Civil Action Case Law Flashcards
“Absolute Duty”
Stark v The post Office 2000
Thrown from bicycle after brake failure
Court held that BSD happened when brake cable snapped – therefore an absolute duty
Questions of foreseeability and reasonableness were irrelevant when the duty imposed was an absolute one, unqualified by the words practicable or reasonably practicable.
“Practicable”
Adsett v K and L Steelfounders and Engineers (1953)
Practicability is that of current knowledge and invention – once something is found to be practicable it is feasible and must be done irrespective of cost or inconvenience
“Reasonably Practicable”
Edwards v National Coal Board (1949)
Edwards was killed in a coal mine rock fall.
The case established that ‘reasonably practicable’ allowed a risk assessment of the benefit v the costs (time, trouble or money).
‘Practicable’ or ‘Reasonably So’
Marshall v Gotham & Co.
Marshall was killed when the mine roof fell in. It would have been ‘practicable’ to shore up the entire roof system, but not ‘reasonably so’, given that it was not known there was a fault there. To have shorn up the entire roof of the mine ‘just in case’ would not have been reasonable in the circumstances
Duty to trespassers
British Railways Board v Herrington (1971)
Child was injured on the lines after getting through a broken fence.
The House of Lords held that the occupier of the railway premises owed a duty of common humanity to the child.
Until this case no duty of care was owed to trespassers.
Note - Overruled Addie & Sons v Dumbreck [1929] an ‘occupier … only liable to a trespasser… injured… intentionally or recklessly’.
Claim of tort
Corn v Weirs Glass (Hanley) Ltd (1960)
A successful claim of tort of breach of duty requires the loss to be consequential to the breach.
A glazier fell from a stairs with no handrail, while holding a sheet of glass with both hands.
The fall was not consequential to the lack of hand rail since he could not have held it if it were there.
Tort - duty of care to vulnerable employees
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)
Paris was blind in one eye but he concealed this until examined by a company doctor.
Was given 2 weeks notice (1950 remember) – 2 days before leaving was struck in good eye by piece on metal, blinding him.
On Appeal - Council owed a special duty of care to Paris and had been negligent in failing to supply him with goggles.
Duty to provide safe system of work
General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas (1952)
Window cleaner injured when he fell after a sash window he was holding, suddenly moved.
Company not negligent of failing to provide equipment, e.g. ladders, safety straps etc.
Company were negligent of providing a safe system of work, e.g. instructing workers to test windows for safety.
Non-delegatable duty of care.
Wilsons & Clyde Coal v English (1937)
English was crushed at work and claimed damages. The employer claimed their agent was responsible for safety at that workplace (a mine).
Ruling: The employer’s duty to his employees is personal and non-delegable.
He can delegate the performance of the duty to others, whether employees or independent contractors, but not responsibility for its negligent performance.
Contributory negligence
Uddin v. Associated Portland Cement Mfrs. Ltd., (1965)
Uddin was employed in a cement factory.
He went where he was not authorised to be in order and climbed up to a position where there was unfenced machinery. As a result he became entangled with a revolving shaft and lost an arm.
It made no difference that Uddin was in a part of the factory where he was not supposed to be or that he was doing something that had nothing to do with his work.
Responsibility was apportioned on the basis of 20% to the defendants and 80% to the plaintiff.
Volenti non fit injuria
ICI v Shatwell (1964)
2 employees injured when they ignored explosive regulations and company policy.
Employers could successfully raise ‘Volenti’ as defence.
The defence of ‘volenti non-fit injuria’ will apply when there is true and free consent to the risk.
Master/servant relationship
Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd. (1947)
Coggins and Griffiths hired a crane and driver from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. Newall, the driver, drove the crane negligently and injured Mr Mcfarlane.
Contract between the Board and the hirers stated that the driver was to become their employee for the duration of the hire.
Judgement - Control over Mr Newall’s work had not passed to the hirers.
Vicarious Liability (1)
Smith v Crossley Bros Ltd (1951)
An employer may be held criminally liable or liable in common law for the negligent or unlawful acts of a member of staff, even though the member of staff wilfully disobeyed the express instructions of his/her employer.
Apprentices engaged in horseplay injected compressed air into a 3rd person.
The employers were held not liable.
Staff acted negligently “on a frolic of his/her own” independently of the job.
Vicarious Liability (2)
Rose v Plenty (1976)
A milkman (against company orders) took a 13-year-old boy to help him on his round, and the boy was injured through the milkman’s negligent driving.
The boy sued both the milkman and the dairy.
The trial judge found that the dairy was not liable.
The Court of Appeal found the dairy vicariously liable for the boy’s injuries. The boy was actually helping to deliver the milk, and so the driver’s action was an unauthorised way of performing his duties.
Practicability of precautions
Latimer v. AEC Ltd (1953)
A freak flood left the floor oily.
Employer used all available materials to absorb the hazard.
Plaintiff came on shift unaware of the problem, slipped and crushed ankle.
On Appeal - The employer took every step that reasonably could have been taken in the circumstances and in so doing had negated any possible allegation of negligence .
