Week 2 Flashcards
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC [1969]
Facts:
C showed up at the hospital due to him drinking tea containing arsenic.
Receptionist told him that the doctor will examine him tomorrow.
C ended up dying 5 hours later due to poisoning.
Held:
Although the doctor had a duty of care and negligently failed to examine him at the right time, the case failed as the claimant would have died regardless of him getting assistance or not.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988]
Facts:
C was a prematurely born baby which was given excessive oxygen.
The baby was initially given too little oxygen as the catherer was placed in a vein instead of an artery however this was later changed and the baby was unsupervised which lead to the excessive oxygen.
This had caused the baby to go blind.
Held:
Although the chances of the medical negligence could have caused the baby’s blindness, due to him being prematurely born could expose him to the risk of being blind regardless and the C was unable to prove that the doctor’s negligence was the main reason why D ended up being blind.
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956]
Facts:
C was employed in D’s foundry.
C had inhaled too much silica dust during his employment which led to lung disease.
The foundry did not have adequate ventilation which led to the excess of silica dust.
Held:
Court decided that D is liable as although he was not responsible for the minimal amount of silica dust, he was liable for the excess that was not removed through ventilation which exposed C to a higher risk of injury whilst the cost of precaution was relatively low and a reasonable person would have taken those steps to avoid injury.
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]
Facts:
C’s job was to clean brick kilns.
C would always leave work with sweat all over him and with brick dust which is known to cause skin disease.
D did not install showers in the facilities of the employees.
Held:
D was liable as they have not installed showers for the C which exposed C to a higher risk of injury rather than a higher severity.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003]
Facts:
C caught mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos.
Court was trying to decide whether or not C would be able to claim for damages after working for more than one employer.
Held:
Although it was more unfair for an employer to be responsible for this injury compared to the unfairness of the victim not receiving compensation, the court found all the employers liable for the damages due to all of them materially contributing to the injury.
Robinson v Post Office [1974]
Facts:
C got a shin injury at work due to D’s negligence.
C was seen by a doctor which gave him an anti-tetanus injection which C was allergic to which led to encephalitis.
Although the doctor could have been negligent due to him not taking any tests for this, C would have not shown any reaction even if there was a test.
Held:
Court ended up denying negligence on the doctor’s behalf and D was liable for both the shin injury and the encephalitis. (Due to D’s negligence, C got into this stage and therefore led to further injury)
Rahman v Arearose [2001] QB 351
Facts:
C got assaulted by an individual at work.
D was the employer of C and had been sued for not protecting him.
Third party was an NHS Trust doctor which led to failing an eye surgery on him which led to complications and further physical and psychiatric damage to the C.
Held:
Judges were struggling to decide how the damages should be expressed.
Although Third party had good intentions to help whilst the attacker did not, the judges believed it was best to make it so that the doctor would be liable for 3 quarters of the damage whilst the employer only a quarter due to the proportionate damage distribution.
McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts Ltd [1969]
Facts:
C was assaulted at his workplace which led him to losing control of his leg which sometimes gives way under him.
After the assault C went to inspect a flat with his family and whilst descending down the stairs that had no handrails, his leg gave way and threw himself in order to prevent injury.
Held:
Court said that the D was not liable for the latter injury as it was unreasonable for them to be liable due to C’s negligence of going down the stairs with a broken leg with no handrail or assistance from anyone which ended up breaking chain of causation.
Carslogie Steamship v Royal Norwegian Government [1952]
Facts:
C ship was damaged in a collision from D’s ship.
D admitted liability.
The repairs were not deemed necessary so there was no rush to get them sorted.
On the way to the dock where the ship was meant to get repaired, heavy weather occurred which led to further damage.
Held:
Court decided that D was not liable for the damages due to the delay because the damages caused by the weather weren’t a result of the collision.
C did not lose any profitable time during the 10 days since the ship was being repaired for both the collision and the weather damage at the same time.
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.
