Duty of care case law

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.