Law of Torts Exam Cases

Rothwell v Chemical & Insulation Co LTD

A claim in tort based on negligence requires proof of damage

Damage is the concept of being ‘worse off’ than C would have been were it not for the negligence

Donoghue v Stevenson

Neighbour Principle: must take reasonable care to avoid acts/omissions that can reasonably be avoided, foreseeing that they would injure your neighbour

Established duty not to negligently cause reasonably foreseeable physical injury

Caparo v Dickman

Introduced factors for establishing DoC

1. Was the harm reasonably foreseeable?

2. Was the damage to C proximate to the damage caused by D

3. Fair, just and reasonable

Incremental approach preferred

Darnley v Croydon NHS

The starting point is whether there is an existing precedent that determines if there is a DoC

The Caparo test is not to be applied in situations where a DoC has already been established

Baker v Hopkins

Rescuers owed a duty of care → policy reasons (law encourages and recognises this behaviour)

Vellino v Machester

If C is a wrongdoer, they cannot be expected to be owed a duty of care

N v Poole Borough Council

No duty unless authority created danger or assumed responsibility

HXA v Surrey CC

Child welfare case, physically and mentally abused by a third party (the partner)

If a public authority takes some steps to remedy the mistake, it is not assuming responsibility

Michael v Chief Constable

police under a general statutory duty to enforce the law, no specific duty unless police assume responsibility

Robinson v Chief Constable

police have a duty of care not to cause harm if they have created danger or made matters worse

Kent v Griffiths

duty arises when the ambulance service accepts the call and assumes responsibility

McFarlane v Tayside Health Board

vasectomy case, doctor only assumes responsibility for the pregnancy prevention (or lack thereof), the duty does not include the costs of raising the child

Parkinson v St James

unwanted disabled child → only costs associated with caring for a disabled child fell in the scope of the DoC

Khan v Meadows

C could only recover the costs of raising a child associated with the illness C wanted to avoid, not other unrelated conditions

Perrett v Collins

mere foreseeability is not enough, requires proximity and a sufficiently specific relationship

Leakey v National Trust

A special relationship led to DoC (occupier to neighbouring occupiers)

provided harm was objectively foreseeable, DoC arises

Everett v Comojo

special relationship between nightclub and guests, nightclubs owners generally not under a duty to those outside (unless danger created by nightclub)

Jebsen v Ministry of Defence

C suffered severe injuries after a night out drinking organised by the MOD. (DoC arose due to a specific assumption of responsibility)

Dorset Yacht Co LTD v Home Office

Young offenders caused trouble and damaged yachts, duty from A to B for protection against damage from 3rd parities

White v Cheif Constable

Primary victims are:

Those who suffer psychiatric injury + physical injury

Those within the range of foreseeable physical injury, even if no injury occurs

Page v Smith

C could have been foreseeably physically injured, and also suffered chronic fatigue

Proximity to the zone of danger → could recover as a primary victim

Monk v PC Harrington

Rescuer: not every rescuer will be PV → must be objectively exposed to danger/reasonably believed they were

Unwilling Participants:

• D’s act made them cause, or think they caused, the harm

• Psychiatric injury was foreseeable

• Treated as primary victims

Alcock v Chief Constable

C must directly perceive the event or aftermath, viewing through TV screen did not convey a sufficient degree of proximity

Taylor v A Novo

Established requirements to recover for psychiatric loss for SC

1. Recognised illness

2. Reasonable foreseeability

3. Sufficient proximity

Secondary victims need to be a witness to the initial accident itself

Liverpool v Ronayne

Husband witnessed wife's distress after negligent surgery but not the accident itself

To satisfy the proximity requirement

1. Close tie of love and affection

2. Proximity in time and space

3. Direct perception

White v South Yorkshire

Spouses, parents and children are expected to have close ties of love and affection; other instances (i,e, siblings must be proved by evidence)

Shorter v Surrey

Sisters had very close relationship, close ties of love and affection proved on facts but NOT presumed

Ontario Inc v Maple Leaf Foods

Pure economic loss is loss unconnected with physical/mental injury/property damage

Sainsbury’s v Visa

Consequential economic loss is the loss of use of the property while being repaired

Spartan Steel v Martin

Consequential economic loss → 3 types of loss discernible on the facts

1. Physical damage to property

2. Loss of profit from the sale of damaged metal (CEL)

3. Loss of profit from the metal that would have been produced if not for negligence (PEL)

Only damages for physical damage and consequential loss were awarded

The loss of profits from the downtime is a pure economic loss that is not recoverable

Banca Nazionale v Playboy

Assumption of responsibility cannot occur where the defendant did not know the identity of the claimant, who had an agent acting on its behalf.

C must rely on the statement, reliance must be reasonable and foreseeable

Hedley Byrne v Heller

1. D must voluntarily assume responsibility to C for the execution of a task

2. C must be identifiable as an individual/type of person

3. C must rely on D’s care/skill in the execution of the task

4. D must foresee/taken to reasonably foresee that C would rely

5. Reliance must be reasonable

White v Jones

A professional can owe a duty of care to someone who is not their direct client if their work was intended to benefit that person.

If the professional acts negligently and that person loses the expected benefit, they may be able to claim.

Smith v Bush

The court sided with the residential buyer, finding that the buyer would reasonably rely on the survey.

Spring v Guardian Assurance

reasonable that an employment reference would be relied upon

Steel v NRAM

not reasonable for the bank to rely on requests from the solicitor due to its own failure to complete due diligence, the bank had documents at its fingertips → not reasonable reliance

Burgess v Lejonvarn

Negligent statements and provisions of services causing economic loss in informal contexts are sometimes actionable (does not occur regularly)

Blyth v Birmingham

standard of care is what is reasonable in the context and circumstances

Bolam v Friern Hospital

Professional standard = ordinary competent professional in the relevant field

No breach if D acted in line with a responsible body of professional opinion

Bolitho v Hackney

A two-year-old suffered respiratory failure twice, which reinforced the Bolam

If there is a decent body of opinion saying they would have done the same, D will have lived up to their professional standard of care

Nettleship v Weston

standard of care general, learner driver expected to live up to the general standard of care of a reasonable driver

Barnett v Chelsea

A true disability may mean the standard of care alters

A doctor being exhausted does not constitute a true disability

Roe v Ministry of Health

undetectable cracks in ampoules → paralysis → no breach (risk not foreseeable then)

Paris v Stephney

Severity of harm relevant, the more severe the resultant harm may be, the more that is required to be done to safeguard against it.

Barnett v Chelsea

The hospital negligently sent the patient away, but the patient would have died anyway from arsenic poisoning → No factual causation

McWilliams v Sir William Arrol

No safety belt provided, but the deceased would not have worn it anyway → No factual causation

Hotson v East Berkshire AHA

The hospital failed to recognise a fractured hip, and found he had a condition that left him with permanent disability

Experts state there was 75% chance he would have contracted the condition anyway → not enough to establish a balance of probabilities test

Gregg v Scott

Man had a lump under his arm, which was negligently diagnosed → the lump was cancer

Chance or survival would have risen to 42% without negligence → claim failed

Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons

Solicitors' negligence caused the loss of a commercial opportunity

‘Real and substantial’ chance of not suffering the loss but for negligence

Spring v Guardian Assurance

Employer provided reference for employee owed a duty of care in respect of the preparation of the reference

If DoC breached, liable for damages for economic loss

Wilsher v Essex AHA

Several factors could have caused a premature baby's condition, but only one was negligence, C could not prove that negligence was the cause

If there are multiple competing causes and C cannot prove D’s breach was the probable cause, the claim fails unless an exception applies

Cook v Lewis

Two hunters negligently fired, impossible to prove whose shot hit C

If there is more than one potential cause, liability is shared unless one disproves responsibility

Baker v Willoghby

Multiple sufficient successive causes

D injured C’s leg; later, a robber shot the same leg, leading to amputation

First D is still liable for full consequences

Jobling v Associated Dairies

C suffered a back injury, then later, an unrelated disease worsened disability

First D is only liable up to the point that later illness would have disabled C anyway

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw

Where there are two potential harms, C needs only to show that there was a material contribution to harm

2 potential causes, one negligent, 1 non-negligent

Material contribution to harm: any contribution that is more than de minimis will be sufficient for factual causation

Bailey v Ministry of Defence

C’s weakness resulted from both negligent treatment and non-negligent illness, leading to choking and brain damage

The claim succeeded because negligence made a material contribution

Williams v Bermuda Hospitals Board

The woman was delayed in treatment, the hospital was negligent, and the woman suffered further harm

Material contribution is not limited to concurrent causes

Holtby v Brigham & Cowan

Asbestosis from exposure to multiple employers

The court apportioned responsibilities between employers on a ‘time-exposure’ basis

McGhee v National Coat Board

D failed to provide workers with shower facilities → created further risk of asbestosis (more than de minimis)

Breach created risk; injury occurred within that risk → loss should fall on D unless D shows other cause

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

C’s employer was exposed to asbestos by multiple employers

Due to the nature of asbestos, every employer materially contributed to the risk of harm

Barker v Corus

Apportioned employers' share on the basis of how much time was spent at each employer; C had periods of self-employment

Chester v Afshar

Exception to the balance of probabilities approach

The doctor failed to warn of the small inherent surgical risk, and that exact risk materialised

1-2% chance that they would suffer damage was not a barrier to liability

The Wagon Mound

D is only liable for harm of a reasonably foreseeable kind, not its extent or the way it occurred

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Injuries were much worse than expected, but did not negate liability

He can only escape liability if the damage can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Cold injury was foreseeable, even if frostbite itself was not specifically predicted → employer liable, some type of harm relating to cold was foreseeable

Jolley v Sutton

An old boat was left on the beach, and a sign was up stating to take care

Boat falls on boy who ends up paraplegic → Some physical injury was foreseeable, not too remote

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing

Chemical factory, flash containing asbestos, reacted with another chemical, causing an explosion, splashing chemicals foreseeable, explosion not → Too remote

Tremain v Pike

Weil's disease is different from ordinary rat-related harm → Too remote

Smith v Leech Brain

Welder, spark flew off onto lip, developed cancer

Injury had made the predisposition to cancer worse

Once the type of injury is foreseeable, D takes C as found; unexpected severity does not make the damage too remote

Weld-Blundell v Stephens

Clerk's conduct was a new voluntary act → break in the chain of caution

Subsequent criminal acts will constitute a novus actus interveniens (high bar)

Homes Office v Dorset Yacht

The boys escaped, and the damage was a foreseeable consequence of poor supervision

Subsequent negligent acts of a 3rd party are unlikely to break the chain

Knightley v Johns

Senior officers' negligent order to drive the wrong way through the tunnel was a new unforeseeable act → Chain broken

Wright v Lodge

Subsequent reckless conduct of a third party may be a novus actus

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group

Ordinary medical negligence usually does not break the chain unless it is independent and extremely gross

McKew v Holland

C intervention will break the chain of causation only if doing something really significant (high bar)

C acted highly unreasonably in using steep stairs without support → Chain broken

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets

C had been as careful as possible → chain unbroken

Jones v Livos Quarries

C exposed himself to foreseeable danger

Contributory negligence established

Lord Denning’s test:

C is contributorily negligent if they should reasonably foresee that failing to act as a reasonable, prudent person might hurt themselves, and they must consider that others may be careless

Stapley v Gypsum Mines

Two workers ignored safety rules, and one was killed in a mining accident

Damages reduced based on causal contribution and blameworthiness

Ellis v Kelly

A child lost older cousins, got hit by a car going too fast, but did not look while crossing

The child could not be held to the same ‘reasonable prudent man’ standard

Jones v Boyce

Emergency reaction to danger created by D did not amount to contributory negligence

Adams v Lancashire

Train door case, tried to slam the door shut 4 times, fell out of the train

No real emergency, C acted unreasonably, CN applied

Harrison v British Railways

A man was trying to get off the moving train, and the guard went to help, but the train was too fast

The guard attempting to help was not contributory negligence, as there was an emergency

Froom v Butcher

Reduction depends on the effect of not wearing a seatbelt:

25% if the injury had been prevented

15% if the injury had been less severe

0% if no difference

Titchener v British Railways

Crossing an active railway despite obvious danger → voluntarily assumed risk

ICI v Shatwell

Experienced workers deliberately ignored safety rules → var used as a complete defence in the context of vicarious liability

Neeson v Acheson

C put her cheek up against a dog, and the dog mauled her.

The dog had never shown aggression; C lacked the required knowledge of risk.

No volenti → CN awarded instead

Morris v Murray

Both individuals drunk, D, took C up in his plane

Intoxication does not render C incapable of appreciating risk and consenting to it

VAR applied here

Smith v Charles Baker

The crane on the building site went over workers' heads frequently

Mere knowledge of danger is not sufficient; one must accept risk beyond just tolerating danger for the job → no VAR

ICJ v Shatwell

Experienced workers deliberately ignored safety rules → deliberate act of neglect → VAR applies

Kirkham v Chief Constable

where a person's state of mind is unsound, one cannot treat them as having freely accepted the risk

Haynes v Harwood

Police officer who stepped in front of runaway horse, D claimed VAR → officer was not acting voluntarily but in pursuit of his official duty

Holmon v Johnson

C sold tea, knowing D illegally imported the tea

‘No court will lend aid to a man who funds his cause of action upon an illegal or immoral act’

Delaney v Pickett

C and D are transporting cannabis. C was injured in a collision caused by D’s negligent driving

Cannabis transport was a background event, not the cause of the crash → no illegality

Joyce v O’Brien

Falling from a van while escaping after theft was directly linked to illegality

causal link between illegal action and foreseeable injury → defence succeeded

Kuddus v Chief Constable

Police abuse of power by forging a signature, causing the investigation to stop

Punitive damages awarded

Cassel v Broome

D published a defamatory story to boost sales; the profit from sales outweighs damages

C awarded punitive damages

West v Shepard

Quality of life → damages for inability to do things C could do pre-injury (e.g. hobbies)

Extra loss of amenity (e.g. sport/hobby now impossible) increases the award

Loss of consciousness does not affect the chances of recovery

Lim Poh Choo

Loss of consciousness does not alter the actuality of deprivation of ordinary experience and amenities

Pickett v British Rail Engineering

Loss of earrings in shortened life expectancy can be compensable, - what C would have spent on themselves

McDonalds Corp v Steel

Companies can sue

For profit-making bodies, serious harm refers to serious financial loss