Negligence case law

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 Health Services (2018)

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.