Tort law cases

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Negligence defined as "failing to do somoething which the reasonable person would do or doing something which the reasonable person would not do". Reasonable person test. Achieves justice - people should be entitled to expect a certain standard of behaviour from everyone

Robinson v CC West Yorkshire

Supreme Court emphasised judge should look first to existing precedent (or a statutory obligation) when deciding whether a duty of care exists. The Robinson approach. Made clear that the Caparo test should only be applied in novel situations. Creates certainty. Unfair for the police to enjoy blanket immunity from negligence claims (court decided negligent in this case)

Donoghue v Stevenson

Manufacturer and consumer duty. Establishes the neighbour principle "you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee as likely to injure your neighbour" and neighbour refers to "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation"

Bolam v Barnet Hospital

Doctor and patient duty. Professionals/experts will be judged against competent experts in the same field. There must be a substantial body of professional opinion that would support D's course of action. Uncertainty as to how many would support a course of action before becoming a “responsible body”

Nettleship v Weston

Drivers and other road users (including pedestrians) duty. Learner drivers are judged against the standard of a reasonably competent driver. Seems unfair to take no account of inexperience

Road Traffic Act 1988

Drivers and other road users (including pedestrians) duty

Paris v Stepney

Employer and employee duty. Seriousness of potential harm risk factor. His employer was under a higher duty to provide protective goggles to him because the risk to him of becoming completely blind was greater than other employees. Fair that claimant is owed a higher standard of care because his characteristics made him especially vulnerable

Day v High Performance Sports

Instructor and learner duty. Potential benefits (social utility) risk factor. In this case, the benefit (rescuing the climber) outweighed any potential risk so the standard of care was lower. Fair as it is a socially useful activity (rescue attempt)

Simonds v Isle of Wight Council

Teacher and student duty

Kent v Grifiths

Caparo test. Harm was reasonably foreseeable. Evaluation relating to special groups (ambulance service)

McLoughlin v O'Brien

Caparo test. sufficient proximity

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Caparo test. Not FJR

Glasgow Corporation v Muir

Reasonable person test. If D acted as the reasonable person would have done, then there is no breach. Fair to defendants because it accepts that accidents can happen

Mullins v Richards

Where the standard of care will be that of the reasonable child of the same age as the D

Wells v Cooper

Amateurs can be judged against other reasonably skilled amateurs doing the same task provided it is one that a reasonable homeowner might carry out

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board

Reasonable person test. In relation to the medical profession, doctors must ensure patients are fully informed of all material risks involved in treatment and of reasonable alternatives. Makes the law fairer to claimants

Bolton v Stone

Probability of harm risk factor. No breach of duty as it had already taken reasonable precautions (a 5-meter high fence)

Haley v LEB

Probability of harm risk factor. Because blind people regularly use the road, the Court decided that the probability of harm was high and that the workmen should have done more to guard people against this risk. Acts as a deterrent - incentivises other companies to take greater care when carrying out work in a public space

Latimer v AEC Ltd

Cost and practicality of taking precautions risk factor. The Court decide that D had taken sensible precautions and to eliminate the risk of slipping would have meant closing the factory, which would have been disproportionate to the level of risk. Fair that the standard of care is lower if there is a greater public benefit to the activity

Roe v Minister of Health

Unknown risks risk factor. Since it was unknown to medical experts at the time that contamination could occur in the way that it did, there was no breach of duty

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

"But for" the failure to diagnose, B would have died anyway. No factual causation. Fails to deter negligence in further cases as failed “but for” test but was still negligent

Knightley v Johns

Intervening acts. broke the chain of causation - D was not the cause of the 2nd accident

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

It is the type of damage which must be reasonably foreseeable, not the extent of the damage or the way in which it happened

Hughes v Lord Advocate

His claim succeeded because burn injuries caused by an unattended lamp were foreseeable even if what actually happened was not.

Baker v Willoughby

Defendant still liable after a debatable intervening act - inconsistent

Jobling v Associated Diaries

No longer liable due to intervening act - inconsistent

Smith v Leech Brain

D had to take C as he found him, thin skull rule

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Provides that a judge may reduce any damages awarded to a claimant according to the extent to which the claimant contributed to his or her own injuries

Froom v Butcher

Damages were reduced by 20% for not wearing a seatbelt

Jayes v IMI

It is possible for the C to be completely responsible making C 100% contributory negligent

Morris v Murray

The Court of Appeal decided that C had voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by accepting a flight in an aircraft by an obviously heavily intoxicated pilot

s.2 Damages Act 1996

Allows the parties in a negligent claim to agree structured settlements

ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust

Developing law on a case-by-case basis can be a slow process. Argued over duty to inform of a family history of a genetic condition, complicated by the fact that the father refused to give consent to disclosure. The claimant won.

Alcock v CC of West Yorkshire

Floodgates argument. Claims against the police from family of the Hillsborough stadium victims rejected, partly due to number of claims and the cost

Smolden v Whitworth & Nolan

Willing to impose a duty if it will act as a deterrent. Referee was held liable for failing to ensure players’ safety

Hill v CC West Yorkshire

Police held not to owe a duty to potential victims of a crime after releasing a suspected killer through lack of evidence. Court felt that the threat of being sued could make the police less efficient in carrying out their duties and divert hem from their primary function of preventing crime and protecting the public

Chester v Afshar

“But for” test. Provides justice

Wisher v Essex AHA

Claimant’s case failed because they couldn’t prove that the negligence was the cause (“but for” test) as there were multiple possible reasons

Fairchild v Glenhaven

A modified approach for “but for” test with multiple possible causes has been taken to achieve justice in cases arising from unlawful exposure to asbestos. Most recent employer was liable as they “materially increased the risk”

Compensation Act 2006

Approach in Fairchild v Glenhaven was approved in this law

The Wagon Mound (No.1)

Rules on remoteness achieve justice as unfair for a defendant to be responsible for damage which was unforeseeable

Doughty v Turner Asbestos

The type of damage being seen as unforeseeable can lead to injustice

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

Applies to lawful visitors

Occupiers' Liability Act 1984

Applies to tresspassers

Wheat v Lacon

The manager of a pub was an occupiers because he had control of the premises, he lived there but wasn't the owner

Bailey v Armes

Neither the parents who owned the flat nor the supermarket has a sufficient degree of control over the roof areas to be occupiers

Harris v Birkenhead

There is no requirement for physical occupation. A local council was held to be the occupier of a derelict building due for demolition, even though it had never entered it

s.1(3) OLA 1957 and s.1(2) OLA 1984

Premises is broadly defined

Geary v Wetherspoon

Her injuries were not caused due to unsafe premises, but rather her decision to slide. There could therefore be no liability under the 1957 or 1984 Acts

s.2(2) Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

Requires occupiers to "take such care in all the 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"

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway

Customer slipped but had been mopped and had special slip-resistant tiles. The Court decided that the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure their customers were safe. There is no duty to keep visitors completely safe, only to do what is reasonable in the circumstances. Would be unfair to hold the occupier responsible in this case

Cole v Davis-Gilbert and others

C was injured when she trapped her foot in a hole in a field that was left over from a fete two years before. The Court decided that the duty owed by the organisers of the fete could not last indefinitely

s.2(3)(a) Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

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

Jolley v Sutton LBC

Occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. Council had breached duty of care by failing to move the boat. The boat was something that would be attractive to children and some injury was reasonably foreseeable if children played around it

Phipps v Rochester Corporation

The council was not liable because the child was too young (5 years old) to be out playing alone - the fault lay with the parents. Fair to the occupier as it is reasonable to expect parents too supervise young children, although there is some uncertainty about the age limit to which this applies

Bourne Leisure v Marsden

Sometimes accidents can occur where neither the parent nor occupier is at fault. Court accepted that warning signs would have been unlikely to have prevented a two-year-old

s.2(3)(b) Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

"an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so"

Roles v Nathan

The claim failed because inhaling poisonous fumes was the sort of special risk arising from their job (a chimney sweep) which they should have been familiar with and guarded against

s.2(4)(b) Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

Where a visitor is injured due to a danger created by an independent contractor, the occupier has a defence provided that it was reasonable to hire a contractor, reasonable precautions were taken to ensure the contractor was competent and if the nature of the work allows, reasonable checks were taken to inspect the work

Haseldine v Daw

The court decided the occupier was not liable for the death as the occupiers had fulfilled their duty of care by appointing an apparently competent firm to maintain the lift, and the highly technical nature of the work meant that it was reasonable to entrust the task to a specialist

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings

The occupiers were liable as they failed to take reasonable steps to check that the snow had been cleared of properly and the danger should have been obvious to them

s.2(4)(a) Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

Provides that the occupiers' liability is discharged if he or she gives effective warning of the danger

Rae v Marrs

The Court decided the warning sign was insufficient to keep visitors safe because it could not be seen as it was in an unlit shed

Staples v West Dorset

The C slipped on algae-covered rocks at the seaside and the Court found that the danger was obvious and a visitor should be aware of it so a warning sign was not necessary

Consumer Rights Act 2015

Prevents businesses from restricting liability for death or personal injury on their premises

s.1(8) OLA 1984

C cannot claim for damage of property

Siddorn v Patel

No duty was owed as the danger arose due to C dancing on a garage roof rather than the condition of the premises

s.1(3) OLA 1984

A duty of care is owed if (a) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable,e grounds to believe that it exists; (b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger; and (c) the risk is one against, in all circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection

Rhind v Astbury

Occupier was unaware of danger so no duty was owed s.1(3)(a). Seems fair

Higgs v Foster

The occupier had no reason to suspect that the trespasser (a police officer carrying out surveillance) would come into the vicinity of the danger s.1(3)(b)

Tomlinson v Congleton BC

A warning sign was present. No duty was owed under s.1(3)(c) as it wouldn't be reasonable to offer protection against a natural feature of the lake. The risk didn't arise from anything done or omitted to be done on the premises. The Court emphasised that an occupier doesn't have to spend lots of money in making premises safe from obvious dangers. Seems fair to take into account the financial circumstances

s.1(4) OlA 1984

"the duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned"

Ratcliff v McConnell

The Court held that the occupier was not required to warn adult trespassers of the risk of injury arising from obvious dangers

Keown v Coventry NHS Trust

The approach doesn't significantly alter when a minor is involved. The Court decided that the occupier owed no duty of care to the C as the accident happened through his own dangerous behaviour, rather than any risk arising from the state of the fire escape. Premises that are not dangerous from the point of view of an adult could be dangerous for a child whether they are is a question of fact and degree

Westwood v Post Office

A warning sign can be an effective defence provided it has made the danger clear. So for a child trespasser it will depend on the age and understanding of the child

s.1(5) OLA 1984

A warning sign can be an effective defence

Edwards v Sutton

The concept of “obvious dangers” was applied to a lawful visitor who was denied compensation when he fell off a bridge in a pubic park

Ogwo v Taylor

Danger must arise due to state of premises - seems fair to the occupier and encourages personal responsibility on behalf of the claimant. If danger is not due to state o premises, an alternative action in negligence may be available

Rochester Cathedral v Debell

Accepted tripping and falling are everyday occurrences and the risk is only foreseeable of there is a “real source of danger”. Discourages a compensation culture

British Railways Board v Herrington (1972)

Until this case there was no duty owed to a trespasser in common law, other than not to deliberately or recklessly inflict injury. This rule was particularly harsh to child trespassers

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)

Under the old law, “allurement” used to provide children extra protection as trespassers, stating they wouldn’t be a trespasser if the child wandered onto land to investigate something which is both dangerous and attractive to children

Young v Kent CC

Court accepted that if the claimant had not been a child he would have recovered nothing. Brittle skylight.

Bottomless v Todmorden Cricket Club

Cricket club were liable because the they team had chosen to put on the fireworks display were not sufficiently experienced or adequately insured

Fearn v Tate Gallery

Supreme Court defined the tort of private nuisance as "a use of land which substantially interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighbouring land, judged by the standards of an ordinary person". Supreme Court confirmed social utility may be considered in deciding remedy and may justify awarding of damages rather than an injunction but doesn't prevent a finding of an actionable nuisance. To decide if interference is unlawful, test is whether the acts complained of were (1) necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land, and (2) whether they are conveniently done, with proper consideration for the interests of neighbouring occupiers. Supreme Court accepted visual intrusion could amount to a nuisance

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Owners and tenants of property had a right to bring an action but not members of their families because they didn't have a legal interest in the land. Interference with TV reception caused by the building of a fixed structure did not amount to an actionable nuisance because this was not an interference with use or enjoyment of land. It was merely a loss of recreational facility - partly because other forms of reception, such as cable and satellite were available

Tetley v Chitty

D was a local authority who allowed go-kart racing on its land and was therefore liable for the noise and disturbance caused by the go-karts

Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan

Even though D had not consented to this pipe being laid in the first place, D was liable when C's land was flooded because he had allowed the danger to continue

Leakey v National Trust

Ds were liable as they knew that a slippage might happen and they failed to prevent it

Anthony v Coal Authority

A fire started spontaneously from coal waste on the site, causing fumes to interfere with people living in the area. The Coal Authority were liable because they were aware of the problem when they had control of the land (had sold the land) and failed to prevent it

St Helen's Smelting v Tipping

Physical damage. Damage to plants or crops from fumes

Bone v Seal

Damages were awarded for the effect of smells emanating from a pig farm

Williams v Network Rail

The Court of Appeal held that the encroachment of Japanese knotweed onto the Claimant's land amounted to a loss of amenity even if there was no physical damage because it carries the risk of future physical damage to buildings and the mere presence of it affects the owner's ability to develop their property

Sturges v Bridgman

Noise and vibrations from industrial equipment in a confectioners was a nuisance in a quiet residential area because the locality was not devoted to manufacture. C was a doctor who treated patients in his house and then built a consulting room in his garden. D claimed a prescriptive right as he had used the factory for over 20 years without complaint. C won and the defence of prescription failed as the nuisance only begun when the consulting room was built and D cannot argue C moved to the nuisance

Laws v Florinplace

A sex shop in a residential area was deemed to making a substantial interference for local residents, affecting the ordinary comfort of human existence

Network Rail v Morris

New railway tracks interfered with sensitive recording equipment used in C's studio. c could not claim for damage to his business because the 8nterference was extraordinary and unforeseeable

De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros

An injunction was granted to prevent building work at night despite the fact that the work was on,y temporary. The interference was unreasonable since it interfered with C's sleep

Barr v Biffa Waste

Storage of organic material in a landfill site was a nuisance as it led to strong garbage smells on many occasions over five years

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

Where burning debris from D's firework display landed on a nearby barge that caught fire. D was liable despite the nuisance only lasting 20 minutes because there was physical damage

Christie v Davey

C gave music lessons at home. D, her neighbour, started banging trays and shouting in retaliation. The fact that D's actions were motivated by malice was a factor in deciding there was a nuisance

Miller v Jackson

The Court ruled that cricket balls regularly landing in C's garden was a nuisance and that the community use of the ground did not outweigh the private use of the garden. However, the court refused an injunction and awarded damages as an appropriate balance between the rights of the parties. Moving/coming to a nuisance is not a defence (cricket was being played before C's house was built)