Tort (Damage/Causation) Flashcards
Donoghue V Stevenson (1932)
C went for a drink with her friend and found a decomposing snail in her ginger beer. She suffered from physical and psychological injuries.
She sued the manufacturer and it was held that ‘you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions […] Likely to injure your neighbour.
Caparo V Dickman (1990)
C wanted to take over a company and looked at accounts provided by D. C then bought the company without realising the poor financial condition, suing D for the loss.
HoL set a 3 stage test for owing a duty of care.
What is the 3 stage test for duty of care according to Caparo V Dickman 1990?
Was damage reasonably foreseeable?
Is there a sufficient proximate relationship?
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
Kent V Griffiths (2000)
Ambulance failed to arrive in reasonable time to take a claimant to hospital. Claimant suffered from a respiratory arrest.
Held that this was reasonably foreseeable.
Bourhill V Young (1943)
A pregnant woman got off a tram and witnessed a small amount of blood from a motorcycle accident. She sued the late cyclist’s family for causing a miscarriage.
Held that the relationship was not proximate enough.
Hill V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990)
A serial killer had killed C’s daughter. C sued the police for failing to protect her.
Held that the relationship between C and police wasn’t proximate enough as it is unreasonable for the police to owe a duty of care to the public.
Haley V LEB (1964)
D was an electricity company who dug a trench and only put out warning signs as a minimum safety measure for the public. C was blind and fell into the trench.
Held that this was reasonably foreseeable as blind people often used the road, so D should have put out more measures.
Mullin V Richards (1998)
Two girls aged 15 were play-fighting with plastic rulers and one snapped in C’s eye.
Court decided D had to meet the standard of a 15 year old girl not that of an adult, thus she did not owe a duty of care.
Watt V Herefordshire County Council (1954)
D was a fireman on call to rescue a trapped woman from underneath a lorry. To do this he needed a jack but there wasn’t a vehicle that could carry it so they used a flatbed truck but couldn’t secure the jack so it slipped and fell on C.
It was held that the need to save a life outweighed the precautions.
Bolton V Stone (1951)
A cricket ball hit a passer by in the street outside a cricket ground. Since there was a 17-foot fence around the grounds and rare incidents of balls going over the fence, a duty of care was not breached.
Latimer V AEC (1953)
A worker was injured when the factory flooded. Sawdust was spread all over the floor to prevent slipping yet one worker slipped and injured himself.
It was found that the only way to prevent injury would have been to close the factory for a while, which was too extreme a response for a small problem.
Paris V Stepney Borough Council (1951)
C was known to be blind in one eye. He was given work that involved risk of injury to the eyes and was given no protection. His good eye was damaged by a small piece of metal and he became blind.
Held that since the employers knew of this condition, they failed to provide a duty of care.
