negligence & nervous shock

Question 1

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Answer 1

Lord Atkins established neighbour test - “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure those who are so closely and directly affected by you act that you ought to have them in your contemplation when doing acts or omissions”

Question 2

Bourhill v Young 1943

Answer 2

driver did not owe a duty of care to the pregnant lady as it was her own “morbid curiosity” that brought her to the scene

Question 3

Caparo Industries v Dickman 1990

Answer 3

established proximity test - reasonably foreseeable harm, sufficient proximity, just fair & reasonable to establish duty

Question 4

Watson v British Boxing Board 2001

Answer 4

the boxing board owed the boxers a duty of care to supply adequate ringside medical care

Question 5

Smolden v Whitworth & Nolan 1997

Answer 5

referee had a duty of care to stop collapsed scrum in rugby game

Question 6

Calvert v William Hill 2008

Answer 6

gambling shop did not owe a duty of care to stop an addict from opening up a new account

Question 7

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 2008

Answer 7

police owed a duty of care to society as a whole, not just to the last victim of the Yorkshire Ripper

Question 8

Blyth v Birmingham WaterWorks 1856 `

Answer 8

Baron Alderson - “negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”

Question 9

Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club 1933

Answer 9

Greer - the reasonable man is “the man on the Clapham omnibus”

Question 10

Glasgow Corp v Muir 1943

Answer 10

Macmillan - the reasonable man is “presumed to be free from both over apprehension from over confidence”

Question 11

Nettleship v Weston 1971

Answer 11

learner drivers owe the same duty of care as qualified drivers

Question 12

Haley v London Electricity Board 1964

Answer 12

the board owed more of a duty of care to make people in the blind area more aware of the hole - visual awareness not enough

Question 13

Bolton v Stone

Answer 13

the 17ft wall around the cricket ground limited the likelihood of the risk of the ball going over (5 times in 40 years)

Question 14

Paris v Stepney BC

Answer 14

the magnitude of risk towards the one eyed welder was much greater so they owed more of a duty

Question 15

Watt v Hertfordshire CC

Answer 15

(reason for taking risk) social utility outweighed the risk

Question 16

Latimer v AEC Ltd

Answer 16

the sawdust on the wet floors was enough as anything else would have meant they had to close so the practicality outweighed cost

Question 17

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957

Answer 17

as long as there are a percentage of people in the same profession who would do the same, there is no breach of duty

Question 18

Gates v McKenna 1998

Answer 18

the hypnotist had done the same as everyone else so despite the flashbacks, there was no breach

Question 19

Phillips v Whiteley 1938

Answer 19

piercer used same sterilization techniques as others in the same profession so there was no breach

Question 20

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis 1955

Answer 20

those working with children have a higher standard of care

Question 21

Mullin v Richards 1998

Answer 21

children will be compared to children of the same age

Question 22

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee 1969

Answer 22

claimant had too much arsenic for the hospital to be able to save him even if they had have checked him when he first got there

Question 23

Wilshire v Essex HA 1987

Answer 23

it could not be proven that the baby was born blind due to the maladministration of oxygen under causation

Question 24

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services 2002

Answer 24

compensation was reduced due to contributory negligence

Question 25

The Wagon Mound 1961

Answer 25

established that claims are allowed for "reasonably foreseeable consequences of the breach" - not reasonably foreseeable

Question 26

Bradford v Robinson Rentals 1967

Answer 26

foreseeable damage even if extreme (frostbite)

Question 27

Morris v Murray 1990

Answer 27

consent used as a defence as the man agreed to get in the plane

Question 28

Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority 1997

Answer 28

doctors can be negligent even if they acted the same way as everyone else if courts felt they had not weighed up all pros and cons

Question 29

Roe v Ministry of Health 1954

Answer 29

reasonable standard of care will be assessed on medical knowledge at the time

Question 30

Scott v London St Catherine's Dock

Answer 30

showed principle of res ipsa loquitur

Question 31

Mahon v Osborne 1939

Answer 31

showed principle of res ipsa loquitur

Question 32

Cassidy v Ministry of Health 1950

Answer 32

showed principle of res ipsa loquitur

Question 33

Chester v Afshar 2004

Answer 33

doctor liable for failing to warn of small chance of paralysis on policy grounds

Question 34

Reilly v Merseyside Regional HA 1994

Answer 34

"nervous shock must be something more than a cup of tea can cure"

Question 35

Tredget v Bexley HA 1994

Answer 35

argued in court that their grief was no more than any other parent would have suffered

Question 36

Dulieu v White & Sons 1901

Answer 36

primary victim after horse flew into window

Question 37

Vernon v Bosley 1997

Answer 37

successfully claimed after watching his children drown due to the negligence of the nanny

Question 38

Hambrook v Stokes 1925

Answer 38

thought lorry was going to hit kids - "the cause of action, as i have said, appears to be created by breach of the ordinary duty to take reasonable care to avoid inflicting personal injuries, followed by damage, even though the type of damage may be unexpected - namely shock"

Question 39

Hinz v Berry 1970

Answer 39

"in order to draw the line between sorrow and grief and recoverable psychiatric illness, estimate how much the plaintif would have suffered if they were 50 miles away & compare with how much was suffered by being present at the trauma"

Question 40

Owens v Liverpool Corp 1933

Answer 40

questionable claim after family witnessed coffin fell over in funeral parade (body didn't fall out)

Question 41

Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co 1951

Answer 41

successful claim after crane fell towards workmates

Question 42

King v Phillips 1953

Answer 42

unsuccessful claim after taxi reversed over childs bike (mother thought he was on bike) 70 yards away

Question 43

Hale v London Underground 1992

Answer 43

rescuer able to claim for london underground fire as he could not have been trained for that

Question 44

Chadwick v British Railways Board 1992

Answer 44

able to claim as primary victim despite being a rescuer and not a direct witness to incident

Question 45

Mc Farlane v EE Caledonia 1994

Answer 45

classed as bystander despite trying to rescue workmates from oil rig

Question 46

McLoughlin v O'Brien 1982

Answer 46

able to claim as secondary victim as she witnessed husband and children in same state they would have been at scene of accident

Question 47

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1992

Answer 47

identified who can claim successfully - primary victims & secondary (proximity time and space, proximity relationship, result of witnessing event or immediate aftermath, immediate & "sudden appreciation of a horrifying event")

Question 48

Simmons v British Steel 2004

Answer 48

successful claim due to egg shell skull rule & remoteness

Question 49

Taylor v Somerset HA 1993

Answer 49

not a secondary victim (saw husband after heart attack) as she asked to see him

Question 50

Duncan v British Coal 1990

Answer 50

claim failed after coal miner witnessed colleague being crushed & trying to rescue

Question 51

Greatorex v Greatorex 2000

Answer 51

failed based on policy grounds (family relationship)