Tort Law: Case Bank

Duty of Care: Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association [2014] AC 537 (SC)

Facts

the claimant (W) suffer serious brain damage during a school-arranged swimming lesson
the lesson was a part of the school curriculum but they were taught by a teacher that was provided by an independent contractor
the group to which she assigned was taught by a swimming teacher (B), with a lifeguard (M) in attendance
her parents alleged, among other things, that her injuries were due to the negligence of B or M

Legal Question

does the school owe a non-delegable duty of care to its pupils, even when the activity is outsourced

Outcome

a duty of care exists between school and child
they could therefore could be held liable for the negligence of the school instructors

Ratio Decidendi

Lord Sumption laid out a 5 part test for when non-delegable duty of care arises:

vulnerability: the claimant is especially vulnerable or dependent on the defendant’s protection.
relationship: there’s a pre-existing relationship (e.g. school-pupil) where the duty of care is personal
positive duty: the defendant has a duty to ensure care is taken, not just to avoid causing harm
delegation: the duty is delegated to a third party
negligence: the third party is negligent in performing the duty.

Duty of Care: Pippin v Sheppard (1822) 147 ER 512 (Ct of Ex.)

Facts

a husband a wife sued a surgeon after the wife suffered injuries under their care
they claimed her injuries were due to unskillful medical treatment
the surgeon was retained and paid to treat her injuries

Legal Question

does a doctor owe a duty of care to their patient
can a doctor be held liable for harm caused by negligent treatment

Outcome

a duty of care exists between doctor and patient
therefore a doctor can be held liable for negligent treatment

Ratio Decidendi

medical professional owe a duty of care once they are retained and start treatment
proffesional skills and care are expected once a practitioner starts treatment

Duty of Care: Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669 (KB)

Facts

the claiamnt was pregnant and worked at a bar
a horse drawn van owned by White & Sons crashed into the front of the pub
the van didn’t hit the claiamnt by it did cause nervous shock leading to a premature birth of her child
she sued for damages based on the psychiatric injury caused by the fright

Legal Question

can damages be recovered for psychiatric injury even if they weren’t physically harmed

Outcome

Ratio Decidendi

a duty of care exists between road users

Duty of Care: Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 (HL)

Facts

Arthur J S Hall & Co, a firm of solicitors, was sued by Simons, a former client
Simons claimed the firm had been negligent in conducting his criminal defence, which led to his conviction
after his conviction was quashed, Simons wanted to sue the solicitors for professional negligence
the solicitors argued they were protected by advocate’s immunity — a rule that had long shielded lawyers from being sued over conduct in court

Legal Question

do lawyers have a duty of care to their clients

Outcome

advocate immunity was abolished for both civil and criminal cases

Ratio Decidendi

a duty of care exists between lawyer and client
lawyers should be held to the same standards of care as other professionals

Dictums

“The immunity is not needed to ensure that advocates perform their duties fearlessly and independently.“ — Lord Stetyn

Duty of Care: Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57 (HL)

Facts

the claimant was a colliery manager
he was injured in a coal mine when he was struck by a coal wagon
Mr English sued for negligence, claiming the company has breached its duty to provide a safe environment

Legal Question

do employers owe employees a duty of care

Outcome

Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd wa sliable for negligence
the duty to provide a safe workplace was non-delegable
a non delegable duty of care exists between employer and employee

Ratio Decidendi

Lord Wright identified three core duties that form part of an employer’s duty of care
1. Safe system of work
  Employers must design and maintain procedures that protect workers from harm.
2. Competent staff
  Employers must hire and supervise staff who are capable of performing their roles safely.
3. Adequate equipment and premises: employers must provide and maintain safe tools, machinery, and working environments.

Duty of Care: Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134

Facts

Watson (the claimant) was a boxer who suffered serious brain injury during a match
this match was overseen by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC)
after being struck Watson recieved delayed medical treat
Watson sued the BBBC for negligence as the4y faield to provide proper medical care during the fight

Legal Question

do organsiers owe a duty of care to competitors

Outcome

it was held that the BBBC owed a duty of care to Waton
the organiser of sporting events will have a duty to minimise risks of injury.
the BBBC was negligent for failing to ensure that proper medical equipment was provided

Ratio Decidendi

the BBBC assumed responsibility for the safety of boxers by reegulating and setting medical standards
this created a duty of care
as the BBBC assumed this responsibility the injury was forseeable and they were negligent

Dictums

“Where a regulatory body takes control of safety arrangements, it must exercise reasonable care.”

Forseeability: Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 (HL)

Facts

Haley, the claimant, was walking along a public pavement using a cane
the London Electricity Board (LEB) had dug a hole in the pavement and placed a hammeer handle across it as a warning
there, howeveer, were no barriers or signs to alert pedestrians
Haley tripped over the hammer handle and sustained injuries as a result
her sued to LEB for negligence

Legal Question

did the LEB owe a duty of care to pedestrians
was the risk to blind people forseeable

Outcome

LEB was negligent in their duty to take reasonable steps to protect their blind pedestrians
the risk to blind people was foreseeable and therefore LEB was negligent

Ratio Decidendi

an organisation/person carrying out public work owes a duty to all foreseeabel users (including the disabled)
the standard of care must reflect the presence of vulnerable groups

Dictums

“If it is reasonably foreseeable that a blind person may walk along the pavement, then precautions must be taken to protect them.“ — Lord Reid

Proximity: Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398 (HL)

Facts

Murphy (the claimant) built a house under the supervision of Brentwood District Council who had approved building plans
the house had a defective foundation which caused structural damage
Murphy could affors repairs and had to sell the house at a loss
he sued for negligence

Legal Question

does a local authority owe a duty of care for economic loss caused by negligent building inspections?

Outcome

the council was NOT liable for the economic loss
this overuled Anns v Merton LBC [1978]

Ratio Decidendi

pure economic loss (financial loss not linked to physical injury or damage to other property) is not recoverable in negligence unless there’s a special relationship
The court held that:a defect in property causing financial loss is a matter for contract or insurance, not tort.
local authorities do not owe a duty of care to prevent economic loss from building defects unless there’s actual physical injury/damage to the property

Dictums

'The essential question… is whether the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is such … that it imposes upon the latter a duty to take care to avoid or prevent that loss which has in fact been sustained.' — (Lord Oliver)

Fair, Just and Reasonable to Impose of Duty: Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] 1 AC 874 (HL)

Facts

Mitchell (claimant) had a long-standing dispute with his neighbour who exhibited anti-social behaviour
Mitchell informed the council of his behaviour
the council had a meeting witht the neighbour, warning him if his behaviour continued he would be evicted
Mitchell’s neighbour went to fatally confront him
Mitchell’s family sued the council for negligence

Legal Question

did Glasgow District Council owe Mitchell a duty of care to warn him about his neighbour

Outcome

it was held that there was no duty of care owed to Mitchell by the council
it would be excessive to expect a council to monitor all of it’s tenants

Ratio Decidendi

a public institution doesn’t owe a duty of care to warn a person about sanction taken against another
the only time they owe a duty of care is if they have assumed responsibility for the person or they’ve created the danger

Expanding Duty into Novel Relationship: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4

Facts

Robinson (the claimant) was walking along the street
2 police officers were attempting to arrest a suspect nearby
during the arrest a struggle occured and Robinson was injured as a result
she sued for negligence

Legal Question

did the police owe a duty of care to Ms. Robinson during the course of the arrest
can there be liability for negligencefor positive acts rather than omissions