PLS II cases Flashcards
Kays tutor v Ayrshire & Arran Health Board 1987 SC (HL) 145
suspected meningitis in child, given an adults dose of penicillin (overdose) immediate action taken but child became deaf. DAMNUM INJURIA DATUM, CAUSAL LINK. ALSO FACTUAL CAUSATION/CAUSA SINE QUA NON
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board 2000 SC (HL) 1
failed vasectomy, husband advised that sperm count was negative but then wife fell pregnant. they tried to sue for the cost of raising a child. EXCEPTIONS, PURE ECONOMIC LOSS
Bourhill v Young 1942 SC (HL) 78
woman alighting from tram, motorcyclist, driving negligently causing a collision, and a person died. the woman could not see the accident, but she heard it, and claimed she suffered ‘nervous shock’ and a miscarriage. DUTY OF CARE OWED, REASONABLY FORSEEABLE
Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC (HL)
tea urn being carried through tearoom got dropped, Muir amongst some children got severely burnt. did manageress owe duty of care? just because they were given permission to be in the tearoom doesnt mean it was reasonably forseeable that harm would come to the children. DUTY OWED, REASONABLY FORSEEABLE
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL
The deceased and his assailant, Mr Drummond, were tenants of Glasgow City Council. At a meeting with the Council, Mr Drummond was advised that the Council were considering issuing a further notice for recovery of possession. Mr Drummond reacted by losing his temper and becoming abusive although apologising shortly after. After leaving the meeting Mr Drummond fatally assaulted the deceased.
The family claimed that the Council was guilty of negligence at common law for failing to fulfil their duty of care owed to the deceased by warning him that the meeting was taking place thereby allowing him to take steps to avoid an attack. It also claimed that the Council acted in a way that was in breach of the deceased’s right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).
REASONABLY FORSEEABLE, PROXIMITY
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53
The plaintiff’s 20-year-old daughter was attacked at night in a city street and died from her injuries. The defendant was a chief constable of the area in which the street was located. The attacker was convicted of the murder of the daughter and had allegedly committed a number of offences of murder against young women in the same area over a period of years The plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant for negligence on grounds that having investigated the previous cases of murder in the area, the police had failed to apprehend the attacker and prevent the murder of her daughter. REASONABLY LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE DEFENDERS CONDUCT
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
The claimant was injured after a ball from a neighbouring cricket pitch flew into her outside her home. The cricket field was arranged such that it was protected by a 17-foot gap between the ground and the top of the surrounding fence. Balls had been known to get over the fence and land in people’s yards, but this was rare, making the strike which hit the claimant exceptional. The claimant sued the cricket club in the tort of negligence for her injuries.
held that it was not in breach of duty. CALCULUS OF RISK, PROXIMITY
McKillen v Barclay-Curle & Co ltd 1967 SLT
THIN SKULL RULE
Waugh v James K Allan Ltd 1964
driver of a lorry became unwell and died at the wheel. his lorry swerved and mounted the footpath hitting a pedestrian. no breach as there wasnt voluntary conduct/ he was a 44 year old man that looked health so it wasnt reasonably foreseeable that he would take ill/die. FORESEEABILITY, CAUSATION, VOLUNTARY CONDUCT.
Nettleship v Weston [1971]
The claimant was a friend of the defendant and was teaching her to drive. Prior to such an arrangement the claimant had sought assurances from the defendant that appropriate insurance had been purchased in the event of accident. On the third lesson the defendant was executing a simple manoeuvre at slow speed when she panicked which resulted in the car crashing into a lamppost injuring the claimant. The defendant was subsequently convicted of driving without due care and attention. STANDARD OF CARE
Lamond v Glasgow Corporation 1968
a pedestrian on the path alongside a golf course was struck by a gold ball. no one had ever been hit before but 6,000 get played out onto the footpath. this then constituted a breach as it was likely that a person could be walking past at the same time that a ball was hit out. PROBABILITY OF INJURY, STANDARD OF CARE
Paris v Stepney BC [1951]
The claimant had suffered damage to one of his eyes in war. He was employed in a garage, but was not provided safety goggles while working with dangerous equipment. As a result, he was blinded when a piece of metal hit him in his undamaged eye. he sued for negligence. there was negligence present. POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE OF HARM IF INJURY OCCURS, STANDARD OF CARE.
St George v Home Office [2008]
prisoner known to suffer from epileptic seizures was going through withdrawals from alcohol and heroin. prison officer allocated him the top bunk in a cell. he had a seizure and was injured. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE OF HARM IF INJURY OCCURS, STANDARD OF CARE.
brisco v sofs for scotland 1997
A prison officer was engaged in a simulated riot situation in the exercise of his duties with the prison service. During the course of the simulated riot a heavy fencepost had been dropped on to the officer which resulted in him sustaining injury to his left foot. The officer thereafter brought an action of reparation against the Secretary of State for Scotland in which he argued that the dropping of heavy items in the simulated riot condition was not reasonably required during training in order to enable officers to perform well in an actual riot. The Secretary of State argued that although injury was foreseeable, the magnitude of risk was small and that, given the clothing worn by the officers, the risk of serious injury being sustained was remote. PRECAUTIONS/REASONABLY FORSEEABLE
Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953]
factory flooded, floor became slippery, employer covered all of the floor bar one part in saw dust. an employee slipped and was injured on the small pice of floor that wasnt covered. defendants had breached duty of care. PRECAUTIONS, REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
Collins v First Quench Retailing Ltd 2003
an employee working alone was present during an armed robbery, as a result the employee suffered depression and ptsd. defendant was negligent and payed 179k in damages to mrs collins. PRECAUTIONS, FORESEEABLE RISK
Harris v Perry [2008]
child playing on a bouncy castle, another older child decided to do a somersault whilst the parents had their backs turned resulting in the other childs skull being hurt. parents of the older child liable for not taking adequate precautions or setting the standard of conduct for the bouncy castle. STANDARD OF CARE, FORSEEABILITY
Anderson v Imrie [2018]
eight year old was seriously injured in an accident at Hillhead Farm in East Dunbartonshire. A heavy gate fell on the pursuer causing injuries to his skull and brain. the pursuer saught damages from the defenders, Mr John Imrie and his wife, Mrs Antoinette Imrie, on the basis that the accident was caused by their failure to take reasonable care for his safety. STANDARD OF CARE, REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY.
Brown v Rolls Royce 1960
An employee contracted dermatitis. The employers provided adequate washing facilities but they did not provide a barrier cream that was commonly used in the industry. They were not negligent in not providing the barrier cream because it could not be shown in the case that using the cream was guaranteed to prevent the condition. COMMON/USUAL PRACTICE, REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS
McWilliams v
Archibald Arrol
& Co (1962)
The claimant was an experienced steel erecter who fell 70 feet to his death from a steel tower he was working on. His employer had failed to provide him with a safety harness and his widow sought damages at common law and for breach of statutory duty for failing to provide appropriate safety equipment, given the height at which her husband was working. The trial judge held breach of duty was established but the claimant would not have worn a belt even if one had been provided, her claim, therefore, failed on causation. The widow appealed. FACTUAL CAUSATION, CAUSA SINE QUA NON
Barnett v
Chelsea &
Kensington
Hospital
Management
Committee
[1969]
The facts of the case involved three night watchmen who fell ill after drinking tea laced with arsenic at the hospital’s staff canteen. They were taken to the hospital’s casualty department for treatment, but the doctor on duty failed to examine them thoroughly and simply sent them home. One of the men died later that night from arsenic poisoning. However, it was unclear that even if he had been admitted to the hospital he would have survived. The deceased’s widow sued for negligence. BUT FOR TEST, FACTUAL CAUSATION, CAUSA SINE QUA NON
McTear v
Imperial
Tobacco Ltd
(2005)
Alfred McTear sued Imperial Tobacco Limited (ITL), claiming that his lung cancer was caused by smoking cigarettes manufactured by ITL. After Mr. McTear’s death, his widow pursued the case. Mrs. McTear claimed that throughout the period during which her husband smoked, ITL was negligent in selling cigarettes or in selling them without appropriate warnings. The Court ruled in favor of ITL because the Mrs. McTear could not prove that her husband was not aware of the dangers associated with smoking and thus she had failed to establish the elements necessary for a successful claim. Significantly, the Court held, among other things, that there is no causal connection between smoking and disease FACUTAL CAUSATION/CAUSA SINE QUA NON
Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958)
The plaintiff visited a public lavatory, owned by the defendant – a local authority. She locked the door, but when she tried to get out, she could not as the lock was stuck. The plaintiff unsuccessfully tried to attract attention for 15 minutes. Then she decided that she could get out of the lavatory by climbing over the door. To do this, she stood with one foot on the toilet seat and the other on the toilet roll holder, whilst holding onto the door and a pipe with her hands. The plaintiff realised that this method of escape was not possible. On climbing down, the plaintiff again placed some weight on the toilet roll holder, which rotated and she fell to the ground, sustaining injury. The plaintiff sued the local authority for negligence. The county court held that the defendants were negligent, but dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on grounds that the damage to the plaintiff was too remote. NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts
In the course of his employment, the complainant had suffered injuries, which meant his left leg could give way underneath him. A few days after the incident and while in his recovery, the complainant tried to come down a set of steep steps, which did not have a handrail. His injured leg gave way beneath him and he attempted to jump the remaining 10 steps. However, he fell down the stairs and suffered injury. He severely fractured his ankle and was left with a disability. While the employer was negligent and liable for the initial injury, the new action by the complainant was a novus actus interveniens that broke the chain of causation. The complainant had taken an unreasonable risk that could not be foreseen and the defendant could not be liable for the ankle injury. NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS
Kyle v P&J Stormonth-Darling 1993
failure to launch court appeal papers, whole appeal was abandoned- loss of chance to advance his claim- deprivation of legal right REMOTENESS, LOSS OF CHANCE
Campbell v F&F Moffat 1992
The pursuer was forced to give up his job as a result of consequences suffered in a road accident. Two years later, the mill he used to work in was closed down with employees receiving redundancy payments.
In the litigation for the road accident damages, a claim was included for this redundancy payment.
The court held that the redundancy and subsequent payment were too remote and speculative to be decreed as direct consequences of the accident. REMOTENESS
Gregg v Scott [2005]
The claimant, Gregg, noticed an unusual lump under his arm and subsequently sought a medical opinion regarding it. His doctor incorrectly and negligently diagnosed the lump as benign. In fact, the lump was a malignant cancer which was not discovered for a further nine months, resulting in a sizable delay in when the claimant begun receiving the correct treatment for the lump. In this nine months the claimant’s medical condition had significantly worsened and the lump grown considerably. Expert medical testimony suggested that had the lump been correctly diagnosed at the claimant’s original appointment, he would have had an approximately 42% chance of survival; however, by the time at which his lump was actually correctly diagnosed, the likelihood of his survival had decreased to 25%. Moreover, the delay had limited the range of treatment options available to the claimant. no remedy simply for
reduction in the chance of recovery from illness
LOSS OF CHANCE, REMOTENESS
McDyer v The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited 2000
man was sitting on a wall watching the opening ceremony of a football game when a plank of wood fell from the stadium and hit his hand causing him to fall off the wall and injure himself. he sued both the football club and the company. both were liable under the occupiers liability act. the court held that the club was responsible for this. OCCUPIERS LIABILITY
Ward v Tesco Stores [1976]
woman was doing her shopping and slipped on some spilt yoghurt that hadnt been cleaned up. the shop were inevitably liable for this. OCCUPIERS LIABILITY
Dawson v Page 2003
The pursuer was unable to get to the defender’s front door because a trench had been dug between it and the road. There were obstructions at the back of the site, but planks had been laid out to walk on. There had been a lot of rain. The pursuer attempted to deliver the parcel by walking along the planks to reach the back door of the property. The defender was not at home, and so the pursuer left a card with his details asking the defender to call him. The pursuer attempted to deliver the parcel on a second occasion by means of the back door and was again unsuccessful. On the pursuer’s third attempt to deliver the parcel, as he was leaving the property he slipped on the planks and fell. The Lord Ordinary found that the plank was not a danger against which the defender should have taken precautions. The Lord Ordinary found that if the plank were to be regarded as a danger, there was no requirement on the defender to exclude people from the site, since the danger was easily avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and the risks, if any, posed by the danger were small. OCCUPIERS LIABILITY
Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]
cinema due to be demolished, some people entered and set it on fire causing a lot of damage, court determined that although Littlewood owned the property they could not reasonably foresee this event taking place
Titchener v British Railway Board 1984
The appellant was struck by a train and was very seriously injured. This had taken place whilst the appellant was crossing a railway line between two suburban stations. This route had to be accessed by climbing an embankment and cutting through a gap in a fence. The fence had fallen into disrepair and had not been maintained by the respondent. The appellant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, claiming that the accident was caused by a failure to maintain the fence. The trial judge found for the respondents. OCCUPIERS LIABILITY, DUTY OF CARE ON OCCUPIERS, VIOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA.
Taylor v Glasgow Corporation 1922
a child was visiting botanic gardens and ate berries on one of the bushes. berries ended up being poisonous. there was no signage to say berries were poisonous. court determined that not enough steps had been taken to inform the public of the risks of the berries. DANGERS, DUTY OF CARE, OCCUPIERS LIABILITY.
Tomlinson v Congleton [2004]
a man broke his neck whilst swimming in a lake, in this case there were signs saying not to swim in the lake. court decided that the owners/company didnt need to take anymore steps to make the public aware of the dangers. DANGERS, DUTY OF CARE, OCCUPIERS LIABILITY.
Michael Leonard v The Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority [2014]
A 12 year old boy injured whilst going down a hill. they werent able to determine where he had fallen or how he was injured. the court determined that the park hadnt breached their duty of care. DANGERS, DUTY OF CARE, OCCUPIERS LIABILITY.
Taylor Neilson Barratt v Spice Lounge (Scotland) Ltd 2017
The pursuer was a 17-year-old woman who fell and seriously injured her arm and jaw when walking along a private roadway at the back of the defender’s restaurant at night. The route was intended to provide access for restaurant deliveries. She could have walked along the public pavement which was well lit. Her route was, however, a known shortcut for pedestrians. The pursuer claimed that a combination of the road being uneven and inadequately lit rendered the route dangerous. the court determined that there was sufficient lighting on the road therefore the restaurant fulfilled its duty of care, the court also disclosed that even is liability had been awarded they would have reduced damages by 70%. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
Various Claimants v The Institute of the Brothers of Christian Schools [2012]
A group action of 170 claimants had successfully claimed that between 1958 and 1992 they were sexually abused by Brother James Carragher, and various others, at the St William’s school. The Catholic Child Welfare Society (CCWS, a charitable company, referred to as the ‘Middlesbrough defendants’) supplied the teachers and managed the school directly. The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (IBCS), an unincorporated association, also controlled where its ‘Brothers’ taught.
The Court of Appeal found that the CCWS was liable, but the IBCS was not jointly liable. CCWS appealed to the UK Supreme Court, contending that IBCS should also be vicariously liable. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016]
The claimant managed the prison kitchen with four other members of staff and around twenty prisoners. During a negligent incident, a prisoner dropped a bag of rice on the claimant’s back causing injury. The claimant sought an action against the Ministry of Justice upon the basis that they were vicariously liable for the acts of the prisoner. it was determined that the ministry of justice were liable. VICARIOUS LIABILITY, THE CONTROL TEST.
