Negligence: Breach of Duty of Care

Nettleship v Weston [1971]

C= driving instructor

D= student.

• 3rd lesson D drove Car into lamppost which hurt C.

• Ds inexperience was irrelevant.

• Objective test used due to certainty.

• LJ = Tort is not based on moral judgement.

• Should take out liability insurance.

Robert’s v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 AII ER 7 *

• C suffered cerebral haemorrhage

• Driver had some awareness f his surroundings.

• Driving condition impaired.

• Unknown to him he was unfit, hit a car, drove away and then hit another car.

• Cs claimed damage from D on the basis of personal injury.

• Ds defence = acting in state of automatism→ not responsible.

• Justice Neil concluded

Bolton v stone

• C struck by cricket ball which was driven out of Ds pitch.

• Studies shows the ball leaving ground was rare.

• Probability = v small.

• Already taken reasonable precautions.

Miller v Jackson

*

• Club erected a 15 ft fence.

• Sometimes ball still went into the Cs garden.

• C found it impossible to use garden during cricket match.

• Ball falls out about 6-8 times a season.

• Small risks.

• …

Paris v Stepney*

Cs employer knew C was blind in one eye.

• During course of work, metal ended up in other eye= blinded.

• C argued breach because no goggles for this work but they should have taken more precautions.

  • Not all risks can b avoided.

Latimer v AC

• Unusally heavy downfall of rain → machinery.

• Mixed with oil.

• Floor left wet and oily + saw dust on floor.

• Tried to use it to dry floor.

• C slipped on untreated part of floor.

• HOLs- not sufficiently serious risk.

• Would another employer shut down factory.

• D was not negligent by failing to shut down factory.

• Use of saw dust viewed as sufficient.

Watt *

C= fireman

• Calld out to emergency

• Woman trapped under lorry.

• Heavy lifting machine not available

• …