 1954
reasonable standard of care will be assessed on medical knowledge at the time
Scott v London St Catherine’s Dock
showed principle of res ipsa loquitur
Mahon v Osborne 1939
showed principle of res ipsa loquitur
Cassidy v Ministry of Health 1950
showed principle of res ipsa loquitur
Chester v Afshar 2004
doctor liable for failing to warn of small chance of paralysis on policy grounds
Reilly v Merseyside Regional HA 1994
“nervous shock must be something more than a cup of tea can cure”
Tredget v Bexley HA 1994
argued in court that their grief was no more than any other parent would have suffered
Dulieu v White & Sons 1901
primary victim after horse flew into window
Vernon v Bosley 1997
successfully claimed after watching his children drown due to the negligence of the nanny
Hambrook v Stokes 1925
thought lorry was going to hit kids - “the cause of action, as i have said, appears to be created by breach of the ordinary duty to take reasonable care to avoid inflicting personal injuries, followed by damage, even though the type of damage may be unexpected - namely shock”
Hinz v Berry 1970
“in order to draw the line between sorrow and grief and recoverable psychiatric illness, estimate how much the plaintif would have suffered if they were 50 miles away & compare with how much was suffered by being present at the trauma”
Owens v Liverpool Corp 1933
questionable claim after family witnessed coffin fell over in funeral parade (body didn’t fall out)
Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co 1951
successful claim after crane fell towards workmates
King v Phillips 1953
unsuccessful claim after taxi reversed over childs bike (mother thought he was on bike) 70 yards away
Hale v London Underground 1992
rescuer able to claim for london underground fire as he could not have been trained for that
Chadwick v British Railways Board 1992
able to claim as primary victim despite being a rescuer and not a direct witness to incident
Mc Farlane v EE Caledonia 1994
classed as bystander despite trying to rescue workmates from oil rig
McLoughlin v O’Brien 1982
able to claim as secondary victim as she witnessed husband and children in same state they would have been at scene of accident
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1992
identified who can claim successfully - primary victims & secondary (proximity time and space, proximity relationship, result of witnessing event or immediate aftermath, immediate & “sudden appreciation of a horrifying event”)
Simmons v British Steel 2004
successful claim due to egg shell skull rule & remoteness
Taylor v Somerset HA 1993
not a secondary victim (saw husband after heart attack) as she asked to see him
Duncan v British Coal 1990
claim failed after coal miner witnessed colleague being crushed & trying to rescue
Greatorex v Greatorex 2000
failed based on policy grounds (family relationship)
