Topic 8- Tort Law (part I)

Donaghue v Stevenson (1932)

Friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Donaghue. The bottle was opaque and unknown to the purchaser, retailer or Donaghue contained snail remains. It was found out Donaghue consumed the bottle and remainder was poured into a glass. Donaghue claimed she became ill brought action for damages against the manufacturer (Stevenson).

Her claim= the claim should be made against the manufacturer as the ginger beer was bottled, labelled and sealed by him

As a key element in establishing negligence is proximity between the parties→ Lord Atkin stated “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

Neighbour= people closely and directly affected by my acts

Authority for:

Established that the defendant owes the claimant a duty to take care, there must be a proximity of relationship between them, identified through Lord Atkin’s ‘neighbour principle’

Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (2018)

1. Mr Young was travelling at excessive speed and collided his motoborbike with a motorcar and died.

2. Mrs Bourhill was a tram passenger close to the scene.

3. B did not witness the crash, but became aware after hearing noise of the impact.

4. Young’s body was removed and B approached the scene and observed blood.

5. She claimed she suffered back damage and a severe shock to her nervous system, acknowledged she didn’t fear for her own personal safety.

6. House of Lords held that a motorcyclist owed a duty of care to other road users and those he could reasonably foresee might be injured by his failure to take reasonable care

7. B did not fall into this category as she was not in any area of danger, Young did not owe her a duty of care as it was not foreseeable that she may be injured in the incident + lack of proximity between parties.

Authority for:

For duty of care to be established, the defendant must have reasonably foreseen that their actions may cause injury or loss to the claimant

Caparo v Industries Plc v Dickman and others (1990)

Caparo bought shares in Fidelity Plc and later took over the company. After the takeover, they discovered the company was in a worse financial state than the audited accounts suggested. So they sued:

The directors → for fraudulent misrepresentation

The auditors (Touche Ross) → for negligent misstatement in the audit

Caparo argued that they relied on the audit when buying shares and taking over the company so the auditors owed a duty of care.

House of Lords disagreed:

1. Audit required by 1985 Companies act, not made for Caparo personally (lack of proximity)

2. Negligent misstatement is narrow→ auditors didn’t know Caparo would rely on audit when buying shares (no duty of care)

Authority for:

Imposition of liability for negligence should only take place where it is ‘just and reasonable’ to do so. As this was a novel case, the law should develop liability in such cases incrementally and restrict/limit the imposition to those whom a duty is owed.

Established the Caparo test→ fair, just and reasonable

What is a novel case

A legal dispute not previously disputed by courts

Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (2018)

Following an assault, Darnley went to emergency department complaining of a worsening headache, D and his friend told receptionist his need for immediate medical attention but was told he had to wait 4-5 hrs. After 20 minutes, D went home, did not inform anyone he was leaving, that same day an ambulance was called as his condition had worsened. Diagnosis= large extradural haematoma, despite operation had permanent brain damage.

Claim= hospital negligence; receptionist + failing to properly assess a high priority need

Ruling→ duty of care on the receptionist to guard patients against harm, and provide accurate information to patient (about waiting time to see doctor). Had Darnley been given accurate information he wouldn’t have left hospital without telling anyone and if he became quickly unwell whilst waiting to be examined he would have been treated rapidly.

Authority for:

In casualty departments, duty of care is already established and accepted. Caparo test not relevant in these deliberations. All hospital staff (medical and non medical) have the duty. Issues surrounding their training are taken into account for consideration as to whether a breach has been committed, not needed when establishing whether a duty of care exists.

Robinson v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police (2018)

Elderly woman knocked while police officer tried arresting drug dealer and suffered injuries. She brought claim against the police for recovery of damages due to these injuries.

Authority for:

Rather than applying the general Caparo test approach, courts method was to identify whether a situation is novel, compare them to precedent cases and allow the law to develop incrementally. Courts now weighed out for and against argument before automatically applying the ‘fair, just and reasonable’ method.

The existing case law should be applied in ‘standard cases’, whilst novel cases should be determined on their own facts with reference to full range of precedents in the area.

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

Mr N gave Miss W driving lessons. Third lesson, W drove into a street lamp, N broke his kneecap. W convicted of driving without due care and attention, N brought an action for negligence due to his injuries.

Authority for:

Court of Appeal held that a learner driver is held to the same standard of care as an experienced driver. In negligence, the test is objective not subjective

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management (1957)

Mr Bolam sustained fractures during electroconvulsive therapy treatment, he was a voluntary patient at the defendent’s hospital. B initiated damages action against the hospital alleging the defendants were negligent in failing to administer any relaxant drug prior, and failed to warn him of risks involved. Hospital produced expert witnesses who states that there was a firm body of medical opinion opposed to the usage of relaxant drugs. It was also the practice of the defendants’ doctors not to warn their patients of risks ( they believed to be small) unless asked.

Authority for:

High Court held that a warning would not have affected the outcome of the case, and the hospital had complied with professional standards. The claim failed, hospital not negligent.

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Woman standing outside her house struck by cricket ball from a cricket club. Wanted to recover damages for her injuries, House of Lords refused.

Authority for:

Club minimised risk of harm through erecting a 17 feet high fence. As the balls had only been struck over the fence 6 times in 28 years, it was judged that the claimant had not been exposed to an unreasonable risk of harm through

This case established the main elements to determining whether a breach of duty of care took place:

• the ‘reasonable man’ standard

• the principle of risk (exposure to unreasonable risk of harm)

• the social utility and desirability of the defendant’s actions

• the cost/practicality of the measures to reduce the risk of harm

Miller v Jackson (1957)

Jackson (chairman of cricket club) sued for negligence (and another tort action under nuisance) by the Millers

Brett v University of Reading (2007)

Paris v Stepney BC (1951)

Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954)

Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)

Drake v Harbour (2008)

Garrings v Calderdale MBC (2004)

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)

Overseas Tankships (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (1961)

Lamb v Camden London BC (1981)

Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd (2006)

Smith v Leech Brain & Co. (1962)

Ashton v Turner (1980)

Moore Stephens (a firm) v Stone & Rolls Ltd (in liquidation) (2009)

Condon v Basi (1985)

Blake v Galloway (2004)

Smith v Baker & Sons (1891)

Chadwick v BRB (1967)

Haynes v Harwood (1935)

ICI v Shatwell (1965)

Jackson v Murray and Another (2015)

Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Southport Corporation (1955)

Christie v Daley (1893)

Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd (1981)

Barr v Biffa Waste Services (2012)

Sturges v Bridgman (1879)