Week 2 Flashcards
Waugh v James K Allan Ltd 1964
To breach a duty the action must have been voluntary
Lorry driver had been ill.
Once he thought he’d recovered he drove, having a heart attack, swerved into pedestrian
Company found not liable as it was purely unlucky
Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943
Standard of care varies with degree of risk
Tea room gave shelter to church group
Kettle getting carried through small corridor scalded children
Accident was not reasonably foreseeable, claim failed
Nettleship v Weston 1971
Learner driver held to same standard as any driver
Learner driver crashed
Lamond v Glasgow corporation
PROBABILITY OF RISK
Golfer hit ball, hitting pursuant who was on a path through course
Regularly balls land on path
Court ruled council to pay damages, this regularly could have happened, and they should have made precautions
Paris v Stepney 1951
Where there is known vulnerability of the pursuer
Good eye struck by machinery
Claims he should have had goggles but employer did not supply, because they were not standard to supply
Court agree extra precautions should be taken
Harris v Perry 2008
WHAT DID DEFENDER NOT DO (OR DO) TO (NOT) COMPLY WITH DUTY
Boy injured by other boy
summersaulting on bouncy castle
Parents sued for negligence, not watching their son
Found that parents of other boy breached duty of care not telling her kids not to go on it
Defendants failed to ensure children of similar size and age were playing on it, their son being bigger
Brisco v SofS for Scotland 1997
BURDEN (COST AND PRACTICALITIES)
Riot police training left officer with left foot injury
Officer argued heavy items used for training were unnecessarily dangerous
Appeal failed with court considering, injury was foreseeable, but magnitude of risk small, risk of serious injury was remote
Realistic news of the training was also considered
Harris v Perry 2008
What did action or omission did defender commit to not comply with duty
Kids on bouncy castle
Parents not watching a child much larger injured another
Court found parents had breached duty ensuring their child was same height and weight as others
Onus of proof in delict
the pursuer
Novus Actus intervenius
An action which breaks the chain of causation
Brown v rolls Royce
Common practice not followed
Worker regularly for oil on hands, alleged employers negligent in not providing barrier cream
Rolls had implemented different cleaning system
Claim failed, reasonable care had been taken
causa sine qua non
but for the breach
Causa Causans/ legal causation
Real, immediate, or main cause of something
two main methods for factual causation
but for test
material contribution test
mcwilliams v archibald arrol and Co 1962
Factual Causation
steelworker not provided safety belt
evidence showed it was unliekly he wouldve anyway
employer was in breach but claim failed, did not satisfy but for
barnett v chelsea hospital 1969
created but for test
aresnic poison from tea
hospital not liable, wouldve died anyway
kays tutor v aryshire and arran 1987
parents sued over negligent application of penicillin, alleging it caused blindness.
material contribution was not easy to show, claim failed
more likely cause was meningitis
failed but for
Mctear v Imperial Tobacco ltd 2005
wife of deceased sued tobacco company for lung cancer
could not be shown husband was unaware of risk of cigarettes
claim failed
McGhee v National Coal board 1973
mcghee alleged negligence after skin condition was caused by two things, coal dust, and lack of cleaning facilities for him before his trip home.
claim allowed, court agreed material contribution of lack of cleaning facilities was there
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services 2002
multiple men from multiple employers claimed for asbestos causing cancer
court allowed claims deciding that all employers materially contributed to risk of cancer from asbestos
how is the causa causans found
the forseeability of harm from the breach
sayers v harlow udc 1958
where conduct of victim is reasonably forseeable
woman locked in bathroom tried to climb out
claimant won with contributory negligence
it was reasonable and forseeable that someone might try to climb out if bathroom lock was broken
Mckew v Holland Hannen and Cubitts 1920
Unreasonable conduct of victim
man hurt leg at work, afterwords descended a staircase with no guard rail and fail
claim failed, him going down the stairs was unreasonable and not forseeable
kyle v p and j Stormonth-Darling 1993
deprivation of a legal righ
solicitors failed to lodge an appeal
court allowed case to go to proof, analysing the appeal and chances of it succeeding, and the losses that have occured
