Tort law- Negligence
Glasgow corporations v Muir
Facts: Sunday School children were going to have a picnic, but it rained. The Outling leader asked a tearoom manager if they could have their picnic there. A large tea urn was carried along the corridor by two adults to the main teamroom. The tea urn overtowned and scalded a girl. The parents of the girl sued Glasgow Corporation, claiming they owed the girl a duty of care and they had breached this.
Held: It was held that the magaress owed a duty of care generally to the people in the tea room, BUT, she did not owe an additional duty of care to the Sunday School: they were not expecting them.
⇒ Lord Macmillan at 457 said the reasonable person test is a bit of an “impersonal test” as “some persons are by nature unduly timorous” and others “fail to foresee or nonchalantly disregard even the most obvious danger” → “The reasonable man is presumed to be free both from over-apprehension and from over-confidence”
Bolton v Stone
Facts: During a cricket match the ball was hit over a 17ft fence and struck a woman who was standing on a pavement. The ball had only been hit over this fence 6 times in 30 years
Held: The court said you cannot minimise every single risk. So the fact that the likelihood of the ball being struck of the fence was very slim they were not liable (but, if it happened a lot then there may have been liability)
Paris v Stepheny
Facts: A car mechanic was fitting bolts and screws to a vehicle's wheel. There was a danger they may potentially fly out (although this was a small risk). While fitting the bolts one of them flew out and struck the mechnic in the eye; in fact, he only had one good eye and the bolt struck that eye, which was serious as it meant he weant completely blind. Furthermore, no protective goggles had been given to him.
Held: The court said that providing goggles don't cost much and the consequences are really serious
Latimer v EC LTD
Facts: There was an exceptionally heavy rainstorm which flooded the factory floor and oil from channels under the ground rose to the surface. The employer took a lot of precautions following the incident, which included putting down sawdust and putting up notices warning people. The plaintiff (i.e. claimant) slipped and a heavy barrel crushed his ankle.
Held: The House of Lords held that the defendant was not negligent because they had done everything they could to minimise the risk
Walker v Northumberland CC
D was a social worker with managerial responsibilities, C had a responsibility for care delivered to young children with many of them being victims of child abuse. This was extremely stressful and demanding work. Between 1975-1986 Cs workload increased so much that in 1986 he suffered the first of two mental breakdowns; he falls victim to recognised psychiatric injury. His employer said that if he returned to work, he would be provided with additional assistance, so he does, and the support is very limited and he sufferers a second mental breakdown. The judge held that the first mental breakdown was not foreseeable however the employer had a duty of care to provide reasonable safety to prevent the second one.
Hatton v Sutherland
a school teacher suffered from a nervous breakdown due to the teacher’s excessive workload. In this case The Court of Appeal ruled out a few important guidelines such as that there are no inherently stressful jobs and the employer will only be liable if he had foreseen or should have foreseen a possibility of psychiatric injury to that particular employee and, since the risk was foreseeable, there must be an account taken as to what precautions the employer has taken to avoid mental harm to his employee in determining whether the employer can be held liable.
Bolam v Friern hospital
Facts: Bolam was a mentally ill patient. One of the treatments he received (which still exists today surprisingly) was ECT (electroconvulsive therapy), which basically means you administer electric shocks to someone. There was some debate, and there still is, about the safest way to administer the ECT → some said you should give a relxant drug to the patient as that would prevent convulsions which can cause all sorts of injuries and others said you could put a metal sheet over them to stop their limbs moving as much. Bolam had the therapy using the metal sheet and he suffered significant injury. He said had they used relaxant drugs then he wouldn't have suffered the injuries, which is true.
Held: However, Bolam did not win the case because the doctors who were administering this treatment used something that was recognised practice at the time. In other words, the doctors had not breached the standard: it was a reasonable thing for a skilled person to have done.
⇒ “It is not essential for you to decide which of two practices is better practice, as long as you accept that what the defendant did was in accordance with practice accepted by reasonable persons” - McNair J
southerland shire council v heyman
In 1975, H bought a house in Sutherland Shire. During 1976, serious structural defects appeared in it due to subsidence, the house having been erected with inadequate footings on a steep slope. S had approved plans and issued a building permit for the site in 1968. In the course of erection, the house was inspected by S's officers, who, if they directed their attention to the matter (as to which there was no evidence), failed to notice that fewer footings were installed than were contemplated by the plans and that those installed were structurally weak. H sought no statutory certificate of compliance from S and made no other inquiry of it about such matters. At first instance and on appeal ([1985] C.L.Y. 211) it was held that S, having failed to exercise reasonable care in conducting the inspection, was in breach of a duty of care owed by it to H and was liable to damages.
Held, allowing S's appeal, that (1) as a general rule, the ordinary principles of the law of negligence apply to public authorities so that they are liable for damage caused by a negligent failure to act when they are under a duty to act, or by a negligent failure to consider whether the exercise in the public interest a conferred power, or by a negligent failure to consider whether the exercise in the public interest a conferred power, or by a person's relying on the negligent exercise of such a power; (2) S was not in breach of any duty it owed to H because (a) there was no evidence that S had acted negligently in undertaking its discretionary power of inspection (per Gibbs C.J. and Wilson J.); (b) in the absence of inquiry made of, or reliance placed upon, it by H, S owed no relevant duty of care to H (per Mason, Brennan and Deane JJ.)
donoghue v stevenson
On August 26 1928, Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger-beer from Wellmeadow Café [1] in Paisley. She consumed about half of the bottle, which was made of dark opaque glass, when the remainder of the contents was poured into a tumbler. At this point, the decomposed remains of a snail floated out causing her alleged shock and severe gastro-enteritis.
Mrs Donoghue was not able to claim through breach of warranty of a contract: she was not party to any contract. Therefore, she issued proceedings against Stevenson, the manufacture, which snaked its way up to the House of Lords.
The HoL found for Mrs Donoghue
Robinson v chief constable
Facts
Two police officers injured an old woman (C) by falling on her while chasing a drug dealer
C claimed negligence
D argued that the police are immune from negligence liability when exercising their powers of investigation or crime prevention on the ground of public policy
Held (Supreme Court)
The police officers were liable for negligence
The liability of the police is based on ordinary principles of negligence, as such no special immunity applies to them
There was a positive act by the police injuring C, the risk of injury of passersby was foreseeable and there was a breach of duty: Lord Reed at [73]
spring v guardian assurance
An ex-employee of D was looking for jobs. C asked his former employer to prepare references with the aim of securing one of these jobs. D sent refrences to the prospective employers. The references weren't positive, and they were described as ‘kiss of death references. C was not able to get a job and C sued D for the financial loss. HOL held liability could be reasonable imposed as harm was reasonably foreseeable, the references hadn't been prepared with reasonable care, the relationship was proximate, and it was fair, just and reasonable to establish a duty.
white v jones
An individual asked a solicitor to write up a will that would benefit C, the solicitor went about their work carelessly and as a a result C was not able to benefit under the will. Lord brown-Wilkinson said it was legitimate to extend the law to the limited extent proposed using Caparo
marc ich v bishop rock marine
D (a classification society) who make assessments of the ensure ability of ships. An individual working for D drew the conclusion that after temporary repairs the ship could be put out to sea, only for it to sink, Cs cargo was lost. Held the first two requirements were met, however it was not fair, just or reasonable to impose liability on the classification society
Davis v Bunn
road trafic accident, C argued that had D shouted a warning thhe accident could have been avoided. it was held that even if D did that, it was going to happen anyways, therefore a useless consideration.
Baker v willoughy
C was injured in a car accident and was seeking compensation for the negligence of Ds driving. he was at work injured and armed robbers shot him in his injured leg. all of this happened beofre the first trial, D1 tried to say once the leg was shot he should be releaved of any further liability. HoL said that he should bare responsibility for the injury he caused.
Jobling v associated diaries
the origional wrongdoer was an employer who carelessly inflicted harm on C, three years later, C fell victim to a disease and it was concluded when the claim was brought against D, that since the disease manifested 3 years later, D should no longer be held liable
Rahman v Arearose
D1 (employer) fails to protect C from attack; surgery carried out negligently by D2. as a result C suffers post-traumatic stress disorder. D1 bore 25% of the responsibility and D2 the balance
home office v doreset yatch
home office decides as a matter of policy that it wantd to rehabilitate young criminals. so it sets up a borstel facility. some guys were took there, they were over seen by home office personel, this person would go to sleep on the job. the kids escape, they damage Ls boat in the progress. the obvious wrongdoer would be the kids but the home office has control of them and the home office said why should they have to bare responsibility for these free agents, this did not breach the chain of causation as the kids escaping was very likely
lamb v camden
D through carelessess caused the claimants property to subside. C moved out at which point a group of squatters took resident in it. they smash it up. the question is whether the origional D be held liabilte for the harm subsequently doene by the squatters? no, D could be responsible for the earlier damage causing subsidence
Stansbie v Troman
a decorator (d) left alone in house by C; D was told by C to lock the house on leaving it; D failed to do this and the house was burgled by a third party. It was held D was liable for reasonably foreseeable loss
McGhee v national coal board:
while woking in Ds brick kiln, C was exposed to brick dust and contracted dermatitis. D had breached the duty owed to C by failing to provide adequate washing facilities. the current state of medical knowledge could not say whether it was probable that C would not have contracted dermatitis if he had not been able to take a shower after work. C could not establish 'but for' causation
wisher c essex area health authority
D a doctor owed a duty of care to a premature baby by administering an excessive dose of oxygen which gave rise to the condition RLF (blindness). Ds breach of duty introduces an additional possible cause of Cs blindness.
Sienkiewicz v grief
claim was brought by a daughter of a woman who died. the deceased had been working in the Ds offices for a long time, she was exposed to asbestos, this exposure was a breach of duty. there is a problem as all residents had been exposed to low levels of asbestos as it was circulating in the general atmosphere. this made it possible for D to argue that the womans death may not have been caused by D. since there had only been one employer, D argued C should have to show causation in the conventional way. the judge held that fair child was to be applied and D was liable for full loss
Williams v university of birmingham
williams died of mesothelioma, D admitted that it had exposed him to asbestos while he carried out experiments as an undergrad in 1974. the exposure had laster between 52 and 78 hours, the post mortem suggested that williams had been exposed to substantial amounts of asbestos elsewhere. in line with fair child the trial judge imposed liablility on D. lord atkins said that in order to establish duty and causation, a finding had to be made as to the actual levels of asbestos, if the quantity was only deminimus then a breach of duty could not be established. claim was rejected as given the knowledge in 1974 the risk would not have been reasonably foreseeabkle
sindell v abbott
women in california were invesitgating a drug DES, that was prescribed to prevent miscarriages during their pregnancy. these women gave birth and many years later some of the women find that their daughters have developed cancer. this is a long time after the origional ingestion of the drug . this case gives rise to causal indeterminancy, cant point to one of the manufacturer and say the the disease they have was created by their particular drug, therefore each of the 11 manufacturers should be held liable for that proportion of Cs injuries that corresponded to shier share of the DES market
ayers v jackson
plaintiff was exposed to toxic pollution, C said this exposure had caused them to fall victim to cancerphobia and this should be treated as a form of consable mental injury.
The Wagon mound
D is a charter of the wagon mound, personel working for D allowed oil to escape into sydney harbour, the oil movers accross the harbour and ends up close to the claimants dock, the oil sitting on the water is spotted and the question is adressed 'was this risky'. things going on on Cs dock such as welding, sparkks were flying around. C is assured there is no risk and continues with work but there was cotton floating on the surface of the water with oil, the cotton operated as a wick and got struck and it light up damaging cs dock and two ships
hughs v lord advocate
in a road a man hold cover accessing drains under the road. the cover has been lifted so access is now available to anyone. the workmen leave while a parafin lamp is burning. 2 young boys pick up the lamp and go in the hole, they make their exit from the hole, as C goes to make his way out the hole he falls back and so does the lamp, there is an explosion, leaving C serverely burnt. the judge said this was reasonably foreseeable
hines v morrow
a large mud hole in the road, due to carelessness, a car gets stuck in the mud hole. C seeks to remove the car from the mud whole using a tow rope. C has a wooden leg and Cs wooden leg gets stuck in the mud hole. the towrope becomes wrapped around cs good leg breaking it. it concluded harm is reasonable forseeable type and compensation could be recovered, you dont have to foresee precise sequence of harm.
united novelty v daniel
a worker is cleaning machinery and the cleaning agent is gasoline. the employer puts a heater in the room, one with an open flame. a rat runs out from under the machine drenched in gas, it runs past the flame and combusts, the burning rat runs back to the machine where there was an explosion
Jolly v sutton
a boat in a very poor state of repair is situated on sutton councils land and the council carelessly leave this vessle there and it catches the attention of 2 teenagers and they try to repair it, they lift it and it falls on C, he is left paralysed as a result. this was a reasonably foreseeable type of harm. appealed CoA said was not because the idea that they woud try to repair it is not reaosnably forseeable. was reasonably foreseeable, held in favour of C
Corr v IBC
Corr was seriously injured at work, he narrowly escaped decapitation and was left disfigured, Corr developed PTSD and depression. 6 years after the accident Corr took his own life.
the judge dismissed the claim as the suicide was not reasonably foreseeable, this was reversed at the CoA as the suicide was reasonably foreseeable. HoL dismissed Ds appeal
D sought to argue that Corrs suicide was (a) not reasonable forseeable and was (b) a novus actus intervenies. lord bingham said this suiceide was not volunntary and informed decision.
Morris v Murray
C and D spent the bulk of the day drinking. they then decided to go for a flight in Ds aircraft. D had consumed 17 measures of whisky. C injured in a plane crash and D was killed. C sued Ds state. C was 'merry' not 'blind drunk' and there was no equivalent to s149 road traffic act 1988
ICI v shatwell
two workers (shot-fires) circumvented safety procedure. this was deliberate disobedience. both men injured. Cs seek to sue their employer (relying on the doctrine of vicarious liability). the case was unsuccessful
Simms v Leigh rugby club
rugby player thrown against the wall in the courose fo a tackle. ehld to have assented to run relevant risks
Baker v T.E. hopkins
a doctor seeks to rescue two of Ds employees from a well; the doctor is overcome by fumes and dies. D seeks to run a novus actus interveniens argument. Ds argument is rejected by the CoA;
pitts v hunt
2 young males, they are traveling on a motor cycle which is unensured and the drivers in unlicenced, being used in a reckless way, it ends up on the wrong side of the road and collides with an oncoming vehicle. the driver is killed and passenger suffers very serious harm, he brings a negligence claim which fails due to illegality
revill v newbury
D is an elderly man who fears that his shed is going to be broken into by a burgler, he is in an emotional state, he is determined to do what he can to prevent a burglary. he is wakened by the noise of the plaintiff... trying to break open the shed, the D took the shop gun, loaded it, poked the barrel through a small hole in the door and fired'. damages were awared to C but the sum was reduced by two thirds
cluhis v camden
C was mentally ill having been detained under the mental health act 1983, he was discharged from hospital, he recieved very llimited psychiatric support. in his bad state, C killed zito with a knife and is found guilty of manslaughter
C sues in negligence and D was able to rely on the illegality defence.
Grays v thames Trains
grey was a victim in the ladbroke grove rail crash which was caused by Ds hegligence, Gray suffered minor physical injuries and PTSD. in august of 2001 grey (while mentally ill) stabbed a third party to death, grey pleaded guilty to manslaughter on grounds of dim rep.
could gray recover compensation for loss of earnings after aug 2001?
at trial: illegality defence applied
CoA: defence did not apply
HoL: defence did apply
henderson v dorset health
C (a paranoid schizophrenia) stabbed her mother to death (while living in the community- having previously been hospitalised)
criminal law: C was charged with manslaughter
negligence law and illegality: D made successful use of the defence of illegality; the SC declined to depart from HOL decision in Gray and concluded that the clunis decision should not be overruled
Yachuk v oliver blais
petrol supplied by D to a nine year old who suffers injuries in a subsequent expllosion, C held not be to contributory negligent as he lacked capacity
morales v ecclestone
11 year old held to be 75% responsible having ran into the road and been struck by Ds vehicle
Jones v livox quarries
C rides on a iraxcavator contrary to employers instructions, C injured in a crash in which Ds driver was careless
he was responsible for 1/5
jones v boyce
C lept from a coach and broke his leg, C recovered £300
reeves v metropolitian police commissioner
involved a detaniee in a police cell, due to the inadvertance on the part of police officers, the detainee took his own life. 50% CN
Fitzgerald
the claimant walked briskly onto a pelican crossing when the lights were against him and was struck by D1, a motorist carelessly proceeded south and then by D2 a cotorist carelessly proceeding north
all three partied were liable by one third