All tort law cases for paper 2

Sturges v Bridgeman 

The claimant, a doctor, lived next to a factory. He built a new consulting room at the end of his garden but then complained of vibrations coming from the factory. The owner argued there had been no issue for the twenty years he had owned it. The defence of pecription failed her as the nuisance only began once the consulting room was built not the 20 years before that 

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

A river barge was set alight by a firework from a twenty-minute show. It was held that the show was enough to amount to private nuisance as it had caused damage to property. Otherwise the short duration of the show would have made it insufficient for private nuisance.

Network Rail v Morris

The claimant owned a studio for music. A new railway line was built near it and this interfered with the amps in the studio causing him to lose business. Where there is very sensitive equipment it cannot be foreseeable for the company that the building of the line would cause a tort in this way. Not liable.

Christie v Davey 

The claimant was a music teacher who held lessons and parties. In retaliation the defendant had banged pots and pans. The defendant was liable as the noise was made maliciously and with full intention of causing tort. 

Bamford v Turnley 1862

In this case D was operating a brick kiln in his back garden and the fumes it produced were going into C’s garden and making them ill. This case defined private nuisance as ‘An unlawful indirect interference with a person’s use or enjoyment coming from neighbouring land’.

Fearn v Tate Gallery 2023

The Tate opened a new viewing gallery was opened allowing people to see directly into nearby glass apartments. This case was brought as a loss of privacy. The supreme court found them liable and came up with key points from it to define PN.

1. A violation of real property

2. Loss is an essential element but highly elastic

3. Nuisance can be cause by an omission or positive activity

4. The broad unifying principle is reasonableness between neighbours

Hunter v Canary Wharf

The claim was brought by the owner’s family against a construction company for obscuring their TV signal. Two things were decided here. 1. The claimant MUST have a proprietary interest in the affected property. 2. The nuisance cannot be something trivial like TV, the loss must be clearer.

Leakey v National Trust

A naturally occurring mound of earth slipped in heavy rain and crashed into the claimants home. Even though the nuisance was entirely caused by natural causes the NT was still liable.

Tetley v Chitty

D set up a go kart track and were found liable for it. This was in spite of them not owning the land, but the ruling here was that a defendant does NOT need a proprietary interest they just need to be causing the nuisance.

Tejani v Fitzroy

C claimed a loud noise was causing him to lose sleep. When the noise was measured it was very quiet about the same as a ticking clock. This was ruled to be insufficient for ‘unlawful’. The definition of ‘unlawful’ is a nuisance that is substantially unreasonable. NOT illegal.

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

Monks moved onto land with a ditch already present. They did not fill in the ditch. The ditch then caused flooding in the adjoining property. The monks were liable under the principle of adopted nuisance.

LBC Southwark v Mills

C claimed insufficient soundproofing in his flat meant he could hear others walking around. This was not ‘unlawful’ as walking around your flat is an ordinary use of the property and not substantially unreasonable.

Types of indirect interference - Amenity and Material

Material damages is where a dangerous state of affairs causes significant physical damage to the adjoining property. Amenity is the pleasantness of the a place. This includes smell, noise or fumes and is harder to prove.

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

The smell from a pig sty D had on his farm was a nuisance for C. This set a precedent that smell is enough for PN. Furthermore, D had been given planning permission to expand and argued this as a defence. However, planning permission is only a defence if its effect was to change the character of the neighbourhood which was not the case here so it failed.

Miller v Jackson

C had moved in next to a cricket club and was then hit by a ball. C claimed but the social benefit of the club reduced the compensation they could get. However, the fact c moved into the nuisance is irrelevant and not a defense.

Allen v Gulf oil refinery

Statutory Authority is where government statute has given permission for something to be built and operated. This is a strong defence as statute can invalidate nuisance claims. here statute had granted permission to build the refinery but not to operate it in any specific way so the claimants coming to court that the operation was causing nuisance was valid.

Laws v Florinplace

D opened a sex shop in a quiet residential area. C argued that under the element of locality it was an unreasonable area to have such a place as it would lower local property value and attract unwanted individuals. D had to move the shop.

Remedies in PN

An injunction to stop something or move something can be served alongside or independent from damages that can be claimed for having that nuisance for example with damage to the land that will cost money to repair.

Wood v Leadbitter

The claimant was removed from a racecourse by the occupier without his payment being returned to him. It was decided his license could be revoked without refund by the occupier at any time. You can change from lawful visitor to trespasser if your invite is revoked.  

Establishing duty

To establish if the occupier owes a duty they must be: 

1. Aware of a danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists Rhine v Astbury Waterpark

2. They must know or have reason to believe that the person is in the vicinity of the danger or that they might come into the vicinity of the danger. Swain v Natui Ram Puri. 

3. They may be expected to protect the other person against the risk. I.e the risk wasn’t obvious. Tomlinson v Congleton borough 

 White v St Albans city

The court of appeal decided that where an occupier had taken steps to keep people out, they cannot be expected to reasonably believe people would be in the vicinity of the danger 

Higgs v Foster

Police came onto premises as part of an investigation but fell into an open inspection pit. The occupier wasn’t liable as they had no reason to believe they would be in the vicinity of danger. 

Keown v Coventry NHS

Under the 1984 legislation there is no distinction between children and adults. They are judged under the same test NHS – An 11-year-old fell of when playing on a fire escape. Judged at the standard of adults he had caused his own death and the trust wasn’t liable. 

Ratcliffe v McConnel

The claimant broke into his school pool, dived in the shallow end, and broke his spine. He claimed against the school, but he was old enough to recognise the danger, but he failed to do so.

Rhind v Astbury waterpark

The claimant ignored a sign and dived into a pool he was not allowed to go in. When he landed, he hit a plastic box causing head injuries. The occupiers didn’t know about this danger and had no duty to make the pool safe as the sign should’ve stopped people entering it. 

Defences 

Volanti – If people used their free will to injure themselves and it was not the fault of the premises then there is a defence. 

 

Warnings – If a warning is enough to make the person reasonably aware of the danger it can be a defence 

Addie v Dumbreck 1929

Original HoL ruling that the miners owed no duty of care to fence off the area to keep children out even though they knew it was extremely dangerous and that children played there often.

BRB v Herrington

A six year old came through a commonly used shortcut to get to the playground across a train track and was seriously injured. The HoL used the Practice Statement 1966 for the first time to overrule Addie v Dumbreck’s ruling and introduced a common duty of care that people should try to keep others safe.

The Calgarth case

A ship entered a dock by a narrow entrance causing damage. While the ship did have permission to enter it was for a certain purpose and it had violated those terms here meaning it changed from a visitor to a trespasser.

Donoghue v Folkstone properties

C slipped and was injured on a boat while diving from a harbour in the middle of the night in the middle of winter. Such an obscure time to do this made it unforeseeable for the dock owner so they could no expect people to be in the vicinity and were not liable.

Young v Kent County Council

C fell through a skylight while playing on the school roof. The school knew the children did this but did not take steps to stop them. It was held that the school was aware people were in the vicinity so were liable.

Tomlinson v Congleton borough

The council was doing work to make a lake inaccessible to the public but C came and dived in paralysing himself. The courts ruled that for a 1984 claim to succeed the danger must have come from the state of the premises whereas here it came from him decision to swim.

Furmedge v Chester DC

Premises are defined in the 1957 legislation as ‘fixed or moveable structures that include vessels, vehicles, and aircraft’. In this case it was judged a PVC structure being used as an walk-in art piece that lifted from the ropes and rolled killing two people fit the description and D was liable.

Wheat v E Lacon and Co

‘An occupier is someone who has a degree of control over the premises’ this may or may not be the owner. In this case both the company that owned the pub and their employee who ran the pub day to day were occupiers. However, neither were liable as the missing lightbulb that had caused the man to fall and die had been removed by a random stranger, so the occupier had no part in not making it reasonably safe.

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation

A four year old wandered from her parents and into a derelict home. She was injured when she fell out of the window. The council had just served a compulsory purchase order meaning they had control and were liable for not boarding anything up or securing the premises.

Bailey v Armes

D lived above a supermarket and allowed their son to play on the roof. One day he took his friend up but they fell and got injured. It was ruled neither the supermarket, who could not access the roof, nor the parents, who did not own the roof, had enough control to be occupiers.

Matthewson v Crump

Crump owned a bungalow but had moved out to get the house expanded to two stories. A plasterer then came round to give a quote and fell through the floor. While she was the owner she had no control of construction safety at the time and could not be liable.

Types of lawful visitors

1. Invitees - persons invited to enter the property with express permission

2. Licensees - Persons who have an express of implied permission to be on the land for a particular period

3. Contractual permission - Ticket to an event for example

4. Statutory right - Meter readers, police with a warrant

Lowery v Walker

Villagers were in the habit of using D’s field as a shortcut which he was aware of. While he had said he didn’t like it he took no steps to deter trespassers so there was an implied consent. D then placed a ‘savage’ horse on this land without warning who attacked, as had happened before, a person as they crossed. D was liable.

Section 2(1) and 2(2) of 1954 legislation

(1) states a common duty of care exists

(2) defines this as ‘the duty to take such care as in all circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there’

Rochester cathedral v Debell

Claimant tripped on a protruding lump of concrete. It was held that tripping, slipping and falling are everyday occurrences that should not be expected for the occupier to completely guard against and that the risk is reasonably foreseeable only where there is a real source of danger which a reasonable person would recognise as needing remedy.

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway

The takeaway had installed slip proof flooring and mopped where it was possible to. During a rush C managed to slipped. As steps had been taken to make the area reasonably safe D was not liable.

White Lion Hotel v James

The hotel had chosen not to install a safety feature to save £8. This choice meant James was able to jump from the window to kill himself. As the cost was so low for such a high risk they were found liable for this.

Bowen v National trust

C was hit by a branch that fell from a tree. Previously, NT had checked the branch but it had passed all their tests as safe to remain there. Therefore, they were not liable as they had taken steps to make it reasonably safe.

Geary v JD Wetherspoon

C slid down a large staircase at a Wetherspoons but fell of and was paralysed. This was the claimants fault so the business was not liable. It is not expected that the occupier removes all danger.

Moloney v Lambeth LBC

In this case a four year old fell through a gap in the guard rail that would have only been possible for someone of their size. The HoL decided that it was dangerous to a child and that children require a higher standard of care as they are unlikely to appreciate danger.

Phipps v Rochester corporation

A five year old and seven year old went searching for berries by a new build estate. The five year old fell in a trench ad broke his leg. It was decided that the parents should have had control of such young children and the fault was theirs not the housing corp.

Glasgow corporation v Taylor

A seven year old ate some berries off a bush in a botanical garden and died. There was no indication of the danger it would pose. Additionally, it was decided that berries would naturally attract young children and that more had to be done to protect them. This is the case that established allurement.

Jolley v Sutton

Two boys tried to winch up a boat the council had failed to move for 2 years when it fell injuring one. Allurement applied again. It was also decided that the type of harm did not need to be foreseeable just that any harm was foreseeable.

Roles v Nathan

Two chimney sweeps died from carbon monoxide poisoning after ignoring warnings from a safety inspector. As there was a present safety inspector and their deaths were cause by risks inherent to their trade the defendant was not liable.

English Heritage v Taylor 

This case cleared up the warning signs area of this legislation. In this case the warning sign was present but too far from the actual danger to be a sufficient defence. A warning side within proximity is a valid defence to OL.

Rae v Mars

A surveyor was inspecting a dark warehouse when he fell in a pit. If there is a larger danger present then larger warning like barriers may be legally necessary. Normally a written or oral warning is sufficient

Darby v National Trust

This is the case for the defence of obvious dangers. D was swimming in a national trust lake when he drowned. The courts felt a risk of drowning in a lake was too obvious for signs to be warranted

Rules for independent contractors

1. It must have been reasonable for the occupier to have entrusted the work to an independent contractor

2. The contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task

3. If possible, the occupier should whether the work is properly done

If all three are satisfied the occupier has a complete defence

Haseldine v Daw and Son - Case for rule 1

The occupier hired a team to repair and maintain the lifts in their flat building. When a visitor came the lift snapped at the second floor and plummeted killing the man. The occupier was not liable for negligent care as lift maintenance is highly specialised and it was reasonable to give it to a contractor.

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club - for rule 2

The cricket club hired a completely incompetent man with no experience or insurance to hold a firework show and gave his gunpowder and fuel instead of fireworks. This caused an explosion injuring many people. It was ruled such a specialist, high risk event needed an insured and competent contractor so they were liable.

Woodwar v Mayor of Hastings - third rule

D hired a contractor to clear ice but did not check the work even though this would have been very possible. The contractors had left ice causing C to slip and get injured. Liable.

Consent as a defence

This comes under the same rules as negligence.

Sharp v Ministry of Defence (2007)

Military vehicles driving in a convoy came to an emergency stop causing the load of one of the trucks was carrying slid off killing the passenger in the car behind. The family took the driver to court, and they decided that he had acted reasonably in the situation by stopping and really it was just bad luck. Driver not liable. Just because something goes wrong doesn’t mean someone is liable.  

Dufosse v Melbry events (2011)

Joan Duffose had visited Santa’s grotto in Selfridges. The grotto was operated by Santa and one elf who had 90 seconds between person to ensure the grotto was safe. Duffose came in and slipped on a plastic icicle they had failed to clear causing her to fracture her leg. The event was liable as they had failed to keep it safe and Mrs Duffose was awarded £30,000 in damages. 

Vaughan v Menlove (1837)

The defendant’s haystack set ablaze due to poor ventilation. They had been warned multiple times about the dangers but said ‘He would chance it’. The fire spread and burned two of his neighbour’s buildings. He was judged on the standard of a reasonable man and found that he had not reached this standard and was liable for failing to ventilate his haystack. 

Bolton v Stone

C got hit by a cricket ball. Steps had been taken to avoid this and it was very unlikely. As the likelihood of harm was so low there was no liability.

Paris v Stepney

P only had one eye so needed a higher level of care as the potential seriousness of injury to his only eye was worse. Therefore the council needed to provide goggles for him.

Latimer v AEC

Factory flooded and even though they took steps to clear it up L slipped. He argued they should have closed the factory for a day but this was judged too high a cost for a minor risk so not liable.

Watt v Herefordshire council

W argued that an injury he sustained when saving lives as a fireman and sued the council. As the emergency was more important and speed would present only a minor risk of injury not liable.

Day v High Performance Sport

Skydiving instructor failed to instruct properly causing injury. Higher risk needs a higher level of protection so liable.

Bolam test

Actions align with a body of other professionals. This is part one of the test for professional standard.

Bolitho test

Part 2 of the test for professionals. The judge must use their own scrutiny to establish if the actions taken were logical

Nettleship v Weston

Learner driver crashed causing injury. Learners are held to the same standard as qualified persons.

Mullins v Richards

Children judged to the standard of children their same age not to adults.

Robinson test

If their is a similar case the Caparo test for duty of care isn’t needed.

Kent v Griffith

Ambulance service failed to give the correct wait time. Harm must be reasonably foreseeable.

Brushett v Hazeldene (2006)

H was cycling when they headed into a crossing where a woman was crossing on her phone so he sounded his air horn to alert her. She argued this made her freeze forcing the cyclist to hit her. The judge ruled they were both as bad as each other in this situation.

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

While learning to drive W crashed causing injury to the instructor. W argued they didn't owe a duty of care as they weren't qualified, but the supreme court ruled that all drivers had the same duty of care. 

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)

G bought woollen underwear from AKM but chemicals left in there caused damage to his skin. After the precedent set in Donoghue v Stevens that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers AKM was found liable. 

 

Darnley v Croydon nhs

The claimant went to A&E with a head injury but was misinformed by reception it would be a 5 hour wait so he went home where his condition worsened causing brain damage. The duty of care was expanded to all staff in the process not just doctors and nurses. 

Donoghue v Steven

Donoghue went with a friend who bought her a ginger beer float. She drank the ginger beer unaware a dead snail was inside which caused her stomach injuries. She claimed against the manufacturer as the cafe owed no duty having sold the drink to her friend no her. For the first time the court came up with the neighbour principle.  

Neighbour principle by Lord Atkin

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Neighbours are persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.

Ans test - (Anns v Merton) -

2 stage test  

1. ‘Proximity’ replaced the word neighbour – you should consider the closeness of the relationship between the parties involved  

2. Is there any reason to limit the scope of duty owed to the claimant? 

This test was scrapped as it was so subjective and inconsistent  

Caparo v Dickman (1990) -

Caparo wanted taken over another company and wanted look into the profit documents of the company that Dickman had prepared which showed the company was making a profit. After buying the company it became clear these books had been cooked.  

A new test emerged: 

1. Was harm or damage reasonably foreseeable? 

2. Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between claimant and defendant? 

3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty? 

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2015) 

The claimant was an old woman that was trampled by police in pursuit of a perpetrator. 

When this got to the SC, they realised Caparo v Dickman should ONLY be used where there was no precedent before. Instead, they should just use precedent from earlier cases and reserve Caparo for cases that presented brand new situations. 

Blythe v Birmingham waterworks Co (1856)

BW installed a fire hydrant. That year a freak winter froze the hydrant and cracked; spilling water into the house of Blythe. He argued they had failed to freeze proof the hydrant. In this case the claim failed as the freak winter meant they had done what they were supposed to do to prepare for normal circumstances. ‘Failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something which the reasonable person would not do’ 

Kent v Griffiths

Kent needed an ambulance as she was suffering an asthma attack during labour. The ambulance was called and said 15 minutes. After that passed they called again and were told soon. In total it took 40 mins causing Kent to suffer a miscarriage. The ambulance operator was sued as Kent argued her husband would’ve driven them had the 40 minute wait been revealed. The claim was successful as it was foreseeable harm would be cause by inaccurate timings.

Boxhill v Young

Mr young was riding recklessly that caused him to be hit by a car and killed. Boxhill stepped off a tram and witnessed the events causing her to suffer a stillbirth of her child. She sued the Young estate but he was found not liable as their was not a proximate relationship.

AG v Hartwell

Police gave an officer a gun as a service weapon. He then used that gun to shoot up his ex-girlfend’s bar. The police were found to have a duty of care for anything in the proximity of that weapon.

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire

The claimant’s daughter was the last victim of the Yorkshire ripper. Hill argued the police possessed the evidence needed to arrest Sutcliffe and that they failed to protect the public. This was judged to not be fair, just and reasonable as it would cause the police to take less care in arrests and a flood of claims every time there was a crime.

Brushett v Hazeldene

Hazeldene was cycling when Brushett stepped out into the road. H sounded his air horn but she failed to move and they collided causing B injury. The judge ruled they were equally at fault but ordered H to pay all court costs while awarding B damages.

Orange v CC of West Yorkshire

The police took in a heavily intoxicated man from the street to sober up. They completed all the suicide checks and checked on him every 30 mins. At 9:40 checks he was found to have hung himself. The family sued the police but the claim failed as it was not foreseeable that he would kill himself given they did all the checks and nothing flagged.

Barnett v C&K Hospital (1969)

Introduced the ‘but for’ test to tort law. The claimant had gone to hospital with chest pains. The nurse called the doctor who said he should go home and go to his GP in the morning. He died 5 hours later from arsenic poisoning. The doctor was able to prove even if he kept him in he still would have died. But for his decision he still would have died so not liable.

Knightly v Johns (1982)

A car had overturned in a one way tunnel as Mr Johns was driving recklessly. A police officer forgot to close off the tunnel. Another senior officer then instructed Knightly to ride against the traffic flow to close the tunnel but he was hit head on and injured. It was found the legal chain of causation between J and K had been broken by the officers decision to send him down.

McKew v Holland

M suffered an injury at work which H accepted liability for that could cause his left leg to give out. While still recovering he went to work where he attempted to go down stairs with no handrail but fell when he tried to jump 10 stairs. He fractured his ankle giving him a disability. It was decided this was a novus actus intervenus as he had taken unnecessary risk that endangered himself further.

The Wagon Mound (1961)

An oil tanker leaked, got caught up in some cotton that was then ignited by sparks from welders causing a fire. A test of remoteness of damage was substituted for the direct consequence test. The test is whether the damage is of a kind that was foreseeable. If a foreseeable type of damage is present, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage, no matter whether the extent of damage was foreseeable.

Smith v Leech Brain (1962)

The defendants were held to be negligent and liable for damages to the complainant. The complainant burnt his lip as a result of the defendant’s negligence in the workplace. The employers are liable for all of the consequences of their negligence; thus, liable for the employee’s death. His predisposition to cancer did not matter, nor did the results of the injury. The question of liability was whether the defendant could reasonable foresee the injury. Lord Parker stated that the eggshell skull rule and taking the victim as you find them has always been the established law and this was not affected by the ruling in the Wagon Mound case.

Special Damages

This is normally money lost and can be returned with easy to calculate money exchange

1. Loss of earnings up to the date of the trial

2. Damage to property

3. Expenses incurred as a result of an accident

Non Pecuniary - Pain and suffering

Hard to calculate but also taken into account

Loss of earnings

If you can never work again it will be roughly calculated a sum based on wages and potential promotions and pension contributions you could have made to support you for the rest of your life.

Loss of earnings - lost years

Families where a member dies due to negligence can claim for the money they would have made had they survived until retirement age.

Loss of amenity

The courts roughly calculate how much the enjoyment of your life has been lost to this. E.g. if you had a hobby you enjoyed that you can no longer do they will give you some compensation

Mitigation of loss

The claimant is required to take reasonable action to keep their losses to a minimum and the defendant cannot be forced to pay for avoidable losses.

Jehovah’s witness v BXB 

In 1984, Mr and Mrs BXB and their children went to a Jehovah's witnesses church. As part of the religion, you are encouraged to spend more time with other witnesses. Mark Sewell was an elder and became best friends with Mrs BXB. After some years he begins having issues with alcohol. He then started to flirt with Mrs BXB. Mrs BXB tried to break things off from Mark but Mark’s Dad a higher-ranking elder encouraged her to remain supporting his son. In April they were out evangelising when The Sewell couple fought and he told Mr BXB he wanted a divorce, but BXB reminded him adultery had to have occurred for a divorce under Jehovah’s witness law. When they get back to the house together Mark raped Mrs BXB when she was trying to calm him down. He was convicted of rape and then Mrs BXB claimed against the church as she had suffered PTSD. The supreme court used this to tidy up vicarious liability. Element 1 – Tortfeasor must be employed or akin to employed by the employer. Element 2 – The tortious actions must either fall within the course of employment, or they must be sufficiently closely connected to the employment. Element 1 satisfied her but not element 2.