A Level Law Civil Cases

What was the original Test for Duty of Care

Caparo v Dickman

Case for reasonably foreseeable harm (DoC)

Kent v Griffiths

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

An ambulance was late in attending a patient who was suffering asthma attack . The damage of an ambulance being late was reasonably foreseeable.

Cases for proximity of a relationship(DoC)

Bourhill v Young

McLoughlin v O'brien

Bourhill v Young

A pregnant woman suffered shock leading to a miscarriage when she heard a motorcycle accident and later saw blood on the road. There was no proximity in either time or relationship thus her claim for negligence failed

McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983]

Woman was told her family was in an accident. When she arrived in the hospital she suffered shock because she saw her family in such a bad state so she sued the person who caused the accident. Court held there was a close enough relationship even though she wasn't present during the accident so they did owe a duty of care.

A case for is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

The police released the Yorkshire Ripper and then he killed another person after.The mother of the V tried to sue for negligence however courts deemed it unfair as the police could not be expected to protect all potential victims of crime-this would open the floodgates to lots of claims.

Which case overruled Caparo v Dickman

Robinson

Robinson

An elderly woman was injured by police officers trying to apprehend a potential criminal-determined only reasonable foreseeable harm was needed to establish a DoC

Case for the reasonable man test

Blyth

Which case determined that learners are judged to the standards of non learners (BoD)

Nettleship v Weston

Nettleship v Weston

A learner driver crashed into a lamppost which fell on the car and injured the driving instructor-courts determined that learners should be judged to the same standards as anyone else otherwise it would open the floodgates for learners to get away with negligence

Which case established the two part test for Professional BoD

Bolam

Case for Children being judged to the standard of other children of the same age(BoD)

Mullins v Richards

Mullins v Richards 1999 (Tort)

2 15-year old girls were fighting with plastic rulers. A ruler snapped and a splinter went into one of the girl's eyes causing blindness.. Held that the girl was only expected to meet standard of 15-year old school girl, not the reasonable man. No breach of duty.

Case for size of risk

Bolton v Stone

Bolton v Stone

A cricket ball left a cricket ground and hit a passer-by outside,there was a tall fence around the ground and the ball had only been hit outside of it 6 times in the past 30 years-such a minimal size of risk thus no BoD

Case for Special Characteristics

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

Claimant was already blind in one eye which employer knew about,the employers did not provide any eye safety and the claimant injured his other eye during work-higher standard of care owed to someone more susceptible to harm

Case for Appropriate Precautions

Latimer v AEC

Latimer v AEC Ltd

A factory became flooded and, as the floor was very slippery with a mixture of the water and oil, the workers

were evacuated. Sawdust was spread over the floor to minimise the risk of slipping and the workers were required to go back in. Despite the spreading of sawdust one worker slipped and was injured.

Legal Principle: The court held that the factory owners had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the injury and so had not breached their duty of care.

Case for public benefit

Day v High Performance Sports

Day v High Performance Sports

The claimant fell from an indoor climbing wall and suffered serious injuries. She had to be rescued from the wall by the duty manager,The way the manager rescued her was inappropriate, causing her fall.-in an emergency standard of care is lowered as it is a high pressure situation less caution is expected.

Case for causation (Damage)

Barnet v Chelsea Hospital

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

The claimant had been poisoned with arsenic,he went to the hospital to see a doctor and the doctor sent him home-he then died-hospital was not liable as poisoning was so severe it did not matter whether he was seen or not."but for" he would have died anyways

Case for remoteness of damage

The Wagon Mound

The Wagon Mound

The defendant had spilt oil into the water negligently,the oil traveled for over a month to another nearby wharf in which it caught fire destroying boats at that wharf-the courts decided that the negligent act was too far remote from the Damage thus D was not liable

Case for damage occurring in a peculiar manner

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

workmen negligently left oil lamps surrounding a hole in the road. The claimant, aged eight, picked up one of the lamps to explore the manhole and dropped it into the manhole, where it exploded and caused the claimant to suffer severe burns. The courts decided that it was only necessary that the damage was reasonably foreseeable not the way it occurred-burns are foreseeable from a paraffin lamp.

Case for eggshell skull rule

Smith v Leech Brain

Smith v Leech Brain

The claimant had a pre-cancerous condition of which the employers knew about and took no precautions to cater to that,the claimant then suffered a burn which triggered his condition and he died 3 years later-The courts ruled that the defendants are still liable for the damage despite the claimant being more susceptible.

Case for contributory negligence

Woods v Davidson

Woods v Davidson

The claimant was drunk and was run over by D who was also drunk-D tried to argue that the claimant had contributed to his own damage however the courts rules that regardless of if the claimant was drunk or not he would have still experienced the damage-defence of CN failed

Case for Consent must be voluntarily given

Smith v Baker

Smith v Baker

The claimant was injured by a crane accident.The defence tried to raise consent and argued that the claimant had been at the company a long time thus knew of the risk the crane carried-this defence failed as the courts said the claimant was aware of the risk but didn't voluntarily take it on,he had to to keep his job

Case for knowledge of precise risk

Morris v Murray

Morris v Murray

The claimant agreed to going on a flight in D's light aircraft whilst D was heavily intoxicated and was going to be the pilot.Aircraft crashed,D killed and claimant badly injured and tried to sue Ds Estate-the Estate argued consent and it passed as the risks of flying in an aircraft with an intoxicated pilot are so glaringly obvious that it was seen as voluntary.

Case for zone of danger

Page v Smith

What did Page v Smith determine

The "Zone of danger" used for primary victims of psychiatric injury-only need to prove physical harm was foreseeable

Case for secondary victims (PI)

Alock

Alock

Saw family member crushed in the Hillsborough disaster-went in to establish the Alock criteria for secondary victims eligibility for claims

Case for rescuers

Chadwick v British Rail

Chadwick v British Railways Board

A train had derailed near the claimant's house,the claimant went to rescue individuals from the wreckage and was traumatised when doing so-claim was successful as he was actively involved in the rescue and feared for his life.

Case for bystanders

McFarlane v EE Caledonia

McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd (1994)

D was rescued from the oil rig explosion where 167 people died. He witnessed the rig ablaze where his work colleagues were. His claim failed as he was considered a bystander.

Case for economic loss

Spartan v Steel Works

Spartan Steel v Martin

D dug a road outside the claimants smelting factory abusing a power shortage,damage to smelters and loss of profit-claim successful they could claim for consequential economic loss but not pure(future) economic loss

Case for special relationship

Byrne v Heller

Case for Special relationship (social)

Chaudhry

Chaudhry v Prabhakar

D and claimant were friends,D had experience with cars and recommended a car that was unroadworthy-claim was successful as special relationship could still be established despite them being friends

Case for occupier's liability

Wheat v Lacon

What did Wheat v Lacon determine

The case held that both the manager and the owner of a pub could be occupiers under the Acts, thus more than one person can be the occupier.

Cases for DoC (Occupiers Liability)

Laverton V Kiapasha takeaways

Rochester Cathedral

Laverton V Kiapasha takeaways

The claimant entered the premises and was given several warnings that the floor and precautions had been taken place due to this eg non slip tiles,Claimant injured anyways-defence failed as they did no to be kept completely safe simply reasonably safe Ds had taken reasonable precautions

What did Rochester Cathedral determine

Slipping,tripping and falling are common everyday occurrences that the occupier is not expected to guard against

Case for Doc (occupiers liability children)

Glasgow v Taylor

Glasgow v Taylor

A young boy died after eating poisonous berries from a plant which was growing in the open.D was liable as they did not protect against the allurement of the berries

Case for carrying out trade or calling

Roles v Nathan

Roles v Nathan

Two chimney sweepers were killed by carbon monoxide poisoning-this was seen as a risk the should be expected to guard against.

Case for independent contractors

Haseldine v Daw

Haseldine v Daw

The occupier had hired an independent contractor to fix an elevator,the contractor did so poorly and the lift fell killing the claimant-The occupier was discharged of any liability as he took the right precautions when hiring the contractor

Case for warning notices

Taylor v English Heritage

Taylor v English Heritage

The claimants husband died whilst walking through the Ds premises(a country park),due to a sheer drop in a moat,no was warning was given and the drop was obscured.-D was liable as this was a clear danger and no warning was in place

Cases for OLA 1984 duty of care

White v Saint Albans Council

Rhind v Astbury Water Park

Keown v Coventry NHS

White v Saint Albans Council

The occupier knew the danger of a large ditch on his property,he did not realise that trespassers were using his premises as a short-cut thus when someone was injured he was not liable

Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004)

D owned a water park and unknown to them someone had dumped a large fiberglass boat at the bottom of the lake.C trespassed and jumped in the lake injuring himself upon thr fibreglass boat-D was not liable as they were unaware of the exisiting danger.

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

A child was playing on a stairwell in restricted area of the hospital-they fell and injured themselves.D was not liable as it was due to the child's owns action that caused the harm not the dangers of the premises

Case for Multiple economic reality test(VL)

Ready Mix Concrete v Minister of Pensions

Case for close connection test

Mohamud v Morrisons

Mohammud v Morrisons

A customer of Morrisons was assaulted by an employee of the supermarket,during the assault the employee yelled "you are not allowed back here" and told him to never come back.Morrisons were found liable for Vicarious Liability as there was a close connection with the tortfeasor and connection with the tortfeasors actions

Morrisons v Various Claimants

A spiteful ex employee leaked sensitive data about Morrisons customers.Morrisons not liable as there was no connection between the tortfeasors actions and Morrisons

Cases for employee frolic of their own

Limpus

Rose v Plenty

Twine

Limpus

A bus company told its employees not to race each other to collect passengers-two employees ignored this and inquired the claimant in the process of raining-although employees were on a frolic of their own and ignored orders,their tortuous act still benefited the company thus they were vicariously laible

Rose v Plenty

Milkman was specifically prohibited from having children help on deliveries to improves speed but he did and child was injured-despite the company banning this it still benefitted them through faster and more profit thus they were liable

Twine v Bean's Express

Employee told by employer not use company car to offer lifts,employee ignored this and gave a lift to friend outside work hours,the friend was killed in accident due to the employee's negligent driving-Employer was not liable as it did not benefit them in any way and it was outside work hours.

Case for akin to employment

Ministry of Justice V Cox

Ministry of Justice V Cox

Prisoner was volunteering in the kitchen in exchange for tokens when he dropped a heavy bag on the claimant causing back injury-even though the prisoner was no employed the relationship was deemed as "akin to employment" thus the prison were vicariously liable.

case for valid claimant

Hunter v Canary Wharf

What two things did Hunter v Canary Wharf determine

Family Members & Children could not raise claims for private nuisance,it has to be the homeowners or main tenant that make the claim for private nuisance

The interference must be indirect and not from the defendant entering their property but from how they use ,no claim for loss of light or loss of Tv signal but could claim for noise and smell

case for duration

Crown River Cruises

Crown River Cruises

D set off a firework display on a barge on the Thame.The display lasted 20 minutes

D was held liable for private nuisance,despite the display only being 20 minutes.This one of event was enough

case for sensitivity

Network Rail v Morris

Network Rail v Morris

C owned electric guitars and lived next to a railway owned by D.The Ds built new tech that interfered with Ds use of the guitars.

Claim failed,there was no nuisance as him owning guitars was deemed as sensitive and the courts do not consider this,the defendant would not be liable unless the activity would be a nuisance to the reasonable person

cases for malice

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet