Vicarious And Occupiers Liability And Defences Case Studies Flashcards
Century Insurance Co v Northern Ireland Traffic Board (year?)
(1942) the claimant, working for the defendant drives a petrol lorry and while transferring petrol to an underground tank, lot a match for his cigarette and damaged himself. Because the defendant is profiting from this work and it happened in the course of work, they are liable.
Mattis v Pollock (year?)
(2003) Pollock employed a bouncer at his night club who previously chucked out 2 men. When on another night, the bouncer saw the 2 men, he assaulted them. Upon seeing this, Mattis tried to pull the bouncer away, several other customers surrounded the bouncer who then had to flee. When he came back to the club he found Mattis and stabbed him in the back. The case reached the court of appeal, where a judge ruled that because this attack resulted from events that transpired within the course of work, vicarious liability was established and so the owner, Pollock was liable.
Rose v Plenty (year?)
(1976) Plenty was a milkman who despite the signs in the depot saying children weren’t allowed on milk floats, did so and soon after, Rose (the child in question) was injured due to the negligent driving of Plenty. The Court of Appeal eventually found that the company was liable as even though Plenty acted out of his code of employment, he was acting within the course of his work and so vicarious liability was established.
Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd (year?)
(1961) Hilton and others for a company took the work can to go for a drink at lunch. On the way back, a driver crashed the can and Hilton was killed. His wife sued the company, arguing that they were vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence. However, the judge ruled that as they were on “a frolic of their own” in their lunch hour, the company couldn’t be liable.
Darby v National Trust (year?)
(2001) Darby went swimming in an NT pond with his kids, other NT ponds nearby had signs prohibiting swimming. Darby got into trouble and drowned. His wife sued, claiming that a warning should’ve been in place. She was unsuccessful as the judge ruled that the danger of the water should’ve been obvious.
Cole v Davis-Gilbert (year?)
(2007) Davis-Gilbert was responsible for the village green. After the removal of the maypole there, the hole it left was filled in but the filling was removed by an unknown third party. Cope sued when she fill in it and was injured but the judge found that Davis-Gilbert was not liable as he acted in accordance with a reasonably high standard of care.
Taylor v Glasgow Corporation (year?)
(1922) GC owned a botanic garden in Glasgow at which a 7 year old boy ate some poisonous berries and died. GC was liable as they had not put up warning signs and it was found that the berries could’ve been alluring to children.
Scott v Associated British Ports (year?)
(2000) Scott, a teenager was train surfing on the property of ABP and was subsequently trespassing when he fell and was injured. The claim ruled that there was no occupiers’ liability as the presence of a fence wouldn’t have deterred Scott and he knew the risks he was taking by train surfing.
Cotton v Derbyshire Dales District Council (year?)
(1994) Cotton goes for a walk at Matlock Spa (it has cliffs). A sign at one entrance warns people to remain on the footpath but there was no sign where Cotton entered. He strayed from the footpath and fell off a cliff, injuring himself. He tried to sue for the inadequate warnings but the judge ruled that he knew about the cliffs anyway so a warning would not affected the outcome. DDDC were not liable.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (year?)
(2003) a disused quarry owned by the council was now a lake. It wasn’t safe for swimming and had a fence around it. Tomlinson dived in anyway and broke his neck. He tried to sue on the grounds that there had not been adequate warning of the danger. The judge held that the measures they had taken were sufficient in preventing people from swimming and so they did not owe him a duty of care when he did so anyway.
Owens v Brimmell (year?)
(1977) Owens and Brimmell were drinking together in a pub. Brimmell, drunk, drove them home but crashed into a lamppost. Subsequently Owens sued, the court found that Brimmell was liable but as Owens got into the car with him despite the state he was in, he had contributed to his own injuries. His compensation was reduced by 20%.
ICI v Shatwell (year?)
(1964) Shatwell employed 2 brothers as shotfirers. The wire they had in testing a circuit was not enough to reach the shelter. Another member of staff said he’d go to get more wire but they impatiently fired anyway and were each injured in the explosion. When they tried to sue, Shatwell raised a defence of volenti non fit injuria as the brothers were fully aware of the risk and we’re acting against their instructions. Shatwell was eventually found not liable.
Aston v Turner (year?)
(1981) following a burglary they both carried out, Turner, the driver, injured Aston in a collision, resulting in a law suit. The judge found that as this was in relation to another crime, no duty of care could be owed.
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (year?)
(2001) when Vellino was arrested by the police on the second floor of a building, he jumped out of the building to escape and gave himself brain damage. He sued the police force saying they owed him a duty of care. It was dismissed due to ex turpi causa - that it was illegal for an arrested person to abscond and this excluded a duty of care.
Revill v Newbery (year?)
(1996) Newbery had lots of valuable items in his shed and so he slept in it. At 2am, Revill tried to break in but Newbery shot him through a hole in the door. Revill sued but Newbery raised ex turpi causa. It was found that Newbery was liable but Revill’s damages were reduced by two thirds because he was partly responsible for his own injuries.
