Negligence (personal Injury) Flashcards
Watson v British Boxing Board of control (2000)
Michael Watson was injured during a boxing match and suffered severe brain injuries. He claimed from the board, arguing that if proper medical facilities had been at ringside, his injuries would have been less severe. The Court of Appeal decided, using the Caparo Test, the board owed him a duty of care as it was the responsible body for licensing professional boxing.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)
Two policemen were having a violent struggle with a suspect they were trying to arrest. This struggle resulted in them knocking over the claimant, who was an old lady. She claimed damages from the police for her foreseeable personal injury caused by their negligence. The Court rejected the previous judgement that the police had complete immunity.
- Duty of care: Legal Principle: A duty of care is due to your neighbour.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The fiend bought her a drink of ginger beer and ice cream. The bottle of ginger beer had dark glass so that its contents could not have been seen. After drinking some of it, Donoghue poured the rest out and then saw and then saw that it contained a dead snail. Because of the impurities in the drink she suffered both physical and psychological injuries. She wanted to claim for her injuries. As she had not brought the drink she could not use the law of counteract to sue the café or the manufacturer. She suede the manufacturer in negligence, claiming that they were at fault in the manufacturing process and that they owed her a duty of care.
- Duty of Care: Legal principle: set out the precedent for the Caparo Test (duty of care)
Caparo v Dickman (1990)
The claimant company wanted to take over another company- Fidelity Limited. They looked at the statutory accounts prepared for Fidelity by the defendant, which showed a profit. Based on these books they decided to takeover Fidelity. After completing the purchase they looked at the detailed books which showed a loss. They sued the defendant for their loss. The House of Lords set the three stage test for owing a duty of care. They decided that the defendant did not owe the claimants a duty of care as the accounts were prepared for Fidelity and the statutory reasons.
Damage or harm foreseeable?
Kent v Griffiths (2000)
An ambulance was called to take the claimant, who was suffering an asthma attack, to hospital. Despite repeated assurances by the control centre, and for no obvious reason, the ambulance failed to arrive within a reasonable time. As a result the claimant suffered a respiratory arrest. The court decided it was ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that the claimant would suffer further illness if the ambulance did not arrive promptly.
- Duty of care: Proximity relationship - Legal principle: Proximity of relationship - not close enough to have a duty of care.
Bourhill v Young (1943)
A pregnant woman heard the sound of an accident as she got off a tram. The accident was caused by a motor cyclist who died in the accident. After a short while she approached the scene of the accident and saw blood on the road. She suffered such shock from what she saw that she later gave birth to a stillborn baby. She sued the relatives of the dead motor cyclist. Under the ‘neighbour’ test at the time she had to prove that she was proximate, or close decided that the motorcyclist could not anticipate that, if he was involved in a accident, it would cause mental injury to a bystander. He was not proximate to Mrs Bourhill and she was not owed a duty of care.
- Duty of care: proximity of relationship- Legal Principle: The defendant owes a duty of care to family members.
McLoughlin v O’Brain (1982)
The claimants husband and children were involved in a serious road accident. The accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant lorry driver. One of the children was killed at the scene and the other family members were taken to hospital. The claimant was told of the treated. As a result she suffered severe shock and, organic depression and a personality change. She claimed against the defendant for the psychiatric injury she suffered. The House of Lords decided that the lorry driver owed a duty of care and executed the class of persons who would be considered proximate to the event to those who came within the immediate aftermath of the event.
- Duty of care: Fair, Just, and reasonable to impose a duty
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990)
A serial killer, the Yorkshire ripper, had been attacking and murdering women in Yorkshire and across the north if England. The claimant’s daughter was the killer’s last victim before he was caught. By the time of her death the police already had enough information to arrest the killer, but had failed to do so. The mother claimed that the police owed a duty of care to her daughter. It was decided by the House of Lords that the relationship between the victim and the police was not sufficiently close for the police to be under a duty of care and that it was not fair, just or reasonable for the police to owe a duty of care to the general public. The police knew that the killer might strike again but they had no way of knowing who the victim might be.
- Breach of Duty: Legal principle: Sets the precedent for the Bolam test.
Bolam V Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957)
The claimant was suffering from a mental illness and the treatment at the time was to be given a type of electric shock (ECT). He signed a consent form but was not told of the risk of broken bones while receiving the shocks and was not given relaxant drugs. He suffered a broken pelvis while receiving the treatment. There were two opinions within the medical profession when using ECT. One opinion favoured the use of relaxant drugs in every case. The other was that drugs should only be used if there was a reason to do so, which was not present in Bolam’s case. The court decided that as the hospital had followed one of these courses of action it had not breached its duty of care.
- Breach of Duty: Legal Principle: Learners are expected to show the same standard as a competent drivers.
Nettleship V Weston (1971)
Mrs Weston arranged with Mr Nettleship for him to give him to give her driving lessons. She was on her third lesson and failed to straighten up after turning a corner. She hit a lamppost which fell on the car, injuring Mr Nettleship. The court decided that Mrs Weston should be judged at the same standard of the competent driver, not at the standard of the inexperienced learner driver, and she had breached her duty of care to Mr Nettleship.
- Breach of Duty: Legal Principle: Children are assessed against the standard of a reasonable person of the same age.
Mullins V Richards (1998)
Two girls, aged 15, were playing-fighting with plastic rulers in class at school. One of the rulers snapped and fragments entered Teresa Mullin’s eye, resulting in her losing all useful sight in that eye. The court decided that the other girl, Heidi Richards, had to meet the standard of a 15 year old school girl, and not that of a reasonable adult. As she had reached the required standard, she had not breached her duty of care.
- Breach of duty: special characteristics
Paris V Stepney Borough Council (1951)
Mr Paris was known to his employer to be blind in one eye. He was given work to do which involved a small risk of injury to the eyes. He was not given any protective goggles. While doing this work, his good eye was damaged by a small piece of metal and he became totally blind. His employers were held to have broken their duty of care to him.
- Breach of duty: size of the risk- Legal Principle: when there is a higher risk of injury, the more precautions should be taken.
Bolton V Stone (1951)
A cricket ball hit a lady passer by in the street outside a cricket ground. The evidence was that there was a 17 foot high fence around the ground and the wicket was a long way from the fence. There was also evidence that cricket balls had only been hit out of the ground six times in the 30 years before the incident. Because of the number of times es balls had been hit out of the ground, it was found that the cricket club had done everything it needed to do in view of the low risk, and it had not breached its duty of care.
- Breach of duty: size of risk- Legal Principle: the higher the risk, the higher the standard of care.
Haley V London Electricity Board (1965)
The electricity board dug a trench for its cables and, following its standard practise, it only put out warning signs; it did not put any barriers around the trench. The claimant was blind and was injured when he fell into the trench. As it was known that particular road was used by a number of blind people, greater precautions should have been taken and the defendant had breached its duty of care.
- Breach of duty: Appropriate precautions: Legal principle: There is a breach if sufficient steps have been taken to prevent injury.
Latimer V AEC Ltd (1953)
The claimant worked in the defendants factory and slipped on the factory floor. The factory had become flooded due to adverse weather conditions. The defendants had put warning signs, mopped up and placed sawdust in the most used places to make it as safe as possible. The trial judge held that there had been a breach of duty as the defendants should have closed the factory if it was unsafe. However, no argument had been advanced on this. There was no breach of duty. There was no duty to close the factory. The defendant only had to take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk which they had done. There was no need to go to great expense to eliminate any possible risk and thus no obligation to close the factory.
