Tort Law Case Studies

Question 0

McManus v. Beckham (year)

Answer 0

(2001) Victoria Beckham claimed whilst in an autograph shop that one of David’s wasn’t genuine, while press were with her. The shop owner sued for damages to reputation (slander), and was successful as VB should’ve been aware that whatever she had said was likely to be published by the press who followed her.

Question 1

Sheridan v. News of the World (year?)

Answer 1

(2006) Tommy Sheridan was leader of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP). When he resigned in 2004 he cited his wife’s pregnancy as the reason. NOTW alleged that Sheridan had been attending swingers’ clubs at which he had drank (he claimed to be teetotal). Sheridan sued for defamation (libel) and the jury decided that he had been defamed following Sheridan’s protests of innocence (his wife stood by him). NOTW were ordered to pay £200,000 but their editor claimed this implied 18 independent witnesses committed purgery.

Question 2

McAlpine v Bercow (year?)

Answer 2

(2013) Sally Bercow (wife of John), tweeted “why is Lord McAlpine trending? innocent face” in the wake of a sex abuse scandal potentially surrounding the politician. Upon proof of his innocence, McAlpine sued Bercow and it was found that her tweet was defamatory due to the insincerity of “innocent face”. Bercow was ordered to pay damages.

Question 3

Kirk v Gregory (year?)

Answer 3

(1876) Gregory moved Kirk’s jewellery from one room to another where it was stolen. Kirk successfully sued for trespass to goods.

Question 4

Davis v Bennison (year?)

Answer 4

(1927) Davis owned a cat which frequently went into Bennison’s garden. Frustrated, Bennison shoots the cat while it is in Davis’ garden. Davis sues for trespass to land as even though he didn’t go into Davis’ garden to shoot the cat, the bullet travelled through Davis’ airspace. The judge found that this did constitute trespass.

Question 5

Read v Coker (year?)

Answer 5

(1853) Coker’s rent was overdue. When Read came to collect it, Coker and his men surrounded him and threatened to break Read’s neck if he didn’t leave. Read sued for assault (trespass to person) and was successful as the condition attached to the threat was not enough to nullify it.

Question 6

Nash v Sheen (year?)

Answer 6

(1953) Nash went to get waves in her hair at hairdressers’. The chemical they used caused it to go a funny colour and cause a rash, it was found to be battery.

Question 7

Donoghue v Stevenson (year?)

Answer 7

(1932) Donoghue’s friend buys her a ginger bear with her lunch, a snail comes out of the opaque bottle. Donoghue sues but is unsuccessful at first as the contract was not with her (she didn’t buy the drink). After appeals it ends up being discussed by lords who vote 3 to 2 that the company owes a duty of care and that this constitutes negligence.

Question 8

Nettleship v Western (year?)

Answer 8

(1971) Nettleship agreed to teach Weston to drive her husband’s car. She loses control and causes an accident injuring Nettleship. He sues but she argues because she was a learner the court could not expect her to drive like an experienced motorist. The court found that she should have the same expectations, but also that Nettleship was only due half damages due to his partial control and therefore contributory negligence.

Question 9

Caparo Industries v Dickman plc (year?)

Answer 9

(1990) Caparo were preparing for a takeover of Fidelity plc. Following the publication of Fidelity’s accounts by Dickman, Caparo bought shares to discover that they were much less valuable than had been indicated by the accounts. Caparo sued and the issue of duty of care arose. It was decided that there was not sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors for them to owe a duty of care. Subsequently the Caparo 3 stage test was established (see other tort deck).

Question 10

Dorset Yacht Company v Home Office (year?)

Answer 10

(1970) several prisoners on an island, supervised by Home Office employees escaped onto a yacht. They crashed this into another yacht and caused damage. The yacht company sued the Home Office and were initially unsuccessful as courts argued that they were not liable for the actions of the prisoners. The House of Lords reached a different verdict, holding that the damage was foreseeable if proper supervision was not in place.

Question 11

Bourhill v Young (year?)

Answer 11

(1943) Young crashed his motorbike and was fatally injured. After his body was removed, Bourhill encountered the scene and saw the blood which prompted her to faint. Later on, she gave birth to a stillborn child and sued Young’s representatives for the shock caused by the incident. The judge ruled that no duty of care was owed due to insufficient proximity to the claimant.

Question 12

Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (year?)

Answer 12

(1989) following the miser of Jacqueline Hill by the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe goes into to the station himself but they don’t recognise him to be the murderer. Subsequently, the victim’s mother sues the police force for negligence. Judge rules that no ity of care is owed by the police due to the fact that they would have to operate with a “detrimentally defensive frame of mind”.

Question 13

Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucester (year?)

Answer 13

(1998) the police asked Leach to act as an appropriate adult during the interview of Fred West. Leach suffered post traumatic stress disorder. While it was considered that the police should not generally owe a duty of care in negligence to a volunteer supposed to be independent, due to the lack of counselling offered meaning that Leach’s injury was sufficiently foreseeable.

Question 14

Chittock v Woodbridge School (year?)

Answer 14

(2002) the school took Chittock on a school trip, his parents signing to agree that he would be allowed to ski unsupervised. Chittock was warned after skiing off-piste and the teacher threatened to confiscate his ski pass, but Chittock promised not to do it again. After, Chittock was skiing on piste but had an accident and injured his spine. His parents sued for the injury but the judge ruled that the school acted within the course of action of a reasonable parent.

Question 15

Bogle v McDonalds (year)

Answer 15

(2002) Bogle buys a coffee which has a leaking too and scalds himself. He sues but the judge rules that it is reasonable not to have to explain that coffee is hot.

Question 16

Roe v Minister for Health (year?)

Answer 16

(1954) Roe underwent surgery in hospital, anaesthetic was stored in a phenol solution to preserve it. Micro-cracks in the glass allowed the phenol to penetrate and caused permanent paraplegia. While the Minister of Health did owe a duty of care, no breach was proved due to the fact that the scientific advances of the time could not have detected the cracks.

Question 17

Bolton v Stone (year?)

Answer 17

(1951) Bolton lived near a cricket pitch and during a game, a cricketer hit a ball for six out of the park and hit her head, causing injury. When Bolton sued, the judge found that the defendants weren’t liable as no further precautions were practical on the part of the club, who had already put up a fence.

Question 18

Watt v Herefordshire County Council (year?)

Answer 18

(1954) Watt was a fireman. A women was in an accident about 300 yards away and was trapped under a lorry; a heavy lorry jack was required to free her. They fire brigade had the jack but not the vehicle for carrying it, so firefighters loaded it onto the back of a truck. When the fire truck braked, the jack went forward and caused Watt severe leg injuries. The judge found no breach of duty due to the utility of the defendant’s action… It was important in getting to the trapped woman.

Question 19

Wilson v Governors of Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Primary School, Carlton (year?)

Answer 19

(1997) a boy is playing after school when he is hit in the eye by the zip of a coat of another boy. Parents sue the school but as it is not common practice to have staff supervising at the end of the day (when the incident occurred), the school had not fallen below the standard of care.

Question 20

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (year?)

Answer 20

(1950) Paris worked as a mechanic for the council, he was blinded in one eye during the war. He was not given safety glasses for his work so when he struck a stiff bolt with a hammer and metal flew into his good eye, he sued. The judge found that the probability of this happening was small but the consequences were very serious, more seriousness equalling greater requirement of provisions. Paris won.

Question 21

Mansfield v Weetabix (year?)

Answer 21

(1997) the driver of the lorry was unknowingly a diabetic at the time, while driving he had an attack and the lorry careered into Mansfield’s house. The judge found that the driver’s actions did not fall below the standard of care as he could not have known he had diabetes.

Question 22

Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (year?)

Answer 22

(1957) Bolam volunteered for electro-convulsive therapy to cute his depression. The therapy broke his bones. Some doctors in the practice would give relaxant drugs whilst others wouldn’t. The judge found that the hospital was not liable for not using the drugs as he acted in accordance with a proper practice accepted by other medics.

Question 23

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (year?)

Answer 23

(1969) a night watchman is working on New Year’s Eve, he gets sick after a cup of tea and goes to the doctor, who sends him home assuming he is just drunk. The man dies of arsenic poisoning soon after and so although the judge deemed that the hospital was negligent, it was also true that the antidote couldn’t have bee administered in time in any case and the negligence didn’t cause the patient’s death.

Question 24

McWilliams v Arrol (year?)

Answer 24

(1962) Arrol was a building firm, it didn’t provide steel worker McWilliams who fell to his death, promoting his widow to sue. However, even though the safety belts were not on sight at the time, there was evidence to suggest that the worker wouldn’t have worn it anyway and so it was held that the firm’s breach of statutory duty did not cause the death.

Question 25

Hughes v Lord Advocate (year?)

Answer 25

(1963) some workmen left the site of thee work, a manhole, leaving there some parafin lamps. The claimant, a young boy, went onto the site, picked up a lamp but dropped it, causing an explosion that injured him when the lamp came into contact wth the flammable gases in the manhole. The claimant won as even though SUV an event wasn’t foreseeable, the overall danger was.

Question 26

The Wagon Mound (year?)

Answer 26

(1961) the defendants spilt oil in Sydney harbour, 600 feet away from the claimant’s wharf. The claimants stopped welding until they were assured they could continue. When they resumed a spark landed on a piece of cotton in the water, this ignited the oil and cause lots of damage. The court found that they weren’t liable for fire damage as it was not foreseeable because they couldn’t have known that the oil would be flammable on water.

Question 27

Knightly v Johns (year?)

Answer 27

(1981) Mr Johns had an accident in a tunnel, 2 police officers go there and are told by the senior officer to go to the end of the tunnel and close it. When doing this, one officer, Knightly is injured. He sued the driver who hit him, his chief constable and most contentiously, Mr Johns. The judge found that a novus actus interveniens was present through the senior officer’s failure to close the tunnel. John’s was not liable.

Question 28

Smith v Leech Brain & Co (year?)

Answer 28

(1962) a man worked for the company and was required to lift articles into a tank of molten metal. One day a splash came out of the tank and burned his lip. This was the promoting agent of a cancer which eventually took his life. The judge found that the company were liable for the full extent of the damage as they should have had more precautions in place regardless of that condition.

Question 29

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals (year?)

Answer 29

BDH supplied Vacwell with a chemical that explodes in contact with water, without telling them this. The claimant placed the chemical in contact with water and caused massive property damage with an explosion. As property damage was a foreseeable result, the cost was irrelevant and BDH was forced to pay full damages.