- If the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, the severity of the injury is irrelevant. A burnt lip could recover, scar or become malignant – Thin Skull

Defences to Negligence One-Liners:

Watson v Gray (1999)

Volenti requires knowing & willing consent to all harm. Anything beyond that is actionable

Smith v Baker (1891)

Following an employer's orders does not necessarily imply consent

ICI v Shatwell (1965)

Disobedience of an employer’s safety procedures does imply consent

Haynes v Harwood (1935)

A rescuer performing their “general duty” at peril to themselves does not amount to volenti

Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958)

Damages to the claimant are reduced in proportion to the role their own fault played

Froom v Butcher (1976)

Not wearing a seat belt amounted to contributory negligence representing up to 25% of loss

Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) (1985)

Contributory negligence can be 100% but this does not amount to volenti

Economic Loss One Liners

Weller & Co. v Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966)

An auctioneers lost profit was pure economic loss and could not be claimed

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co. Ltd (1972)

For acts & omissions, only loss which is a physical consequence of the breach can be claimed

Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964)

D can be liable for misstatement where there is a special relationship and no disclaimer

Caparo v Dickman (1991)

Establishes the five requirements of a special relationship where D can be liable for misstatement

White v Jones (1995)

Solicitor owed a duty to beneficiaries of a will having assumed the responsibility of drawing up that will.

Steel v NRAM (2018)

D’s reliance on a misstatement must be proper and reasonable

Banca Nazionale v Playboy Club (2018)

There can only be a special relationship where D knows the identity of the potential C.

Chaudhry v Prabhakar (1988)

Special relationships can exist even in a social context if all the Caparo criteria are met.

McLoughlin v O’Brian [1982]

Nervous shock must be based on psychiatric illness not mere grief or distress

Page v Smith (1995)

A primary victim is physically injured or reasonably feared injury & if physical injury was reasonably foreseeable, so too was psychiatric injury automatically

Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (2024) SC

Claims can only be made for accidents. Doctors do not owe duty to 3^rd parties for trauma caused by medical crises

The traumatising event need not be sudden and shocking

Alcock v CC South Yorkshire (1991)

Establishes the hearness, nearness and dearness tests to restrict claims

Chadwick v BRB (1967)

Rescuers can claim for nervous shock where they are personally in harm’s way

Attia v British Gas (1987)

If Alcock criteria are met, damage to personal property can lead to psychiatric loss

Occupiers Liability One Liners

Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd (1966)

Occupier has control not necessarily ownership & there can be more than one

Wheeler v Copas (1981)

Even a ladder could be premises

The Calgrath (1927)

Lawful visitors become trespassers if they exceed permission

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme (2002)

Visitors need only be kept reasonably safe, not 100% so.

Jolley v Sutton LBC (2000)

Allurement can prevent a child being a trespasser

Bourne Leisure v Marsden (2009)

To prove they are not liable for the injury to a child, occupiers need no prove the parents were negligent.

Roles v Nathan (1963)

Trades people expected to guard against risks of their profession

Salmon v Seafarer Restaurants (1983)

Fire presents unforeseeable risks which cannot always be guarded against

Haseldine v Daw (1941)

Liability can be avoided where complexity of the task makes it reasonable to contract work out

Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust (2002)

Checking the competency of a contractor extended to checking insurance, etc.

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945)

Complex work could contracted out & liability avoided under s.2(4)(b)

Rae v Mars (1990)

Unusual dangers require more than just a warning sign, e.g.. a barrier

Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995)

An obvious risk requires no warning sign

Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004)

No liability to trespassers where the risk is unknown

Higgs v Foster (2004)

No liability to trespassers where their presence is not reasonably anticipated

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)

Danger must originate in the defective premises not the dangerous activity & preventing danger altogether must be reasonably achievable

Nuisance One Liners

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)

The presence of a building on land is not a nuisance unless something emanates from it and claims can only be made by those with a legal interest in land.

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)

Damage caused by nuisance must be reasonably foreseeable

Robinson v Kilvert (1889)

Nuisance will not protect extraordinarily sensitive claimants

Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

Locality can make use of land unreasonable & coming to the nuisance is not a defence

St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping (1865)

Indirect physical damage will be a nuisance regardless of location

Halsey v Esso Petroleum (1961)

Time of day can make use of land unreasonable

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)

A malicious motive can make the use of land unreasonable

Miller v Jackson (1977)

Coming to the nuisance is not a defence but acting in the public interest may at least avoid an injunction

Leeman v Montague (1936)

The method chosen for an activity can make the use of land unreasonable

Andreae v Selfridge (1938)

Temporary interference with enjoyment of land is not a nuisance unless the defendant fails to take reasonable steps to minimise it

Spicer v Smee (1946)

The presence of an ongoing danger on another’s land can be deemed a nuisance

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd (1981)

If Parliament permits construction of a building for a purpose, it has permitted the activity associated with it and there is no nuisance

Wheeler v Saunders (1996)

Planning permission will only act as a defence where it expressly changes the nature of activity that is acceptable in a locality

Coventry v Lawrence (2014) SC

A victim of nuisance is prima facie entitled to an injunction but the burden then passes to the defendant to show why damages are more appropriate, e.g. planning permission, etc.

Rylands v Fletcher One Liners

Dunne v North West Gas (1964)

Thing needed to be brought onto the land for D’s own purposes.

Read v J Lyons & Co (1947)

Thing must escape from land to another’s and only damage to other land is actionable

Stannard v Gore (2012)

Fire damage, will generally only be the basis of a successful claim where the fire itself was the thing brought onto the defendant’s land

Rikards v Lothian (1913)

Unnatural use of land means to un-ordinary use as opposed to contrary to nature

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)

The damage the escape might lead to must be reasonably foreseeable

Transco PLC v Stockport MBC (2003) HL

Danger and the “unnatural” element should be extraordinarily high or unusual for liability

Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956)

The act of a stranger can be a defence

Stage 1 – Relationship capable of vicarious liability

Ready Mixed Concrete v Ministry of Pensions (1968)

Three stage “Economic Reality” of employment = (1) wage for service, (2) control and (3) other provisions consistent with employment, e.g. PAYE, job description, etc.

Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants (2012) SC

“Christian Brothers Case”

Vicarious liability can exist in relationships “akin to employment” if two stage test met and more than one party can be vicariously liable

Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016) SC

Confirms test above and points out that furtherance of the defendant’s aims is important regardless of whether they are commercial

Stage 2 – Close connection between tort & relationship

Limpus v London General (1862)

A defendant is liable for an employee undertaking an act authorised by an employee but done in an unauthorised mode.

Lister v Hesley Hall (2001) HL

For vicarious liability to exist, a tortfeasor’s actions must be closely connected to the relationship between them and the defendant, e.g. warden cares for residents

Mohamud v W M Morrisons (2016) SC

A tortfeasor’s actions can be closely connected if they are within the field of the activity assigned to them, even if contrary to the defendant’s aims

W M Morrisons v Various Claimants (2020) SC

Where the employees unauthorised actions are solely for their own personal motive, the close connection test is not met. It is not merely causal and temporal

Knowt