Tort case law. Flashcards
What is Donoghue v Stevenson in Duty of care and negligence.
- found the remains of a
decomposed snail. Mrs
Donoghue developed gastroenteritis and psychological injuries as a result. - Lord Atkin set the test:
- “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour” - this case established the neighbour principle.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
(2018) : Caparo test. (negligence)
- Mrs. Robinson, an elderly woman, was knocked over by a police officer while the police were trying to arrest a suspect. She got injured.
- the Judge applied the caparo test.
Roe v Minster of Health: Unknown risk. (negligence)
Two claimants had been given an anaesthetic for minor operations. anaesthetic had been contaminated with a
sterilising fluid. This resulted in both claimants becoming permanently paralysed it was not
known that the anaesthetic could be contaminated in this way.
- no breach of duty. The risk was not foreseeable as it was an unknown risk at the time.
Bolton v Stone: Small risk. (Negligence)
- Mrs. Bolton was injured when a cricket ball, hit by a player, flew over a fence and struck her while she was standing in her garden. The cricket ground was located near her house, and the ball was hit from the pitch, which was surrounded by a high fence.
A witness said five or six times during the last 30 years he had known balls hit his house or come into the
yard.
- No breach of duty.
Haley v London Electricity Board: known risk. (negligence)
- The claimant, a blind
man, tripped on the punner and fell hitting his head. As a result of the fall he became deaf.
defendant argued they
had done all that was necessary to warn an ordinary person of the danger and there was no need to take extra
precautions for blind persons: Not foreseeable.
- The defendant was in breach of duty. And it was foreseeable of blind person being in the risk.
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council: Justifiable risk. (negligence).
C , a firefighter, was injured while responding to an emergency. The fire service needed a particular piece of equipment, but the jack was not properly secured on the fire engine due to its urgent need. As a result, when the vehicle stopped suddenly, the equipment shifted, and C was injured while trying to move it.
- No breach of duty. The emergency of the situation and utility of the defendant’s conduct in saving a life
outweighed the need to take precautions.
Latimer v AEC Ltd: Practical precautions, (negligence) .
- One worker slipped injured despite the spreading of sawdust
Court held there was no breach of the duty of care, factory owners taken all reasonable
steps to reduce the risk of injury.
One option was to shut the factory, but it was such a small risk remained after the
spreading the sawdust
- Too great a cost to the owners therefore not a practical precaution.
Mahon v Osborne: Re Ipas Ioqutur (additional rule). (negligence).
- Swab was left inside the patient was under the D control
Swabs do not get left inside a patient after operations unless someone was negligent
No other explanation for the swab being left inside the patient. - D was negligent and owed duty of care.
Kent v Griffiths: Establishing Duty of care. was harm/damages reasonably foreseeable?
Kent suffered a severe asthma attack and called for an ambulance. The ambulance arrived later than expected, and due to the delay, Kent’s condition worsened, leading to serious injury. Kent sued the ambulance service for the delay in arriving.
- they owed a duty of care to Kent. Court decided it was ‘reasonably foreseeable ‘ that claimant would suffer some harm
Bourhill v Young: Duty of care, proximate relationship.
Mrs. Bourhill, who was pregnant, was standing at a tram stop when she heard a motorcycle crash. The crash involved Mr. Young, who was driving recklessly and later died from his injuries. Mrs. Bourhill saw blood from the accident and, as a result, suffered shock and gave birth to a stillborn child. She sued Mr. Young’s estate for negligence, claiming the shock caused her injury.
- It was not
foreseeable that C would suffer psychiatric harm as a result of D negligently — D is not liable.
Mcloughlin v O’Brien: Proximate relationship, Duty of care.
The husband of the claimant (C) and their children were involved in a road traffic accident. C, who was home at the time, was informed of the accident When she arrived, she saw her family members, including her children, severely injured. The emotional shock of seeing her family in this state caused her to suffer from severe psychological distress.
- To cover the damages, c needs to be proximate to the event in question. duty of D was confirmed to extend to those who came upon the ‘immediate aftermath’
Capital & Countries Plc v Hampshire County Council: Fair and just to impose duty of care.
- was fair, just and reasonable to recognise a DOC against the fire brigade as it would improve practices in the future
- Fire officer actions substantially increased an existing risk of damage or harm
- by ordering to turn off the sprinklers which cause the fire
- spread - more damage
- Griffiths v Lindsay:
Court decided it’s not fair, just and reasonable to impose DOC on taxi drivers in relation to drunk passengers in this particular situation.
Bolam v Friern Barnett Hospital Committee: Establishing Duty of care. standard of care.
Claimant suffered a broken pelvis while receiving a type of electric shock
• Court decided : hospital followed one of these courses of action
- It had not breached its duty of care
As doctors had taken the same standard of care as another reasonable doctor would have done.
- Bolam Test: which applies to all professional to determine if DOC has been breached
• Consist 2 questions:
- Does the D conduct fall below the standard of reasonable person of that profession?
- Is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course of action taken by the D?
Smith v Leech Brain and Co: Eggshell skull rule.
Claimant lip was burnt on the lip; had existing pre-cancerous condition
Eventually got onset of full cancer and died
Widow: claimant
Court held burnt was reasonably foreseeable injury as of eggshell skull rule
D liable for Claimant death + damage wasn’t too remote
take victim as you find them even though you didn’t known about the
condition
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospitals: Factual causation. introduction of but for test.
- Mr Barnett went to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains and vomiting. The doctor told her to send him home and contact his GP in the morning.
Barnett died five hours later from arsenic poisoning. Had the doctor examined Mr Barnett at the time there
would have been nothing the doctor could have done to save him.
- The hospital was not liable as the doctor’s failure to examine the patient did not cause his death.
- Introduced “but for test”.
Wilsher v Essex Health Authority: Factual causation – multiple causes.
- Baby was born prematurely with an incurable eye condition causing blindness
Claimants argued the cause of this was too much oxygen was administered after the birth. - HOL: said there were 6 possible cases of the condition; claimant failed to prove oxygen was the
substantial cause.
Defendant wasn’t liable.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Service Ltd & others: Factual causation – multiple causes.
three claimants who contracted mesothelioma. Each of the claimants had been exposed to asbestos by a number of different employers.
They were
unable to demonstrate, and medical science was unable to detect, which employer exposed each of them
to the one fatal fibre.
- court decided to split liability proportionately amongst the employers
hold all the employers liable.
Baker v Willoughby: Factual causation – novus actus interveniens.
Mr. Baker was injured in a car accident caused by Mr. Willoughby, leading to serious leg injuries. Later, during a robbery, Baker was shot and his leg had to be amputated. The issue was whether Willoughby was still liable for the amputation.
- The defendant was held to be liable for losses and reduced earnings.
The Wagon Mound: Remoteness of damage.
- Ds were charterers of the Wagon Mound
• Oil leaked from the Wagon Mound but D’s employees let it spread as they thought that the risk of it catching fire
on the water was remote
• When the oil caught fire, C’s wharf (Mort’s Dock) was damaged.
- D was not liable for damage caused by the fire as it was not reasonably foreseeable that the oil would be set
alight on water. - ‘Reasonable Foreseeability test’ comes from wagon mound.
Hughes v Lord Advocate: Remoteness of damage.
- Two young boys, the
claimants, encountered the uncovered and unattended man hole and proceeded to climb down to see inside of it, bringing
with them one of the paraffin lamps left out by the workmen.
The lamp was subsequently dropped and caused a significant
explosion which left both of the boys with extensive injuries from the fire.
- defendant submitted that such an action
would have caused this outcome was deemed unforeseeable. - It was foreseeable that child might explore the site & be burnt by one of the lamps.
Type of injury he suffered was foreseeable even though the explosion itself was no - D is liable for the injury
Wheat v Lacon: establishing of Occupier. OLA 1957.
- A man stayed at a pub owned by the defendant In the pub, there were stairs that didn’t have proper handrails. Man fell down these stairs and was seriously injured.
- The court held that the defendants retained occupation and control of the inn. and were therefore owed a duty of care by the defendant.
- Definition of occupier was established in this case.
Lowery v Walker [1911]: occupiers liability, Implied licensee at common law. OLA 1957.
The Claimant was injured by a horse when using a short cut across the defendant’s field.
land had been
habitually used as a short cut by public for many years and the defendant had taken no steps to
prevent people coming on to the land. The defendant was aware that the horse was danger.
- The defendant was liable.
Taylor v Glasgow City Council (1922): occupiers liability, lawful visitors. OLA 1957.
- A boy of seven years
ate some berries from one of the shrubs. The berries were poisonous and the boy died. The shrub was not fenced
off and no warning signs were present. - Glasgow Corporation was liable. Children were entitled to go onto the land. The berries would have been alluring to
children.
White Lion Hotel v James [2021]: Breached in duty of care, standard of care. OLA 1957.
- Deceased fell from window of hotel. C argued hotel had breached common duty of care
(s.2 OLA 1957) due to faulty window. D had been 60% contributorily negligent as sat on
window ledge – accepted risk of falling.
