Tort of negligence past cases

Case examples for tort of negligence

?

Duty of care: Donohuge V Stevenson (1932)

  • Snail in bottle of ginger beer
  • She became ill
  • Sued manufactures owned her a duty of care
1 of 17

Reasonably forseeable: Kent V Griffiths (2000)

  • Doctor called for ambulane for patient suffering from a asthma atack
  • ambulane control said "ok"
  • Ambulence failed to arrive in time
  • patient then suffered a heart atack which could have been avoided in ambulence tiurned up in time
  • It was reasonable forseeable would suffer harm from the faliure of the ambulence to arrive
2 of 17

Caparo V Dickman (1990)

  • created three part test
  • Was damage or harm reasonably forseeable?
  • Is there sufficent (proximate) relationship betewn the claiment and the defendant?
  • Is it fair just and reasonable to inpose a duty?
3 of 17

Reasonably forseeable: Jolley V Sutton borough cou

  • Abandoned boat left on land belonging to the council
  • council failed to remove it
  • thje boy aged 14 was paralysed when the boat slipped on top of him as he was attempting to repair it
  • Council knew that the boat was in a dangorous condition and children where likley to play on it
  • so the injury to the claiment was reasonable foreseeable
4 of 17

Not forseeable: Bourhill V Young (1943)

  • Women heavily pregnat saw accident

  • suffered shock and the baby was stillborn

  • Court decided that the motorcyclist did not owe her a duty of care as he could not have reasonably foreseen that she would have been affected by his negligent driving

5 of 17

Not forseeable: Topp V London country bus (south w

  • Driver left keys in ignition
  • the bus was stolen and driven dangerously causing an accident
  • the damahe to the claiment was held not to be foreseeable
6 of 17

Proximity: Hill V Chief constable of south yorkshi

  • Serial killer murdering women in yorkshire
  • claiments daughter was the killers last victim
  • by the time of her death police hhad enough infomation to arrest the killer
  • it was decided that the relationship betewn the victim and the police was not close (proximate)
7 of 17

Proximity: Osman V Ferguson (1993)

  • where the police knew that there was a risk of an attack on a schoolboy
  • the attacker was obsesed with the boyand had been following him
  • they hasd been complaints to the police
  • the boys father was then murdered and the boy was seriously injured
  • the court held that there was a proximate relationship between the victim and the police
  • but it was ruled out as is was not fair to inpose a duty of crae on the police
8 of 17

Fair, just and reasonable: Capital & counties plc

  • where fire officer had ordered sprinkler system to be switched off
  • this caused a fire which started to spread
  • this lead to more damage
  • in this situation it was fair, just and reasonable to recognise a duty of care against the fire brigade
9 of 17

Degree of risk: Roe V Minister of health (1954)

  • If the risk of harm is not known there is no breach
  • e.g. contaminated anaesthetic used, but risk of this not known
10 of 17

Degree of risk: Bolton V Stone (1951)

  • a cricket ball was hit out of the ground and hit a passer by on the head in the street
  • there was a 17high fott fence around the ground
  • a ball has only been hit out of the ground 6 times in 29 years
  • because of the low risk involved there was no breach of the duty of care
11 of 17

Degree of risk: Haley V london electricity board (

  • It was known that a particular road was used by blind people
  • The electricity board dug a hole but only put up warning signs
  • they did not put up any barriers
12 of 17

Standard of care: Paris V Stepney borough council

  • Mr Stone was known to be blind in one eye
  • He was given work by his employers which involved a small risk of injury to his eye
  • He was not given any protective goggles
  • When doing the work a small piece of metal hit his good eye and he became totally blind
  • His enployers where held to have broken their duty of care to him
  • They knew that a injury to his good eye would be very serious
  • They should have taken greater care because of this and provided him with goggles, even though it was not neccesary to provide goggles for other workers
13 of 17

Is it practable to take precautions?: Latimer V AE

  • A factory flooded and the floor was very slippery with a mixture of oil and water
  • Sawdust was spread over the floor to minimise any risk of workersc slipping
  • One workman slippes and was injured
  • The court held that there was no breach of the duty of care
  • The onley way to prevent any injuries was to close the factory
  • it was unreasonable to expect the owners to do this
  • They had taken sufficent steps to prevent injury in the circumstances
14 of 17

damage/ causation: Barnett V Chelsea Kensington Ho

  • three night watchman went to a hospital A&E department compaining of sickness after drinking tea made by a forth man
  • A nurse phoned the doctor on duty who did not come to examine the men, but told thjem to go home and see their own doctors
  • One of the men died during the night from poisoning by arsenic
  • His widow sued the hospital claiming that the doctor was negligent in not examining her husband so he has broken the duty of care
  • The doctor had broken the duty of care, but evidence showed that by the time the husband have been to the hospital it was too late to save his ;ife
15 of 17

Remoteness of damage: The wagon mound (1961)

  • Oil was spilt in a harbour
  • Two days later the oil caught fire due to wleding being done on a ship
  • the fire spreaded and burnt down the claiments wharf
  • It was too remote that the oil wpuld catch fire
  • The chances of iy catching fire and causing damage in that wya were not
16 of 17

Remoteness of damage: Crossley V Rawlinson

  • The claiment was running towards a burning veichel with a fire exstingusher he fell and was injured
  • It was held that the claiment was only on the way to damage created by the defendants negligence
  • the injury was too remote
17 of 17

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

Tort Unit 2
Teacher recommended
See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »