Week 2 Flashcards
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC [1969]
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988]
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956]
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003]
Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) [2000]
Robinson v Post Office [1974]
Rahman v Arearose [2001] QB 351
McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts Ltd [1969]
Carslogie Steamship v Royal Norwegian Government [1952]
Bradford v Robinson Rentals [1967]
Facts:
C employed to undertake a journey from Exeter to Bradford and back in order to exchange a van for another.
Journey was around 500 miles long and took roughly about 20 hours of driving.
C was protesting about taking this job as they were aware of the poor weather.
Initial van had a leaking radiator meaning that C had to refill it frequently. Both vans did not have a heater meaning that C would have to keep the window open in order for the windshield to not ice from his breath.
C suffered permanent damage to his hands and feet due to frost-bite even when he took all precautions to prevent any damage.
Held:
Since D called C out on despite of his protests and exposing him to prolonged periods of extreme cold and considerable fatigue, they exposed him to a foreseeable risk of injury, therefore they were in breach of duty.
Although the nature of the injury did not have to be foreseeable before liability, the C was still exposed to foreseeable injuries such as common cold, pneumonia, chilblains, etc.
Tremain v Pike [1969]
Facts:
C was a herdsman hired by .
C allegedly became infected by using or washing in contaminated water and/or handling bales of hay and therefore contracted Weil’s disease.
D was unaware that they had to take precautions respecting the rats beyond the routine precautions that were already being applied in the farm.
Held:
Defendants were not in breach of their duty to take reasonable care.
D was immune from liability as contracting Weil’s disease was a remote one which could not have been reasonably foreseen.
