Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Negligence - From: 1996 To: 1996

This page lists 32 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Dolby v Milner [1996] 2 CLY 4430
1996
CA
Russell LJ
Negligence
Russell LJ said: "It is to be observed that at no stage in the judgment does the judge refer to and emphasise, as in my judgment he should have done, the fact that the plaintiff here was emerging from a minor road onto a major road, and was consequently under a continuing obligation to give way to traffic on the major road."
1 Citers


 
Swain v Puri [1996] PIQR 442
1996
CA

Negligence
The expression "reasonable grounds to believe" meant actual knowledge or "shut-eye" knowledge of the actual risk of injury to a child trespasser, or of primary facts that the court considers provides reasonable grounds for believing that the risk exists.
Occupiers' Liability Act 1984
1 Citers


 
County Ltd v Girozentrale Securities [1996] 3 All ER 834
1996
CA
Beldam, Hobhouse LJJ
Negligence, Damages
The plaintiff bank had agreed to underwrite a share placement. The defendant brokers made representations to potential investors outside and in breach of the terms of the engagement letter. The bank failed to check on the status of indicative commitments obtained by the chairman of the company. A significant number of shares were not taken up, and the bank held a loss. At trial Judge had held that "the brokers' representations were not of equal efficacy with the bank's decision to accept the quality of the indicative commitments . . without making proper inquiries" Held: The bank's appeal succeeded. It was entitled to recover its loss from the brokers.
Hobhouse LJ said: "Where a plaintiff does not know of a defendant's breach of contract and where he is entitled to rely upon the defendant having performed his contract, it will only be in the most exceptional circumstances that conduct of the plaintiff suffices to break the causal relationship between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's loss.
The plaintiffs' conduct was not voluntary in the sense of being undertaken with a knowledge of its significance. Conduct which is undertaken without an appreciation of the existence of the earlier causal factor will normally only suffice to break the causal relationship if the conduct was reckless. It is the character of reckless conduct that it makes the actual state of knowledge of that party immaterial."
There is a close relationship between the application of such concepts as remoteness, contributory negligence and causation. Where a defendant's breach of contract remains an effective cause of the loss, at least ordinarily, the chain of causation will not be broken.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Glasper v Rodger 1996 SLT 44
1996
SCS
Lord President Hope
Negligence, Limitation
First Division - Inner House - Lord President Hope said: "In our opinion the lack of awareness which requires to be established for the purposes of section 11(3) of the 1973 Act is a lack of awareness that a loss has occurred caused by an act, neglect or default which gives rise to an obligation to make reparation for it. We agree with Lord Clyde's observation in Greater Glasgow Health Board v Baxter Clark & Paul 1992 SLT at page 40D that the subsection looks for an awareness not only of the fact of loss having occurred, but of the fact that it is a loss caused by negligence . . A party who is aware that he has sustained loss, injury and damage may reasonably be expected to take some steps to find out what has caused that loss. Failure to do this will call for an explanation, if the test of reasonable diligence to which section 11(3) refers is to be capable of being satisfied."
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 11(3)
1 Citers


 
Routestone Ltd v Minories Finance [1997] BCC 180; [1997] 1 EGLR 123
1996
ChD
Jacob J
Negligence, Litigation Practice
A receiver's management duties will ordinarily impose on him no general duty to exercise the power of sale, or to 'work' an estate by refurbishing it before sale. Speaking of the role of an expert witness "What really matters in most cases are the reasons given for the opinion. As a practical matter a well constructed expert's report containing opinion evidence sets out the opinion and the reasons for it. If the reasons stand up, the opinion does, if not, not."
1 Citers



 
 Williams and Another v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd and Another; QBD 18-Jan-1996 - Independent, 18 January 1996; [1996] BCLC 288
 
Wong Mee Wan v Kwan Kin Travel Services Ltd, Gazette, 24 January 1996; [1996] 1 WLR 38
24 Jan 1996
PC
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Contract, Negligence, Consumer
(Hong Kong) The plaintiff's daugfhter purchased an all in package tour of China. Having missed a ferry, they were being taken on a speedboat when it crashed, and she died. The driver was negligent, and the company for having failed to ensure that someone competent drove it. Held: Where someone contracted to arrange travel for others there was an implied term to use reasonable skill and care in selecting others to provide any part of those services. Where he contracted to provide service he impliedly contracted to carry them out with reasonable care and skill. That obligation would continue even if others provided the actual services. This was a contract for services. The company was liable for having failed to select a competent boatman, and for his lack of care.


 
 Invercargill City Council v Hamlin; PC 12-Feb-1996 - Times, 15 February 1996; 50 Con LR 105; [1996] AC 624; [1996] UKPC 56; 78 BLR 78; [1996] 1 NZLR 513; [1996] 1 All ER 756
 
Dunthorne v Bentley and Another [1996] EWCA Civ 1353; [1996] RTR 428; [1996] PIQR P323
26 Feb 1996
CA
Rose, Pill, Huchison LJJ
Negligence, Road Traffic
Damages were sought after a pedestrian ran into the road, causing a traffic accident and serious injuries to those in a car.
[ Bailii ]
 
Dunthorne v Bentley and Others Times, 11 March 1996
11 Mar 1996
CA

Negligence
Crossing road after breakdown for petrol within scope of arising from use of car.
Road Traffic Act 1988 145

 
Forbes v Wandsworth Health Authority Gazette, 24 April 1996; Times, 21 March 1996; [1996/7] MLR 175; [1997] QB 402; [1996] EWCA Civ 1318; [1996] 3 WLR 1108; [1996] 7 Med LR 175; [1996] 4 All ER 881
21 Mar 1996
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ, Evans LJ
Limitation, Negligence
The plaintiff had a history of circulatory problems in his legs. He underwent surgery losing his leg. The question was when he should have sought advice as to why an attempted by-pass operation had resulted in one leg having to be amputated. He enquired why only some 10 years after the event. He was told that it was because the operation had been unsuccessful and resulted in a loss of blood supply which threatened gangrene. This was not itself negligent, but the surgeon had made a second unsuccessful attempt to operate on the following day and the plaintiff was advised that he would have had a better chance of success if he had tried again earlier. Held: The plaintiff did not have constructive knowledge that the loss of his leg was caused by any act or omission on the part of the surgeon. He trusted the surgeon (who had performed two previous successful operations on his legs) and thought he had simply suffered a misfortune. The limitation period begins to run after the Plaintiff has recovered sufficiently to be able to see need to take legal advice. The court applied a wholly objective test, holding that the average patient would have investigated the matter earlier, and doubted that the individual character and intelligence of the plaintiff was relevant to the inquiry: “It does not seem to me that the fact that a plaintiff is more trusting, incurious, indolent, resigned or uncomplaining by nature can be a relevant characteristic, since this too undermines any objective approach.” and "In my judgment, a reasonable man in the position of the deceased, who knew that the operation had been unsuccessful, that he had suffered a major injury which would seriously affect his enjoyment of life in the future, would affect his employability on the labour market, if he had any, and would impose substantial burdens on his wife and family in looking after him, if he was minded to make a claim at any time, should and would take advice reasonably promptly."
Evans LJ: "Since there is a wide discretionary power to extend the period in circumstances which Parliament has defined in section 33, there is no clear requirement to construe the knowledge provisions in section 14 narrowly or in favour of individual plaintiffs. I therefore consider that they should be interpreted neutrally so that in respect of constructive knowledge under section 14(3) an objective standard applies."
Limitation Act 1980 11(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Swinney and Another v Chief Constable of Northumbria; CA 22-Mar-1996 - Times, 28 March 1996; [1997] QBD 464; [1996] EWCA Civ 1322; [1997] QB 464; [1996] 3 WLR 968; [1996] 3 All ER 449; [1996] PNLR 473
 
Margereson v J W Roberts Ltd; Hancock v Same Times, 17 April 1996
17 Apr 1996
CA

Negligence
Risk of harm of allowing asbestos dust to escape factory was foreseeable.

 
Smoldon v Whitworth and Another Times, 23 April 1996
23 Apr 1996
QBD

Negligence, Personal Injury
A rugby referee at a colts game has a duty of care to players as regards scrimmaging.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Capital and Counties Plc and Another v Hampshire County Council Times, 26 April 1996; [1997] QB 1004)
26 Apr 1996
QBD

Negligence
The Fire Brigade was negligent in turning off a sprinkler system in a burning building.
1 Citers


 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Gb) v Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority Times, 09 May 1996
9 May 1996
QBD

Negligence
Public policy rejects liability of fire authorities for failure to supply water.

 
H v Norfolk County Council (Unreported, 10th May 1996 LTA 95/7562/E
10 May 1996
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown
Negligence, Local Government
This was an application for leave to appeal against a striking out order. The plaintiff, aged 22, alleged that he had been physically and sexually abused by his foster father. He claimed that the council was negligent in not properly monitoring and supervising his placement and for failing to investigate a series of reports when he was aged 11. He contended the County Council should have removed him from foster care. Held: Lord Justice Simon Brown said: "For my part, I see no force in any of the submissions. All were advanced below and all in my judgment were properly dealt with in the judge's conclusions which I have already recited. I bear in mind as I am specifically invited to do, what Lord Browne-Wilkinson said (749G) namely that; "the public policy consideration, which has first claim on the loyalty of the law is that wrongs should be remedied and that very potent counter considerations are required to over-ride that policy."
1 Citers



 
 John Munroe (Acrylics) Ltd v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority and Others; QBD 22-May-1996 - Times, 22 May 1996; [1997] 2 All ER 865
 
Nwabudike v Southwark London Borough Council Times, 28 June 1996
28 Jun 1996
QBD

Negligence
A school taking all proper steps was not liable when a child runs from his school out into the road.


 
 Welton, Welton v North Cornwall District Council; CA 17-Jul-1996 - Gazette, 18 September 1996; Times, 18 July 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 516; [1997] 1 WLR 570
 
Gaisford and Another v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food Times, 19 July 1996
19 Jul 1996
QBD

Negligence
MAFF were not liable in negligence for a failure to spot disease in imported livestock.

 
Smith v Vauxhall Motors Limited [1996] EWCA Civ 669
7 Oct 1996
CA

Health and Safety, Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]

 
 Blake and Another v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council; QBD 1-Nov-1996 - Times, 01 November 1996; [1996] EGCS 145; [1997] 30 HLR 963
 
A B and others v Tameside and Glossop Health Authority and Trafford Health Authority Gazette, 04 December 1996; Times, 27 November 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 938; [1996] 35 BMRLR 39
13 Nov 1996
CA
Brooke LJ
Negligence, Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
The choice of the telephone as a means of alerting and re-assuring people, who had received treatment from a health worker later found to be HIV+, was proper. The was no breach of a duty care, even though some people called had suffered distress. ". . . once the defendants had decided to inform their patients at all, they were under a duty to take such steps to inform them as were reasonable, having regard both to the foreseeable risk that some of them might suffer psychiatric injury (or any existing psychiatric injury might be materially aggravated) upon receipt of the information " and "the judge has to perform the familiar role of considering the factual evidence carefully, listening to the expert evidence, and forming a view as to whether in all the circumstances these public health authorities fell below the standards reasonably to be expected of them when they selected their preferred method of communicating the information to the patients."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Routestone Limited v Minories Finance Limited (Formerly Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd); Knight Frank and Rutley (a Firm) [1996] EWCA Civ 964; (1997) 21 EG 148
14 Nov 1996
CA
Butler-Sloss LJ
Negligence, Evidence
The judge should never lose sight of the central truths that the ultimate decision is for the court and that all questions of relevance and weight are for the court.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Colonia Versicherung A G and others v Amoco Oil Company [1996] EWCA Civ 1002
20 Nov 1996
CA

Negligence

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Daly v James Sharples [1996] EWCA Civ 1003
20 Nov 1996
CA

Police, Torts - Other, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Lewis v Hillsyde Foundry (Staffordshire) Limited [1996] EWCA Civ 1017
21 Nov 1996
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]

 
 Williams; Reid v Natural Life Health Foods Limited and Mistlin; CA 5-Dec-1996 - Times, 09 January 1997; [1996] EWCA Civ 1110; [1997] 1 BCLC 131
 
Gibbins v Galliford and Sons Limited; Solihull MCB and Iderend Holdings (Formerly Rediguard Limited) [1996] EWCA Civ 1151
9 Dec 1996
CA

Negligence
Application for security for costs
[ Bailii ]
 
Baker v Kaye Times, 13 December 1996
13 Dec 1996
QBD

Negligence
Doctor employed to examine job applicant has duty of care to him.

 
Knight v Dorset County Council [1996] EWHC Admin 392; Trans. Ref: CO 1110-96
20 Dec 1996
Admn

Education, Negligence

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.