Personal injury Flashcards
Watson v British boxing board of control 2000
Micheal 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 provided 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. Meaning no legal liability for their actions no matter what.
Elements of negligence
1 There was a duty of care owed
Proximity of relationship
Reasonably foreseeable harm
Fair just reasonable
2 the duty has been breached
Defendant falls below standard of care
3 the breach of duty caused the damage
Damage was reasonably foreseeable
Duty care case
Established in donoghue v Stevenson the neighbour principle
Legal principle a duty care is owed to your neighbour this is the person who may potentially be injured
By your act or omission.
Caparo v Dickman 1990
The claimant company wanted to overtake 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 take over fidelity limited. 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 the defendant did not owe the claimants a duty of care as the accounts were prepared for fidelity and for statutory reasons.
Caparo test
1 was it the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
2 is there a sufficiently close relationship between the claimant and the defendant
3 is it fair just and reasonable to impost a duty
All three parts need to be satisfied to show a duty of care
Kent v Griffith 2000
An ambulance was called to take the claimant, who was suffering from an asthma attack to the hospital. Despite repeated assurance 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.
Legal principle no public health service can operate without effective ambulance provision
Bourhill v young 1943
A pregnant women 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 motorcyclist. Under the neighbour test at the time she had to prove that she was proximate or close to the motorcyclist to be owed a duty of care. The House of Lords decided that the motorcyclist could not anticipate that, if he was involved in an accident it would cause mental injury to the bystander. He was not proximate to mrs bourhill and she was not owed a duty of care.
Legal principle it was considered that the relationship between the two was not close enough for there to be a duty of care this is to reduce the floodgates of other claims
Mc Loughlin v o brien 1982
In this case, while she was at home, the claimants husbands 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 accident and went to the hospital. She saw her family before they had been treated. As a result she suffered severe shock, 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 her a duty of care and extended the class of persons who would be considered proximite to the event to those who came within the immeadiate aftermath of the event in this case two hours after the accident.
Legal principle the defendant owed a duty of care to the family members this ensures a limited number of claims.
Hill v chief constable of West Yorkshire 1990
In this case a serial killer, the Yorkshire ripper, had been attacking and murdering women in Yorkshire and across the north of England. The claimants daughter was the killers last victim before he was caught. By the time of her death the police already had enough information to arrrest the killer but had failed to do so. The mother claimed 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 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.
Bolam v FRiern Barnet hospital management committee 1957
In this case 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 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 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 bolams case. The court decided that the hospital had followed on of these courses of action it had not breached its duty of care.
Legal principle sets the Bolam test
Bolams test
Does the defendants conduct fall below the standard of ordinary competent member of the profession ?
Is there substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course of action taken by the defendant ?
Nettleship v Weston 1971
Mrs Weston arranged with mr nettleship for 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 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.
Legal principle learners are expected to show the same standard as a competent driver.
Mullin v Richard’s 1998
Two girls aged 15 were play fighting with plastic rulers in class at school. One of the rulers snapped and fragments entered teresa Mullins eye resulting in her losing all useful sight in that eye. The court decided that the other girl Heidi Richard’s had to meet the standard of a 15 year old girl and not that of a reasonable adult. As she had reached the required standard she had not breached her duty of care.
Legal principle children are added against the standard of a reasonable person of the same age.
Risk factors
Has the claimant any special characteristics that should be taken account of ?
What is the size of the risk?
Have all appropriate precautions taken place ?
Were the risks known about at the time of the accident ?
Is there a public benefit to taking the risk?
