TOPIC 1: NEGLIGENCE – MAJOR CASES AND STATUTES

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.

1. DUTY OF CARE CASES

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

• Facts:

• Claimant drank ginger beer bought by a friend.

• Bottle allegedly contained a decomposed snail.

• Claimant became ill.

• No contract existed between claimant and manufacturer.

• Principle:

• Established the modern law of negligence.

• Created the neighbour principle.

• Exam use:

• Use for the foundation of duty of care.

• Use to explain that a person must take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to people closely and directly affected by their actions.

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)

• Facts:

• Claimant relied on company accounts prepared by auditors.

• Claimant bought shares and suffered financial loss.

• Auditors had prepared accounts for shareholders generally, not for the claimant individually.

• Principle:

• Created the modern three-part test for duty of care.

• Caparo test:

• Harm must be reasonably foreseeable.

• There must be sufficient proximity.

• It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

• Exam use:

• Use for novel duty situations.

• Always apply all three stages where duty is not already established.

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970)

• Facts:

• Borstal boys escaped due to negligent supervision by officers.

• They damaged yachts.

• Principle:

• Duty of care may arise where harm by third parties is foreseeable and there is sufficient control.

• Exam use:

• Use for development of duty of care.

• Useful for policy and public authority discussion.

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)

• Facts:

• Mother of final Yorkshire Ripper victim sued police for negligent investigation.

• Principle:

• Police generally owed no duty to individual members of the public in investigation of crime.

• Policy reasons:

• Floodgates.

• Defensive policing.

• Diversion of police resources.

• Exam use:

• Use for policy considerations in duty of care.

• Shows courts may deny duty even where harm is foreseeable.

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2015)

• Facts:

• Victim made emergency call warning of threat.

• Police response was delayed.

• Victim was killed.

• Principle:

• Police generally do not owe duty for pure omissions or failure to prevent harm by third parties unless responsibility is assumed.

• Exam use:

• Use for modern public authority/police duty restrictions.

• Good for “fair, just and reasonable” discussion.

2. BREACH OF DUTY CASES

Vaughan v Menlove (1837)

• Facts:

• Defendant built a haystack despite warnings it might catch fire.

• Fire spread and damaged claimant’s property.

• Principle:

• Standard of care is objective.

• Defendant judged by standard of reasonable person.

• Exam use:

• Use for objective reasonable person test.

• Defendant cannot rely on poor judgment.

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

• Facts:

• Learner driver caused injury during driving lesson.

• Principle:

• Learner drivers judged by standard of reasonably competent qualified drivers.

• Inexperience is no defence.

• Exam use:

• Use for objective standard.

• Good for defendants lacking skill or experience.

Mullin v Richards (1998)

• Facts:

• Two 15-year-old girls were playing with plastic rulers.

• Ruler snapped and injured claimant’s eye.

• Principle:

• Children judged by standard of reasonable child of same age.

• Exam use:

• Use where defendant is a child.

• Do not apply adult standard to child defendants.

Orchard v Lee (2009)

• Facts:

• 13-year-old boys playing tag collided with a supervisor.

• Principle:

• Normal child behaviour may not amount to negligence.

• Exam use:

• Use to support child-standard analysis.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.

3. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD CASES

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)

• Facts:

• Patient underwent electroconvulsive therapy.

• No restraints or muscle relaxants were used.

• Patient suffered fractures.

• Principle:

• A professional is not negligent if acting in accordance with a responsible body of professional opinion.

• Exam use:

• Use for doctors and professionals.

• Shows professional standard differs from ordinary reasonable person standard.

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority (1997)

• Facts:

• Doctor failed to attend child patient.

• Dispute over whether treatment would have been given.

• Principle:

• Professional opinion must withstand logical analysis.

• Court may reject unreasonable expert opinion.

• Exam use:

• Use as qualification to Bolam.

• Do not say professional opinion is automatically accepted.

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1987)

• Facts:

• Junior doctor gave excessive oxygen to premature baby.

• Baby suffered blindness, but there were multiple possible causes.

• Principle:

• Junior professionals are judged by the standard of the post they occupy.

• Inexperience is no defence.

• Exam use:

• Use for inexperienced professionals.

• Also useful for causation with multiple possible causes.

4. BREACH FACTOR CASES

Bolton v Stone (1951)

• Facts:

• Cricket ball hit claimant outside cricket ground.

• Balls rarely left the ground.

• Principle:

• Low probability of harm may mean no breach.

• Exam use:

• Use for foreseeability and likelihood of risk.

• Small risk may not require major precautions.

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

• Facts:

• One-eyed employee was not given goggles.

• Injury caused blindness.

• Principle:

• Greater seriousness of harm requires greater precautions.

• Exam use:

• Use where claimant has known vulnerability.

• Magnitude of harm matters.

Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)

• Facts:

• Factory floor flooded.

• Employer spread sawdust but did not close factory.

• Worker slipped.

• Principle:

• Defendant must take reasonable precautions, not eliminate every risk.

• Exam use:

• Use for cost and practicality of precautions.

• Law requires reasonableness, not perfection.

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)

• Facts:

• Fire service transported equipment during emergency.

• Firefighter injured.

• Principle:

• Social utility may justify taking greater risks.

• Exam use:

• Use where defendant acted in emergency/public benefit situation.

Haley v London Electricity Board (1965)

• Facts:

• Blind claimant fell into trench.

• Warning was not suitable for blind pedestrians.

• Principle:

• Defendants must consider foreseeable vulnerable road users.

• Exam use:

• Use for special characteristics of claimant where foreseeable.

5. RES IPSA LOQUITUR CASE

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co (1865)

• Facts:

• Bags of sugar fell from defendant’s warehouse onto claimant.

• Principle:

• Res ipsa loquitur: “the thing speaks for itself.”

• Negligence may be inferred where accident would not normally happen without negligence.

• Exam use:

• Use where exact cause is unknown but circumstances strongly suggest negligence.

6. FACTUAL CAUSATION CASES

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)

• Facts:

• Hospital negligently failed to treat patient.

• Patient died from arsenic poisoning.

• Principle:

• “But for” test.

• No liability if damage would have happened anyway.

• Exam use:

• Main case for factual causation.

• Ask: but for defendant’s breach, would damage have occurred?

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956)

• Facts:

• Worker contracted lung disease from dust.

• Some dust exposure was innocent; some was negligent.

• Principle:

• Defendant liable if breach materially contributed to injury.

• Exam use:

• Use where multiple causes combine to create injury.

McGhee v National Coal Board (1972)

• Facts:

• Worker exposed to brick dust.

• Employer failed to provide washing facilities.

• Worker developed dermatitis.

• Principle:

• Material increase in risk may establish causation.

• Exam use:

• Use where scientific certainty is difficult.

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2002)

• Facts:

• Claimants exposed to asbestos by several employers.

• Developed mesothelioma.

• Impossible to prove which employer caused disease.

• Principle:

• Material increase in risk sufficient in special mesothelioma cases.

• Exam use:

• Use for difficult industrial disease cases.

• Do not overapply generally.

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1987)

• Facts:

• Baby’s blindness could have been caused by several factors.

• Principle:

• Showing defendant increased risk is not always enough where there are multiple distinct possible causes.

• Exam use:

• Use to limit McGhee and Fairchild.

• Important for multiple possible causes.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.

7. SUCCESSIVE CAUSES CASES

Baker v Willoughby (1970)

• Facts:

• Claimant’s leg injured by defendant’s negligence.

• Later, claimant was shot in same leg during robbery.

• Principle:

• Original defendant remained liable for continuing effects of first injury.

• Exam use:

• Use where later tortious act follows original injury.

Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd (1982)

• Facts:

• Claimant injured at work.

• Later developed unrelated spinal disease.

• Principle:

• Natural illness may reduce damages.

• Defendant liable only up to point where natural condition would have affected claimant anyway.

• Exam use:

• Use where later natural illness affects claimant.

8. LEGAL CAUSATION AND INTERVENING ACT CASES

Knightley v Johns (1982)

• Facts:

• Police officer gave negligent instruction after road accident.

• Another officer was injured.

• Principle:

• Negligent third-party act may break chain of causation.

• Exam use:

• Use for intervening act by third party.

McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd (1969)

• Facts:

• Claimant’s leg was weakened by defendant’s negligence.

• Claimant later attempted unsafe descent of stairs and was further injured.

• Principle:

• Claimant’s unreasonable act may break chain of causation.

• Exam use:

• Use for claimant’s own unreasonable conduct.

Haynes v Harwood (1935)

• Facts:

• Horses bolted due to defendant’s negligence.

• Policeman injured while rescuing people.

• Principle:

• Reasonable rescue attempts do not break chain.

• Exam use:

• Use where claimant acted reasonably in emergency/rescue.

R v Smith (1959)

• Facts:

• Victim stabbed.

• Medical treatment was poor.

• Victim died.

• Principle:

• Chain not broken if original injury remains operating and substantial cause.

• Exam use:

• Use for medical treatment not breaking causation.

R v Jordan (1956)

• Facts:

• Victim stabbed.

• Medical treatment was extremely poor and unusual.

• Victim died.

• Principle:

• Grossly abnormal medical treatment may break chain.

• Exam use:

• Use as rare exception for medical intervention breaking causation.

R v Cheshire (1991)

• Facts:

• Victim shot.

• Medical complications followed.

• Victim died.

• Principle:

• Medical negligence only breaks chain if so independent and potent that original injury becomes insignificant.

• Exam use:

• Use to show medical treatment rarely breaks causation.

9. REMOTENESS CASES

Re Polemis (1921)

• Facts:

• Workers dropped plank into ship.

• Spark caused explosion and destroyed ship.

• Principle:

• Old direct consequences test.

• Defendant liable for all direct consequences.

• Exam use:

• Mention only for historical development.

• Modern law replaced it.

The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961)

• Facts:

• Oil leaked into harbour.

• Oil later caught fire and caused damage.

• Principle:

• Modern remoteness test.

• Defendant liable only for reasonably foreseeable type of damage.

• Exam use:

• Main case for remoteness.

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

• Facts:

• Children played near paraffin lamps left around a manhole.

• Explosion occurred and child was burned.

• Principle:

• Exact manner of injury need not be foreseeable.

• Type of damage must be foreseeable.

• Exam use:

• Use where injury occurred in unusual way but general type was foreseeable.

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd (1964)

• Facts:

• Asbestos lid fell into chemical liquid.

• Unexpected chemical reaction caused explosion.

• Principle:

• If the type of damage is unforeseeable, claim fails.

• Exam use:

• Use to contrast with Hughes.

Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1962)

• Facts:

• Worker suffered minor burn.

• Burn triggered cancer.

• Worker died.

• Principle:

• Thin skull rule.

• Defendant takes claimant as found.

• Exam use:

• Use where claimant has unusual vulnerability.

• If some injury foreseeable, defendant liable for full extent.

10. VICARIOUS LIABILITY CASES

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001)

• Facts:

• Boarding house warden abused children.

• Principle:

• Close connection test.

• Exam use:

• Use where employee’s wrongdoing is closely connected to employment.

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (2016)

• Facts:

• Petrol station employee assaulted customer.

• Principle:

• Employer liable where employee’s conduct closely connected to employment role.

• Exam use:

• Use for modern vicarious liability.

Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016)

• Facts:

• Prisoner working in prison kitchen injured catering manager.

• Principle:

• Relationship need not be formal employment if sufficiently akin to employment.

• Exam use:

• Use for employment-like relationships.

11. JOINT LIABILITY STATUTE

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

• Main rule:

• Allows one liable defendant to claim contribution from another liable defendant.

• Exam use:

• Use where more than one defendant is responsible for same damage.

• Claimant may recover fully from one defendant, then contribution may be sorted between defendants.

12. DEFENCES AND DAMAGES STATUTES

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

• Main rule:

• If claimant partly contributed to their own loss, damages may be reduced.

• Exam use:

• Use where claimant acted carelessly.

• Do not say claim fails completely.

• State damages are reduced according to claimant’s share of responsibility.

Compensation Act 2006, Section 1

• Main rule:

• Court may consider whether imposing liability might prevent or discourage desirable activities.

• Exam use:

• Use with breach of duty and social utility.

• Useful with emergency services, public benefit, sports, and socially valuable activities.

13. FINAL CASE LIST TO MEMORISE

Duty

• Donoghue v Stevenson
• Caparo v Dickman
• Home Office v Dorset Yacht
• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
• Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Breach

• Vaughan v Menlove
• Nettleship v Weston
• Mullin v Richards
• Bolton v Stone
• Paris v Stepney
• Latimer v AEC
• Watt v Hertfordshire
• Haley v London Electricity Board
• Bolam
• Bolitho

Causation

• Barnett
• Bonnington Castings
• McGhee
• Fairchild
• Wilsher
• Baker v Willoughby
• Jobling
• Knightley
• McKew
• Haynes
• R v Smith
• R v Jordan
• R v Cheshire

Remoteness

• Re Polemis
• Wagon Mound
• Hughes v Lord Advocate
• Doughty v Turner
• Smith v Leech Brain

Liability

• Lister
• Mohamud
• Cox
• Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Defences/Reduction

• Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
• Compensation Act 2006, s1

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.