Business Law: Tort Law Cases

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

Reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to injure another party (neighbour).

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman Ltd [1990]

Modern Test for New Duties of Care

1. Foreseeability of harm to the claimant

2. Proximity between claimant and defendant

3. Fair, just and reasonable to impose a new duty of care

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970]

Modern Test for New Duties of Care:

Foreseeability of harm to the claimant.

Bourhill v Young [1943]

Modern Test for New Duties of Care:

Proximity between claimant and defendant.

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989]

Modern Test for New Duties of Care:

Fair, just and reasonable to impose a new duty of care.

- Public policy considerations

- Opening the floodgates

- Would the imposition of a duty of care prevent the defendant from doing their job properly?

Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018]

Reasonable care not to provide misleading information which may foreseeably cause injury.

Page v Smith [1996]

If the claimant was in the zone of danger and physical injury was reasonably foreseeable, therefore, psychiatric injury could be claimed for.

White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999]

Policy reasons drove courts to develop limiting devices to restrict claims for psychiatric injury, due to numerous factors:

- Difficulty differentiating acute grief and psychiatric illness

- The prospect of compensation might be an unconscious disincentive to rehabilitation

- En mass litigation

- Crushing liability

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992]

- Claimant must suffer a psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing injury to others / immediate aftermath - where psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable

- Witness by the claimant's own unaided senses

- Claimant must have a relationship of "close ties of love & affection" to primary victim

- Claimant was sufficiently close to the incident

McLoughlin v O'Brian [1982]

Immediate Aftermath:

Claimants who encounter the immediate aftermath of an event caused by negligence can recover damages for psychiatric injury.

Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd [2013]

Claimant must be in proximity to the initial incident.

Attia v British Gas [1988]

Psychiatric Injury may also be claimed if the event involved the destruction of personal property caused by negligence.

Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club [1933]

Reasonable Person Test:

If the reasonable person would not foresee injury or damage as a consequence of an action, then the defendant will not be negligent in failing to take precautions.

Bogle v McDonalds [2002]

A seller is not liable for injuries from an obvious risk inherent in the ordinary use of the product.

Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995]

An employer who knows or should know that an employee faces a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury from an excessive workload, has a duty to take reasonable steps to reduce said risk.

- Failure to do so would be negligence

Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850

Magnitude of Risk:

A defendant is not negligent when the risk of injury is so exceptionally low that a reasonable person would not have taken additional precautions.

Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643

Practicality of Precautions:

A defendant is not negligent when all reasonable precautions have been taken to minimise risk.

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1950]

Special characteristics of the Claimant:

A defendant who knows of the claimant's special vulnerability must take additional precautions to protect them from harm.

Mullins v Richards [1999]

Special Characteristic of the Defendant:

A child is only required to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable child of the same age.

Wilson v Governors of Sacred Heart Roman Catholic School [1997]

Common Practice:

Duty of care is not breached when the action is neither standard practice or reasonably required.

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954]

Social Utility of Defendant's Actions:

The standard of care may be lowered where the defendant is acting in an emergency involving high utility.

- Risk that would be unacceptable in ordinary circumstances may be reasonable when taken to prevent serious harm

Bolan v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee [1957]

The Required Standard of Care from Professionals:

The defendant must show the degree of competence usually to be expected of an ordinary professional skilled in that profession.

- Expert witnesses are used to determine professional standard

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998]

Where conflicting medical opinions exist the practice adopted must be based on logical and reasonable grounds.

Nettleship v Westin [1971]

Inexperience does not necessarily reduce the standard of care required.

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]

Factual Causation ("but for"):

The defendant's breach must be proven to have caused the claimant's loss.

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961]

Legal Causation (remoteness):

Damage which is not reasonably foreseeable is too remote from the breach and therefore not recoverable.

McKew v Holland [1969]

Novus Actus Interveniens (new intervening act):

For the defendant to be liable, their breach must substantially be the cause of the claimants harm.

Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962]

Egg-Shell Skull Rule:

Is applied once the liability of the defendant has been established.

- The defendant must take his victim as he finds him

Vacwell Engineering Co. v BDH Chemicals Ltd. [1971]

Extent of Liability for Damage:

If the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach, the defendant will be liable for all the damage of that type.

Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012]

Test of Vicarious Liability:

1. Does the (quasi-) employee / employer relationship exist on fact?

2. Was the tortfeasor's actions sufficiently closely connected to the relationship?

Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016]

Sufficiently Close Connection (relationship akin to employment):

An employer may be responsible for tortious actions of people who are not employees if there is a sufficient connection between the tortious activity and the business activity.

Brink's Global Services Inc v Igrox Ltd [2010]

Sufficiently close connection between the act in question and purpose of employee's employment.

Rose v Plenty [1976]

Carrying out employment in an unauthorised way is still within the course of employment.

Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd [1961]

Frolic of their Own:

Employer is not liable for an employee's tort that is the result of unauthorised activity that is from the 'frolic of their own.'

Smith v Stages [1989]

Commute to Work:

- Home -> work -> home = not in course of employment

- Work -> work = in course of employment

Mohamud v Morrisons [2016]

Close Connection with Wrongful Conduct & the Business:

Violent assault against a customer is gross abuse of position but still in connection with the business by which the employee was employed.

Occupier's Liability Act 1957

Duty of care owed by occupiers to lawful visitors.

Occupier's Liability Act 1984

Duty of care owed by occupiers to trespassers.

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton [2000]

Land includes fixed and moveable structures upon the land.

Common Duty of Care 1957: Section 2.2

Occupiers have a duty towards visitors to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case...

(1) is reasonable to see that the visitor will be...

(2) reasonably safe in using the premises...

(3) for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be there.

Darby v National Trust [2001]

Defendant will not be found liable for harm fallen upon lawful visitors if it is clearly expressed that there is a danger.

Skilled Visitors: Section 2.3.b OLA 1957

Roles v Nathan [1963]:

Skilled visitors are to be reasonably expected to guard themselves against any special risks ordinarily incident to their work.

Children: Section 2.3.a OLA 1957

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922]

an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.

Willingly Accepted Risk by Visitor: Section 2.5 OLA 1957

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]

The common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks that the visitor willingly accepts.

Warning Signs: Section 4.a OLA 1957

A warning sign is only effective if it is sufficient to keep the visitors reasonably safe.

Cotton v Derbyshire Dales District Council [1994]

No obligation to warn of obvious risk.

Duty to Trespassers Criteria: Section 3.a-c OLA 1987

The Occupier has a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances of the case to see that the trespasser does not suffer injury on the premises.

1. The occupier knew of the danger / has reasonable grounds to believe it exists

2. The occupier knows / has reasonable grounds to believe the trespasser is in the vicinity

3. The danger is one in which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection from

Scott v Associated British Ports [2000]

If the occupier is unaware of the trespass then they cannot take any reasonable measures to ensure their safety from danger - therefore they are not liable.

Revill v Newbery [1996]

An occupier who uses excessive or unreasonable force breaches the duty of care owed to trespassers.

Sim v Stretch [1936]

Lowering of Reputation Test:

Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?

The Defamation Act 2013: Section 1

La Chaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anor [2019]

Threshold of Seriousness:

Serious harm to reputation must be determined by reference to the actual facts about its impact rather than just the meaning of the words.

McAlpine v Bercow [2013]

A person who repeats a defamatory statement is just as liable as the original publisher.

McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997]

Published allegations that cannot all be proven true are liable for libel.

McManus v Beckenham [2002]

If it is reasonably foreseeable that the media will repeat what you say, you can be held responsible for the additional harm that publication caused.

Defamation Act 2013: Section 2

Vardy v Rooney [2022]

Truth:

If the defendant can prove that the statements made were substantially true, a defamation claim is defended.

- Defendant holds the burden of proof

Defamation Act 2013: Section 3

Dyson v MGN [2023]

Honest Opinion:

Opinion not fact - based on true or sufficiently indicated facts and no misrepresentation.

- Genuinely held opinion

Defamation Act 2013: Section 4

Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015]

Public Interest:

The statement relates to a matter of public interest, wherein the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statements would serve the public.

Defamation Act 2013: Section 11

Mode of Trial:

- Before 2013 - Defamation cases were heard by Jury as standard.

- Since 2013 - Defamation cases are heard by a Judge as standard.