Cases

Question 1

24: Liability in Negligence -
Duty of care

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Answer 1

Mrs Donoghue went to a café with a friend, he bought her a bottle of Ginger beer and ice cream. After drinking some of it, Mrs Donoghue poured the rest out and saw that it contained a dead, decomposing, snail. She suffered physical and psychological injuries. New line

She wanted to claim for her injuries. As she had not bought the drink she could not use the law of contract to sue the café or the manufacturer. She sued the manufacturing in negligence, claiming that they were at fault in the manufacturing process and that they owed her a duty of care. In the HOL Lord Atkin applied the neighbour principle to test whether the manufacturer owed her a duty.

Question 2

24: Liability in Negligence -
Duty of care

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Answer 2

The claimant company wanted to take over another company – Fidelity Limited. They looked at the Statutory accounts prepared for Fidelity by the defendant, which showed a profit. Based on these books they decided to take over Fidelity. After completing the purchase they looked at the detailed books which showed a loss. They sued the defendant for their loss.

The HOL set the three–stage test for owing a duty of care. They decided that the defendant did not owe the claimant a duty of care as the accounts were prepared for Fidelity and for statutory reasons.

Question 3

24: Liability in Negligence -
Damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Answer 3

A doctor called an ambulance to take the claimant, who was suffering an asthma attack, to hospital. Despite repeated assurances by the control Centre, and for no obvious reason, the ambulance failed to arrive within a reasonable time. As a result the claimant suffered a respiratory arrest. The court decided it was ‘ Reasonably foreseeable’ that the claimant would suffer further illness if the ambulance did not arrive promptly.

Question 4

24: Liability in Negligence -
Proximity of relationship

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Answer 4

A pregnant woman heard the sound of an accident as she got off the tram. The accident was caused by a motorcyclist died in the accident. After a short while she approached the scene of the accident and saw blood on the road. She suffered such shock from what she saw that she lady gave birth to a stillborn baby. She sued the relatives of the dead motorcyclist. Under the ‘neighbour’ test at the time she had to prove that she was proximate, or close to, the motorcyclist so that she was owed a duty of care. The House of Lords decided that the motorcyclist could not anticipate that, if he was involved in an accident, it would cause mental injury to a bystander. He was not proximate to Mrs Bourhill and she was not out of duty of care

Question 5

24: Liability in Negligence -
Proximity of relationship

McLoughlin v O’Brien (1982)

Answer 5

In this case, she was at home, the claimants husband and children were involved in a serious road accident. The accident was caused by The negligence of the defendant lorry driver. One of the children was killed at the scene and the other family members were taken to hospital. The claimant was told of the accident and went to the hospital. She saw her family before they had been treated. As a result she suffered severe shock, organic depression and a personality change. She claimed against the defendant for the psychiatric injury she suffered. The House of Lords decided that the Lorry driver owed her duty of care and extend the class of persons who would be considered proximity to the event to those who came within the immediate aftermath of the event (in this case, two hours after the accident).

Question 6

24: Liability in Negligence -
Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990)

Answer 6

In this case a serial killer, the Yorkshire Ripper, had been attacking and murdering women in Yorkshire and across the north of England. The claimant’s daughter was the killer’s last victim before he was caught. By the time of her death the police already had enough information to arrest the killer, but had failed to do so. The mother claims that the police owed the duty of care to her daughter. It was decided by the house of lords that the relationship between the victim and the police was not sufficiently close (proximate) for the police to be under a duty of care and that it was not fair, just all reasonable for the police to our duty of care to the general public. The police knew that the killer might strike again but they had no way of knowing who the victim might be.

Question 7

24: Liability in Negligence -
Breach of duty -
professionals/experts

Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957)

Answer 7

In this case the claimant was suffering from a mental illness and the treatment at the time was to be given a type of electric shock (ECT). He signed the consent form but was not told of the risk of broken bones well receiving the shocks and was not given a relaxant drugs. He suffered a broken pelvis while receiving the treatment.

There were two options within the medical profession when using ECT. One option favoured the use of relaxant drugs in every case. The other was that drug should only be used if there was a reason to do so, which was not present in Bolam’s case. The court decided that as the hospital had followed one of these courses of action it had not breached its duty of care.

Question 8

24: Liability in Negligence -
Breach of duty -
Learners

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

Answer 8

Mrs Weston arranged with Mr Nettleship for him to give her driving lessons. She was on her third lesson and failed to straighten up after turning a corner. She hit a lamppost which fell off the car, injuring Mr Nettleship. The court decided that Mrs Weston should be judged at the standard of the competent driver, not at the standard of the inexperienced learner driver, and she had breached her duty of care to Mr Nettleship.

Question 9

24: Liability in Negligence -
Breach of Duty -
Children and young persons

Mullin v Richards (1998)

Answer 9

Two girls, aged 15, where play-fighting with plastic rollers in class at school. One of the rulers snapped and fragments entered Theresa Mullin’s eye, resulting in her losing all useful site in their eyes. The court decided that the other girl, Heidi Richards, had to meet the standard of a 15-year-old school girl and not that of a reasonable adult. As she had reached the required standard, she had not breached her duty of care.

Question 10

24: Liability in Negligence -
Breach of Duty -
Vulnerable Victim

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

Answer 10

Mr Paris was known to his employers to be blind in one eye. He was given work to do which involved a small risk of injury to the eyes. He was not given any protective goggles. While doing this work, his good eye was damaged by a small piece of metal and he became totally blind. His employers were held to have broken their duty of care to him.

Question 11

24: Liability in Negligence -
Breach of Duty -
Size of risk

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Answer 11

A cricket ball hit a lady passerby in the street outside the cricket ground. The evidence was that there was a 17 foot high fence around the ground and the wicket was a long way from this offence. There was also evidence that cricket balls had only been hit out of the ground six times in the last 30 years before the incident.

Because of the number of times balls had been hit out of the ground, it was found that the cricket club had done everything I needed to do in view of the low risk, and have not breached its duty of care.

Question 12

24: Liability in Negligence -
Breach of Duty -
Knowledge of danger

Haley v London Electricity Board (1965)

Answer 12

The electricity board dug a trench for its cables and, following its standard practice, it only put out warning signs; it did not put any barriers around the trench. The claimant was blind and was injured when he fell into the trench. As it was known that that particular road was used by a number of blind people, greater precautions should’ve been taken and the defendant had breached its duty of care.

Question 13

24: Liability in Negligence -
Breach of Duty -
Cost of precautions

Latimer v AEC (1954)

Answer 13

Factory became flooded and, as the floor is very slippery with a mixture of the water and oil, the workers were evacuated. Sawdust were spread over the floor to minimise The risk of slipping in the works were required to go back in. Despite spreading of sawdust one worker slipped and was injured. The court held that there was no breach of the duty of care.

It was found that the only way to completely prevent injury would have been to close The factory for a period of time. It was unreasonable to expect the owners to do this. They had taken sufficient steps at the time to prevent injury.

Question 14

24: Liability in Negligence -
Breach of Duty -
Knowledge of danger

Roe v Minister of Health (1954)

Answer 14

In hospital, anaesthetic was kept in glass tubes which were sterilised by cleaning solution after each use. At the time is not known that in visible cracks could occur in the glass and allow the anaesthetic to become contaminated by the cleaning solution. The claimant was paralysed by some contaminated anaesthetic. As the risk of contamination was not known at the time, there was no breach and he could not claim compensation.

Question 15

24: Liability in Negligence -
Breach of Duty -
Public benefit

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)

Answer 15

The claimant was a fireman. They had been a road accident a short distance from the fire station and the fire service was called to release a trapped woman from underneath a Lorrie. A jack was needed to release the injured woman but the normal vehicle for carrying the jack was not available. A flat bed truck was found but there was no means of securing the jack to the Lorrie. The claimant was injured when the jack slipped and fell on him on the way to the accident. The court decided that the Fire service had not breached its duty of care to the claimant because of the emergency situation and the utility of saving a life outweighed the need to take precautions.

Question 16

24: Liability in Negligence -
Breach of Duty -
Public benefit

Day v High Performance Sports (2003)

Answer 16

The claimant, and experienced climber, fell from an indoor climbing wall and suffered serious injuries. She had to be rescued from the wall by the duty manager at a height of 9 meters when she became ‘frozen‘ in her position. The way the manager rescued her was inappropriate, causing her fall. The court decided that the manager, and the centre, had not breached their duty of care in view of the emergency situation.

Question 17

24: Liability in Negligence -
Causation and remoteness of damage -
Factual causation

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)

Answer 17

Three nightwatchman went to hospital A&E department complaining of sickness after drinking tea made by a fourth man. A nurse telephoned the duty doctor, who did not come to examine the men but, instead, recommend that they go home and see their own doctors. One of the men went home and died a few hours later from poisoning by arsenic.

His widow sued the hospital, claiming that the doctor was negligent in not examining her husband and had caused his death. She was able to prove that the doctor had duty of care to her husband and that by not examining him, the doctor had broken the duty of care. However, the evidence showed that by the time her husband had called at the hospital it was already too late to save his life. The arsenic was already in his system in such a quantity that he would’ve died whatever was done. This meant that his death was not caused by the doctor’s breach of duty of care and so the claim failed.

Question 18

24: Liability in Negligence -
Causation and remoteness of damage -
Remoteness of damage

The Wagon Mound (1961)

Answer 18

Fuel oil had been negligently spilled from the defendants ship onto water in Sydney harbour. It’s spread towards the claimants wharf where welding repairs will be carried out to another ship. Two days later the oil coal fire because of sparks from the welding. The fire spread to the claimants wharf and burnt it down.

It was decided that, although damage done to the wharf by oil being spilled was reasonably foreseeable, fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable. This type of damage was to remove from the original negligent act of spilling the oil.

Question 19

24: Liability in Negligence -
Causation and remoteness of damage -
Foreseeability

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

Answer 19

Post office workmen left the manhole unattended, covered only with a tent and with paraffin lamps by the hole. The claimant, an eight-year-old boy, and a friend, climbed into the hole. As they climbed out the boys knocked one of the paraffin lamps into the hole, this caused an explosion which badly burnt the claimant. The defendant denied liability claiming that the injuries were too remote, but the court decided that the boy was able to claim for his injuries as it was foreseeable that a child might explore the site, break a lamp and be burnt. The type of injury he suffered was foreseeable, even though the explosion itself was not foreseeable.

Question 20

24: Liability in Negligence -
Causation and remoteness of damage -
Foreseeability -

Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)

Answer 20

The claimant was required by his employer to take an old works Van from Exeter to Bedford, collect a new van, and drive it back to Exeter. He had to do this in an extremely cold weather and neither van had a heater. As the windscreens kept freezing over, he had to drive with the windows open. The claimant suffered is frostbite and was unable to work. The court decided that the employers were liable for his injuries, even though the injury suffered was very unusual. Some injury from the cold was reasonably foreseeable.

Question 21

24: Liability in Negligence -
Causation and remoteness of damage -
Foreseeability

Doughty v Turner Asbestos (1964)

Answer 21

The claimant was injured when asbestos lid was knocked into a vat of molten metal. Short time later chemical reaction caused an explosion of the metal which burnt the claimant. Scientific knowledge at the time could not have predicted the explosion and so the burn injuries were not reasonably foreseeable. It could be foreseen that knocking something into the molten metal might cause a splash but the claimants injury was caused by something else.

Question 22

24: Liability in Negligence -
Causation and remoteness of damage -
Eggshell skull/ take victim as you find him rule -

Smith v Leech Brain & Co.

Answer 22

Because of the defendants negligence, a man was burnt on the lips by molten metal in a factory. The man had an existing precancerous condition. The bone eventually brought about the onset of full cancer and the man died. His widow claimed against the defendants. The court decided that as a burn was reasonably foreseeable, and because of the eggshell skull rule, the defendant was liable for the man’s death.

Question 23

24: Liability in negligence -
Res ipsa loquitor -

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks (1866)

Answer 23

The claimant was hit and injured by six heavy bags of sugar which had fallen from the defendants warehouse. The claimant did not know, and could not prove, what had happened to make bags full. He could only showed that he was injured by the falling bags.
The elements of res ipsa loquitor were present:
- The sacks fell from the warehouse which was under the defendant’s control
- heavy sacks do not fall unless someone was negligent.
- there was no other explanation for the sacks to fall.
The court decided that the defendants were liable as they were unable to prove that they had not been negligent.

Question 24

25: Occupier’s liability -
Occupiers and premises -
Occupiers -

Wheat v E Latin & Co. Ltd (1966)

Answer 24

The manager of a pub was given the night to rent out rooms in his private quarters even though he had no ownership rights in the premises. A paying guest fell on an unlit staircase and died. The House of Lords decided that both the manager and his employers could be occupiers under the Act so they could be more than one occupier of the premises.

Question 25

25: Occupier’s liability - Occupiers and premises - Occupiers - Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)

Answer 25

A four-year-old child was injured in an empty house. The local council had served a compulsory purchase order on the house but he had not boarded it up or made it secure as it had not yet taken possession. It was decided it was in occupation as it was affectively in control of the premises.

Question 26

25: Occupier’s liability - Occupiers and premises - Occupiers - Bailey v Armes (1999)

Answer 26

The defendants lived in a flat above a supermarket. They allowed their son to climb out the window to play on the roof but forbade him to take anyone else up there. The supermarket knew nothing of the use of the roof. The boy took his friend on the roof and he was injured when he fell from the roof. The court decided that neither the supermarket nor the defendants were liable - Control over the means of access (the window) Was not sufficient to make the defendants liable.

Question 27

25: Occupier’s liability- Lawful visitors and the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 - Adult visitors - Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002)

Answer 27

The defendants owned A small takeaway shop. They had fitted slip resistant tiles, and they used a mop and bucket to mop the floor if it had been raining. When the claimant went into the shop it was very busy and had been raining. She slipped and broke her ankle. The Court of Appeal decided that the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure that customers were safe. They were not liable as they did not have to make the shop completely safe.

Question 28

25: Occupier’s liability- Lawful visitors and the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 - Adult visitors - Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell (2016)

Answer 28

The claimant was injured when he tripped and fell over a small lump of concrete protruding about 2 inches from the base of a Traffic ballades in the precincts of Rochester Cathedral. The bollard had previously been slightly damaged by a car. The court decided that: - tripping, slipping and falling out every day occurrences and it is the obligation of the occupier to make the land reasonably safe for visitors, not to guarantee their safety. - The risk is reasonably foreseeable anyway there is a real source of danger which a reasonable person wouldn’t recognise.

Question 29

25: Occupier’s liability- Lawful visitors and the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 - Adult visitors - Cold v David-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion and others (2007)

Answer 29

The claimant was injured when she trapped her foot in a hole in a village green where a maypole had been erected in the past. She argued that the owner of the Village Green had a duty to ensure the visitors were safe; that the British Legion had failed to properly filled the hole after a village fete; and that the local council had failed to adequately maintained the green. She won at first instance but failed in the Court of Appeal. The court held that since her injury took place nearly 2 years after the Maypole had been in place, the duty of the British Legion could not last that long. Although there was no specific evidence to support this view, the hole must’ve been opened again by a stranger, and the incident was a pure accident.

Question 30

25: Occupier’s liability- Lawful visitors and the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 - Occupiers liability to children - Glasgow Corporation vs Taylor (1922)

Answer 30

A seven-year-old child a poisonous berries from the shrub in a public park and died. The shrub on which the berries grew was not fenced off in any way. The council was liable to the child’s parents. It was aware of the danger and the berries amounted to an allurement to young children.

Question 31

25: Occupier’s liability- Lawful visitors and the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 - Occupiers liability to children - Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)

Answer 31

A five-year-old was playing on open ground owned by the council with his seven-year-old sister. He fell down a trench and was injured. The court decided that the council was not liable as the occupier is entitled to expect that parents shouldn’t allow their young child to go to places which are potentially unsafe.

Question 32

25: Occupier’s liability- Lawful visitors and the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 - Occupiers liability to children - Jolley v London Borough of Sutton (2000)

Answer 32

The council had failed to move an abandoned boat situated on its land for two years. Children regularly played in the boat and it was clearly a potential danger. When two boys aged 14 years jacked the boat up to repair it, the boat fell on one, seriously injuring him. The claim for compensation succeeded in the High Court that failed in the Court of Appeal since it was decided that, while the boat was an obvious allotment, the course of action taken by the boys, and therefore the specific type of injury, was not foreseeable. In an appeal to the House of Lords, this view was reversed. In the view it was foreseeable that children would play on the abandoned boat. It was not necessary for the council to foresee exactly what they were doing on it. They considered that children often find ways of putting themselves in danger, which needed to be taken into account by an occupier when considering how to keep them safe.

Question 33

25: Occupier’s liability- Lawful visitors and the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 - Occupiers liability to people carrying out a trade or calling - Roles v Nathan (1963)

Answer 33

Two chimney sweeps died after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes when cleaning the chimney of a coke-fired boiler. The sweeps had been warned of the dangers. The occupiers were not liable as they could have expected chimney sweeps to be aware of the particular danger.

Question 34

25: Occupier’s liability - Liability for trespassers: the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 - British Rail Board v Herrington (1972)

Answer 34

A six-year-old boy was badly burnt when he trespasses on to an electrified railway line through vandalised fencing. BR were aware of the gaps in the fencing and that children played in the area. The House of Lords established a duty of ‘common humanity’ which was a limited duty owed when an occupier knew of the limited duty owed when the occupier knew of the danger, and tog the likelihood of the trespass.

Question 35

25: Occupier’s liability - Liability for trespassers: The Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 - Adult trespasssers - Ratcliff v McConnell (1999)

Answer 35

A 19-year-old student climbed the fence of his open air college swimming pool at night dived into the pool hitting his head on the ledge. He was seriously injured. The Court of Appeal decided that the occupier was not required to warn adult tresspassers of the risk of injury against obvious dangers. In this case there was no hidden danger as it is well known that swimming pool is very in depth, and diving without checking the depth is dangerous.

Question 36

25: Occupier’s liability - Liability for trespassers: The Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 - Adult trespassers - Donoghue v Folkestone Properties (2003)

Answer 36

The claimant was injured when he was trespassing on the slipway in the harbour and dived into the sea, hitting a great pile be used for moring boats. The grid pile would’ve been visible at low tide. The injury happened in the middle of winter, at around midnight. The court held that the occupier did not have the claimant a duty of care under the 1984 act as they would not expect that a trust parser might be present or jump into the harbour at that time of day or year.

Question 37

25: Occupier’s liability - Liability for trespassers: The Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 - Adult trespassers - Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)

Answer 37

The council owned a park including a lake. Warning signs were posted prohibiting swimming and diving because the water was dangerous, the council knew that These were generally ignored. The council decided to make the lake in accessible to the public but delayed start on this work because of lack of funds. The claimant, aged 18, went to swimming in the lake, struck his head on the sandy bottom and suffered paralysis as a result of a severe spinal injury. In the Court of Appeal his claim under the 1984 act succeeded. The House of Lords accepted the councils appeal for three reasons. - in order to be liable under the 1984 Act, there had to be a danger due to the state of the premises or things done it omitted to be done. - it was not the sort of risk that defendant should have to guard against but one that the trespasser chose to run. - The council would not have breached its duty even if the claim was a lawful visitor as it was not reasonable to spend a lot of money preventing visitors being injured by obvious danger.

Question 38

25: Occupier’s liability - Liability for trespassers: The Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 - Adult trespassers - Higgs v Foster (2004)

Answer 38

A police officer investigating a crime entered the occupiers’ premises to carry out surveillance. He fell into an uncovered inspection pick suffering severe injuries, causing him to retire from the police force. The police officer was judged to be a trust parser on the premises. Although the occupiers knew the pit was a percent sure danger, they could not have anticipated his presence on the premises or in the vicinity, so they were not liable.

Question 39

25: Occupier’s liability - Liability for trespassers: The Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 - Adult trespassers - Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004)

Answer 39

The occupier did not know the submerged fibreglass container resting on the bottom of the lake on its premises. The claimant ignored a notice stating ‘Private Property. Strictly no Swimming’. and jumped into the lake and was injured by objects below the surface of the water. Section 1(3)(c) requires the occupier to owe a duty ‘if the risk is one against which in all circumstances of the case, he may be expected to offer the other some protection’. As the occupier did not know if the dangerous objects, no duty was owed.

Question 40

25: Occupier’s liability - Liability for trespassers: The Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 - Child trespassers - Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006)

Answer 40

An 11-year-old boy climbed a fire escape on the exterior of the hospital to show off to his friends and fell. The Court of Appeal held that, since the boy appreciate the danger, it was not the state of the premises (the existence of the fire escape, which was not faulty) but what the boy was doing on it. There was no danger due to the state of the premises, and the hospital was not liable.

Question 41

25: Occupier’s liability - Liability for trespassers: The Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 - Child trespassers - Baldaccino v West Wittering (2008)

Answer 41

On a summers day a 14-year-old boy climbed A navigational Beacon side of the beach as the tide was ebbing. He dived of the beacon, suffering neck injuries and tetraplegia. He was a lawful visitor to the beach but a trespasser to the beacon. It was decided that there was no duty on the part of the occupiers to warn against obvious dangers and the injuries did not result from the state of the premises. His claim failed.