cases

Question 1

*Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 1

Product Liability - ultimate consumer neighbour principle

Authority that manufacturer of ANY product owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer

Limitations - duty only extends to latent defects, duty to prevent harm to consumer’s person or property.

D went to café with friend. The friend bought D a bottle of ginger -opaque glass. Decomposing remains of snake in the bottle. D becomes ill. PROBLEM - no contractual remedy for D. it was found - the ultimate consumer could sue in delict, duty of care owed to D, breach of duty due to carelessness, relationship was sufficiently proximate.

Question 2

*Kay’s Tutor v Ayrshire & Arran Health Board

Answer 2

Factual causation

Child suffering from meningitis, overdose of penicillin. Severe convulsions but recovered. Suffered deafness.
Could not prove causa sine qua non (but for?). Action failed.

Question 3

*Bourhill v Young

Answer 3

To whom a duty of care is owed to

Secondary victim

LEADING CASE

Y motorcyclist drove too fast, overtook stationary tramcar on the near side. Crashed into a car, which was turning right into side street some 50 feet from tramcar. Y was killed. Accident was accepted to be Y’s fault.
Time of the accident B was on the far side of tramcar - did not SEE the accident, only heard it. Saw the blood on the road. Claimed that shock of the accident caused her to miscarry.

Y did not owe B a duty of care. She was out with the area if risk of potential physical harm.

General rule established - no duty of care to prevent secondary victims from suffering mental harm; liability only extends to primary victims

Question 3

*McFarlane v Tayside Health Board

Answer 3

Professional Negligence - Negligence Misstatements and Advice

Wrongful conception.
Birth to healthy child after failed conception. Rejected at first instance, accepted in second instance (all damages given), and accepted but limited in third instance.

House of Lords accepted that unplanned conception is breach of duty and mother could recover solatium and derivative economic loss for loss of earnings during pregnancy

HOWEVER principle of non-recoverability for cost of bringing up a healthy child.

Question 4

*Muir v Glasgow Corporation

Answer 4

To what respect is the duty owed
Standard of Care
Proximity: Scope of Duty of Care

A - manageress of tearoom gave permission to a school picnic to host in the establishment due to rain spoiling their outdoor picnic.
Access tearoom through narrow passage.

Urn with boiling water carried through passage.
Urn dropped and scalded several children.
Never established how urn was dropped

Action against Glas Corp as A’s employers.

Accepted A owed DoC.
House of Lords found that A was only liable for those consequences of her actions which a reasonable person in her position would have in contemplation.
Standard of care - standard of the odinary reasonable man.

Test established for cope of care - the reasonable foresight of the hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the defender as opposed to what the defender actually foresaw.

No absolute standard, degree of care varies with the risk

Question 5

*Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 5

Duties are owed to identifiable persons or persons within a reasonably well defined class as being reasonably likely to be affected by the defender’s conduct.

Mother of the last victim of the Yorkshire Ripper brought action against the Chief Constable.
Found no duty to be owed - no proximity, not fair just or reasonable to impose a duty

Question 6

*Bolton v Stone

Answer 6

Duties are owed in respect of harm that would have been within the defender’s contemplation as being reasonably likely to follow from their conduct.

In 30 YEARS a cricket ball has been hit out of cricket ground 6 TIMES.
No negligence found in lack of precautions.
Reasonable person could not foresaw.

Question 7

The Wagon Mound No2

Answer 7

Failure to guard against foreseeable, but improbable risks may require justification.

Question 8

*Hughes v Lord Advocate

Answer 8

Scope of Duty

AUTHORITY

Workmen left manhole uncovered and unattended. Outside of manhole was a ladder, a rope, and paraffin warning lamps.

Two boys snuck in - tripped over the lamp which caused an explosion. One suffered severe burns.

Experts deemed the explosion was not reasonably foreseeable.

Accepted the workmen were careless for leaving the manhole unattended.

Sufficient to establish breach.

Authority that the scope of duty will extend to the kind or type of injury which is a reasonable and probable consequence of the defender’s careless act or omission
Fact that the injuries were more severe and the explosion were not anticipated is irrelevant.
The type of injury and the possibility of an accident was reasonably foreseeable.

Duty of care owed and breached,

Where the harm of the type covered by the duty arises there may be liability notwithstanding the fact that the precise circumstances under which the harm was incurred could not have been foreseen.

Question 9

McWilliams v Archibald Arrol & Co

Answer 9

Causa sine qua non - factual causation

Employers not provided safety belt. Steel erector.
Fell and died.
Would not have worn belt even if It was provided.
Widow raised action.
Breach - not providing safety belt.
Action failed - could not prove causa sine qua non.

Question 10

McKillen v Barclay-Curley & Co Ltd

Answer 10

The thin skull rule
Thin skull rule - no duty arises from pursuer’s unknown susceptibility, defender must “take the victim as he finds him/her”

Question 11

*Nettleship v Weston

Answer 11

Standard of Care - learner driver

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Expected to meet the same standard as an experienced driver.

Nothing will suffice short of an agreement to waive any claim for negligence.

Question 11

Waugh v James K Allan Ltd

Answer 11

To breach a duty the conduct must have been voluntary

Driver of lorry did not purposefully swerve lorry which injured pedestrians.
Driver died at the wheel; conduct not voluntary

Question 12

Paris v Stepney BC

Answer 12

The potential magnitude of harm if injury occurs

Employee not given googles got splinter in his good eye, other eye blind. Resulted in total blindness. Not normal practice to provide googles. However known weakness.
Extra precautions should have been taken - breach found

Question 12

Lamond v Glasgow Corporation

Answer 12

Probability of Injury - Bolton v Stone

6,000 golf balls played onto footpath each year therefore it is foreseeable - breach found.

Question 13

St George v Home Office

Answer 13

The potential magnitude of harm if injury occurs

Prisoner known to suffer from epilepsy, going through withdrawal, prison allocated them top bed.
Resulted in injury - breach found.

Question 14

Latimer v AEC Ltd

Answer 14

What would be considered to be reasonable precautions

Floor slippery due to flood in factory, floor covered in sawdust except a small portion. Employee slipped on that portion which caused injury.
Danger not such to enforce on employer, acted reasonably.

Question 14

Brisco v SofS for Scotland

Answer 14

What would be considered to be reasonable precautions

Employer claims employee are in breach of duty in failing to give instructions on not throwing - no breach found.

Question 14

Harris v Perry

Answer 14

Setting the standard

11-year-old boy and another child attempted to do somersault and broke his arm.
Supervisor backs were turned. No constant surveillance necessary.

No breach

Question 14

Collins v First Quench Retailing Ltd

Answer 14

What would be considered to be reasonable precautions

Employee worked alone on off-licence, following armed robbery suffered depression and PTSD.
Claimed employer should have provided safety glass.
Employer negligent for making her work on her own.

Question 15

Anderson v Imrie

Answer 15

Setting the standard

8-year-old left unsupervised, and suffered brain injury. Occupier of farm looking after the boy and their son.
Occupiers liability.

Question 16

*Sayers v Harlow UDC

Answer 16

Novus actus interveniens
Contributory negligence

Plaintiff entered public toilet. Door locked. Banged on door and put hand out of window to attempt to get attention.
15 min later - attempted to escape through space between top of the door and roof.
Left foot on toilet right foot on toilet roll, one hand on the toilet cistern and other on the top of the door.
Couldn’t squeeze out - lost balance and fell.
Courts held that it was reasonable that anyone in her position would attempt to escape.
No novus actus interveniens and defendant’s breach was the causa causans of accident.
Her carelessness did contribute - contributory negligence. 25% less damages

Question 16

McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts

Answer 16

Novus actus interveniens

Pursuer injured leg whilst at work - workplace accident.
Employers negligent. Consequences of accident leg would get numb and give away.
Leg went numb and gave away whilst going down stairs.
Decided to jump and injured other leg.
Employers liable for the first injury but not for second injury since there WAS novus actus interveniens.

Question 17

*McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd

Answer 17

Factual causation

Husband died of lung cancer - smoke cigarettes. Cannot prove that husband would not have died if not smoked.
As a consumer he had choice and is aware of the dangers due to packaging making it clear of dangers.

Question 17

Brown v Rolls Royce

Answer 17

What if there is a common practice Common practice - provide barrier cream. Employees commonly come into contact with oil and other substances. Barrier cream not provided in this case. Medical evidence provided - alternative provisions such as washing facilities. Contracted dermatitis - question of whether it was due to breach or not, washing facilities was available not effective. Employer had done what was reasonable in the circumstances.

Question 18

Allan v Barclay

Answer 18

Remoteness - Foreseeability The grand rule on the subject of damages is that none can be claimed except such as naturally and directly arise out of the wrong done, and such, therefore as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the view of the wrongdoer.

Question 19

Simmons v British Steel plc

Answer 19

Remoteness - Foreseeability Liability limited to foreseeable consequences.

Question 20

*Kyle v P&J Stormonth-Darling

Answer 20

Remoteness – loss of chance deprivation of legal right. Failure to lodge appeal papers by solicitors, which meant appeal being abandoned. Liable.

Question 21

*Campbell v F&F Moffat

Answer 21

Remoteness – loss of chance utterly speculative. Compensation of loss of redundancy payment. Employment terminated, place closed down. All employees given redundancy payment. Too remote.

Question 22

McDyer v The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited

Answer 22

Occupier's Liability Wifi not loading - continue later.

Question 23

*Gregg v Scot

Answer 23

Remoteness – loss of chance no remedy simply for reduction in the chance of recovery from illness. Negligence of GP - lump benign. Referred 9 months later - lump cancerous. Treatment delayed by 9 months - argued loss of chance of recovery. Unable to prove failure to survive was caused by diagnosis and cancer

Question 24

*Scott v London and St. Katherine's Docks

Answer 24

Man got hit on the head with a sugar packet, originally found no liability. In the appeal - 3 elements: 1) Defender sole control of offending thing 2) That the incident would not have occurred had due care been taken 3) No explanation given by defenders as to how incident happened.

Question 25

*Ward v Tesco Stores

Answer 25

Occupier's Liability 3 elements: 1) Defender sole control of offending thing 2) That the incident would not have occurred had due care been taken 3) No explanation given by defenders as to how incident happened.

Question 26

Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd

Answer 26

Occupier's Liability - No liability for the intentional actions of trespassers

Question 26

Titchener v British Railways Board

Answer 26

Occupier's Liability - Duty of Care, Defences - Volenti non fit injuria

Question 26

Dawson v Page

Answer 26

Occupier's Liability Legal control over a property

Question 26

Taylor v Glasgow Cooperation

Answer 26

Occupier's Liability - dangers A child eating poisonous berries - young child and no sign pointing out danger - no reasonable care not taken.

Question 27

Tomlinson v Congleton

Answer 27

Occupier's Liability - dangers Swimming in a lake - swimming prohibited - no duty breached since obvious dangers in nature.

Question 27

Michael Leonard v The Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority

Answer 27

Occupier's Liability - dangers Falling down a hill - family on visit - 12 year old badly injured - not determine how he was injured - danger not unusual - no breach.

Question 28

*Cox v Ministry of Justice

Answer 28

Employer's liability. Vicarious Liability The Control Test Catering managed by the prisoner, someone got negligently injured. Prison was found liable since there was sufficient control. Test - 1) Wrongdoer acting on behalf of defender 2) Wrongdoer's activity is connected to defender's business 3) Employing wrongdoer for activity, defender has created risk of delict being committed.

Question 29

Taylor Neilson Barratt v Spice Lounge (Scotland) Ltd

Answer 29

Occupier's Liability - Defences - contributory negligence Young woman walking took a shortcut that was not meant for people walking there. Badly injured. Company was occupiers. Sufficient light on road - reasonable care taken.

Question 29

*Various Claimants v The Institute of the Brothers of Christian Schools

Answer 29

Vicarious Liability Sexual assaults made by brothers in a Christian school. School found liable since the brother were within their property. While not technically employees - relationship akin to employees enough. Employer-employee relationship - 1) Relationship between defender and wrongdoer 2) Relationship must be connect to their act/omission - 'in the course of employment'

Question 30

*Kerby v National Coal Board

Answer 30

Employers' Liability - In the course of employment Miners on break - went to smoke - prohibited place - caused explosion. Were on break - outside bounds of employment Course of employment - 1) Employer authorised act? 2) Employee authorised to do work - did in manner not authorised? a. Employer still vicariously liable here - within scope of employment. 3) Has employee acted outside scope of employment?

Question 31

Century Insurance Co. v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

Answer 31

Employers' Liability - In the course of employment Employee light cig on transport of fuel. Employer found liable.

Question 31

Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell

Answer 31

Employers' Liability - Vendettas or Frolics Left station and went to bar where ex was working and attempted to shoot her and shot someone else. Employer found liable since it was negligent for giving him firearm. Not found vicariously liable since he left station - frolicking on his own. - Acting on personal vendetta making it difficult to establish vicarious liability

Question 31

Mohamud v Morrisons

Answer 31

Employers' Liability Staff member abused someone. Employer not found liable.

Question 31

*Lister v Hensley Hall

Answer 31

Employers' Liability - Close Connection Sexually abused someone within their care, courts found that since action was within such close scope of employment that employer found liable. Close connection - 1) Wrongful behaviour that is closely connected to employment can be counted as within the scope of employment 2) Thus, employer can be vicariously liable

Question 31

Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica

Answer 31

Employers' Liability - Vendettas or Frolics Man using phone box, police officer shouted at him and asked to use phone. Man refused and police opened fire. Employer found liable since police officer was abusing his power. - Close connection between the employment and the activity can be made through purporting to be acting in course of employment

Question 32

Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English

Answer 32

Employers' Liability - Employer’s Duty of Care to Employees Man crushed to death whilst working. Employer delegated the safety precautions to another employee. Cannot happen under Unfair Contract Terms Act s.16

Question 32

Kennedy v Cordia (Services)

Answer 32

Employers' Liability -Employer’s Duty of Care to Employees Home carer slipped and fell on icy grounds and injured himself. Raised action for not establishing danger and not giving precautions and were aware of previous injury occurring there. Found liable.

Question 33

Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd. and Another Respondents

Answer 33

Employers' Liability - Safe Equipment Employee injured by defective hammer. Defect occurred after hammer had been brought by reputable supplier - no liability. - No liability for a defective tool that was sourced from reputable manufacturers and suppliers.

Question 33

McGregor v AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Answer 33

Employers' Liability - Safe Systems and Competent Employees Warehouse operator injured when receiving something from a high shelf. Incentive to work faster. Ladders present but not always where they're needed. Employers found liable. * Employers have a duty to provide and implement a safe system of working.

Question 33

*Hatton v Sutherland

Answer 33

Employers' Liability - Psychiatric Injury Man employed as teacher - told if he wanted to maintain salary, he had to take on extra work which negatively affected his mental health. This led to him having to take time off work and after complaining nothing changed. Due to stress, he could no longer work as a teacher. Employer found liable * Employee must show that there were reasonable steps that the employer did not take

Question 34

Keen v Tayside Contracts

Answer 34

Employers' Liability - Psychiatric Injury Roadworker sought PTSD damages, had to attend emergency site to help out emergency workers. The site had four badly burnt corpses. Claimed PTSD did not qualify the nervous shock test

Question 34

Wilson v Merry & Cunningham

Answer 34

Employers' Liability - Safe Systems and Competent Employees - duty to employ competent individuals minor killed in explosion of coal mine. Owners had appointed someone else to look after that particular bit. Since they had employed someone else, they had duty to employ someone competent.

Question 35

A (and others) v National Blood Authority

Answer 35

Product Liability - contaminated blood Infected blood given to patients who did then get sick. Courts found that to be considered a defective product - no state of the art defence - expected

Question 35

B (a child) v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd

Answer 35

Product Liability - hot drinks Reasonable amount of risk. Child got hot drink spilled on them

Question 36

Worsley v Tambrands Ltd

Answer 36

Product Liability - tampons Woman got toxic shock from tampons - warning on box - warnings sufficient to the risk.

Question 36

*Caparo v Dickman

Answer 36

Professional Negligence Medical Negligence Auditors were the professionals and the negligence led to the loss

Question 37

*Hunter v Hanley

Answer 37

Medical Negligence - Standard of Care Not enough to prove deviation from normal practice but to prove that no professional would act that way. Three part test - 1. Usual and normal practice 2. Must be proved that defender deviated 3. Must be proved that no ordinary professional of ordinary skill would have taken that course if acting with ordinary care.

Question 38

*Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

Answer 38

Professional Negligence - Standard of Care Given electroconvulsive therapy without any relaxant drugs which caused injury. Not negligent simply because of a different opinion. No other doctor would act that way. Judged by ordinary case. Test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill - sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art. No negligence simply where there is a contrary body of opinion.

Question 39

Gordon v Wilson

Answer 39

Professional Negligence -different bodies of opinion Provides illustration of the formidable difficulties facing a pursuer in an action of medical negligence, particularly where there are conflicting bodies of professional opinion. Argued doctor was negligent in delaying to refer patient to specialist. One body of opinion agreed with the pursuer and one body of opinion agreed with the defender. Professional negligence cannot be established by preferring one body of opinion over another.

Question 40

*Honisz v Lothian Health Board

Answer 40

Professional Negligence - different bodies of opinion Professional negligence cannot be established by preferring one body of opinion over another.

Question 40

R v Bateman

Answer 40

Professional Negligence - Ordinary skill There is no expectation of exceptional skill.

Question 41

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

Answer 41

Professional Negligence - inexperienced professional Medical Negligence Baby given air by jr doctor. Doctor gave too much and the baby got a retinol issue. Court held jr doctor at the same standard as a doctor - Nettleship v Weston

Question 41

*Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Board of Governors

Answer 41

Professional Negligence - Inexperienced Professional Standard between neurosurgeon and doctor - still separate by profession.

Question 41

JG Martin Plant Hire Ltd v Macdonald

Answer 41

Contract Law and Delict Action on both aspects of law.

Question 42

*****Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd******

Answer 42

Professional Negligence - Negligence Misstatements and Advice Reasonable foreseeability criterion Established that a party may be liable for negligent advice. Wrong advice lead to economic loss Necessary to show - * Pursuer relied on the statement made by the defender * Defender reasonably knew or ought to have known that the pursuer would rely on it * Making statement expressly or impliedly undertook responsibility for it. Close proximity

Question 43

Galoo Ltd v Bright Graham Murray

Answer 43

Professional Negligence - Negligence Misstatements and Advice Mere foreseeability not sufficient here. Duty arise only if auditor was expressly made aware that a particular lender or bidder would have rely on the accounts without independent inquiry.

Question 43

Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service

Answer 43

Professional Negligence - Negligence Misstatements and Advice Need for pursuer to establish that they were going to rely on defender's statements emphasised. Vasectomy - patient assured they need no contraception. Patient got partner pregnant. Action failed - not proximate enough to doctor, only patient can sue not partner. When advice given to the patient it is not foreseeable for the advice to be relied on by someone else.

Question 44

Steel v NRAM

Answer 44

Professional Negligence - Assumption of Responsibility for Statements Reliance on misstatement and the assumption of responsibility for the accuracy of a statement on the part of the defender. Company X bought 4 units and were represented by S and needed a secure loan – provided by NRAM. X sold units one by one, told S and asked him to relay that to NRAM. S made misstatement that the full loan was to be paid off. N dissolved security on this misstatement. X went into liquidation and N lost all possibility of regaining the funds SC held that S did not owe N a duty of care - no own inquiry made. Lender acted unreasonably since misrepresentation laid in their knowledge field. No assumption of responsibility on S. reasonably suspect them to make their own inquiry,

Question 44

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd

Answer 44

Professional Negligence Expansion of Hedley Byrne criteria Managing agents were conducting the financial affairs of the claimants, it was alleged that they managed their affairs with a lack of due care, which resulted in losses. So rather than advice being relied on, there was reliance on the provision of services -> claimants were relying on the assumption of responsibility for sorting the financial affairs. Assumption of responsibility principle laid out in HB is not confined to statements, but may also apply to any assumption of responsibility for the provision of services. When the claimant entrusts the defendant with the conduct of his affairs, the claimant can be said to have relied on the defendant to exercise due skill and care in such conduct.

Question 45

*Barnett

Answer 45

Breach of duty Causa sine qua non Medical Negligence - Duty of Care Plaintiff husband drank a cup of tea and became violently ill because of poison. Doctor refused to treat husband telling him to see his own. Husband died - Breach of duty Held that although defendant was in breach - hospital is not liable since he would've died regardless. No obligations to a stranger/'non-patient' Duty imposed once the doctor has assumed responsibility for the care of the patient. Not causa sine qua non of the death.

Question 46

Darnley

Answer 46

Medical Negligence - Duty of Care Assaulted, head injury. Waiting time hours. No difference between staff and medical professionals.

Question 47

Bolitho

Answer 47

Medical Negligence Gloss on Bolam 2-year-old had respiratory distress. Register failed to show up. Cardiac arrest and brain damage. Doctor defended that they would not intubate even if there were there - only way to avoid cardiac arrest. Opinion has to have a logical basis. One body agreed another disagreed. Courts are no longer allowed to accept the views of the medical profession out of hand.

Question 47

Montgomery

Answer 47

Medical Negligence Support for patient autonomy.

Question 48

*McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board | Medical Negligence

Answer 48

Medical Negligence Confirms that the Bolam test remains in place where a doctor decides whether to disclose alternative treatments

Question 48

Sabri-Tabrizi v Lothian Health Board

Answer 48

Medical Negligence - novus actus interveniens Pregnant twice after failed sterilisation. Performed negligently. Second pregnancy not claimed since it was not foreseeable since she knew she was not sterilised.

Question 48

*Pidgeon v Doncaster Health Authority | Medical Negligence - Contributory negligence

Answer 48

Medical Negligence - Contributory negligence Defenders' negligence not ended due to patient but damages reduced since patient did not attend GP appointment - failure to participate. Reduction for contributory negligence | Medical Negligence - Contributory negligence

Question 49

# psychiatric harm Walker v Northumberland City Council | Psychiatric Harm - what kind of 'shock' is actionable ## Footnote teacher case

Answer 49

Failure to relive workload pressure, who then returned to work which led to a mental breakdown. Actionable.

Question 50

Dooley v Cammell Laird and Co Ltd | psychiatric harm

Answer 50

Crane driver, rope of crane snaped which caused it to fall and though he killed the worker. Claimed psychiatric harm. Victim must show that their harm was caused in breach of a duty of care to guard against personal injury

Question 50

*Simpson v ICI | psychiatric harm - definition of shock

Answer 50

Psychiatric Harm - Definition of Shock Explosion at workplace, did not develop a psychiatric condition. Couldn't claim. Needs to show that there is either a visible disability or provable illness or injury followed

Question 50

*Page v Smith Primary Victims | Psychiatric Harm - Definition of Shock

Answer 50

Psychiatric Harm - Definition of Shock, Primary Victims Road traffic accident no physical injury. Due to accident medical condition was reactivated. Must be some serious medical disturbances outside the range of normal human experience. Plaintiff within area of potential physical harm regarded as a primary victim. Therefore duty of care owed. Does not matter if he did not suffer physical harm or that psychiatric harm was not foreseeable. Duty of care to prevent mental harm arises whenever the pursuer is primary victim.

Question 50

Dulieu v R White & Sons | Psychiatric Harm - Primary Victims

Answer 50

Psychiatric Harm - Primary Victims Sever shock when a horse van was negligently driven into a bar where she worked. Suffered from their own safety. Pregnant women ended up giving birth early. Court allowed recovery of damages

Question 50

Hambrook v Stokes | Psychiatric Harm - Secondary Victims

Answer 50

Psychiatric Harm - Secondary Victims Employee left lorry running, which ran down the hill. H heard accident killed one her children which caused her to die. Claim succeeded due to what she heard and saw. Distinction was drawn between shock caused by what the mother saw 'with her own eyes' and what she had been told by bystanders, wherein liability would be excluded.

Question 50

*McLoughlin v O’Brian | Psychiatric Harm - Secondary Victims

Answer 50

Psychiatric Harm - Secondary Victims Husband and three children injured in accident. One died. M not informed till afterwards. Suffered psychiatric injury. Claim allowed. First instance was found against - secondary victim. Second - necessary degree of proximity; seen effects of the accidents. Therefore, duty owed to secondary victim. Risk of psychiatric harm to the pursuer must be reasonably foreseeable but other factors must be present which shows a sufficient degree of proximity between parties. Test to restrict liability - judicial safety valve - * Class of persons * Close in time and space * How the shock was sustained

Question 50

*Alcock et al v Chief Constable South Yorkshire

Answer 50

Involved the Hillsborough football disaster. action raised by spectators and those watching on TV and radio. Test in McLoughlin reviewed Test established - * Close tie of love and affection - between secondary and primary victims ○ Close familial ties * Presence at the event or the immediate aftermath * Direct perception ○ Shock in the context involves sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event

Question 50

Robertson v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board | Psychiatric Harm - Alcock Criteria

Answer 50

R and colleague had spent nearly all of their working lives together, and went for a drink together once a week. A large piece of metal sheeting was being moved in the back of a van, when the wind picked up and R colleague was blown over the side of the bridge. Sudden tragic loss, action failed. No close ties was the reason it was unsuccessful.

Question 50

Young v McVean | Psychiatric Harm - Alcock Criteria

Answer 50

Y passed the scene of a car accident seeing the badly damaged car, therefore witnessing the immediate aftermath. Y was later informed her that their son died in the wrecked car. Action failed - no direct perception.

Question 51

Wilkinson v Downton | Psychiatric Harm - Intentional

Answer 51

Falsely told W their husband had a serious accident - intended that this was believed - held liable for shock and medical expenses

Question 51

Re (a minor) v Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust | Psychiatric Harm - Alcock Criteria

Answer 51

Concerned a mother and grandmother who alleged they both suffered PTSD after the mother experienced and the grandmother witnessed the negligent and traumatic delivery of the mother's child. Infant suffered a brain injury during the protracted birth.

Question 51

Liverpool Women’s Hospital v Ronayne | Psychiatric Harm - Alcock Criteria

Answer 51

Husband who witnessed his wife suffer complications over a 36-hour period as a result of a negligently performed hysterectomy. Did not satisfy criteria - cumulation of shock through period of time does not satisfy the criteria.

Question 51

Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Respondent)

Answer 51

P suffered cardiac arrest which two daughter witnessed - 14 months prior went to doctor for chest pains. Earlier medical negligence leading to manifestation. E - could not breath. GP though it was due to exertion. Parents watched her die - lung diseases. E - failed diagnosis. Mother found her dead and left a voicemail, undiagnosed pneumonia. Person cannot be shielded by the medical profession. Doctors do not owe duty to the family - non-patients. Insufficient proximity.

Question 51

Attia v British Gas plc | Psychiatric Harm - Property Damage

Answer 51

Psychiatric Harm - Property Damage A engaged BG to install central heating in their home - returned home to find their loft on fire resulting in the house and its contents becoming extensively damaged. Fire caused by the defender's negligent installation of the central heating. A claimed nervous shock sustained after seeing this damage. Does not need to satisfy the criteria. Any mental harm suffered due to ordinary negligence can be claimed if it is foreseeable.

Question 52

X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council | Liability of Public Bodies - Statutes and Common Law

Answer 52

Liability of Public Bodies - Statutes and Common Law

Question 52

GN v Poole BC

Answer 52

Liability of Public Bodies - Statutes and Common Law

Question 53

Morrison Sports Ltds v Scottish Power

Answer 53

Liability of Public Bodies - Statutes and Common Law

Question 54

*Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire | Liability of Public Bodies - Omissions, Police

Answer 54

Two police officer, a suspect. In public with others, suspect struggles police struggles too. They all fell on old lady who was injured. Can there be negligence, is it justiciable? Courts accepted it was operational matter. Reasonably foreseeable the suspect would struggle. Found liable for negligence. LANDMARK CASE.

Question 55

Gibson v Orr

Answer 55

Sole survivor in a car accident. Police told bridge collapsed. Went to one side and left. Nothing done on the other end. A police side on both ends. Accident occurred.

Question 55

Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council

Answer 55

Turned off sprinkle system. Contributed to destruction of building. Not successful in the statutory but successful in negligence, created danger. Fire service NOT OBLIGED to answer a call. Perspective of resources.

Question 55

Bolton v Glasgow City Council

Answer 55

Tenant killed by neighbour, does local authority owe a duty of care.

Question 55

*Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 55

Liability for Harm Caused by the Criminal Acts of Third Parties – The Police Yorkshire ripper murdered 13 women - final victim's mother brought action against police - suing for not apprehending the killer. No duty of care owed

Question 55

Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex | Liability for Harm Caused by the Criminal Acts of Third Parties – The Po

Answer 55

Liability for Harm Caused by the Criminal Acts of Third Parties – The Police Threatened by ex-partner. Reported to the police. Police did some investigation. Threats carried out. Hit in the head with a hammer. No duty, investigation was sufficient. Unreasonable for police to be liable for every complainer.

Question 55

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales | Liability for Harm Caused by the Criminal Acts of Third Parties – The Po