Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions - law index

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

Personal Injury - From: 1930 To: 1959

This page lists 58 cases, and was prepared on 07 July 2015.

 Moulton -v- Poulter; CA 1930 - [1930] 2 KB 183

 Wilchick -v- Marks and Silverstone; KBD 1934 - [1934] 2 KB 56
Grant -v- Australian Knitting Mills [1935] All ER Rep 209; [1936] AC 85; 105 LJPC 6; 154 LT 185
Lord Wright
Personal Injury, Negligence
The Board considered how a duty of care may be established: "All that is necessary as a step to establish a tort of actionable negligence is define the precise relationship from which the duty to take care is deduced. It is, however, essential in English law that the duty should be established; the mere fact that a man is injured by another’s act gives in itself no cause of action. If the act is deliberate, the party injured will have no claim in law even though the injury was intentional so long as the other party is merely exercising a legal right; if the act involves lack of due care, again no case of actionable negligence will arise unless the duty to be careful exists.” and “the appellant is not required to lay his finger on the exact person in all the chain who was responsible, or specify what he did wrong. Negligence is found as a matter of inference from the existence of the defect taken in connection with all the known circumstances”
Lord Wright: "Mr. Greene further contended on behalf of the manufacturers that if the decision in Donoghue's case [1932] AC 562, 591, were extended even a hair's-breadth, no line could be drawn, and a manufacturer's liability would be extended indefinitely. He put as an illustration the case of a foundry which had cast a rudder to be fitted on a liner: he assumed that it was fitted and the steamer sailed the seas for some years: but the rudder had a latent defect due to faulty and negligent casting, and one day it broke, with the result that the vessel was wrecked, with great loss of life and damage to property. He argued that if Donoghue's case were extended beyond its precise facts, the maker of the rudder would be held liable for damages of an indefinite amount, after an indefinite time, and to claimants indeterminate until the event. But it is clear that such a state of things would involve many considerations far removed from the simple facts of this case. So many contingencies must have intervened between the lack of care on the part of the makers and the casualty that it may be that the law would apply, as it does in proper cases, not always according to strict logic, the rule that cause and effect must not be too remote: in any case the element of directness would obviously be lacking. Lord Atkin deals with that sort of question in Donoghue's case where he refers to Earl v. Lubbock [1905] 1 K.B. 253, 259: he quotes the commonsense opinion of Mathew L.J.: 'It is impossible to accept such a wide proposition, and, indeed, it is difficult to see how, if it were the law, trade could be carried on.'
In their Lordships' opinion it is enough for them to decide this case on its actual facts."
1 Citers

 Nicholson -v- The Southern Railway Company; 1935 - [1935] KB 558

 Hillen and Pettigrew -v- ICI (Alkali) Ltd; HL 1936 - [1936] AC 65 HL(E)

 Shiffman -v- Order of St John of Jerusalem (Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Venerable Order of the Hospital); 1936 - [1936] 1 All ER 557

 Rose -v- Ford; HL 1937 - [1937] AC 826

 Philips -v- Whitely (William) Ltd; 1938 - [1938] 1 All ER 566; [1938] 54 TLR 379; [1938] 82 Sol Jo 196

 Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd -v- English; HL 1938 - [1938] AC 57; [1937] UKHL 2

 Hale -v- Jennings Bros; 1938 - [1938] 1 All ER 579

 Owens -v- Liverpool Corporation; CA 1938 - [1939] 1 KB 394; [1938] 4 All ER 727; 55 TLR 246

 Dann -v- Hamilton; 1939 - [1939] 1 KB 509

 Caswell -v- Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries; HL 1940 - [1940] AC 152

 Smith -v- Cammell Laird & Co Ltd; HL 1940 - [1940] AC 242

 Noble -v- Southern Railway Co; HL 18-Apr-1940 - [1940] UKHL 1; [1940] 2 All ER 383

 Camkin -v- Bishop; CA 1941 - [1941] 2 All ER 713

 Bourhill -v- Young's Executor; HL 5-Aug-1942 - [1943] AC 92; [1943] SC (HL) 78; 1943 SLT 105; [1942] UKHL 5

 London and North Eastern Railway Company -v- Berriman; HL 1946 - [1946] AC 278; [1946] 1 All ER 255; 115 LJKB 124

 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board -v- Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd; HL 1946 - [1946] 2 All ER 345; [1947] AC 1; [1946] UKHL 1
Vyner -v- Waldenberg Brothers Ltd [1946] KB 50
Scott LJ
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Scott LJ said: 'If there is a definite breach of a safety provision imposed on the occupier of a factory, and a workman is injured in a way which could result from the breach, the onus of proof shifts on to the employer to show that the breach was not the cause. We think that that principle lies at the very basis of statutory rules of absolute duty.'
1 Citers

Heard -v- Brymbo Steel Company Ltd [1947] KB 69
Morton, Tucker and Somervell LJJ
Utilities, Personal Injury
The plaintiff was injured in an explosion at work arising from a short-circuit occurring because of breaches by the second defendants, the North Wales Power Co Ltd, of the 1937 regulations, 24 and 25. The 1899 Act applied, and it provided that undertakers would be liable for all accidents, damages and injuries happening through their act or "default". The word "default" was also found in regulation 39. Held: The power company was liable. Somervell LJ explained that the default, a breach of regulations 24 and 25, and which might cause damage or injury under regulation 39, was a default for which undertakers were answerable under the 1899 Act. They were liable not because the breaches of regulations 24 and 25 of the 1937 Regulations per se gave rise to civil liability, but because the default which constituted the breach of those regulations was also a "default" which made the company liable to pay damages under para 77 of the schedule to the 1899 Act.
Electricity Supply Regulations 1937 24 25 39 - Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899
1 Citers

 Redpath -v- Belfast and County Down Railway; CANI 1947 - [1947] NI 167

 Almeroth -v- WE Chivers & Son Ltd; CA 1948 - [1948] 1 All ER 53

 Turner -v- Arding & Hobbs Ltd; CA 1949 - [1949] 2 All ER 911

 Edwards -v- National Coal Board; CA 1949 - [1949] 1 KB 704
Millar -v- Galashiels Gas Co Ltd; Galashiels Gas Company Ltd -v- O'Donnell [1949] AC 275; [1949] SC (HL) 31; [1949] UKHL 2; 47 LGR 213; 1949 SLT 223; 65 TLR 76; [1949] LJR 540; [1949] AC 275; [1949] 1 All ER 319
20 Jan 1949
Lord Morton of Henryton
Health and Safety, Scotland, Personal Injury
A hoist mechanism failed, the employee was injured, and he sought damages from his employer under the Act. Held. The section imposes an absolute obligation to maintain work equipment in an efficient state or in efficient working order. The duty imposed was an absolute and continuing obligation, so that proof of any failure in the mechanism of a hoist or lift established a breach of statutory duty, even though it was impossible to anticipate such failure before the event or to explain it afterwards, and even though all reasonable steps had been taken to provide a suitable hoist or lift and to maintain it properly.
Factories Act 1937 22(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 Pritchard -v- Post Office; CA 1950 - (1950) 114 JP 370

 Shearman -v- Folland; CA 1950 - [1950] 2 KB 43; [1950] 1 All ER 976
Rose -v- Colville's Ltd 1950 SLT (Notes) 72

Personal Injury, Scotland

1 Citers

Dorman Long & Co Ltd -v- Hillier [1951] 1 All ER 357

Lord Goddard CJ
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
A worker had to remove four corrugated iron sheets from a roof. He was injured and claimed under the 1937 Act. Held: A place can be a means of access at one time and a place of work at a different time but it cannot be both at the same time. A step on to one of the sheets while the worker was passing down another after its removal was a step not upon a means of access but upon a part of the place where the work was being done. Lord Goddard CJ said that it would be "too artificial to say that there were different branches of work according to which sheet he was removing at any particular moment."
Factories Act 1937 26(1)
1 Citers

McCarthy -v- Coldair Ltd [1951] 2 TLR 1226
Denning LJ, Hodson LJ
Personal Injury, Health and Safety

1 Citers

 Dooley -v- Cammell Laird and Co Ltd; 1951 - [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep 271
Davies -v- de Havilland Aircraft Co Ltd [1951] 1 KB 50

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

1 Citers

 King -v- Phillips; CA 1952 - [1953] 1 QB 429; [1952] 2 All ER 459

 Edwards -v- Railway Executive; HL 1952 - [1952] 2 All ER 430; [1952] AC 737

 Nicol -v- National Coal Board; SCS 1952 - (1952) 102 LJ 357
Best -v- Samuel Fox & Co Ltd [1952] AC 716

Lord Morton of Henryton
Personal Injury, Negligence
The court considered liability for injury to secondary victims. Lord Morton of Henryton: "it has never been the law of England that an invitor, who has negligently but unintentionally injured an invitee, is liable to compensate other persons who have suffered, in one way or another, as a result of the injury to the invitee. If the injured man was engaged in a business, and the injury is a serious one, the business may have to close down and the employees be dismissed; a daughter of the injured man may have to give up work which she enjoys and stay at home to nurse a father who has been transformed into an irritable invalid as a result of the injury. Such examples could easily be multiplied. Yet the invitor is under no liability to compensate such persons, for he owes them no duty and may not even know of their existence."
1 Citers

 Day -v- Harland and Wolff Ltd; 1953 - [1953] I WLR 906; [1953] 2 All ER 387; [1953] 97 Sol Jo 473

 Harris -v- Brights Asphalt Contractors Ltd; 1953 - [1953] 1 QB 617

 Latimer -v- AEC Limited; HL 25-Jun-1953 - [1953] 2 All ER 449; [1953] AC 643; [1953] UKHL 3

 Phipps -v- Rochester Corporation; 1955 - [1955] 1 All ER 129
Prince -v- Carrier Engineering Co Ltd [1955] 1 Lloyd's Rep 401

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

1 Citers

 Adams -v- War Office; QBD 1955 - [1955] 3 All ER 245; [1955] 1 WLR 1116
Adler -v- Dickson; 'the Himalaya' [1955] 1 QB 158; [1954] 2 All ER 397; [1954] 3 WLR 696; 98 Sol Jo 787; [1954] 2 Lloyd's Rep 267

Personal Injury, Contract
The defendants were the master and boatswain of the P&O passenger liner Himalaya. The plaintiff was a passenger who was injured when an insecure gangway slipped and he fell 16ft to the wharf. The plaintiff had a contract with P&O which excluded liability for such an injury: 'passengers . . . . Are carried at passengers' entire risk' and 'The company will not responsible for and shall be exempt from all liability in respect of any injury whatsoever of or to the person of any passenger . . . Whether such injury shall occur on land, on shipboard or elsewhere . . . And whether the same shall arise from or be occasioned by the negligence of the company's servants . . . In the discharge of their duties, or while a passenger is embarking or disembarking, or whether by the negligence of other persons directly or indirectly in the service of the company, or otherwise by the act of God . . . Dangers of the seas . . . Or by accidents . . .or any acts, defaults, or negligence of the master, mariners . . . Company's agents or servants of any kind under any circumstances whatsoever.' The defendants sought to rely on that clause. The master had directed that the clause succeeded as a defence. Held: The defendants were liable. They owed the plaintiff a duty of care in tort. They should have seen that the gangway was properly secured. The defendants' contractual duty was to their employers but they also owed a duty of care in the law of tort to those who were liable to be affected by any carelessness on their part which was foreseeably capable of causing injury to such persons. It was their conduct which had given rise to the situation (the inadequately secured gangway) which was the situation which caused the plaintiff's injury. The contract was between the company and the passenger, and the company had not contracted as agents for their servants. The defendants were not able to take advantage of the clause.
1 Citers

 British Transport Commission -v- Gourley; HL 1955 - [1956] AC 185; [1955] 3 All ER 796; [1956] 2 WLR 41; [1955] UKHL 4

 Angus -v- National Coal Board; SCS 9-Feb-1955 - [1955] ScotCS CSIH_1; 1955 SLT 245

 Banks -v- Woodhall Duckham & Others; CA 30-Nov-1955 - Unreported 30 November 1955

 Morris -v- West Hartlepool Steam Navigation; HL 1956 - [1956] AC 552

 Lee -v- Sheard; CA 1956 - [1956] 1 QB 192

 Massey-Harris-Ferguson (Manufacturing) Ltd -v- Piper; QBD 1956 - [1956] 2 QB 396

 Bonnington Castings Ltd -v- Wardlaw; HL 1-Mar-1956 - [1956] 1 All ER 615 HL(Sc); [1956] 2 WLR 707; [1956] AC 613; 1956 SC (HL) 26; [1956] UKHL 1

 Cavanagh -v- London Transport Executive; 23-Oct-1956 - Times, 23 October 1956

 Morris -v- Cunard Steamship Co; CA 28-Nov-1956 - [1956] EWCA Civ 7; [1956] 2 Lloyd's Rep 583

 Pigney -v- Pointers Transport Services Ltd; 1957 - [1957] 1 WLR 1121

 McAuley -v- London Transport Executive; CA 1957 - [1957] 2 Lloyds Rep 500

 Richards -v- W F White and Co; 1957 - [1957] 1 Lloyd's Reports 367
Ward -v- T E Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 3 All ER 225

Negligence, Personal Injury
It is for the court to decide whether a person counts as a rescuer with entitlement to damages for psychiatric injury after witnessing an accident.

Sleafer -v- Lambeth Borough Council [1959] 3 All ER 378; [1960] 1 QB 43
Wilmer LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Personal Injury
The plaintiff held a weekly residential tenancy of the defendant local authority. The front door was defective and jammed. The tenancy agreement contained a covenant by the tenant to keep the flat in good and tenantable repair. When the tenant pulled at the door it came off causing him injury as he fell. He claimed damages for personal injuries. Held: The claim failed. There is no implied duty to repair a property on landlord, and no such implication could be based on the obligations on the part of the Lessee under a clause permitting the Lessor to view the property and to effect work necessary for upholding the building. Wilmer LJ observed: “I think there is much to be said for the view that Clause II of the Agreement, which requires a tenant to reside in the dwelling house, does by implication require the landlords to do such repairs as may make it possible for the tenant to carry out that obligation. At least it seems to me that that is a possible view.”
1 Citers

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