PLS II cases

Question 1

Kays tutor v Ayrshire & Arran Health Board 1987 SC (HL) 145

Answer 1

suspected meningitis in child, given an adults dose of penicillin (overdose) immediate action taken but child became deaf. DAMNUM INJURIA DATUM, CAUSAL LINK. ALSO FACTUAL CAUSATION/CAUSA SINE QUA NON

Question 2

McFarlane v Tayside Health Board 2000 SC (HL) 1

Answer 2

failed vasectomy, husband advised that sperm count was negative but then wife fell pregnant. they tried to sue for the cost of raising a child. EXCEPTIONS, PURE ECONOMIC LOSS

Question 3

Bourhill v Young 1942 SC (HL) 78

Answer 3

woman alighting from tram, motorcyclist, driving negligently causing a collision, and a person died. the woman could not see the accident, but she heard it, and claimed she suffered ‘nervous shock’ and a miscarriage. DUTY OF CARE OWED, REASONABLY FORSEEABLE

Question 4

Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC (HL)

Answer 4

tea urn being carried through tearoom got dropped, Muir amongst some children got severely burnt. did manageress owe duty of care? just because they were given permission to be in the tearoom doesnt mean it was reasonably forseeable that harm would come to the children. DUTY OWED, REASONABLY FORSEEABLE

Question 5

Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL

Answer 5

The deceased and his assailant, Mr Drummond, were tenants of Glasgow City Council. At a meeting with the Council, Mr Drummond was advised that the Council were considering issuing a further notice for recovery of possession. Mr Drummond reacted by losing his temper and becoming abusive although apologising shortly after. After leaving the meeting Mr Drummond fatally assaulted the deceased.

The family claimed that the Council was guilty of negligence at common law for failing to fulfil their duty of care owed to the deceased by warning him that the meeting was taking place thereby allowing him to take steps to avoid an attack. It also claimed that the Council acted in a way that was in breach of the deceased’s right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).
REASONABLY FORSEEABLE, PROXIMITY

Question 6

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53

Answer 6

The plaintiff’s 20-year-old daughter was attacked at night in a city street and died from her injuries. The defendant was a chief constable of the area in which the street was located. The attacker was convicted of the murder of the daughter and had allegedly committed a number of offences of murder against young women in the same area over a period of years The plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant for negligence on grounds that having investigated the previous cases of murder in the area, the police had failed to apprehend the attacker and prevent the murder of her daughter. REASONABLY LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE DEFENDERS CONDUCT

Question 7

Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850

Answer 7

The claimant was injured after a ball from a neighbouring cricket pitch flew into her outside her home. The cricket field was arranged such that it was protected by a 17-foot gap between the ground and the top of the surrounding fence. Balls had been known to get over the fence and land in people’s yards, but this was rare, making the strike which hit the claimant exceptional. The claimant sued the cricket club in the tort of negligence for her injuries.
held that it was not in breach of duty. CALCULUS OF RISK, PROXIMITY

Question 8

McKillen v Barclay-Curle & Co ltd 1967 SLT

Answer 8

THIN SKULL RULE

Question 9

Waugh v James K Allan Ltd 1964

Answer 9

driver of a lorry became unwell and died at the wheel. his lorry swerved and mounted the footpath hitting a pedestrian. no breach as there wasnt voluntary conduct/ he was a 44 year old man that looked health so it wasnt reasonably foreseeable that he would take ill/die. FORESEEABILITY, CAUSATION, VOLUNTARY CONDUCT.

Question 10

Nettleship v Weston [1971]

Answer 10

The claimant was a friend of the defendant and was teaching her to drive. Prior to such an arrangement the claimant had sought assurances from the defendant that appropriate insurance had been purchased in the event of accident. On the third lesson the defendant was executing a simple manoeuvre at slow speed when she panicked which resulted in the car crashing into a lamppost injuring the claimant. The defendant was subsequently convicted of driving without due care and attention. STANDARD OF CARE

Question 11

Lamond v Glasgow Corporation 1968

Answer 11

a pedestrian on the path alongside a golf course was struck by a gold ball. no one had ever been hit before but 6,000 get played out onto the footpath. this then constituted a breach as it was likely that a person could be walking past at the same time that a ball was hit out. PROBABILITY OF INJURY, STANDARD OF CARE

Question 12

Paris v Stepney BC [1951]

Answer 12

The claimant had suffered damage to one of his eyes in war. He was employed in a garage, but was not provided safety goggles while working with dangerous equipment. As a result, he was blinded when a piece of metal hit him in his undamaged eye. he sued for negligence. there was negligence present. POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE OF HARM IF INJURY OCCURS, STANDARD OF CARE.

Question 13

St George v Home Office [2008]

Answer 13

prisoner known to suffer from epileptic seizures was going through withdrawals from alcohol and heroin. prison officer allocated him the top bunk in a cell. he had a seizure and was injured. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE OF HARM IF INJURY OCCURS, STANDARD OF CARE.

Question 14

brisco v sofs for scotland 1997

Answer 14

A prison officer was engaged in a simulated riot situation in the exercise of his duties with the prison service. During the course of the simulated riot a heavy fencepost had been dropped on to the officer which resulted in him sustaining injury to his left foot. The officer thereafter brought an action of reparation against the Secretary of State for Scotland in which he argued that the dropping of heavy items in the simulated riot condition was not reasonably required during training in order to enable officers to perform well in an actual riot. The Secretary of State argued that although injury was foreseeable, the magnitude of risk was small and that, given the clothing worn by the officers, the risk of serious injury being sustained was remote. PRECAUTIONS/REASONABLY FORSEEABLE

Question 15

Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953]

Answer 15

factory flooded, floor became slippery, employer covered all of the floor bar one part in saw dust. an employee slipped and was injured on the small pice of floor that wasnt covered. defendants had breached duty of care. PRECAUTIONS, REASONABLY FORESEEABLE

Question 16

Collins v First Quench Retailing Ltd 2003

Answer 16

an employee working alone was present during an armed robbery, as a result the employee suffered depression and ptsd. defendant was negligent and payed 179k in damages to mrs collins. PRECAUTIONS, FORESEEABLE RISK

Question 17

Harris v Perry [2008]

Answer 17

child playing on a bouncy castle, another older child decided to do a somersault whilst the parents had their backs turned resulting in the other childs skull being hurt. parents of the older child liable for not taking adequate precautions or setting the standard of conduct for the bouncy castle. STANDARD OF CARE, FORSEEABILITY

Question 18

Anderson v Imrie [2018]

Answer 18

eight year old was seriously injured in an accident at Hillhead Farm in East Dunbartonshire. A heavy gate fell on the pursuer causing injuries to his skull and brain. the pursuer saught damages from the defenders, Mr John Imrie and his wife, Mrs Antoinette Imrie, on the basis that the accident was caused by their failure to take reasonable care for his safety. STANDARD OF CARE, REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY.

Question 19

Brown v Rolls Royce 1960

Answer 19

An employee contracted dermatitis. The employers provided adequate washing facilities but they did not provide a barrier cream that was commonly used in the industry. They were not negligent in not providing the barrier cream because it could not be shown in the case that using the cream was guaranteed to prevent the condition. COMMON/USUAL PRACTICE, REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS

Question 20

McWilliams v
Archibald Arrol
& Co (1962)

Answer 20

The claimant was an experienced steel erecter who fell 70 feet to his death from a steel tower he was working on. His employer had failed to provide him with a safety harness and his widow sought damages at common law and for breach of statutory duty for failing to provide appropriate safety equipment, given the height at which her husband was working. The trial judge held breach of duty was established but the claimant would not have worn a belt even if one had been provided, her claim, therefore, failed on causation. The widow appealed. FACTUAL CAUSATION, CAUSA SINE QUA NON

Question 21

Barnett v
Chelsea &
Kensington
Hospital
Management
Committee
[1969]

Answer 21

The facts of the case involved three night watchmen who fell ill after drinking tea laced with arsenic at the hospital’s staff canteen. They were taken to the hospital’s casualty department for treatment, but the doctor on duty failed to examine them thoroughly and simply sent them home. One of the men died later that night from arsenic poisoning. However, it was unclear that even if he had been admitted to the hospital he would have survived. The deceased’s widow sued for negligence. BUT FOR TEST, FACTUAL CAUSATION, CAUSA SINE QUA NON

Question 22

McTear v
Imperial
Tobacco Ltd
(2005)

Answer 22

Alfred McTear sued Imperial Tobacco Limited (ITL), claiming that his lung cancer was caused by smoking cigarettes manufactured by ITL. After Mr. McTear’s death, his widow pursued the case. Mrs. McTear claimed that throughout the period during which her husband smoked, ITL was negligent in selling cigarettes or in selling them without appropriate warnings. The Court ruled in favor of ITL because the Mrs. McTear could not prove that her husband was not aware of the dangers associated with smoking and thus she had failed to establish the elements necessary for a successful claim. Significantly, the Court held, among other things, that there is no causal connection between smoking and disease FACUTAL CAUSATION/CAUSA SINE QUA NON

Question 23

Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958)

Answer 23

The plaintiff visited a public lavatory, owned by the defendant – a local authority. She locked the door, but when she tried to get out, she could not as the lock was stuck. The plaintiff unsuccessfully tried to attract attention for 15 minutes. Then she decided that she could get out of the lavatory by climbing over the door. To do this, she stood with one foot on the toilet seat and the other on the toilet roll holder, whilst holding onto the door and a pipe with her hands. The plaintiff realised that this method of escape was not possible. On climbing down, the plaintiff again placed some weight on the toilet roll holder, which rotated and she fell to the ground, sustaining injury. The plaintiff sued the local authority for negligence. The county court held that the defendants were negligent, but dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on grounds that the damage to the plaintiff was too remote. NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Question 24

McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts

Answer 24

In the course of his employment, the complainant had suffered injuries, which meant his left leg could give way underneath him. A few days after the incident and while in his recovery, the complainant tried to come down a set of steep steps, which did not have a handrail. His injured leg gave way beneath him and he attempted to jump the remaining 10 steps. However, he fell down the stairs and suffered injury. He severely fractured his ankle and was left with a disability. While the employer was negligent and liable for the initial injury, the new action by the complainant was a novus actus interveniens that broke the chain of causation. The complainant had taken an unreasonable risk that could not be foreseen and the defendant could not be liable for the ankle injury. NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

Question 25

Kyle v P&J Stormonth-Darling 1993

Answer 25

failure to launch court appeal papers, whole appeal was abandoned- loss of chance to advance his claim- deprivation of legal right REMOTENESS, LOSS OF CHANCE

Question 26

Campbell v F&F Moffat 1992

Answer 26

The pursuer was forced to give up his job as a result of consequences suffered in a road accident. Two years later, the mill he used to work in was closed down with employees receiving redundancy payments. In the litigation for the road accident damages, a claim was included for this redundancy payment. The court held that the redundancy and subsequent payment were too remote and speculative to be decreed as direct consequences of the accident. REMOTENESS

Question 27

Gregg v Scott [2005]

Answer 27

The claimant, Gregg, noticed an unusual lump under his arm and subsequently sought a medical opinion regarding it. His doctor incorrectly and negligently diagnosed the lump as benign. In fact, the lump was a malignant cancer which was not discovered for a further nine months, resulting in a sizable delay in when the claimant begun receiving the correct treatment for the lump. In this nine months the claimant’s medical condition had significantly worsened and the lump grown considerably. Expert medical testimony suggested that had the lump been correctly diagnosed at the claimant’s original appointment, he would have had an approximately 42% chance of survival; however, by the time at which his lump was actually correctly diagnosed, the likelihood of his survival had decreased to 25%. Moreover, the delay had limited the range of treatment options available to the claimant. no remedy simply for reduction in the chance of recovery from illness LOSS OF CHANCE, REMOTENESS

Question 28

McDyer v The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited 2000

Answer 28

man was sitting on a wall watching the opening ceremony of a football game when a plank of wood fell from the stadium and hit his hand causing him to fall off the wall and injure himself. he sued both the football club and the company. both were liable under the occupiers liability act. the court held that the club was responsible for this. OCCUPIERS LIABILITY

Question 29

Ward v Tesco Stores [1976]

Answer 29

woman was doing her shopping and slipped on some spilt yoghurt that hadnt been cleaned up. the shop were inevitably liable for this. OCCUPIERS LIABILITY

Question 30

Dawson v Page 2003

Answer 30

The pursuer was unable to get to the defender's front door because a trench had been dug between it and the road. There were obstructions at the back of the site, but planks had been laid out to walk on. There had been a lot of rain. The pursuer attempted to deliver the parcel by walking along the planks to reach the back door of the property. The defender was not at home, and so the pursuer left a card with his details asking the defender to call him. The pursuer attempted to deliver the parcel on a second occasion by means of the back door and was again unsuccessful. On the pursuer's third attempt to deliver the parcel, as he was leaving the property he slipped on the planks and fell. The Lord Ordinary found that the plank was not a danger against which the defender should have taken precautions. The Lord Ordinary found that if the plank were to be regarded as a danger, there was no requirement on the defender to exclude people from the site, since the danger was easily avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and the risks, if any, posed by the danger were small. OCCUPIERS LIABILITY

Question 31

Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]

Answer 31

cinema due to be demolished, some people entered and set it on fire causing a lot of damage, court determined that although Littlewood owned the property they could not reasonably foresee this event taking place

Question 32

Titchener v British Railway Board 1984

Answer 32

The appellant was struck by a train and was very seriously injured. This had taken place whilst the appellant was crossing a railway line between two suburban stations. This route had to be accessed by climbing an embankment and cutting through a gap in a fence. The fence had fallen into disrepair and had not been maintained by the respondent. The appellant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, claiming that the accident was caused by a failure to maintain the fence. The trial judge found for the respondents. OCCUPIERS LIABILITY, DUTY OF CARE ON OCCUPIERS, VIOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA.

Question 33

Taylor v Glasgow Corporation 1922

Answer 33

a child was visiting botanic gardens and ate berries on one of the bushes. berries ended up being poisonous. there was no signage to say berries were poisonous. court determined that not enough steps had been taken to inform the public of the risks of the berries. DANGERS, DUTY OF CARE, OCCUPIERS LIABILITY.

Question 34

Tomlinson v Congleton [2004]

Answer 34

a man broke his neck whilst swimming in a lake, in this case there were signs saying not to swim in the lake. court decided that the owners/company didnt need to take anymore steps to make the public aware of the dangers. DANGERS, DUTY OF CARE, OCCUPIERS LIABILITY.

Question 35

Michael Leonard v The Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority [2014]

Answer 35

A 12 year old boy injured whilst going down a hill. they werent able to determine where he had fallen or how he was injured. the court determined that the park hadnt breached their duty of care. DANGERS, DUTY OF CARE, OCCUPIERS LIABILITY.

Question 36

Taylor Neilson Barratt v Spice Lounge (Scotland) Ltd 2017

Answer 36

The pursuer was a 17-year-old woman who fell and seriously injured her arm and jaw when walking along a private roadway at the back of the defender's restaurant at night. The route was intended to provide access for restaurant deliveries. She could have walked along the public pavement which was well lit. Her route was, however, a known shortcut for pedestrians. The pursuer claimed that a combination of the road being uneven and inadequately lit rendered the route dangerous. the court determined that there was sufficient lighting on the road therefore the restaurant fulfilled its duty of care, the court also disclosed that even is liability had been awarded they would have reduced damages by 70%. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

Question 37

Various Claimants v The Institute of the Brothers of Christian Schools [2012]

Answer 37

A group action of 170 claimants had successfully claimed that between 1958 and 1992 they were sexually abused by Brother James Carragher, and various others, at the St William’s school. The Catholic Child Welfare Society (CCWS, a charitable company, referred to as the ‘Middlesbrough defendants’) supplied the teachers and managed the school directly. The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (IBCS), an unincorporated association, also controlled where its ‘Brothers’ taught. The Court of Appeal found that the CCWS was liable, but the IBCS was not jointly liable. CCWS appealed to the UK Supreme Court, contending that IBCS should also be vicariously liable. VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Question 38

Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016]

Answer 38

The claimant managed the prison kitchen with four other members of staff and around twenty prisoners. During a negligent incident, a prisoner dropped a bag of rice on the claimant’s back causing injury. The claimant sought an action against the Ministry of Justice upon the basis that they were vicariously liable for the acts of the prisoner. it was determined that the ministry of justice were liable. VICARIOUS LIABILITY, THE CONTROL TEST.

Question 39

Kerby v National Coal Board 1958

Answer 39

miner on break went to smoke in a prohibited place, therefore caused an explosion. because he was in a prohibited place it was said he was acting outside the scope of his employment and so the employer wasnt liable. VICARIOUS LIABILITY, IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT

Question 40

Century Insurance Co. v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942]

Answer 40

an employee lit a cigarette whilst handling fuel, employee was authorised to handle the fuel but did so in an unsafe way and therefore made the employer not liable. IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 41

Lister v Hensley Hall [2002]

Answer 41

a warden in a residential home was acting outside the scope of employment but the court decided that because they were acting in such close connection to what they were employed to do (looking after vulnerable people) the employer actually could have been liable. CLOSE CONNECTION, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 42

Mohamud v Morrisons (supermarkets) plc [2016]

Answer 42

Mohamud had used a petrol station kiosk and approached a member of staff with a question. The employee responded in an aggressive manner and demanded that Mohamud leave immediately. As he left the employee assaulted him. Mohamud bought an action against the supermarket, claiming that it was vicariously liable for the assault committed by one of its employees. CLOSE CONNECTION, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 43

Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell [2004]

Answer 43

police officer left his station on one island and went to another island and entered a bar where his ex partner worked. he opened fire with his gun given to him by the job. he shot a british tourist who sued. it was outside the scope of employment so employer not liable. VENDETTAS/FROLICS, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 44

Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica [2004]

Answer 44

a man was using a phone box when a police officer appears and annouces he is police demanding to use the phone. the man says no and so the police officer shoots him. because he announced his authority as police he also passed the close connection test therefore making his employer liable.

Question 45

Kennedy v Cordia (services) [2016]

Answer 45

An employer was liable for injuries sustained by a home carer when she slipped and fell on an icy path during the course of her employment, as the failure to carry out a suitable risk assessment and provide personal protective equipment had breached employers duty of care. EMPLOYERS DUTY OF CARE, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 46

Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938]

Answer 46

The defendants had employed the complainant, Mr English. He was working on a repair to an airway on the Mine Jigger Brae, which was used as part of the haulage system. He was going to the bottom of the mine pit when the haulage was started. Although he had tried to evade the danger through a manhole, he was trapped by machinery and it crushed him to death. EMPLOYERS DUTY OF CARE, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 47

Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd. and Another Respondents [1959]

Answer 47

The plaintiff was using a metal tool provided by his employer which, because it had been manufactured at the incorrect temperature, was too hard to be safe to use. When the plaintiff struck his hammer against the tool a piece of metal flew into his left eye and caused blindness in that eye. SAFE EQUIPMENT, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 48

McGregor v AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd (1996)

Answer 48

a warehouse operator was injured whilst getting a box off of a high shelf. there was a bonus system in place that incentivised employees financially to pack and ship more packages. there were ladders available but they werent being supplied by the employer or the employees werent using them. the employer turned a blind eye to this therefore making them liable. SAFE SYSTEMS, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 49

Wilson v Merry & Cunningham (1886-69)

Answer 49

a miner was killed in an explosion of a coal mine. the employer had appointed someone else to oversee this job. the court decided that even though they had given over the overseeing of this job to someone else, they still had the responsibility to employ someone competent and qualified to carry out the job safely. COMPETENT EMPLOYEES, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 50

W v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000]

Answer 50

PC Waters said she was raped outside work by a colleague. She complained about it but was then subject to nasty treatment by colleagues and superiors. Employment Tribunal held that the rape was not actionable discrimination within the SDA, and therefore the complaint was not a ‘protected act’ within Sex Discrimination Act 1975, section 4. The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed. SAFE SYSTEMS/COMPETENT EMPLOYEES, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 51

Hatton v Sutherland [2004]

Answer 51

a man was employed as a teacher. in order to maintain his salary he had to take on other responsibilities/jobs. he ended up working nights/later days. this had an effect on his health. he made his employer aware. he had to take time off work. he asked/tried to seek help and again made employers aware but he didnt get much help and ended up not being able to work as a teacher. PSYCHIATRIC INJURY, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 52

Keen v Tayside Contracts 2003

Answer 52

A person who suffered a psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing a traumatic accident in which others were injured or killed or who witnessed the immediate aftermath of such an incident was a secondary victim of negligence and not a primary victim, the concept of a secondary victim focusing on the way in which the injury to mental health occurred not on the identity of the wrongdoer nor on the reason why the witness happened to be at the scene. PSYCHIATRIC INJURY, VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Question 53

A (and others) v National Blood Authority [2001]

Answer 53

114 Claimants were infected with the Hepatitis C virus from blood and blood products following transfusions of contaminated blood.The claimants received blood transfusions in the course of undergoing surgery for different reasons.The majority was identified by the National Blood Authority’s programme and It had been established that the blood they received was exclusively infected because the donor’s blood was infected by Hepatitis C and not from any other external cause. the court held that the blood did constitute a product. potential for disease is reasonably foreseeable. PRODUCT LIABILITY

Question 54

B (a child) v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd [2002]

Answer 54

the pursuer (mainly young children) alleged that they had been scalded when hot drinks served in McDonald’s were knocked over and spilt. they brought a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 arguing inter alia: The coffee was too hot mcds young employees could not be expected to fasten the coffee lids properly.The coffee cups should be designed with lids with spouts so that lids that are irremovable rather than lids that have to be removed for drinking. coffee cup wasnt a defective product as it is obvious there would be a hot liquid in there. right precautions hsould have been taken however so possibility of negligence instead. PRODUCT LIABILITY.

Question 55

Worsley v Tambrands Ltd [1999]

Answer 55

W, who had suffered toxic shock syndrome from use of a tampon, claimed that T was in breach of a duty of care or that the product was defective as defined by the Consumer Protection Act 1987, The court held that on the facts the product was not defective and the warnings were sufficient. PROUDUCT LIABILITY.

Question 56

Caparo v Dickman [1990]

Answer 56

A firm of accountants appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal in which it was decided that the accountants owed a duty of care to the appellant shareholders when producing an audit report required by statute. The claim was for negligent misstatement. Caparo had bought shares in the company of which the report was about as part of a takeover. The appellant had relied upon the results of the report. However, it was later found that the results of the report had misrepresented the profits of the firm, in turn causing a loss for Caparo. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

Question 57

Hunter v Hanley 1955

Answer 57

injury arose from a hypodermic needle being used to administer penicillin the needble broke as it wasnt strong enough. court held that deviation from ordinary professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE.

Question 58

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]

Answer 58

The defendant was the body who employed a doctor who had not given a mentally-ill patient (the claimant) muscle-relaxant drugs nor restrained them prior to giving them electro-convulsive therapy. The claimant suffered injuries during the procedure. The claimant sued the defendant, claiming the doctor was negligent for not restraining them or giving them the drug. The court held that the professional will not be in breach of their duty of care if they acted in a manner which was in accordance with practices accepted as proper by a responsible body of other medical professionals with expertise in that particular area. If this is established, it does not matter that there are others with expertise who would disagree with the practice. MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, BOLAM TEST.

Question 59

Gordon v Wilson 1992

Answer 59

A lady who had required the surgical removal of a benign tumour from her brain sought reparation from her general practitioners on the ground that they had failed to diagnose her condition as early as they should have done and that the delay occasioned had resulted in nerve damage which would not have occurred had the tumour been diagnosed and removed earlier. Held, that the court could not find professional negligence established where there were two bodies of reliable and credible evidence supporting differing opinions as to whether the course adopted was or was not in conformity with the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising his profession. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, MEDICALL NEGLIGENCE.

Question 60

Honisz v Lothian Health Board [2006]

Answer 60

After a medical procedure on his right knee, the pursuer complained of severe pain and requested the cast to be removed. Despite complaints of pain, the medical staff removed the cast, and the pursuer was later diagnosed with septic arthritis due to pus flowing from the portals. The pursuer did not work for about a year post-discharge and continued to incur knee injuries due to his love for football. In subsequent years, the pursuer underwent further knee surgeries, with experts suggesting a link between trauma and degenerative changes in his knee. The pursuer alleged negligence on the part of the medical staff for discharging him prematurely and failing to detect the infection promptly. The court found that there was no negligent delay in diagnosing the infection and initiating treatment, thus no causal link between the delay and the pursuer's knee damage. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE.

Question 61

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1987]

Answer 61

An infant was delivered prematurely and shortly after was administered oxygen by a junior doctor, accidentally providing too much. The baby was later diagnosed with a retinal condition, which severely limited his sight. Five potential causes or factors were identified to explain the condition, four relating to his premature birth and the fifth being the junior doctor’s actions. MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, INEXPERIENCE.

Question 62

Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Board of Governors [1985]

Answer 62

The claimant suffered from pain in her neck, right shoulder, and arms. Her neurosurgeon took her consent for cervical cord decompression, but did not include in his explanation the fact that in less than 1% of the cases, the said decompression caused paraplegia. She developed paraplegia after the spinal operation. the court held that consent did not require an elaborate explanation of remote side effects. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, SPECIALTIES.

Question 63

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd 1964

Answer 63

Hedley Byrne were advertising agents placing contracts on behalf of a client on credit terms. Hedley Byrne would be personally liable should the client default. To protect themselves, Hedley Byrne asked their bankers to obtain a credit reference from Heller & Partners the client’s bankers. The reference was given gratis and was favourable, but also contained an exclusion clause to the effect that the information was given ‘without responsibility on the part of this Bank or its officials’. Hedley Byrne relied upon this reference and subsequently suffered financial loss when the client went into liquidation. NEGLIGENCE MISSTATEMENTS, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE.

Question 64

Galoo Ltd v Bright Graham Murray [1994]

Answer 64

In this case, such a duty would only arise if the auditor was expressly made aware that a particular lender or bidder would rely on the accounts, without independent inquiry. RELYING ON ADVICE OR STAEMENTS, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

Question 65

Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service [1996]

Answer 65

Need for pursuer to establish they were going to rely on the defender’s statements. RELYING ON ADVICE OR STATEMENTS, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

Question 66

Steel v NRAM [2018]

Answer 66

The defender, Steel (S), was a solicitor who acted for company X – X bought a business park with the assistance of a secured loan, provided by the professional lender NRAM (N) – the business park was comprised of four units During the sale of some of the units in the business park, the solicitor made a misstatement, which caused the lender to suffer losses The Supreme Court held that S did not owe N a duty of care. ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR STATEMENTS, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

Question 67

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995]

Answer 67

Managing agents were conducting the financial affairs of the claimants, it was alleged that they managed their affairs with a lack of due care, which resulted in losses So, rather than advice being relied on, there was reliance on the provision of services. the claimants were relying on the assumption of responsibility for sorting the financial affairs. RELIANCE ON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE.

Question 68

R v Bateman

Answer 68

no need for exceptional skill, MEDICAL NEG, PROFESSIONAL NEG

Question 69

Montgomery v Lanarkshire health board

Answer 69

The claimant was a woman of small stature and a diabetic under the care of a doctor during her pregnancy and labour. The doctor did not inform her of the 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia, where the baby's shoulders are unable to pass through the pelvis among diabetic women as she viewed the problem being very slight and a caesarean section was not in the claimant's interest. The baby suffered from severe disabilities after birth due to shoulder dystocia. The claimant sought damages from the health board for negligence on the part of the doctor for failing to advise her on the risk of shoulder dystocia. court held that the he doctor’s duty involved taking “reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments” MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, INFORMED CONSENT.

Question 70

McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board 2023

Answer 70

The appellants are Mr McCulloch's widow and other relatives. They claim that his death (cardiac arrest) was caused by the negligence of Dr Catherine Labinjoh, a consultant cardiologist employed by the respondent, the Forth Valley Health Board. Among other things, the appellants allege that, in line with the duty in Montgomery, Dr Labinjoh was required to discuss the option of using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with Mr McCulloch. The UK Supreme Court’s judgement states the required standard is that of a reasonable doctor: treatments that would be accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion. ,EDICAL NEGLIGENCE, STANDARD OF CARE.

Question 71

Sabri-Tabrizi v Lothian Health Board

Answer 71

Ms Sabri-Tabrizi became pregnant twice after a failed sterilisation. Although it was found that she could claim for her first pregnancy, as this was reasonably foreseeable; it was not foreseeable that she would continue to have unprotected sexual encounters knowing she was not sterile, and thus could not claim for her second pregnancy. NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS, CONTRIBUTORY NEG, MEDICAL NEG.

Question 72

Walker v Northumberland city council 1995

Answer 72

Mr Walker was a social worker employed by the defendant who had a heavy, emotionally demanding caseload and suffered a mental breakdown in 1986. Upon his return to work, he repeatedly requested assistance, but the defendant provided no additional support and he suffered a second breakdown in 1987. He was dismissed due to ill health and brought an action against the defendant for breaching their duty of care to take steps to ensure he had a manageable workload. PSYCHIATRIC HARM

Question 73

Dooley v Cammell Laird and Co Ltd [1951]

Answer 73

The claimant (C) was a crane operator working for the defendant (D). C was loading cargo from a quay onto a ship when the rope carrying the load snapped. The load fell into the hold of the ship, where C knew other workers were standing. Nobody was injured, though C suffered nervous shock as a result of what seeing what he believed to be the death or serious injury of some of his co-workers. The trauma of the event aggravated C’s pre-existing neurasthenia and, as a result, he could not return to work as a crane operator. C brought an action in negligence against D, seeking damages for psychiatric injury. PRIMARY VICTIM, PSYCHIATRIC HARM.

Question 74

Dulieu v R White & Sons 1901

Answer 74

pregnant women suffered severe shock when a horse van drove into a bar where she worked. as a result her baby was born prematurely. she feared for her own safety, court allowed for the recovery of damages. PRIMARY VICTIM, PSYCHIATRIC HARM.

Question 75

page v smith 1996

Answer 75

medical condition ME was reactiviated after a minor road traffic accident (no physical injury as such). thin skull rule. it made personal injury include psychiatric harm. PRIMARY VICTIM, PSYCHIATRIC HARM.

Question 76

hambrook v stokes 1925

Answer 76

A taxi-driver backed his taxicab negligently and without looking where he was going, and ran into a child who was on a tricycle immediately behind him, slightly injuring him. The child’s mother, who was in her house, heard him scream, and, looking out of a window, saw the cab back into the tricycle, but she could not see the child. she thought her child was dead and subsequently died from shock. the claim for damages succeeded. SECONDARY VICTIMS, PSYCHIATRIC HARM.

Question 77

mcloughlin v O'brian 1983

Answer 77

The husband of the claimant (C) and their children were involved in a road traffic accident at around 4 p.m. with a lorry driven by the first defendant and owned by the second defendant. C, who was home at the time, was informed of the accident at around 6 p.m. by a neighbour, who drove her to hospital to see her family. Upon arrival, she learned that her youngest daughter had been killed and witnessed the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by her husband and other children. C alleged that the impact of what she heard and saw caused her severe shock resulting in psychiatric illness and brought an action in negligence against the defendants. claim was allowed SECONDARY VICTIMS, PSYCHIATRIC HARM

Question 78

Alcock et al v Chief Constable South Yorkshire [1992]

Answer 78

A joined action was brought by Alcock (C) and several other claimants against the head of the South Yorkshire Police. C and the other claimants all had relatives who were caught up in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster, in which 95 fans of Liverpool FC died in a crush due, it was later established, to the negligence of the police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. ALCOCK CRITERIA, PSYCHIATRIC HARM.

Question 79

Robertson v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board 1995

Answer 79

robertson and a colleague had spent nearly all of their working lives together, and went for a drink together once a week. a large piece of metal sheeting was being moved in the back of a van, when the wind picked up and robertsons colleague was blown over the side of the bridge. sudden tragic loss of a work colleague but was unsuccessful because there was no close tie of love and affection. ALCOCK CRITERIA, PSYCHIATRIC HARM.

Question 80

Young v McVean [2015]

Answer 80

young passed the scene of a car accident seeing the badly damaged car therefore witnessing the immediate aftermath. young was later informed that their son had been killed by the driver of the wrecked car. unsuccessful because no direct perception which has lead to or creates some form of shock. ALCOCK CRITERIA, PSYCHIATRIC HARM

Question 81

Wilkinson v Downton [1897]

Answer 81

Downton (D) made a joke to Mrs Wilkinson (W) that her husband, Thomas Wilkinson (T) had had an accident in which both his legs were broken and that W should go to The Elms pub where T was lying to bring him home. These statements were false but D intended them to be believed as true by W, who suffered a shock to her nervous system as a result. W had no predisposition to nervous shock and the shock which caused her weeks of suffering and incapacity was not a result of previous ill-health. W raised an action against D for compensation for her illness and suffering due to the false representation made by D. held liable for shock and medical expenses. INTENTIONAL PYSCHIATRIC HARM

Question 82

Re (a minor) v Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust [2017

Answer 82

Concerned a mother and grandmother who alleged they both had suffered PTSD after the mother experienced and the grandmother witnessed the negligent and traumatic delivery of the mother’s child The infant suffered a brain injury during the protracted birth The grandmother was present and witnessed the birth. the court agreed that this passed the alcock criteria. ALCOCK CRITERIA, PSYCHIATRIC HARM.

Question 83

Liverpool Women’s Hospital v Ronayne [2015]

Answer 83

husband who witnessed his wife suffer complications over a 36 hour period as a result of a negligently performed hysterectomy. doesnt satisfy Alcock criteria because accumulation of shock over a period of time doesn’t equal a direct perception leading to psychiatric harm, it was accumulative exposure which isn’t enough. ALCOCK CRITERIA, PSYCHIATRIC HARM

Question 84

Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Respondent) [2024]

Answer 84

An appeal conjoining three cases, all deaths argued to be caused by negligence. Two children present when their father died suddenly from cardiac arrest, Parents witnessing their child’s death from a lung disease they argued ought to have been diagnosed and treated earlier and A parent who found their child deceased from undiagnosed pneumonia. all appeals got dismissed. ALCOCK CRITERIA, PSYCHIATRIC HARM.

Question 85

Attia v British Gas plc [1988]

Answer 85

Attia engaged British Gas to install central heating in their home, and returned home to find their loft on fire, resulting in the house and its contents becoming extensively damaged – the fire had been caused by the defender’s negligent installation of the central heating . Attia claimed for the nervous shock sustained after seeing this damage It was held by the Court of Appeal that Attia could recover if they could prove at trial that the harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable. PSYCHIATRIC HARM AND PROPERTY DAMAGE.

Question 86

X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995

Answer 86

The House of Lords dealt with various appeals in respect of alleged breaches of statutory duty by local authorities in relation to the care of children. Some of the appeals related to child welfare issues under the provisions of the Children Act 1989, where others related education duties imposed on local education authorities by the Education Acts 1944 and 1981. A PUBLIC BODIE CAN BE FOUND GUILT OF NEGLIGENCE.

Question 87

GN v Poole BC [2019]

Answer 87

Two children appealed against a decision that a local authority was not liable for failing to protect them from harm caused by third parties. In 2006, the local authority had housed the children and their mother next door to a family known for anti-social behaviour. One of the children was disabled. For several years the children and their mother suffered abuse and harassment at the hands of their neighbours who verbally abused them, attacked their home and car, physically assaulted the mother and one of the children, and made threats of violence. Various measures taken by the local authority to halt it were unsuccessful. One of the children became suicidal and ran away from home. The children were assessed as children in need under the Children Act 1989. The local authority undertook an investigation relating to one of the children under s.47 and he was made subject to a child protection plan. The children and their mother were eventually rehoused by the local authority in 2011. They claimed that the abuse had caused them physical and psychological harm and that the local authority owed them a duty of care at common law when exercising its functions. appeal was denied. PUBLIC BODIES NOT OWE DUTY OF CARE AT COMMON LAW MERELY FOR HAVING STATUTORY POWERS.

Question 88

Morrison Sports Ltd v Scottish Power [2010]

Answer 88

The first respondents (M) were tenants of a property owned by the second respondent (P). The property was destroyed by a fire, and investigations revealed that the fire had been caused by a metal shim fitted into an electricity meter. M and P brought a claim against S alleging that its negligence had caused the fire, and that S's breach of its statutory duty under the 1988 Regulations gave rise to a private cause of action for loss suffered as a result. IF STATUTE INCLUDES A PENALTY FOR A BREACH, THEN NO COMMON LAW REMEDY

Question 89

Dawson v Bingley Urban District Council [1911]

Answer 89

Burning building, fire brigade turned up , tried to attatch water to mains, the council put the sign in the wrong place and so they couldnt connect it, the council were sued for negligence and for causing more damage to the building than there should have been. DELICTUAL LIBALITY OF PUBLIC BODIES.

Question 90

Stovin v Wise [1996]

Answer 90

A local authority was aware that a bank of land was obstructing the view at a junction where three accidents had occurred in the previous twelve years. The authority had discussed the matter with the land owners and had agreed to carry out the required work. No action had been taken however by the time that the claimant was seriously injured in an accident. The claimant claimed damages not only from the driver of the other vehicle, but also from the local authority. LIABILITY OF PUBLIC BODIES

Question 91

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 91

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: 2 police officers and a suspect being apprehended, happening in a public place, suspect not happy about being apprehended so there was a struggle from both suspect and officers, they fell on a lady during the struggle. Court accepted that this was an operational matter, also held that it should have been reasonably foreseeable that suspect would struggle and not just willingly put his hands up to be arrested, and that in a public area they would encounter other people.

Question 92

Watt v Jamieson 1954 SC 5

Answer 92

Ingress of sulphurous water vapour from a neighbour’s gas heater; flue connected through a common gable. Caused damp, discolouration, crumbling of brick and plaster, damage to stonework and dry rot. That in general, ordinary use was not a defence to a nuisance action

Question 93

MacBean v Scottish Water [2020]

Answer 93

Remedial works were undertaken to address smell nuisance from a wastewater treatment plant; subsequently the impact was ‘irregular, faint [and] transient’ [para 79]. Note also public interest question – there is a clear public interest in having wastewater collected and treated.

Question 94

Ben Nevis Distillery (Fort William) Ltd v North British Aluminium Co 1948

Answer 94

Noxious fumes, but a significant public interest; held this was not a reason to refuse the proof; and then, 1949 SLT (Notes) 14, that ‘reluctantly’, interdict would be deferred for remedial works.

Question 95

Webster v Lord Advocate 1985

Answer 95

Nuisance action regarding the noise of the Military Tattoo and of the construction of the stands