case studies

Question 1

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) - Facts?

Answer 1

Mrs. Donoghue found a decomposed snail in ginger beer. She fell ill but had no contract with the manufacturer.

Question 2

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) - Held?

Answer 2

The manufacturer owed a duty of care. Established the ‘neighbour principle’ and product liability.

Question 3

Caparo v Dickman (1990) - Facts?

Answer 3

Caparo bought more shares relying on inaccurate audited accounts and sued the auditors.

Question 4

Caparo v Dickman (1990) - Held?

Answer 4

No duty of care owed to individual investors. Introduced the 3-stage test: foreseeability, proximity, fairness.

Question 5

Barnett v Packer (1940) - Facts?

Answer 5

A shop assistant was injured by a wire in a chocolate sweet.

Question 6

Barnett v Packer (1940) - Held?

Answer 6

Manufacturer owed a duty to handlers of the product as injury was reasonably foreseeable.

Question 7

Stennett v Hancock (1939) - Facts?

Answer 7

A pedestrian was injured by a wheel that flew off a lorry.

Question 8

Stennett v Hancock (1939) - Held?

Answer 8

The garage owed a duty; foreseeable road users could be harmed by a negligently fitted wheel.

Question 9

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018) - Relevance?

Answer 9

Confirmed that duty of care should be based on precedent or developed incrementally.

Question 10

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales (2015) - Relevance?

Answer 10

Addressed duty in cases involving emergency services; considered public policy.

Question 11

Margreson v JW Roberts Ltd (1996) - Principle?

Answer 11

Harm must be reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s negligent act.

Question 12

Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd (1936) - Relevance?

Answer 12

Helped define the concept of proximity in negligence law.

Question 13

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970) - Principle?

Answer 13

Demonstrated that duty of care can arise due to control relationships (e.g., custodial responsibility).

Question 15

Nettleship v Weston (1971) - Principle?

Answer 15

Learner drivers owe the same standard of care as experienced drivers.

Question 16

Orchard v Lee (2009) - Principle?

Answer 16

Children are judged by a lower standard appropriate to their age and understanding.

Question 17

Bolton v Stone (1951) - Principle?

Answer 17

Very low likelihood of harm may mean no breach of duty.

Question 18

Miller v Jackson (1977) - Principle?

Answer 18

Higher probability of harm increases likelihood of finding a breach.

Question 19

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) - Principle?

Answer 19

Greater seriousness of potential harm justifies taking extra precautions.

Question 20

Latimer v AEC (1953) - Principle?

Answer 20

Duty of care is not breached if reasonable precautions were taken, considering cost/practicality.

Question 21

Haley v London Electricity Board (1965) - Relevance?

Answer 21

Considered precautions needed to prevent harm to blind pedestrians.

Question 22

Watt v Herefordshire CC (1954) - Principle?

Answer 22

Emergency situations may justify greater risks without breaching duty of care.

Question 23

Ward v Tesco Stores (1976) - Relevance?

Answer 23

Demonstrates burden of proof in negligence—on balance of probabilities.

Question 24

The Wagon Mound (No.1) (1961) - Principle?

Answer 24

Type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable; sets test for remoteness.

Question 25

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) - Relevance?

Answer 25

Foreseeable type of injury sufficient even if exact accident sequence isn’t.

Question 26

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton (2000) - Relevance?

Answer 26

Foreseeable injury to children—duty of care owed due to abandoned boat.

Question 27

McKew v Holland (1969) - Principle?

Answer 27

Claimant’s unreasonable act broke the chain of causation.

Question 28

Froom v Butcher (1976) - Contribution?

Answer 28

Not wearing a seatbelt was contributory negligence; damages reduced by 20%.

Question 29

Smith v Baker (1891) - Outcome?

Answer 29

Claimant did not truly consent to the risk; defence of consent failed.

Question 30

ICI v Shatwell (1965) - Outcome?

Answer 30

Consent defence succeeded due to informed risk-taking by experienced workers.

Question 31

Ashton v Turner (1980) - Principle?

Answer 31

Claimant injured during criminal act barred from recovery due to illegality.

Question 32

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989) - Principle?

Answer 32

Police owe no duty to general public to catch a criminal unless a specific duty is established.

Question 33

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1991) - Principle?

Answer 33

Defined limits on secondary victims in psychiatric harm claims.

Question 34

Page v Smith (1995) - Principle?

Answer 34

Primary victims can recover for psychiatric injury even if unforeseeable in severity.

Question 35

Chadwick v British Rail (1967) - Outcome?

Answer 35

Rescuers can claim if they were in physical danger or believed they were.

Question 36

Spartan Steel v Martin (1973) - Relevance?

Answer 36

Defined recoverable vs pure economic loss in negligence.

Question 37

Murphy v Brentwood DC (1990) - Principle?

Answer 37

Loss from defective property value = pure economic loss = not recoverable.

Question 38

Ross v Caunters (1980) - Principle?

Answer 38

Solicitor owed duty to beneficiary of a will despite no contract.

Question 39

White v Jones (1995) - Principle?

Answer 39

Negligent drafting of a will can lead to liability for pure economic loss.

Question 40

Hedley Byrne v Heller (1963) - Principle?

Answer 40

Duty of care can arise for negligent misstatements if there’s a special relationship.

Question 41

Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel (1991) - Outcome?

Answer 41

Financial advisers owed duty of care due to specific, relied-upon advice.

Question 42

Caparo v Dickman (1990) - Outcome?

Answer 42

Auditors did not owe duty to shareholder for takeover purposes—no special relationship.

Question 43

Lennon v Commissioner of Police (2004) - Relevance?

Answer 43

Duty found where internal HR advice was specific and relied upon.

Question 44

Chaudhuri v Prabhakar (1989) - Relevance?

Answer 44

Duty found in a social context due to superior knowledge and reliance on advice.

Question 45

James McNaughton v Hicks Anderson (1991) - Principle?

Answer 45

No duty owed in casual, draft accounting advice between commercial parties.