Law - Tort - Negligence

Robinson v CC West Yorkshire 2018

Judges should first look to apply existing categories of duty and develop new duty situations by analogy with existing precedent. This is known as an incremental approach.

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Claimant’s friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer. C fell ill when she found a snail inside the bottle. Established neighbour principle. Duty of Care is owed by manufacturer to consumer.

Caparo v Dickman 1990

Caparo test for novel situations: was harm reasonably foreseeable

Was there sufficient proximity between the Claimant and the Defendant

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

Kent v Griffiths 2000

C suffered a severe asthma attack but the ambulance failed to arrive on time without good reason. It was foreseeable C’s condition might worsen should an ambulance fail to arrive on time.

Topp v London Country Bus 1993

C was knocked over by a stolen minibus. Was not reasonably foreseeable that the bus would be stolen and run someone over.

Bourhill v Young 1943

A pregnant woman heard an accident around the corner and went to look. What she saw shocked her so much she miscarried. The pregnant woman was not close enough in time or space (she was around the corner) to establish a duty of care.

McLoughlin v O’Brien 1983

A mother arrived after an accident involving members of her own family. She had not seen the accident herself. She was owed a duty of care because her relationship with the victims gave her sufficient proximity.

Hill v CC West Yorkshire

Not FJR to impose a duty on police if it restricted their ability to investigate crime or opened floodgates to other claims

Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC

Although firefighters not usually liable for failing to put out a fire, their actions had made it worse so it was FJR to impose a duty

ABC v St George’s NHS

There had never been a case like this before. On appeal the CA decided there might be situations in future in which a doctor might owe a duty to share genetic information

Alcock v CC West Yorkshire

In order to prevent the floodgates opening the court ruled that claims could only be made by those who witnessed the aftermath with their own senses

Smolden v Whitworth and Nolan

First case to impose liability against a referee for failing to ensure players’ safety

Robinson v CC West Yorkshire

Police officers do not enjoy absolute immunity from negligence claims. No floodgates concerns here as duty was only owed to people nearby and not detrimental to policing generally.

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

“Doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do … It is an objective standard taking no account if the Defendant’s incompetence”

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

It was reasonable to allow the picnic party to carry the urn inside to avoid the rain. The reasonable person would not have foreseen the risk of this accident occurring

Nettleship v Weston

Learners must have the same standard of care as a fully qualified driver because to do otherwise would put the public at risk

Mullins v Richard

D’s conduct did not fall below the standard of care expected from another young person her age so she was not liable

Wells v Cooper

D must be judged against the standards of other amateurs doing DIY (but not professionals carrying out the same task.)

Bolam v Barnet Hospital

Dr’s conduct must be consistent with a substantial body of professional opinion

Montgomery v Lanarkshire

Modifying the approach in Bolam, Drs must ensure patients are fully informed of all risks before undertaking a procedure

Bolton v Stone

The likelihood of the event happening was so small the club had already taken reasonable precautions so no breach of duty

Hayley v LEB

As it was known the road was used by blind people, greater precaution should have been taken. The higher the risk, the higher the standard of care

Paris v Stepney BC

Special characteristics of the Claimant meant that the standard of care expected from the employer was higher

Latimer v AEC Ltd

Factory owners had taken reasonable steps to reduce the risk of injury. There was no need to incur expense to eliminate every possible risk.

Day v High Performance Sports

In this case the benefits (rescuing the climber) outweighed any potential risk so the standard of care was lowered.

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

Even if discovered, the arsenic would have killed C anyway. SO “but for” the failure by doctors to diagnose, C would have died anyway

Chester v Afshar

As patient would have refused to undergo the procedure if given warning, this meant the Dr’s were the factual cause of the worsened injury

The Wagon Mound (no.1)

Type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable. Damage by oil pollution of the dock was foreseeable but fire damage was not

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Injury from fire was foreseeable. It did not matter that the injury came about in an unlikely way

Smith v Leech Brain

Burn was reasonably foreseeable and the employers had to take C as they found him, making them liable for his death

Knightley v Jones

D not liable for injuries to PO as the negligence of the officer in charge was so great that it broke chain of causation

Wilsher v Essex AHA

There were so many possible factors which might have caused the baby’s blindness it was impossible to prove causation

Froom v Butcher

Damages to C were reduced by 20% due to contributory negligence

Sayers v Harlow UDC

Damages reduced by 25% due to way C tried to escape

Morris v Murray

C’s negligence claim was defeated by volenti. He appreciated the risks involved when willingly embarked on the venture,