Cases Flashcards
(19 cards)
Donoghue v Stevenson
Claimant finds decomposing snail in a drink from a shop, sued for damages.
Neighbour principle established
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
Made the established duty principle. If established DOC, no further tests needed.
DOC can be determined through common law and precedent.
Caparo v Dickman
3 element test for novel scenarios:
Was the damage reasonably foreseeable
Were the parties close in proximity
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a DOC
Kent v Griffiths
Case for damage being reasonably foreseeable.
Pregnant woman suffered asthma attack.
Ambulance was called
Ambulance arrived late without justifiable reason
Resulted in woman going into respiratory arrest and faced serious injury.
Ambulance was called specifically to help her with her issue, so it was reasonably foreseeable harm would occur if delays occured.
King v Phillips
Case for parties being close in proximity.
A taxi driver was reversing and injured a small boy on his bike, suffering minor injuries.
His mother, 6 houses away, looked out the window and saw the bike under the taxi but her son not in sight.
Mother sued driver for causing emotional distress
Driver not liable for mother’s emotional injury and did not owe a DOC to her as she was too far in time and space for the driver to reasonably foresee what his actions may cause her. They also were not close in relationship for him to have her in consideration.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
Case for “is it fair just and reasonable to impose a DOC”
C sued D for negligence after the murder of his daughter due to D failing to prevent it.
Court stated that it is not fair, just or reasonable to impose a DOC because there was no way of D knowing who the victim would be or when the murderer would strike again.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Case for standard of care being “reasonable man”
A waterworks company had installed a tap into C’s house which began to leak.
Court ruled that D was not liable because D took reasonable precautions in the installation of the tap and acted how a reasonable waterworks company would, meaning they had not breached their duty.
Mullins v Richards
Case for standard of care- children
2 15 year old girls were play fighting with rulers when one of them snapped and a splinter sprang into Mullins’ eye, resulting in partial blindness.
Richards was sued for negligence
Court determined Richard’s liability by assessing how the reasonable 15 year old would act. They ruled that Richards was not liable because the reasonable 15 year old would not foresee harm arising from the game and therefore would not take reasonable precaution to mitigate risk. Links to the concept of foreseeability, and how children under 18 have a lower standard of care.
Nettleship v Weston
Case for Standard of care- Trainees/learners
D was taking driving lessons with C and crashed into a lamppost which injured the claimant. Court ruled that D was liable, because the standard of care for learners should be the same as a qualified driver to prevent messy, careless or negligent driving with the thought that they will not face consequences.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Case for standard of care - professionals
This case addresses that the standard of care for professionals is more reasonable than a reasonable man and therefore are expected to take extra precaution. This is because professionals have further expertise and do not have the same amount of knowledge as the reasonable man.
Latimer v AEC
Case for BOD risk factors - practicality and cost of precaution
In this case, the floor of a company was wet and proposed a slipping hazard. The company then utilised what was available and scattered sawdust on the floor to minimise risk.
The claimant still slipped and claimed for negligence, the court ruled that the company took reasonable precaution that was cheap and easy, and another reasonable company would take the same steps therefore there was not a breach of duty.
Bolton v Stone
Case for BOD risk factors - Degree of risk
The claimant was a passerby near to a cricket club when a ball flew over the fence which hit the claimant.
The claimant sued for negligence but the court ruled that the defendant was not liable.
D was not able to reasonably foresee the ball going over and that they had to be extra careful; the fences were 17m in height
and there was a low likelihood of the harm occurring. Therefore, another reasonable cricket club would not have taken extra safety measures. This demonstrates that the defendant acted within their standard of care and did not breach their duty.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Case for BOD risk factors - Standard of care
The claimant was partially blinded in one eye when their employer delegated a task which involved risk to their eyes. The claimant was not given eye protection resulting in injury to their good eye, leading to complete blindness.
The court ruled that the defendant had a duty of care to take extra precautions knowing
it is foreseeable that damage to the claimant would have a higher severity in comparison to an average individual.
This reinforced the rule that if an individual has a special characteristic making them more susceptible to harm, it should be considered that they will need additional care if they are undertaking a risky task.
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Case for BOD risk factors - Social Utility
The defendant was on their way to help a woman who was stuck under a lorry. A heavy object had to be transported in order to lift the lorry, but the equipment to keep it secured was unavailable.
The claimant held onto the object which fell onto him and sued the defendant.
Court was in favour of the defendant because the fact that their actions were socially useful outweighs how they failed to take safety measures during the transportation of the equipment.
Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospitals
Case for factual causation in tort
The defendant was a doctor who sent their client home who was suffering arsenic poisoning.
The client later died and the defendant was sued for breaching their duty.
However the court stated that the defendant was not liable for the consequence because there is no cure for arsenic poisoning and the client would have passed regardless.
The Wagon Mound
Case for legal causation in tort
Oil spilt from the Wagon Mound where D worked. It spread through the water and near to C’s wharf. The oil caught fire and damaged C’s wharf.
Court ruled that D was not liable because the damage was too remote (far fetched) and not foreseeable that the oil would catch fire in water and damage C’s wharf.
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
Case for legal causation exceptions - Harm was foreseeable but the extent was greater than foreseen
C was instructed by D to travel a long distance in order to collect a new van. However on that day it was advisable to avoid journeys unless necessary due to adverse weather conditions. C did as directed by D and suffered frostbite due to his vehicle lacking heat and the severity of the weather.
D was held liable because though the consequence was quite extensive, harm was still foreseeable
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Case for legal causation exceptions - Harm was foreseeable but the way it happened was not
The defendants entered an area with an open, unguarded manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps. The defendants accidentally dropped one of the lamp which then exploded.
The court held them liable because although an explosion was unforeseeable, the burns from the lamps were.
Smith v Leech Brain
Case for thin skull rule.
A widow made a claim for her husband who had passed. The husband had pre-cancerous cells in his lip which had been affected after the defendant accidentally splashed molten iron onto his lip.
The husband died from cancer, and the court applied the thin skull rule stating that although the defendant was unaware of his condition, “you must take your victim as you find them,” declaring him liable.
