Case Law Flashcards
(175 cards)
Lewis v British Columbia [1997] SCR 1145
The duty of care is not an obligation
- A common law duty of care “does not usually demand compliance with a specific obligation [requirement or stipulation]. It is only when an act is undertaken by a party that a general duty arises to perform the act with reasonable care.” - Cory J
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 SC (HL) 31
- Duty of care
- issue before the HoL was whether in the absence of any contractual nexus between them, Mrs D, the ultimate consumer, could sue the manufacturer in delict
- held by majority of the HoL that she was entitled to sue S for delict as he owed her duty of care
- authority that a manufacturer of food and drink which he intends to be used by the ultimate consumer owes duty of care
- A will owe B a DoC not to do X or omit to X if it is reasonable forseeable that someone like B will suffer some form of harm/injury if A fails to do X
Bourhill v Young 1942 SC (HL) 78
- B, alighting from tram; Y, motorcyclist, driving negligently; collision, and a person died.
- B could not see the accident, but she heard it, and claimed she suffered ‘nervous shock’ and a miscarriage.
- “The duty to take care is not owed to the world at large, but to those to whom injury may reasonably and probably be anticipated if the duty is not observed.” Lord Macmillan
Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC (HL)
- owner of teashop allowed park goers to shelter indoors
- they carried a tea urn through narrow corridor but scalded children on the premises in the process
- court held that the manager in charge owed a duty of care, generally, to everyone in tearoom but not to the Sunday school, to take additional care to prevent their injury
- Question to be expressed: “Is the harm that has been incurred within the scope of duty?”
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11
proximity and forseeability
- raised by the widow and daughter of an elderly man, James Dow Mitchell, who was attacked and killed by his next-door neighbour, James Drummond, following a long-running dispute
- Both the deceased and Drummond were tenants of the local housing authority
- The family claimed damages from the local authority for the loss, injury, and damage they had suffered
The House of Lords unanimously found that the Council did not owe such a duty to Mr. Mitchell. The decision relied heavily on the three-stage test set out in the case of Caparo v Dickman: (1) the loss must be foreseeable, (2) the relationship between the parties must be sufficiently proximate, and (3) it must be fair, just, and reasonable to impose the duty
What are the 2 important limitations on the extent of the duty of care laid down in Donoghue
- The duty only extends to latent effects. If defect is obvious then manufacturer may escape liability due to break in chain of causation or damages reduced. But bottle was opaque
- The duty is to prevent harm to the ultimate consumer’s person or property. Cant sue if the only property damaged is the defective product itself
Kay’s Tutor v Ayrshire & Arran Health Board 1987 SC (HL) 145
- Suspected meningtitis
- Young child admitted to hospital with suspected meningitis
- Administered adult dosage of penicillin
- Child was stated to have become deaf
- Court held that deafness couldnt be proven to be linked to the overdose, could be the meningitis
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board 2000 SC (HL) 1
- failed vasectomy
- wife fell pregnant after procedure
- can you claim for pain and suffering of childbirth, cost of raising a child?
- Held that although doctor had duty of care to prevent unwanted pregnancy, it was unfair to extend that to including costs of a child
- M entitled to damages for pain and discomfort caused by pregnancy
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11
- Man killed by neighbour
- Did council owe duty of care to inform man that the other was dangerous
- Held that, the local GCC had not made itself responsible for protecting M from criminal acts by D and couldnt have known that when D left the meeting there had been a real and immediate risk to M’s life
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC
- Yorkshire ripper
- Victim part of a large population
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850; Lamond v Glasgow Corporation 1968 SLT 951
Probability of injury
* Person inured by a ball hit by cricket player
* There was a fence on that side, but hit went over because it was superb
* Held that memebers couldnt be liable to damages as risk of injury to anyone in that place was so remote that a reasonable person would not have anticipated it
L v GC: an average of 6,000 golf balls playedonto footpaths
* forseeable
oil spill
The Wagon Mound No2 [1967] 1 AC 617
- Involved a spill of oil into the Port of Sydney, which caused minimal damage to the plaintiff’s ships.
- The oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the port, destroying the ships.
Miller sued Overseas, the Wagon Mound’s owner, under theories of negligence and nuisance.
Court found in favor of Overseas, concluding that the likelihood of the oil igniting was so slight that the damage to Miller’s ships was not reasonably foreseeable. The Supreme Court of New South Wales affirmed
Sutradhar (FC) v National Enviromental Research Council [2006] UKHL 33
- NERC tested ground water systems in Bangladesh for purpose of discovering if it contained toxic elements
- Did not include tests for arsenic
- 4 million drinking pumps installed
- S one of the thousands to suffer arsenic poisoning
- Held, dfendent did not owe the claimant a duty of care on the ground that there was no proximity between parties
Malcolm v Dickson 1951 SC 542
- Painter set house on fire while working
- Guest staying there tried to save some of the property but collapsed and died
- Held, painter had not broken duty of care he owed to deceased because couldbnt be anticipated by a reasonable person that guest would try to salvage furniture. (also died from heart attack not smoke inhalation)
Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 SC (HL) 31
- Workers uncover a manhole in road; two young children remove the tarpaulin and take a lamp. They enter the shelter; a lamp is knocked over and paraffin unexpectedly vaporises, and bursts into flame.
- H loses his balance and falls, burning himself
- Held,railway company was liable because even though the immediate cause of the injury was the boy’s actions, the company’s negligence in leaving the explosives unsecured was the “but for” cause of the harm.
- Established that to establish negligence, it is sufficient to show that the harm would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s breach of duty.
McKillen v Barclay-Curle & Co Ltd 1967 SLT 41
Significant case in the area of personal injury law.
- worker fell and broke his ribs, which was the constitutive harm.
- worker also had Tuberculosis (TB), which was allegedly reignited by the injury.
- The question was what should the employer pay for. The TB wasn’t a reasonably foreseeable consequence for the employer
This case is often cited for the principle that the defendant must take their victim as they find them, also known as the “eggshell rule”. This means that if a person has a pre-existing condition that makes them more susceptible to injury, the defendant is responsible for all the damages resulting from their negligence, even if the damages are more severe than they would have been for a typical person
Waugh v James K Allan Ltd 1964 SC (HL) 103 . p123
- lorry driver suffered symptoms of gastric attack
- once he felt like he had recovered he drove the lorry, but he actually had thrombosis and died at the wheel
- swerved and seriously injured a pedestrian
- Although driver owed the pursuer a duty of care, held that no breach of duty in this case
- because on medical advice he had no reason to suspect that he may die at the wheel
- his death was also involuntary = no breach of DoC
The driver was 44, had no history of cardiac illness, and generally had good health. As a reasonable man there was no reason for him to believe he was ill as it had transpired. No indication if serous risk. Therefore, his conduct in mounting the pavement was involuntary and he was no liable, therefore his employers were not liable.
negligence law
Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 Q.B. 691
- involved a road traffic accident where the claimant, a friend of the defendant, was teaching the defendant how to drive.
- During a lesson, the defendant panicked while executing a simple manoeuvre at slow speed, causing the car to crash into a lamppost and injure the claimant
Issues: whether the defendant should be held to the same standard as any other driver, whether the claimant had accepted the risk of being injured, and whether the defendant was solely responsible considering she was not in complete control of the vehicle
- The defence of volenti non fit injuria (consent to the risk of harm) was not applicable.
- Duty of care owed by a learner driver to the public, including passengers, should be measured against the same standard that would be applied to any other driver.
- Both the learner and the instructor were jointly responsible for the accident, leading to a reduction of damages by 50% for contributory negligence.
Lamond v Glasgow Corporation 1986 SLT 951
- the claimant was struck by a golf ball. It was found that 6,000 golf balls had left the golf course and went onto the lane.
- The court held that a reasonable person would be expected to prevent the harm from occurring.
- As a result, the Glasgow Corporation was found to have breached their duty
- This case is often cited in discussions about the standard of care expected in negligence cases.
Paris v Stepney BC [1951] AC 367; St George v Home Office [2008] EWCA Civ 1068
The potential magnitude of harm if injury occurs
- where there is a known vulnerability of the pursuer
P V S BC: employee not given any protective goggles, got splinter in only seeing eye, now blind.
StG v HO: A claim against the Home Office by a detainee who was injured by another detainee while in custody. Home Office should have foreseen, had been breach of duty of care
Brisco v SofS for Scotland 1997 SC 14; Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 c.f. Collins v First Quench Retailing Ltd 2003 SLT 220
Reasonable precautions
B v SfS: said employers had breached duty of care for failing to instruct not to throw heavy objects in riot training
L v AEC: employer covered most of floor with sawdust, employee slipped on small area of floor left
* risk of exposure to relatively ‘small’ danger, employer hadnt breached DoC
C v FQR: employee work alone in off-licens, following armed robbery she suffered depression. Said employer should provide safety training
* employer negligent by allowing her to work alone
Harris v Perry [2008] EWCA Civ 907; c.f. Anderson v Imrie [2018] CSIH 18
Setting the standard
H v P: parents back turned, one child harmed when other child attempted somersaults on bouncy castle
* found constant surveillance not necessary
A v I: 8 yo left unsupervised by not their own parent climbing on a gate in farmyard and suffered skull and head injury
Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 QB 66
- Pateint given spinal anasthetic
- The anasthetic vial had developed invisible cracks and had become impregnated with the solution it was stored in
- Patient paralysed
- Held defendant had not broken duty of care owed to the plaintiff: given the state of scientific knowledge at the time, reasonable medical practitioner could not have forseen that paralysis was a reasonable and probable consequence
McWilliams v Archibald Arrol & Co (1962) SC (HL) 70
Factual causation (causa sine qua non)
- Pursuers husband, a steel erector, was killed
- Held that defenders were in breach of duty of care towards McW in failing to provide him with a safety belt
- However, also established that McW wouldnt have worn it anyway
- Pursuer failed to prove that ‘but for’ the defenders breach of duty accident wouldnt have occured