Cases Flashcards
(39 cards)
(Duty of care) What are the facts in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?
C and a friend went to a cafe in Scotland and the friend ordered a ginger beer for C
C drank some of the beer from the opaque bottle but as she poured the rest into a glass a decomposed snail fell out of the bottle
C claimed she suffered from shock and sickness and wanted compensation
As the contract was between the friend and the seller, C sued the manufacturers for negligence instead
Court held that the lack of contract between C and the manufacturer would not stop the claim
C’s claim was successful
(Duty of care) What are the facts in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970)?
A group of young Borstal inmates were taken to Brownsea Island in Poole Harbour for weekend leave and training
5 of the boys escaped their guards during the night and they found C’s yacht club
They vandalised several yachts
The Home Office was sued for the alleged negligence of their employees in failing to restrain the boys
HOL held that the wrong had not been committed by D but by the boys
D was responsible for the boys and their actions were foreseeable
Claim was successful
(Duty of care) What are the facts in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)?
A 76 year old woman was injured in a scuffle between 2 police officers and a drug dealer in a shopping centre
The CoA decided to apply the Caparo test and it was decided that It was not right to impose a duty of care on the police in this case
On appeal to the Supreme Court, there was a duty found as it was a breach of duty to cause physical injury
(Duty of care) What are the facts in Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2012)?
A ‘voluntary’ patient in a hospital’s mental health unit was suffering from severe depression and had known suicidal tendencies
Doctors negligently gave her weekend leave
During this leave, she killed herself
Upon her parents action against the hospital, it was held that the relationship between their daughter and the hospital imposed a duty of care
(Duty of care) What are the facts in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council (2009)?
A negligence action was brought on behalf of the deceased tenant of social housing managed by the defendants
He was murdered by a fellow tenant following a long campaign of abuse which the defendants were aware of
It was decided that it was not fair, just or reasonable to impose this on a public authority coping with the huge burden on antisocial behaviour among tenants
(Breach of duty) What are the facts in Nettleship v Weston?
D was a learner driver on their 3rd driving lesson from a friend (C)
D began to panic, mounted the pavement and hit a lamppost
C suffered an injury to their leg and sued D
D argued standard of care should be lowered for learner drivers as they were less experienced
It was held that the learner driver is expected to meet the same standard as a reasonable qualified driver
(Breach of duty - probability of damage) What are the facts in Bolton v Stone?
C injured by a cricket ball outside her house
Cricket pitch was surrounded by a 17ft fence
A witness living in the area said that he had found balls outside the pitch 5-6 times in 30 years
No breach, likelihood was low, taken reasonable care
(Breach of duty - magnitude of harm) What are the facts in Paris v Stepney?
C only had sight in one eye
During employment at a garage, splinter of metal went into his good eye, blinding him
Employer didn’t provide goggles
Breach of duty
Seriousness of harm to C was much greater than to people with 2 eyes
Duty was only owed to this particular claimant
(Breach of duty - practicality and cost) What are the facts in Latimer v AEC?
C worked in factory, slipped on the floor
Factory had flooded due to bad weather
D put warning signs, mopped and put sawdust down
No breach
D had taken reasonable precautions to minimise risk
The only other option was to shut the factory, which was unreasonable and an unnecessary loss of profits
(Breach of duty - social utility and conduct) What are the facts in Watt v Hertfordshire?
C was a fireman
A woman was involved in an accident and trapped under a lorry 200-300 yards from the station
The fire services were called, they needed a lorry jack
The vehicle for carrying the jack was unavailable
The fire chief ordered C and his colleagues to lift the jack onto a different truck
The truck braked, the jack fell on C’s leg causing serious injury
No breach - emergency and utility of C’s conduct in saving a life outweighed the precautions
(Breach of duty) What are the facts in Bolam v Friern Hospital?
C sustained fractures during electro-convulsive therapy
Hospital failed to give muscle relaxants or restraints
Failed to notify of risks
Witnesses agreed in opposition to the muscle relaxants and said that less restraints reduces the risk of fractures
It was the practice of the doctor to not warn of risks unless asked to do so
Not liable
(Causation in fact) What are the facts in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management?
Some men attended the hospital complaining about feeling unwell after drinking tea
The men were sent home from the hospital without examination
One man died of arsenic poisoning
The doctors should have diagnosed the poisoning
Breach wasn’t the cause of death - the man was too far gone so would’ve died even with a diagnosis
(Causation in fact) What are the facts in Brooks v Home Office?
Claimant was a female prisoner who was pregnant with twins
High risk pregnancy
Poor development of one twin
A referral to a specialist took 5 days, but she lost the baby on day 2
Claimed the HO was liable, 5 day delay was below the standard of care
Denied - courts argued that 2 days was a reasonable wait for someone outside of prison, baby died within the two day period so the delay didn’t cause the death
(Causation in fact - loss of chance) What are the facts in Hotson v East Berkshire Area HA?
Boy taken to hospital with a knee injury, no apparent injury was found
Returned the hospital 5 days later, hip injury diagnosed and treated
Also developed a problem with blood supply which led to pain and deformity
There was a 25% chance that a proper initial diagnosis would have diverted the blood supply issue
Held - it was not proven that the hospital caused the condition, had to reach 51% or higher
(Causation in fact - loss of chance) What are the facts in Siddiqui v University of Oxford?
Claimant sued uni claiming that negligent teaching led him to lose the chance of a prestigious legal career
He received a low 2:1 instead of a high 2:1 or 1st
Failed to win a place at an American university
Lost jobs with legal firms
Teaching wasn’t found to be negligent - many factors led to his circumstances
The legal firms that he had spent time working for called him rude, late and claimed he had little to no IT skills
(Causation in fact - more than one cause) What are the facts in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw?
Steel dresser contracted pneumoconiosis due to silica dust from pneumatic hammer and swing grinder
Statutory duty was applied to the grinders
The issue was whether the dust had come from the hammers or the grinders
On the balance of probability, dust from the grinders materially contributed to the injury, causation was established
Dust was a material cause
(Causation in fact) What are the facts in McGhee v National Coal Board?
Worker suffered skin disease after years of working in a brick kiln - there were no showers to rinse off the dust
Negligence was established, but causation was in doubt
The defendant argued that the job inevitably involved exposure to dust - it was innocent exposure rather than wrongful exposure
Found in favour of the claimant
(Causation in fact) What are the facts in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd?
Claimant was negligently exposed to asbestos by 2 employers
Suffered from mesothelioma
Defendant wasn’t liable as the claimant couldn’t establish which defendant caused the damage
(Causation in law) What are the facts in Wagon Mound No 1?
The defendant’s vessel (The Wagon Mound) leaked furnace oil at a wharf in Sydney Harbour
Some cotton debris became embroiled in oil and sparks from welding ignited the oil
The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of other boats and the wharf
It wasn’t foreseeable that the oil on the water would catch fire but it was foreseeable that the fouling would cause damage
Defendant was held liable
This was appealed to the Privy Council
The fire damage wasn’t foreseeable so no liability was found
The damage that was foreseeable was the oil damage
The damage that occurred was fire damage
The types of damage were not the same so there was no liability
(Causation in law) What are the facts in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd?
Asbestos lid was knocked into a vat of molten liquid
Explosion occurred, claimant suffered burns
This was an unknown chemical reaction at the time
The damage was too remote - the explosion wasn’t foreseeable
May have been foreseeable that a scald from the liquid may occur
(Causation in law) What are the facts in Hughes v Lord Advocate?
Defendants left a manhole uncovered, protected only by a tent and paraffin lamps
A child climbed into the hole
When climbing out, the child knocked one of the paraffin lamps
The lamp fell into the manhole and caused an explosion
The child was burned
Defendant said the damage wasn’t foreseeable as they didn’t foresee the children playing around the lamps
Defendant was liable for the consequences as it didn’t matter how the damage occurred
(Causation in law) What are the facts in Tremain v Pike?
Claimant was employed by defendant farmers
Contracted Weil’s disease through contact with rats urine
All other diseases caused by rats were associated with rat bites or food contamination - it was unknown that a disease could be caused by rats urine at that time
Weil’s disease is very rare in humans
Claimant alleged that he became infected by using or washing in contaminated water or when handling hay bales when there was a rat infestation
Claimed damages on the grounds that he contracted the disease as a result of negligence as the defendants failed to control the infestation
Claim was dismissed - there was no breach as the possibility of the disease arising from the presence of rats was not a possibility that the defendants ought to have reasonably foreseen
The possibility of the disease was too remote
(Causation in law) What are the facts in Jolley v Sutton?
A boat was left abandoned for 2 years beside a block of flats on land owned by the defendants council
The council was aware of the boat and had plans to remove it but the plans hadn’t been implemented
The boat was rotten at the time
2 boys (13 and 14) started to repair the boat using a car jack and wood
The boat fell from the jack and crushed the claimant causing spinal injuries, paraplegia and major complications
Sought damages in negligence and breach of statutory duty
The defendants argued that the paralysis was too remote
CoA claimed the damage was not foreseeable
HOL argued that child’s play shouldn’t be underestimated so the defendants were liable
(Causation in law - thin skull rule) What are the facts in Smith v Leech Brain Co?
Claimant suffered a burn on his lip when molten metal splashed it at work
Defendant employer should have provided a proper shield
Burn healed but caused a premalignant condition to activate a cancerous growth leading to the claimant’s eventual death
Claimant had a proven disposition to cancer
Condition may have never become malignant if the burn didn’t happen
Held that the defendants were liable for the death of the claimant
