Tort Cases Flashcards
Donoghue v. Stevenson
Her friend buys faulty ginger beer, not her. Sues factory not café & succeeds. Establishes a duty of care between customer and manufacturer.
Wisher v. Essex
She incorrectly performs a procedure. Sets the precedent that experience doesn’t matter, everyone held to the same standard (act not the actor). However - liability may be limited if help is sought from someone more experienced, like she did so.
Roberts v. Ramsbottom
He went driving & caused an accident but it was due to a stroke that he had no idea about. Sets the standard that you are not liable if you don’t know about the medical impairment (i.e. acting like a reasonable driver).
Mansfield v. Weetabix
While he was medically impaired - and knew about it - the driver crashed into a shop. Was liable. Compare with Roberts v. Ramsbottom.
Nettleship v. Weston
Learner driver causes an accident. Sets the standard that one must act as a reasonable driver on the road - no matter their experience (act not the actor).
Caparo Industries v. Dickman (Caparo Test)
To determine duty of care. Foreseeability of harm, relationship of sufficient proximity & fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. Only needed without a precedent (i.e. Nettleship v. Weston)
Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
Advance this area of law in an incremental way. Heavily use & build upon established authority.
Cassidy v. Ministry of Health
Medical professionals owe a duty of care to patients once they have accepted them for treatment.
Baker v. T.E. Hopkins & Son Ltd.
Dr Baker knowingly descended into a well with poisonous fumes to rescue two workers and died due to fumes. Dr Baker was owed a duty of care as it was reasonably foreseeable that someone would rescue the workers in danger.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
The police owe a duty of care to the public to protect them from reasonably foreseeable
physical injury when carrying out an arrest.
Watson v. British Boxing Board of Control
Boxer expected reasonable medical assistance to be available immediately in the case of serious injury. He consented to the fight & danger (volenti non fit injuria) - he did not consent to breaching duty of care or poor planning on the part of the BBBC. Injury (brain damage) - foreseeable; defendant - assumed responsibility; imposing a duty - fair, just & reasonable.
Smith v. Littlewoods Organisation Ltd.
Standard set of no duty imposed on a failure to act (i.e. failing to rescue a stranger drowning) barring any exclusions and no duty for the actions of third parties barring exclusions
Stansbie v. Troman
Defendant (decorator) breached his duty of care by failing to shut the doors to the house (omission). Burglars subsequently entered and robbed the claimant. Duty of care & breach by omission established. If you fail to perform a contractual duty, this may create a duty avoid omissions.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
He attempted suicide, failed and sued police for breach of duty of care. Held that police owed a duty to prevent a prisoner taking his own life as there was a high degree of control over the prisoner when he was placed in their care & a high risk of this. Where the defendant has sufficient control over the claimant (i.e. parent over child) there is a duty avoid omissions.
Barrett v. Ministry of Defence
Naval officer helped victim when he got drunk. Victim later choked to death on his own vomit. As officer assumed responsibility, he breached his duty of care. Where defendant assumes responsibility for claimant there is a duty of care to avoid omissions.
Goldman v. Hargrave
Naturally occurring fire occurs. Defendant should’ve taken reasonable steps to mitigate but did not. Wind reignited fire and caused damage to claimant’s land. Defendant liable. Where defendant creates the risk, they are liable for omissions & have a duty of care.
Kent v Griffiths & Others
Set the standard that ambulances must respond to a 999 call within a reasonable time. However, the ambulance service can exercise discretion to deal with a more pressing emergency.
Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Coun
Firefighter ordered a sprinkler system at the fire be turned off. Fire worsened. Fire brigade do not have to attemd but they have a duty to not make things worse through a positive act.
Alexandrou v Oxford
Police owe no duty of care to respond to emergency calls but can owe other duties.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht
Defendants left borstal boys in their care unsupervised. Borstal boys escaped island with claimant’s yachts and damaged them. Defendants liable due to sufficient proximity between claimant & defendant. Standard where there is sufficient proximity between defendant and claimant.
Swinney v. Chief Constable of Northumbria
Claimant was police informer who gave information based on the condition she was kept anonymous. Her police file was negligently left unattended and subsequently stolen. She was harassed and thus, suffered psychiatric illness. There was sufficient proximity between claimant (her) & defendant (police). Police liable.
Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Mother of last victim of Yorkshire Ripper sued police. He had been questioned by police & then released; subsequently murdered her daughter. No duty of care imposed as there was not sufficient proximity between claimant (mother) and defendant (police).
CN and GN v Poole Borough Council
Liability of a public authority is in principle the same as that of a private person, in terms of positive acts & omissions. Even if council had the power to take the children into care, insufficient to show the council had a duty to do so.
Phelps v. Hillingdon London Borough
Local authority psychologist misdiagnosed claimant’s dyslexia as a child. Duty of care owed as local authority assumed responsibility for a child’s educational needs & breached as they failed to provide appropriate education.
Jebson v. Ministry of Defence
Drunk claimant soldier injured returning from night out organised by camp commander. Claimant (soldier) injured whilst trying to climb onto moving lorry. Commander assumed responsibility and breached by allowing him to get hurt by failing to provide transport & supervision.
Mulcahy v. Ministry of Defence
The army do not owe a duty to soldiers in battle conditions (during active combat)
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Sets the standard of what ‘duty of care’ is. To live up to this: someone does not have to do everything possible to prevent harm. Rather, they have to reach the standard of what a reasonable person would do.
Glasgow Corporation v Muir
Determining what a reasonable person is - is an impersonal test. The reasonable man is presumed to be free both from over-apprehension and from over-confidence.
Condon v. Basi
A higher degree of care would be required of a first division footballer than of a local league player. Standard of care differs within competitive sports objective in differing sets of circumstances.
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (Bolam Test)
Claimant treated for depression. Went through electro-shock therapy without muscle relaxants as using & not using were both respected medical opinions at the time. Suffered fractured pelvis. Defendant not liable as acted responsible at the time. Sets the standard that one must act as a responsible professional (responsible doctor, lawyer, architect etc.) when acting in this role and purporting to have this skill set.
Mullin v. Richards
Claimant and defendant (15 year olds) engage in a play fight at school with plastic rulers. A piece of ruler hits claimant in the eye. Defendant not liable as she acted like a reasonable 15 year old & wouldn’t have foreseen the risk. Sets the standard for a child to act like a reasonable child of the same age (i.e. 15 year old).
Bolton v. Stone
Claimant injured by cricket ball hit outside cricket ground. Ground had a 7ft high fence around it & it only happened 6 times in last 30 years. Defendant not liable as reasonable person wouldn’t have guarded against every risk. Highlights factor of likelihood of harm - the more likely someone is to get injured, the more likely there will be a breach.
Haley v. London Electricity Board
Blind claimant fell down a hole dug in pavement by claimant. Defendant didn’t take precautions to protect blind people. Likelihood of harm to blind people was not small nor should it have been. Defendant liable. The more likely someone is to get injured, the more likely it is that there will be a breach.
Paris v. Stepney Borough Council
Claimant only had one good eye, as known by his employers. He had no protective googles and became blind after metal went into his eyes. Risk of injury was small but magnitude of injury was immense and so greater care should’ve been taken to protect his eyesight. Defendant liable. If any injury that may occur would be serious, greater care will be needed than if the risk was of a more minor injury.
Latimer v. AEC Ltd
Defendant’s factory floor was slippery. Defendant took some precautions by laying down sawdust but claimant still slipped. More effective precautions were unreasonable - shutting the factory down or employ many more people. Defendant not liable. To satisfy the duty of care, a defendant need only act reasonably. If it would be unreasonable to require the necessary precautions, even against a clearly foreseeable risk, court will accordingly not impose liability
Watt v. Hertfordshire County Council
Fireman injured by lifting equipment required which had not been properly secured in transit. However, risk of injury was small, and the ultimate aim of saving life justified taking the risk. Where life is at stake, abnormal risks may be justified. This is not a blanket exemption for the emergency services. One must consider the benefit of the defendant’s conduct and potential benefits to safety against possible damage/risk.
Ward v. L.C.C
Though there can be reduction of liability based upon the benefit od the defendant’s conduct is not a blanket exemption for emergency services. Fire authority was held liable for damage caused by going through a red light on the way to a fire.
Roe v. Minister of Health
State of the art defence. Take into account the time period/context & if they acted like a reasonable professional. Claimants suffered paralysis from waist down after iniected with anaesthetic contaminated with phenol used to keep the ampoules disinfected. Unfair to expect them to know of or expect the danger at the time (1947) as it was up to date at the time. Defendant not liable.
Wooldridge v. Sumner
When defendant is participating in sport, demands of the game will be prominent and they are likely to take risks in the heat of the moment. Nothing short of reckless disregard for the claimant’s safety would constitute a breach.
Watson v. Gray
There would be a breach if a reasonable participant (of the defendant’s level) would have known there was a significant risk that what they did could result in serious injury.
Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (‘But For’ Test)
Establishes the ‘but for’ test. Patient drank poisoned tea. Doctor failed to carry out a proper exam & patient died. Even if the doctor had examined him, however, he still would’ve died. Doctor not liable.
Chester v. Afshar
Standard set for how to apply ‘but for’ when the breach is a failure to advise. Surgeon failed to disclosure minute risk of paralysis. Claimant suffered paralysis in one leg. Claimant proved she would not have had the surgery had she been warned (‘but for’). Defendant liable.
Bonnington Castings v. Wardlaw
Departs from ‘but for’ test. Sets a standard of how to approach a case when there are multiple, cumulative factors for the loss. Claimant developed respiratory disease due to exposure of dust at work. Some dust was tortious, some was to be expected. However, by proving the tortious dust materially contributed & made a more than negligible contribution to the loss, he succeeded. Defendant liable.
Bailey v. Ministry of Defence
Due to claimant’s weakness, she choked on her vomit & suffered brain damage. Weakness caused by natural progression (non-tortious) & negligent lack of care (tortious). Cumulative factors & the tortious factor had a material contribution. Defendant liable.
McGhee v National Coal Board.
Departure from ‘but for’ test, reliant on material increase in risk, failed to prove this. Claimant developed dermatitis due to exposure to brick dust. This brick dust was not tortious. However, there was no suitable washing facilities so it was on his skin longer than needed (tortious). However, it couldn’t be proven that this tortious exposure had a material impact. Defendant not liable.
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.
Claimant worked for several employers who all exposed him to asbestos. Twenty five years later, he developed mesothelioma. Unable to say who caused it. All defendants (employers) liable.
Hotson v. East Berkshire Health Authority
Establishes loss of chance. Child fell from a tree and broke his leg. Hospital negligent in treatment and child left paralysed. 75% chance he would have been paralysed anyway. Defendant not liable. Loss of chance doesn’t often apply to medical negligence or personal injury but has been used in pure economic loss cases.
Allied Maples Group v. Simmons & Simmons
Loss of chance in pure economic loss case. Claimant lost the chance to negotiate a clause in a contract due to solicitor’s failure to advise. Causation = successful as the claimant proved there was a real and substantial chance the seller would have agreed to the clause.
Fitzgerald v. Lane & Patel
Apportionment & failure to take responsibility for claimant’s own safety. Claimant crossed road at a pelican crossing when he shouldn’t. First defendant driver collided with him. He was thrown from the bonnet and hit by a second defendant. Both defendants had been negligent, but the claimant was also at fault. Impossible to say which of the two collisions had actually caused the injuries, or to what extent. 25% of loss imposed on 1st driver, 25% imposed on 2nd driver, 50% not recoverable due to claimant’s own negligence.
Performance Cars v. Abraham
One way to view multiple sufficient causes. Arguably, if there is no additional damage as shown here, the second party will likely not be liable. Where there is more than one defendant, each of whom passes the ‘but for’ test for distinct separate losses, but one of their actions comes after the other, consider multiple sufficient causes. Claimant’s Rolls Royce was negligently damaged & they successfully got damages but similar damage occured two weeks later. As it required the same treatment, no damages could be recouped.
Baker v. Willoughby
Another way to view multiple sufficient causes. Both defendants will be liable for their individual tortious acts if breach is established. Potentially, like here, first defendant may be liable for both breaches depending on the circumstances (i.e. ability to pay). However, Baker may be confined in of itself. Due to defendant’s negligence, claimant suffered a leg injury. Subsequently, claimant was shot in a robbery and his injured leg had to be amputated. Robbers could not be found. Defendant found to be liable on both counts and needed to compensate accordingly.
Jobling v. Associated Dairies
Defendant liable for damage only up to the natural event (potentially novus actus) & not any following damages/loss/consequences.
Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v. Royal Norwegian Government
Knightley v. Johns
Wright v. Cambridge Medical Group
McKew v. Holland & Hanmen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd.
Wieland v. Cyril Lord Carpets
The Wagon Mound (No. 1)
Bradford v. Robinson Rentals
Tremain v. Pike
Hughes v. Lord Advocate
Vacwell Engineering v. BDH Chemicals
Smith v. Leech Brain
Lagden v. O’Connor
Reeves v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Morris v. Murray
Dann v. Hamilton
Smith v. Charles Baker & Sons
Owens v. Brimmell
Sayers v. Harlow UDC
Jones v. Boyce
Gough v. Thorne
Harrison v. BRB
St George v. Home Office
