Category: Negligence

K v the Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 31 May 2002

The applicant sought damages from the defendant who had released from custody pending deportation a man convicted of violent sexual crimes and who had then raped her. She appealed against a strike out of her claim. She had been refused information about the decision to release the offender because it was anticipated that her claim would in any event be struck out. It was later struck out because the claimant was not so clearly identifiable a victim of the offender as to anticipate a duty to her.
Held: Negligence requires more than a want of care and foreseeability of damage. Where the duty of care is imposed on one person for the acts of another, the claimant must show a close connection with the offender so as to have created an awareness of the risk in the person against whom liability is asserted. The general rule is that one man is under no duty of controlling another man to prevent his doing damage to a third. The claimant argued that the Barrett case stated that a claim alleging negligence against a pubic authority should not be struck out but should be allowed to proceed for the facts to be established at trial. A strike out of a negligence claim for lack of proximity is not a denial of the applicant’s article 6 right to a fair trial. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Laws, And Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 775

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Yuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1987
(Hong Kong) The claimant deposited money with a licensed deposit taker, regulated by the Commissioner. He lost his money when the deposit taker went into insolvent liquidation. He said the regulator was responsible when it should have known of the . .
Cited – Barrett v London Borough of Enfield HL 17-Jun-1999
The claimant had spent his childhood in foster care, and now claimed damages against a local authority for decisions made and not made during that period. The judge’s decision to strike out the claim had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Human Rights

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172268

Bogle and Others v Mcdonalds Resturants Ltd: QBD 25 Mar 2002

A group of claimants sued for personal injuries caused by the spillage of hot drinks served by the defendant, McDonald’s. The issues included: ‘(5) Whether there was a duty upon the defendant to warn its customers as to the risk of scalding from hot drinks. (6) If there was such a duty, whether the defendant was in breach of it.’
Held: The court discused these issues and noted the contentions for the claimants that there was a duty to warn for various reasons, including: ‘(5) Whilst some customers might be aware of the risk, the duty to warn arises because some may not be aware of the risk.’ He said: ‘I think it a fair inference that small children very rarely buy or intentionally consume coffee and tea in McDonald’s Restaurants. (It is certainly the case that in all the claims that have been brought, the hot drinks were bought by an adult.) In my opinion, McDonald’s could therefore expect that the great majority of those who bought hot drinks in their restaurants would be in their teenage years or above. In my judgement, these customers could be taken to know that the coffee and tea they were buying was hot and could cause a nasty scalding injury if it spilled on someone. Most customers would not know precisely how hot the drink was, but they would know that tea and coffee is made with very hot water. Nor would most customers know just how severe the scalding injury could be, but they would know that it could be very painful and serious. They would also know that drinks occasionally get spilled in restaurants such as those run by McDonald’s.’ and ‘Whether McDonald’s were negligent in not warning their customers depends on an objective assessment of all the circumstances, including the risk of injury and the customers’ appreciation of those matters that gave rise to the risk. As I have said, I am quite satisfied that those who bought coffee and tea could be taken to know that such drinks sometimes get spilled and are served at temperatures which cause serious and painful injury if they come into contact with someone’s skin. I accordingly find that there was no duty on McDonald’s to warn their customers about the risk posed by the temperatures at which tea and coffee were served, notwithstanding the warnings they gave to their employees and the fact that from 1995 a warning has been printed on the cups.’

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Field

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 490 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170026

Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others: CA 26 Mar 2002

The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when he was murdered by a gang of white youths. He said that the police treatment of him exacerbated the post traumatic stress he suffered.
Held: His claim failed. The allegations against the police might be factually accurate but disclosed no case in law.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 407, [2005] 1 WLR 1495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 21-Apr-2005
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when they were both attacked and Mr Lawrence killed. He claimed damages for the negligent way the police had dealt with his case, and particularly said that they had failed to assess him as a victim of crime, . .
Cited – Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council HL 5-Jul-2006
Preliminary Report of Risk – No Duty of Care
The claimant sought damages after suffering injury after the creation of water supplies which were polluted with arsenic. He said that a report had identified the risks. The defendant said that the report was preliminary only and could not found a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Negligence

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170023

Gibson v Orr, the Chief Constable, Strathlclyde Police: SCS 26 Feb 1999

The pursuer and his passengers were injured when he drove off a bridge which had been damaged in a severe rainstorm. He claimed in negligence against the police, who had been informed of the collapse of the bridge, but had not erected any warning signs. As a result, a car fell into the river, killing two people and injuring a third.
Held: Lord Hamilton rejected a submission that, by reference to Hill, there was ‘no general duty of care owed by the police towards private individuals’. His Lordship said: ‘there is no close analogy, in my view, as regards the policy issue between the exercise by the police of their function of investigating and suppressing crime and the exercise by them of their function of performing civil operational tasks concerned with human safety on the public roads. It was not disputed that the police enjoy no immunity on public policy grounds in respect of the manner in which a constable drives his police vehicle or his motor cycle on the public roads. There would likewise be no immunity, in my view, in respect of the manner in which a constable in charge of directing traffic on such a road performed that function. Likewise, there is no immunity, in my view, in respect of the manner in which other civil road safety operational tasks are carried out by police officers where there is no inherent problem of conflict with instructions issued by superior officers or with duties owed to other persons.
Lord Hamilton later commented on what he called ‘a tide in the English courts’ towards a wide interpretation of what had been said in Hill, which he suggested ‘may now be running less strongly’. He continued: ‘Moreover, the decision of the Court of Human Rights in Osman v United Kingdom [[1998] ECHR 101], together with the position adopted by the UK Government before that court that ‘the exclusion was not a blanket exclusion of liability but a carefully and narrowly focused limitation which applied only in respect of the investigation and suppression of crime, and even then not in every case’, may also lead to some reconsideration of the scope of the public policy immunity accorded to the police in some of the English decisions.’

Judges:

Lord Hamilton

Citations:

[1999] ScotCS 61, 1999 SCLR 661, 1999 SC 420

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Statutes:

Police (Scotland) Act 1967 39(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 30-Jul-2008
Police Obligations to Witnesses is Limited
A prosecution witness was murdered by the accused shortly before his trial. The parents of the deceased alleged that the failure of the police to protect their son was a breach of article 2.
Held: The House was asked ‘If the police are alerted . .
Cited – An Informer v A Chief Constable CA 29-Feb-2012
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages against the police. He had provided them with information, but he said that they had acted negligently and in breach of contract causing him financial loss. The officer handling his . .
Cited – An Informer v A Chief Constable CA 29-Feb-2012
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages against the police. He had provided them with information, but he said that they had acted negligently and in breach of contract causing him financial loss. The officer handling his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Police, Negligence

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169664

Hamilton and Stebbings Inc v Allied Domecq Plc: OHCS 30 Mar 2001

As a result of section 10(1) of the 1985 Act, there was no need to enter into the field of Hedley Byrne type ‘special relationships’ and whether a duty of care was owed: the statute provided the remedy, and its practical effect was that one contracting party had a duty to the other not to make negligent misrepresentations which induced the other to contract.

Judges:

Lord Carloway

Citations:

2001 SC 829, [2001] ScotCS 80

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Statutes:

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 10

Cited by:

See Also – John Stewart Hamilton and others v Allied Domecq Plc OHCS 1-Aug-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Negligence

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169055

McTear v Imperial Tobacco Limited: SCS 23 Oct 2001

The pursuer sought damages from the defenders after her husband had died, she said, after suffering injury smoking their cigarettes.

Judges:

Lord McCluskey

Citations:

[2001] ScotCS 239

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd IHCS 30-Sep-1996
The pursuer sought damages from the tobacco company following the death of her husband.
Held: A first instance decision on caution for expenses should be set aside only if plainly wrong. . .
See Also – McTear v Scottish Legal Aid Board 1995
The court refused the pursuer’s claim for judicial review of the board’s refusal of legal aid to pursue a claim for negligence against tobacco manufacturers following the death of her husband. . .

Cited by:

See Also – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168902

Papera Traders Co Limited and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Limited, The Keihin Co Limited: QBD 7 Feb 2002

A fire destroyed the ‘Eurasian Dream’ while in port. It was carrying cars, a fire in which got out of control. It was claimed that the ship managers had been negligent. The bill of lading contracts in the present case incorporated either the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules.
Held: The vessel was unseaworthy because of deficiencies in the crew, and the damage flowed from that deficiency.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Cresswell

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 118 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Papera Traders Co Ltd and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd and Another ComC 7-Feb-2002
. .
Cited – Morris v West Hartlepool Steam Navigation HL 1956
The ship had followed a practice of leaving the between deck hatch covers off in the absence of a guard rail around the hatchway. The plaintiff seaman fell into the hold. There was evidence that on this ship it was quite usual for men to be sent . .

Cited by:

See Also – Papera Traders Co Ltd and Others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd and Another ComC 18-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – Papera Traders Co Ltd and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd. and Another SCCO 17-Sep-2003
. .
See Also – Papera Traders Co Ltd and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd. and Another SCCO 17-Sep-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Negligence

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167596

Baxall Securities Limited, Norbain SDC Limited v Sheard Walshaw Partnership, Shaw Whitmore Partnership, Birse Construction Limited, FK Roofing Limited, Fullflow Limited: CA 22 Jan 2002

Claims followed the flooding of a new built building. It was alleged that the gutters were designed without overflows, and so were defective. The judge found that it had been designed to a lower, and wrong capacity.
Held: The assessment of the appropriate design rate has to be made without regard to overflow capacity. It was argued that a defect was patent (i.e. not latent) if the dangerous propensity is apparent, even if the actual nature of the flaw is not. That argument failed. A latent defect means a concealed flaw, the actual defect in the workmanship or design, not the danger presented by the defect. There was no distinction in principle between drainage and overflow arrangements. The chain of causation between the architect’s error in regard to the provision of overflows and both floods was broken. The links in the chain cannot be re-connected to the second flood merely because there was another error which rendered the provision of overflows the more important.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lady Justice Hale, And, Mr Justice David Steel

Citations:

[2002] BLR 100, [2002] EWCA Civ 9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Negligence

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167474

Parkinson v Dyfed Powys Police: CA 10 Jun 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 802

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Froom v Butcher CA 21-Jul-1975
The court asked what reduction if any should be made to a plaintiff’s damages where injuries were caused not only by the defendant’s negligent driving but also by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. It had been submitted that, since . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.198507

Cowan and Another v The Chief Constable for Avon and Somerset Constabulary: CA 14 Nov 2001

Where police had been called to an incident where a member of the public had been threatened with violence if he did not leave premises, did not have a duty to take action under the Act toward the applicant. It is only if a particular responsibility towards an individual arises, establishing a sufficiently close relationship, that a duty of care is owed to that individual. An officer’s presence at a scene was not enough alone to give rise to a duty. In this case they were present to prevent a breach of the peace, not to intervene in or assess private relations.

Judges:

Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Keene, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1699, (2002) HLR 830

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chief Constable of Northumbria v Costello CA 3-Dec-1998
A woman police officer was attacked by a prisoner in a cell. She sought damages for the failure of a senior officer nearby not to come to her aid, and from the chief constable under his vicarious liability.
Held: The chief constable’s appeal . .
Cited – Capital and Counties Plc and Another v Hampshire County Council QBD 26-Apr-1996
The Fire Brigade was negligent in turning off a sprinkler system in a burning building. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 21-Apr-2005
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when they were both attacked and Mr Lawrence killed. He claimed damages for the negligent way the police had dealt with his case, and particularly said that they had failed to assess him as a victim of crime, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Negligence

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166817

Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster: HL 25 Oct 2001

The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a standard of reasonableness as between neighbours. Damage consisting of impairment of the load-bearing qualities of residential land was itself a nuisance. If there is a continuing nuisance of which the defendant knew or ought to have known, reasonable remedial expenditure could be recovered. The judgments in Goldman and the Wagon Mound ‘are directed to what a reasonable person in the shoes of the defendant would have done. The label nuisance or negligence is treated as of no real significance. In this field, I think, the concern of the common law lies in working out the fair and just content and incidents of a neighbour’s duty rather than affixing a label and inferring the extent of the duty from it. Even in the field of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3HL 330 strict liability the House of Lords in [Cambridge Water] has stressed the principles of reasonable user and reasonable foreseeability: see the speech of Lord Goff of Chieveley, at pp 299-301. It was the absence of reasonable foreseeability of harm of the relevant type that excluded liability in that case’.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon said that in tree root cases, the question remains whether the Defendant has acted reasonably: ‘The label nuisance or negligence is treated as of no real significance. In this field, I think, the concern of the common law lies in working out the fair and just content and incidents of a neighbour’s duty rather than affixing a label and inferring the extent of the duty from it.’

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Clyde and Lord Hutton

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2001, Gazette 22-Nov-2001, [2002] 1 AC 321, [2001] UKHL 55, [2001] 4 All ER 737, 79 Con LR 39, [2001] 3 WLR 1007, [2002] TCLR 8, [2001] 44 EGCS 150, [2002] BLGR 1, [2002] BLR 25, [2001] NPC 151

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
Appeal from – Delaware Mansions Limited, Flecksun Limited v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of The City of Westminster CA 21-Jul-1999
A number of blocks of mansion flats in Maida Vale were damaged by the root action of a plane tree for which the council were responsible. The freehold in the blocks, known as Delaware Mansions, was sold by the Church Commissioners to the second . .
Cited – Leakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
Cited – Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
Cited – Solloway v Hampshire County Council CA 1981
Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff’s house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as . .

Cited by:

Cited – Loftus-Brigham and Another v London Borough of Ealing CA 28-Oct-2003
The claimants sought to recover for damages caused to their house foundations by trees growing nearby which were the responsibility of the defendants. The defendants replied that the damages was caused in part by roots from virgina creeper and . .
Cited – Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Cited – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
Cited – Moiz Ahmed Siddiqui, Ishrat Siddiqui/Bhajan Singh Sohanpal v Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon TCC 15-Apr-2003
The claimants sought damages for cracks in their house caused by the roots of trees on the defendant’s land.
Held: The claimants had failed to establish by evidence that the tree roots were the cause of the damage. The claim failed. . .
Cited – Kirk and others v London Borough of Brent CA 8-Dec-2005
The defendant council had obtained a strike out of the claimant’s assertion that they were responsible in nuisance for damages caused by tree roots.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against the striking out of his claim succeeded. While the simple . .
Cited – Perrin and Another v Northampton Borough Council and others CA 19-Dec-2007
The land owners had sought permission to fell an oak tree subject to a tree preservation order in order to prevent further damage from its roots.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The court was asked to decide whether any works to the tree . .
Cited – Berent v Family Mosaic Housing and Others TCC 25-May-2011
The claimant sought damages for subsidence to her property allegedly caused by the roots of trees on the defendants’ properties. Two large plane trees stood in the pavement outside the house and about 12 metres from it. . .
Cited – Robbins v London Borough of Bexley CA 17-Oct-2013
The claimant said that his house had been damaged by tree roots for which the appellant was responsible. The trees were 33 metres from the house.
Held: The appeal failed. The immediate cause of the damage was a failure to do something which . .
Cited – Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land, Negligence

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166700

Jan De Nul (Uk) Limited v NV Royale Belge: CA 10 Oct 2001

The contractor undertook to dredge a stretch of river. Due to its failure to investigate properly, the result was the release of substantial volumes of silt into the estuary, to the damage of other river users and frontagers. The act amounted to a nuisance and a public nuisance. Could damages be recovered where the claimants had been unable to quantify their losses? However difficult that question, it was reasonable for the contractor to have taken steps to mitigate the potential loss.
Held: The deposit of silt was a form of physical interference with the third parties’ land. The claimant was liable in nuisance because HWT had a right to be left to use its nature reserve for breeding purposes without having to worry whether the silt, which the claimant by its negligence had put there, would interfere with their breeding programme; that worry could only be avoided either by carrying out a study, as was in fact done, and finding out that there was no need to do anything, or by dredging out the silt; the property was physically significantly affected in as much as large amounts of salt were deposited on it; and HWT suffered further damage by reason of the claimant’s activities in as much as HWT paid for the investigation.
Schiemann LJ said: ‘The underlying policy of the law is to protect a claimant against what Markesinis and Deakin in their book on Tort Law (4th ed, 1999) describe at p.422 as ‘unreasonable interference with the claimant’s interest.’ Phrases such as ‘physical damage to land’ are portmanteau phrases which embrace the concept of land being affected and this resulting in damage to the economic interests of another’.

Judges:

Schiemann LJ, Hale LJ, Rix LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 209, [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 583, [2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 589, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 767

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council HL 24-Mar-1983
The plaintiff had constructed and used two jetties, and dredged a channel down to the Thames for their use. The Council constructed two terminals nearby, the result of which was to cause a build up of silt blocking the channel.
Held: The . .
Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Cited – Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
Cited – Regina v Shamrock CACD 1994
. .
Cited – Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd CA 1957
In a relator action, an injunction was sought to prevent the respondent from emitting quantities of dust from their quarry. The court had to decide what were the constituents of the offence of a public nuisance, and how this differed from a private . .
Cited – Benjamin v Storr 1874
The plaintiff’s coffee house was badly affected by the defendant’s wagons standing for long periods in the narrow street outside for the purposes of loading and unloading goods. The wagons blocked his light and the frequent stabling of the horses . .
Appeal from – Jan De Nul (UK) Ltd v NV Royale Belge ComC 31-Jul-2000
Contractors’ liability insurance – contract for capital dredging of main shipping channel in Southampton Water – deposit of silt outside limits of dredged channel – whether insured negligent – whether silt interfered with navigation – whether . .

Cited by:

Cited – D Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others QBD 31-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed . .
Cited – Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Nuisance, Negligence, Damages

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166543

Reynolds v Strutt and Parker LLP: ChD 15 Jul 2011

The defendant had organised a team bonding day, including a cycling event. The claimant employee was severely injured falling from his cycle. He said that the defendant had been engligent in not providing cycling helmets. The circuit hosting company had said that helmets were available, and recommended. The claimant said there had been no mention of helmets in the introduction to the race, though he was experienced as a cyclist.
Held: The activity could not fairly be described as having been within the claimant’s course of employment. Nevertheless one could not simply ignore the employment relationship, and a comparable duty of care arose. No sufficient risk assessment had been carried out.
The course providers would have insisted than any member of the public contracting with them should wear a helmet. Moreover: ‘It was argued that, because the claimant was an experienced cyclist, he could, had he wished, have chosen to use a helmet, and the fact that he did not supports a conclusion that he would not have complied with any requirement. I do not accept that argument. If the defendant had required the wearing of helmets and some of the staff refused to wear them, then they would, quite simply, and in accordance with the assessment they should have made, have excluded them from the bicycle racing activity.’
Nevertheless the claimant was contributorily negligent. Other riders wore helmets, they were clearly on view, and he could have requested one.
As to the apportionment of liability: ‘, it is not simply a matter of assessing the comparative blameworthiness of the parties, but of their respective responsibility for the damage, particularly bearing in mind the defendant’s duty of care involved, on my findings, taking precautions against the claimant’s own negligence. That needs to be weighed against the fact that the claimant’s fault was causative of the injury he suffered. In the final analysis, I need to assess both relative blameworthiness and causative potency of the parties’ respective faults. In my judgment, given my findings as to the claimant’s responsibility for the collision, he must accept the greater proportion of blame. In these circumstances, in my judgment, a fair apportionment of liability is two thirds/one third in favour of the defendant.’

Judges:

Oliver-Jones QC

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2263 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 52, Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 3(2)(e)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Froom v Butcher CA 21-Jul-1975
The court asked what reduction if any should be made to a plaintiff’s damages where injuries were caused not only by the defendant’s negligent driving but also by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. It had been submitted that, since . .
Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Cited – SO v Hsbc Bank Plc and Another CA 3-Apr-2009
Etherton LJ held that ultimately the decision as to whether there is vicarious liability ‘is a conclusion of law based on primary facts rather than a simple question of fact’. . .
Cited – Smith v Finch QBD 22-Jan-2009
The claimant cyclist was severely injured in an accident when hit by a motorcyclist, the defendant. He was not wearing a cycle helmet, and the injuries were to his head. He was slowing down to turn right, and was hit a heavy glancing blow by the . .
Cited – Ilkiw v Samuels CA 1963
The plaintiff was injured by the careless manouvering of a lorry by the defendant’s employee.
Held: When considering the vicarious liability of an employer, the proper approach to the nature of the servant’s employment is a broad one. . .
Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
Cited – Ilkiw v Samuels CA 1963
The plaintiff was injured by the careless manouvering of a lorry by the defendant’s employee.
Held: When considering the vicarious liability of an employer, the proper approach to the nature of the servant’s employment is a broad one. . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Radclyffe CA 30-Jun-2009
The court held the appellant Ministry liable for a soldier’s injuries incurred when jumping from a high bridge. A senior officer had earlier ‘assumed responsibility to prevent the junior soldiers from taking undue risks of which he was or ought to . .
Cited – Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd CA 2-Feb-2011
The claimant suffered injury at a competitive fun day organised by his employers, the RAF at a facility of the respondents. He struck his head diving into a very shallow inflatable pool. He appealed against dismissal of his claim.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Health and Safety, Vicarious Liability, Employment

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.464218

Kane v New Forest District Council: CA 13 Jun 2001

A pedestrian walked from a footpath into the road and was hit by a car. She sought damages from the highway authority, saying that they had allowed vegetation to grow to an extent to make it impossible to be seen. As a second tier appeal, the claimant had to demonstrate a real as opposed to a merely fanciful prospect of success.
Held: The authority had foreseen the dangers when granting permission for the development, but had failed to ensure that the sight lines were improved before the development was completed. ‘the starting point must surely be that the defendants did create the source of danger. They it was who required this footpath to be constructed. I cannot accept that in these circumstances they were entitled to wash their hands of that danger and simply leave it to others to cure it by improving the sightlines. It is one thing to say that at the time when the defendants required the construction of this footpath they had every reason to suppose that the improvements along The White Cottage frontage would ultimately allow it to be safely opened and used: quite another to say that they were later entitled to stand idly by whilst, as they must have known, the footpath lay open to the public in a recognisably dangerous state.’ The appellant’s case did not merely have a realistic prospect of success, she had a good case. The authority had also failed ti use its Highways Act powers to have the sight line improved.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Mr Justice Dyson, Lord Justice May

Citations:

[2002] 1 WLR 312, [2001] EWCA Civ 878, [2002] LTL 12 April 2002

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 154(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stovin v Wise (Norfolk City Council, 3rd party) CA 16-Feb-1994
A road user was injured on a corner which was known to the highway authority to be dangerous. The authority had sought to make arrangements with the owner of land adjoining the highway to remove a bank which obstructed the view.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Lam and Others (T/a ‘Namesakes of Torbay’) and Borough of Torbay CA 30-Jul-1997
The claimant sought damages after the planning authority allowed the first defendant to conduct a manufacturing business in the course of which spraying activities took place which caused them personal injuries and loss of business.
Held: The . .
Cited – Swain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Cited – Strable v Dartford Borough Council CA 1984
A local authority is not liable in damages for a negligent failure properly to complete its planning law duties. No action lay and the remedy available to an individual in such a case is to object on appeal to the Secretary of State and, if still . .
Cited – Dunlop v Woolahara Municipal Council PC 1981
A council had no liabiity in a private action for damages for a breach of statutory duty in its handling of a planning application. While doubting that it was so, Lord Diplock left open the question whether an individual injuriously affected by . .

Cited by:

Cited – Great North Eastern Railway Limited v Hart and Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited QBD 30-Oct-2003
A driver had crashed through a barrier before a bridge, and descended into the path of a train. Ten people died. He now sought a contribution order against the Secretary of State for the condition of the barrier which was said to be faulty.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160097

Pride Valley Foods Limited v Hall and Partners and Hall and Partners (Contract Management) Limited: CA 28 Jun 2001

The defendants had advised on the construction of a plant. It later burned down, and the fire would have been less damaging but for materials used. The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract and negligence. The judge at first instance held that the plaintiff would not have accepted advice to spend more than was required by regulations. On appeal, the court held that he had not allowed for certain evidence which suggested that he may have listened, and that advice had not been given. The finding, and consequent assessment of contributory negligence was remitted for reconsideration. Contribution starts from a point at which two or more defendants have been held to have contributed by their own fault to the claimant’s injury. Their contributions are asssessed by gauging the relative causative potency of their respective faults and their comparative blameworthiness. Contributory negligence starts from where the defendant alone has been held to have caused the claimant’s injury by his fault. Three questions arise. Whether the claimant too was materially at fault. Second, if so, was his fault lay within the very risk which it was the defendant’s duty to guard him against. It is only if his fault was not within the causative reach of the defendant’s own neglect that the question of relative culpability arises.

Judges:

Brooke, Sedley, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

(2001) 76 CLR 1, [2001] EWCA Civ 1001, [2001] NPC 103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sahib Foods Limited and Co-operative Insurance Society Limited v Paskin Kyriakides Sands (A Firm) TCC 3-Mar-2003
The claimants were lessees of premises, and the second claimants had contracted to purchase it. The premises burned down, and the claimants sought damages from the architect respondents. The fire began because of negligence by the claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Contract

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147598

Iman Abouzaid v Mothercare (Uk) Ltd: CA 21 Dec 2000

The defendant appealed a finding of liability under the Act. The plaintiff had hurt his eye assisting with a pushchair sold by the defendant. An elastic strap had rebounded into his eye. It was argued that the English Act went wider than the Directive in implementing it. Was the strap a defect within the Act?
Held: The statute must be interpreted ‘in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive so as to achieve the result which it has in view. The design permitted the risk to arise, and the product was defective: ‘though the case is close to the borderline, the product was defective within the meaning of the Act. The risk is in losing control of an elastic strap at a time when it is stretched and eyes are in the line of recoil. The product was defective because it was supplied with a design which permitted the risk to arise and without giving a warning that the user should not so position himself that the risk arose. Members of the public were entitled to expect better from the appellants. A factor in that expectation is the vulnerability of the eye and the serious consequences which may follow from a blunt injury to the eye. ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Chadwick And Mr Justice Wright

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 348

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Protection Act 1987 2(1), Council Directive 85/374/EEC Art 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) ECJ 29-May-1997
The UK provision in the 1987 Act did not conflict with the EC Directive on liability for defective products; there was an overriding provision as to interpretation.
Europa Approximation of laws – Liability . .
Cited – Paris v Stepney Borough Council HL 13-Dec-1950
(Reversed) The House considered a breach of a duty of care in respect of a man blinded in one eye, when there would be no breach of duty if his sight had not been impaired.
Held: The claim succeeded because he was known by his employers to . .
Cited – Roe v Ministry of Health CA 1954
The plaintiff complained that he had developed a spastic paraplegia following a lumbar puncture.
Held: An inference of negligence was rebutted. However the hospital authority was held to be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Negligence, Personal Injury, European

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147381

David Yablon Minton v Kenburgh Investments (Northern) Ltd: CA 28 Jun 2000

An agreement ‘in full and final settlement’ of insolvency proceedings between a liquidator and directors, did not prevent an action in negligence against solicitors as regards the same contractual situation who had themselves issued third party proceedings against the directors under the Act. There is a difference between settlement and satisfaction. The second claim was sufficiently different, and might even give rise to a larger claim for damages. The settlement of one claim need not satisfy

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2000, Gazette 20-Jul-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 202

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Minton v Kenburgh Investments (Northern) Ltd (In Liquidation) QBD 13-Nov-1988
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other, Negligence

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147235

Outram v Academy Plastics Ltd: CA 19 Apr 2000

An employer, who also operated as trustee of the company’s pension scheme, has no duty in negligence to give advice to scheme members as to how they should conduct their own membership of the scheme. No such obligation arises from the contractual relationship. Common law does not generally impose liability in tort for a pure omission. ‘ Looking more generally at the nature of the duty alleged, it is, of course, a duty to avoid causing economic loss. Secondly, if there is a duty, breach of it will result in liability for an omission (failure to advise) in circumstances where it is not alleged that the company were asked or expressly or impliedly assumed any contractual responsibility to give such advice. As a general rule the common law does not impose liability in tort for what are called ‘pure omissions’. In this respect it should be noted that in all the ‘advice’cases some advice had been given. The courts have had to decide whether it was given in circumstances which required the adviser to take care or whether a duty to do so, which was admittedly owed to some, was also owed to others. When advice has been given and a duty is owed the duty may be breached by omission but our case is one where no advice was given so it is one of pure omission.’

Judges:

Tuckey LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000, Gazette 18-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 141, [2001] 1CR 367

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Lennon CA 20-Feb-2004
The claimant police officer considered being transferred to Northern Ireland. He asked and was incorrectly told that his housing allowance would not be affected by taking time off work.
Held: The break between employments had affected his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Employment, Negligence

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147174

Margolis v Imperial Tobacco Limited, Gallaher Limited, Hergall (In Liquidation): CA 6 Apr 2000

The court of appeal considered when it might interfere with the exercise of a judge’s discretion to extend the limitation period.
Held: The court ‘[will] not interfere with the judge’s discretion unless it was exercised upon wrong principles, by reference to irrelevant matters or in disregard of matters which ought to have been taken into account. or unless it was plainly wrong.’

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 114, [2000] MLC 204

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Buckler v J F Finnegan Ltd CA 21-Jun-2004
The claimant sought damages for personal injuries after ingesting asbestos while employed as a joiner by the defendant. The defendant appealed an order allowing the claim to go ahead despite being out of time. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147147

DS RL v Gloucestershire County Council and London Borough of Tower Hamlets and London Borough of Havering: CA 14 Mar 2000

The court considered and restated the criteria for liability set out in X (Minors).

Judges:

Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 72, [2001] Fam 313

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .

Cited by:

Cited – JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Negligence

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147105

Alexander and others v Midland Bank Plc: CA 22 Jul 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1918

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Alexander and Others v Midland Bank Plc MCLC 26-Aug-1998
(Mayor’s and City of London Court) In claim for repetitive strain injury for typists in absence of obvious physical damage was on balance not psychosomatic. Plaintiffs could show more than passing pain and discomfort and the scheme of work imposing . .
Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146833

Heathfield v Owen: CA 16 Jul 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1863

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Negligence

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146778

Palmer (Administratrix of the Estate of Rose Frances Palmer) v Tees Health Authority and Hartlepool and East Durham NHS Trust: CA 2 Jun 1999

A claim for damages on behalf of a murdered child’s estate and the child’s mother for psychiatric damage against a health authority for negligence in having failed to manage a psychiatric outpatient who had abducted and murdered the child, was bound to fail, and was struck out, as there was insufficient proximity between the Authority and either claimant. In considering an application for striking out, the court should assume that the claim is genuine and serious, and also assume that the claimant will successfully prove the pleaded facts and matters relied on

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Pill, Thorpe LJJ

Citations:

Times 06-Jul-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1533, [2000] PNLR 87, [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Med 351, [2000] PIQR P1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Compania Financiera v Hamoor Tanker Corporation (‘the Borag’) CA 1981
The managers had taken on the management of the ship. In the course of a dispute, the managers had the ship arrested whilst in Capetown. The owners had to obtain a bank guarantee to secure its release, and sought the interest payments on the . .
Appeal from – Palmer v Tees Health Authority and Another QBD 1-Jun-1998
A Health authority was not liable in negligence for failing to restrict the freedom of a mental health out-patient who had threatened to kill and did so. The threat was not specific enough to allow action. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dowson and Others v Northumbria Police QBD 30-Apr-2009
Nine police officers claimed damages for alleged harassment under the 1997 Act by a senior officer in having bullied them and ordered them to carry out unlawful procedures. Amendments were sought which were alleged to be out of time and to have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146448

Re N: CA 20 May 1999

The claimant was a victim of a rape. She alleged that the police had mishandled the prosecution, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against the defendant, which in turn, she said exacerbated her own post traumatic stress disorder.
Held: ‘In my judgment an attempt to formulate a duty of care in this way is wholly misconceived. If a duty of care exists at all it is a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the Plaintiff from suffering injury, loss or damage of the type in question, in this case psychiatric injury. ‘ Clarke LJ: It was at least arguable that where a forensic medical examiner carries out an examination and discovers that the person being examined has a serious condition which needs immediate treatment, a duty is owed to the examinee to disclose those facts.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1452, [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Med 257

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Cited – Couling v Coxe 7-Dec-1848
A plaintiff in a civil action who has issued a witness summons or subpoena to a witness to attend may have an action against a witness who fails to attend, but the damages recoverable were limited to the costs of an abortive hearing when the . .
Cited – Crewe v Field 1896
Claim for damages against witness not attending court.
Held: A plaintiff in such a case could recover as damages the loss which the missing witness could have established. . .
Cited – Roberts v J and F Stone Lighting and Radio Ltd 1945
Claim for damages against witness who fails to attend court though summonsed when the case was lost.
Held: the reason why no such claim had in fact succeeded was because of the difficulty in establishing the loss. . .

Cited by:

Cited – JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police, Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146367

L E Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council: CA 7 Nov 2002

The claimant sought compensation for damage caused to his property by the roots of trees on the verge outside his premises.
Held: The respondent did exercise lawful control over the trees, even though it did not own the land on which they grew, and therefore could be liable in negligence, and in nuisance for the damage they might cause. The highway might also be responsible, but that did not exclude the responsibility of the respondent, who had a right and a duty to maintain the roads. The basis of liability of an occupier for a nuisance on his land is not his occupation but that, by virtue of his occupation, he has it in his power to take the necessary measures to prevent the nuisance. The tree owner should be given a reasonmable opportunity to remedy the nuisance: ‘ . . What is a reasonable opportunity to abate the nuisance is a question of fact. ‘

Judges:

Aldous, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-2002, Gazette 16-Jan-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 427, [2002] EWCA Civ 1723

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal Dismissed – L E Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council TCC 11-Mar-2002
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Green v The Right Honourable Lord Somerleyton and others CA 28-Feb-2003
The parties owned areas of marshland divided by a road. The claimant sought a declaration that the defendants had no right to allow floodwater to escape over his land from what he said was an artificial reservoir on the defendant’s land. The . .
Cited – Moiz Ahmed Siddiqui, Ishrat Siddiqui/Bhajan Singh Sohanpal v Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon TCC 15-Apr-2003
The claimants sought damages for cracks in their house caused by the roots of trees on the defendant’s land.
Held: The claimants had failed to establish by evidence that the tree roots were the cause of the damage. The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.178262

Kent v Dr Griffiths, Dr Roberts, London Ambulance Service: CA 11 Dec 1998

Though there is no duty at large to help someone in need of urgent assistance, an ambulance service, by accepting a 999 call, may have accepted a duty to the caller. It remained open to argue as to whether it was fair just and reasonable to impose duty.

Citations:

Times 23-Dec-1998, Gazette 27-Jan-1999, [1998] EWCA Civ 1941

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kent v Doctor Griffiths, Doctor Roberts, The London Ambulance Service QBD 16-Jul-1999
The claimant suffered a respiratory arrest after an emergency ambulance called by the first defendant, did not arrive for 40 minutes.
Held: the ambulance service was negligenct and liable. The acceptance of the doctor’s request for an . .

Cited by:

See Also – Kent v Doctor Griffiths, Doctor Roberts, The London Ambulance Service QBD 16-Jul-1999
The claimant suffered a respiratory arrest after an emergency ambulance called by the first defendant, did not arrive for 40 minutes.
Held: the ambulance service was negligenct and liable. The acceptance of the doctor’s request for an . .
See Also – Kent v Griffiths and others CA 3-Feb-2000
A doctor attended the home of a patient suffering from an asthma attack and called for an ambulance to take her immediately to hospital. The control replied ‘Okay doctor.’ After 13 minutes the ambulance had not arrived and the patient’s husband made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Health Professions

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.145420

Chief Constable of Northumbria v Costello: CA 3 Dec 1998

A woman police officer was attacked by a prisoner in a cell. She sought damages for the failure of a senior officer nearby not to come to her aid, and from the chief constable under his vicarious liability.
Held: The chief constable’s appeal was dismissed. One police officer has a duty of care to come to the rescue of another. This special duty between police officers was not just a matter of police discipline, and exists despite the absence of a general duty of officers to aid particular members of the public. ‘For public policy reasons, the police are under no general duty of care to members of the public for their activities in the investigation and suppression of crime But . . circumstances may exceptionally arise when the police assume a responsibility, giving rise to a duty of care to a particular member of the public . . Neither the police nor other public rescue services are under any general obligation, giving rise to a duty of care, to respond to emergency calls . . nor, if they do respond, are they to be held liable for want of care in any attempt to prevent crime or effect a rescue. But if their own positive negligent intervention directly causes injury which would not otherwise have occurred or if it exacerbates injury or damage, there may be liability.’

Judges:

May LJ. Sir Christopher Slade, Hirst LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Dec-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1898, [1998] EWCA Civ 3536, (1999) 11 Admin LR 81, [1999] ICR 752, [1999] 1 All ER 550

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport QBD 22-Jul-1997
Coastguard Not liable in Negligence
Eight children with a teacher and two instructors set off on a canoeing trip but did not return. They got into difficulties at sea. Two became separated from the rest. The canoes capsized and sank. Some tried to swim ashore. Two more members became . .
Cited – Capital and Counties Plc and Another v Hampshire County Council; Etc CA 20-Mar-1997
Three cases were brought against fire services after what were said to be negligent responses to call outs. On one, the fire brigade was called to a fire at office premises in Hampshire. The fire triggered the operation of a heat-activated sprinkler . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cowan and Another v The Chief Constable for Avon and Somerset Constabulary CA 14-Nov-2001
Where police had been called to an incident where a member of the public had been threatened with violence if he did not leave premises, did not have a duty to take action under the Act toward the applicant. It is only if a particular responsibility . .
Cited – Fay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police QBD 6-Feb-2003
The claimant had begun proceedings for the return of money held by the respondent. His action was stayed for inactivity, and the respondent later had the claim struck out on the basis that it would be an abuse of process to proceed.
Held: The . .
Cited – Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001
The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . .
Cited – Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000
A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – An Informer v A Chief Constable CA 29-Feb-2012
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages against the police. He had provided them with information, but he said that they had acted negligently and in breach of contract causing him financial loss. The officer handling his . .
Cited – Michael and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another SC 28-Jan-2015
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.145377

Lewis v Carmarthenshire County Council: CA 1953

The primary duty of care of a school toward a pupil ends at the school gate, although the school will have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that young children who are not old enough to look after themselves do not leave the school premises unattended.

Citations:

[1953] 1 WLR 1439

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis HL 17-Feb-1955
The House considered the unexplained fact that in the temporary absence of the teacher (who, on the evidence, was not negligent) it was possible for a child of four to wander from the school premises onto the highway, through a gate which was either . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Education

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.223150

Mond v Hyde and Another: CA 16 Jul 1998

The Court was asked whether an Official Receiver in Bankruptcy is, on grounds of public policy, immune from an action for damages at the suit of the trustee who has suffered financial loss by relying upon a negligent statement made to him by the Official Receiver in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Judges:

Beldam, Aldous, Ward LJJ

Citations:

[1998] 3 All ER 833, [1998] EWCA Civ 1226

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144705

Hussain and Another v Lancaster City Council: CA 14 May 1998

It was suggested that a landlord, or at least a local authority landlord, who knows or ought to know of a nuisance being committed in the neighbourhood of the demised premises, but who fails to take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances and within a reasonable time to prevent or control the nuisance, may thereby be held to have caused, continued or adopted that nuisance.
Held: Hirst LJ rejected that proposition, saying (amongst other things) that Smith v Scott was decisive authority against it: ‘Two main questions arise in connection with the claim in nuisance, using that word in its technical tortious sense, first as to its scope, and secondly as to the ambit of responsibility of landlords for their tenants’ acts of nuisance.’ The essence of the tort of nuisance was that: ‘the Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s land interferes with the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the Plaintiff’s land.’
A local Authority, as landlord of tenants committing gross racist acts, was not liable in nuisance or negligence to neighbours for its failure to control their behaviour even though it set out to attempt to do so.

Judges:

Hirst LJ

Citations:

Times 27-May-1998, Gazette 10-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 834, [2000] QB 1, [1999] 4 All ER 125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harris v James 1876
A landlord can be responsible for the acts of nuisance of his tenant if he has authorised the tenant to do the acts. . .
Cited – Smith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
Cited – Mitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144312

Nobes, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Schofield: CA 14 May 1998

A police constable was entitled to claim damages for nervous shock after a co-officer unexpectedly and unlawfully fired off shots from a gun they had found as part of a search.

Citations:

Times 15-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 838

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991
The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. The defendant police service had not . .
Cited – Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995
The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . .

Cited by:

Cited – Donachie v The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police CA 7-Apr-2004
The claimant had been asked to work under cover. The surveillance equipment he was asked to use was faulty, requiring him to put himself at risk repeatedly to maintain it resulting in a stress disorder and a stroke.
Held: There was a direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Police, Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144316

W 1-6 v Essex County Council and Another: CA 2 Apr 1998

A Local Authority had a duty of care to a fostering family when allocating children. A child was known to have a history of sexual abuse and was fostered with a family with other children, and no warning had been given.
Foster parents sued the council for breach of contract and for alleged negligence for breach of duty of care.
Held: There was no contractual relationship between the foster parents and the local authority. ‘although the Specialist Foster Carer Agreement had a number of features which one would expect to find in a contract, such as the payment of an allowance and expenses, provisions as to National Insurance, termination and restriction on receiving a legacy or engaging in other gainful employment and other matters to which the judge referred… I do not accept that this makes the agreement a contract in the circumstances of this case. A contract is essentially an agreement that is freely entered into on terms that are freely negotiated. If there is a statutory obligation to enter into a form of agreement the terms of which are laid down, at any rate in their most important respects, there is no contract’

Citations:

Times 09-Apr-1998, Gazette 20-May-1998, [1998] 3 WLR 534, [1998] EWCA Civ 614, [1998] 3 All ER 111

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Norweb Plc v Dixon QBD 24-Feb-1995
Electric supply was not made under a contract properly so called, and no offence was committed of harassment for payment. If there is a statutory obligation to enter into a form of agreement the terms of which are laid down, at any rate in their . .
Appeal from – W and Others v Essex County Council and Another QBD 16-Jul-1997
A social worker has a duty of care to inform prospective foster parents of the information which a reasonable social worker would provide. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rowlands v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 26-Mar-1999
The defendant appealed a finding of the EAT that the claimant had standing to claim discrimination under the Act in the way her application to be a foster mother had been treated.
Held: After the EAT decision in W v Essex, it was clear that . .
Appeal from – W v Essex County Council and Another HL 17-Mar-2000
A foster child was placed with a family. The child had a history of abusing other children, but the foster parents, who had other children were not told. The foster child caused psychiatric damage to the carers.
Held: It was wrong to strike . .
Cited – Bullock v Norfolk County Council EAT 24-Jan-2011
bullock_norfolkEAT11
EAT RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED
The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant, a foster carer, was not a worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and 1999. Accordingly she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Local Government, Employment

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144092

Broster and Others v Galliard Docklands Ltd and Another: TCC 7 Jul 2011

The defendant builders denied that the claimants had a claim in law against them as regards the construction of their properties. The rooves had lifted in high winds and were said not to have been secured properly. The defendant replied that there was no liability for damage to ‘the thing itself’.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1722 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.441967

Widdowson (By her Father and Next Friend Widdowson) v Newgate Meat Corporation Scullion and Enaas: CA 19 Nov 1997

Res ipsa loquitur might be used to establish fault where the driver drove into a pedestrian on a carriageway and had no explanation for the accident.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Dec-1997, Times 04-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2763

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.143162

Irwin v Stevenson: CA 22 Feb 2002

The claimant had followed vehicles on his motor cycle for a time until he thought it safe to overtake. As he overtook the line of vehicles, the defendant tractor driver pulled out into him causing an accident. The defendant appealed against an order finding him 50% liable.
Held: The judge had glossed over the fact that the defendant behaving correctly could not have avoided the accident, and ‘it appears that the motorcycle moved swiftly out from behind the Transit van in a double overtaking manoeuvre which the defendant had no reason to anticipate, and that that was the overwhelming cause of the accident. I would allow the appeal and hold that the defendant was not negligent.’

Judges:

Potter LJ, Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 359

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.216796

Colonia Versicherung A G and others v Amoco Oil Company: CA 20 Nov 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Burnand v Rodocanachi HL 1882
The respondents took valued insurance, including war risks, on a cargo which was later destroyed by the Confederate cruiser Alabama. The underwriters paid to the respondents as on an actual total loss the valued amounts, which were less than the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140869

Simon v Islington Borough Council: CA 1943

A cyclist was killed because of the dangerous condition of an abandoned tramway. A rail and the adjoining stone setts were not level with each other. The London Passenger Transport Board had given the highway authority the notice required by statute to the highway authority of their proposal to abandon a tramway. The highway authority gave a statutory counter-notice stating that they proposed themselves to take up, remove and dispose of the tramway equipment and to make good the surface of the highway but they failed to do so.
Held: The highway authority were liable for the accident because of the duty of the tramway undertaking under section 25 and section 28 of the 1870 Act. For so long as the Board remained in occupation of the tramway equipment, they remained under those duties. In those circumstances, the principle that a highway authority was not liable for non-feasance was wholly irrelevant and the highway authority stood in the shoes of the Board for the sole purpose of removing the Board’s ‘cast off superfluities’. As to the position of the plaintiff, the Court stated: ‘A breach of that duty causing injury to a person lawfully on the highway was actionable as ‘statutory negligence’ the phrase used by Lord Wright in Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co Ltd v M’Mullan [1934] AC 1, 23, and it entitled a person injured thereby to recover damages from the tramway company: see s 55 of the Act 1870, and compare Dublin United Tramways Co Ltd v Fitzgerald [1903] AC 99. Alternatively, an action lay in respect of a dangerous condition of the tramway in the public road, causing damage to an individual, for nuisance at common law against the tramway company as owners and occupiers of the plant which gave rise to the nuisance. Even without s 55 we think the position would have been the same.’ The case was argued on the question of non-feasance which was held to be wholly irrelevant. The duties which arose under the 1870 Act were unencumbered by that consideration.

Judges:

Scott LJ, MacKinnon and Goddard LJJ

Citations:

[1943] KB 188

Statutes:

Tramways Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co v McMullan HL 10-Jul-1933
Lord Wright coined the term ‘statutory negligence’. He affirmed the need for ‘damage’ as an essential element of actionable negligence, saying: ‘In strict legal analysis, negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct, whether in omission . .

Cited by:

Cited – Roe v Sheffield City Council and others CA 17-Jan-2003
The claimant sought damages after his car was involved in an accident when a wheel struck a part of a tramway standing proud of the road surface. The defendant argued that they were excused liability by the 1988 Act, incorporating the effects of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.183202

Bell v Secretary of State for Defence: CA 1986

The deceased was injured serving in the forces in Germany. His injury was worstened after negligent communications between army doctors. The defendant relied upon State Immunity to defend a claim, saying he had issued a certificate that he had died on active duty.
Held: The Secretary was entitled to issue the certificate of entitlement even though at the time no-one was entitled to receive an award, and the only effect was to achieve immunity from suit. However the action which caused the injury was the failure to communicate the deceased’s condition, which happened at the civilian hospital and not on Crown Land, and therefore the section did not give immunity.

Citations:

[1986] QB 322, [1985] 3 All ER 661

Statutes:

Crown Proceedings Act 1947 10(1)(a)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Adams v War Office QBD 1955
The fact that the Secretary of State has issued a certificate under section 10(1)(b) is no guarantee that the person in respect of whose case it is issued will be awarded a pension. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Matthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Constitutional, Armed Forces

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.179733

Routestone Limited v Minories Finance Limited (Formerly Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd); Knight Frank and Rutley (a Firm): CA 14 Nov 1996

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.

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 964, (1997) 21 EG 148

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Routestone Ltd v Minories Finance ChD 1996
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Designers Guild Limited v Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited PatC 14-Jan-1998
The defendant denied that it had copied the plaintiff’s designs.
Held: There was sufficient evidence of copying. It was wrong to dissect a work, but rather the court should look at the matter as a whole. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Evidence

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140831

Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Ex Parte F and I Services Ltd: Admn 14 Apr 2000

The Commissioners gave advice to a tax payer, upon which the taxpayer relied, but the advice was incorrect. The law under which public authorities can be held responsible in negligence for the exercise of statutory functions is rapidly developing, and it is not possible to say that a claim against the Commissioners could not succeed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Sedley And Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000, Gazette 25-May-2000, [2002] HC Admin 327

Links:

Bailii

Negligence, Customs and Excise, Estoppel, Administrative

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140142

Bellefield Computer Services Limited, Unigate Properties Limited; Unigate Dairies Limited; Unigate (Uk) Limited; Unigate Dairies (Western) Limited v E Turner and Sons Limited: Admn 28 Jan 2000

The Defendant builders constructed a steel building to be used as, inter alia. a dairy. The original owners sold it to the appellants. A fire spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they followed good building practice and the requirements of the Building Regulations, would have constructed, a compartment wall which would have prevented the spread. The fire passed over the top of the wall which was not constructed to good building practice. The claimant appealed a preliminary ruling that damages for part of the loss were unrecoverable as pure economic loss.
Held: The claim amounted to a claim for an omission to act. In many circumstanmces it is not possible to draw a satisfactory line between misfeasance and malfeasance. There was no proper reason to differentiate between the original and subsequent owners. The judge had correctly interpreted and applied the law, and the appeal and cross appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr. Justice Wall

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 284, [2000] BLR 97

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Murphy v Brentwood District Council HL 26-Jul-1990
Anns v Merton Overruled
The claimant appellant was a house owner. He had bought the house from its builders. Those builders had employed civil engineers to design the foundations. That design was negligent. They had submitted the plans to the defendant Council for approval . .
Cited – Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council HL 12-May-1977
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority . .
Cited – Stovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council CA 1972
The court considered the liability in negligence of a Council whose inspector had approved a building which later proved defective.
Held: The Council had control of the work and with such control came a responsibility to take care in . .

Cited by:

See Also – Bellefield Computer Services and others v E Turner and Sons Limited and others CA 18-Dec-2002
The defendants had carried out works of construction on the premises. They subcontracted the design, but not the supervision, of the works to architects. Years later there was a fire, which spread rapidly because of negligence in the design of a . .
Cited – Abbott and Another v Will Gannon and Smith Ltd CA 2-Mar-2005
The claimant had employed the defendants to design refurbishment works for their hotel. The work was said to be negligent, and the claimant sought damages. The defendant argued as a preliminary point that the claim was time barred. The question was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Negligence

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140098

Brignall v Kelly: CA 17 May 1994

There had been an accident in which the driver had lost control of his car. A blood sample taken two-and-a-half hours later showed that his blood alcohol limit was slightly more than twice the permitted maximum for driving. A professor of forensic pathology estimated that at the start of the journey the driver would have been well into the ‘obviously drunk’ state, although he conceded that there could be a great personal variation in the effect of alcohol on different people. The plaintiff called five witnesses who all said that the defendant was behaving normally. The plaintiff, who was sober, saw the defendant drink one pint of lager and had a sensible conversation with him. As they walked to the car, he saw no overt signs to suggest to him that he was drunk. The defendant himself said he had drunk a maximum of four pints of lager in a two hour period, was used to drinking much greater amounts on a regular basis and felt perfectly capable of driving safely.
Held: The court upheld the first instance judge’s finding that the defendant had not established that the plaintiff was in any way guilty of a want of proper care for his safety. In response to a contention that the plaintiff should have taken some steps to enquire of the defendant how much he had consumed, McCowan LJ: ‘… I refuse to accept the proposition that if a man in a public house observes another man drink one pint of lager and give no sign of intoxication, he cannot accept a lift from him without interrogating him as to exactly how much he has had to drink.’

Judges:

McCowan LJ

Citations:

Court of Appeal Transcript, 17 May 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – John James William Booth v Simon White CA 18-Nov-2003
The claimant sought damages after being injured in a car driven by the defendant. The defendant now appealed an award at 1005, saying that the plaintiff had known that he had been drinking. The defendant was known to be a heavy drinker, and he said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.227909

Macquire -v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council and Another: CA 23 Feb 2006

The claimant was injured exercising on a machine in a gym owned by the defendant. The defendant had subcontracted the provision and maintenance of the equipment to a third party.
Held: Where the third party was an apparently competent independent contractor, and nobody knew of the defect, the land owner was not liable. He had acted reasonably in entrusting these duties to the contractor

Judges:

Rix LJ, Carnwath LJ, Jacob LJ

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2006

Statutes:

Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 2 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Torts – Other, Negligence

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.240051

Citibank NA v Ercole Ltd and Others: QBD 24 May 2001

Claim for sums due under loan agreements in an Art Advisory Service – counterclaims of breach of duty and negligence in advice on purchase of art and breach of duty and contract in the sale of art held as collateral for loans.

Judges:

Bell J

Citations:

courtcommentary.com 24-May-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Banking, Negligence

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.177322

Vaughan v Menlove: 1837

Citations:

[1837] EngR 328, (1837) 7 Car and P 525, (1837) 173 ER 232 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Vaughan v Menlove 1837
The defendant had been advised of the probable consequences of allowing a stack of damp hay, which he had erected without proper ventilation, to remain in this condition. Subsequently the hay spontaneously ignited damaging the plaintiff’s house. At . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.313445

Knight v Dorset County Council: Admn 20 Dec 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 392, Trans. Ref: CO 1110-96

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – David Lannigan v Glasgow City Council OHCS 12-Aug-2004
The pursuer said the teachers employed by the defendant had failed to identify that was dyslexic, leading him to suffer damage. The defenders said the claim was time barred, which the pursuer admitted, but then said that the claim ought to go ahead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Negligence

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136940

Delaware Mansions Limited, Flecksun Limited v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of The City of Westminster: CA 21 Jul 1999

A number of blocks of mansion flats in Maida Vale were damaged by the root action of a plane tree for which the council were responsible. The freehold in the blocks, known as Delaware Mansions, was sold by the Church Commissioners to the second appellants in 1990 for andpound;1. . The flats were subject to long leases and the first appellant company had been formed to act as the maintenance and service company for the tenants, who owned the company. The second appellant company was formed as a wholly owned subsidiary of the first appellant company.
In 1989, there were reports of cracking in parts of the structure of the blocks and engineers were instructed on behalf of the first appellants. The engineers submitted a brief report and this was followed by further investigation. At a time after the second appellants had become freeholders, the appellants’ expert opinion was disclosed to the council. The engineers believed, as the judge put it, that ‘either the tree should be felled or the property should be underpinned’. The cost of remedial work if the tree had been felled was very small and, it is common ground, can be ignored for present purposes. The removal of the tree would have ended the nuisance. Thr court was asked whether the Council was liable in uisance.

Judges:

Beldam, Pill, Thorpe LJJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1903, 68 Con LR 172, (2000) 32 HLR 664, [2000] BLR 1, [1999] 46 EG 194, [1999] 3 EGLR 68

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001
The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135827

Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police: CA 1 May 2001

Police and prison authorities had a duty of care to those in their custody, which included a duty to perform an assessment of the risk of the prisoner committing suicide, but did not have a general duty to take steps to prevent suicide in the absence of any reason to think that the prisoner might be at such a risk. There is a general duty of care to prisoners, and an increasing risk of suicide amongst those in custody, but not in either case to such a point where it could be presumed that active steps needed to be taken to prevent suicide in every case.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Gibson, Latham LJJ

Citations:

Times 05-Jun-2001, Gazette 14-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 611, [2001] 3 WLR 736, [2002] QB 347, [2001] All ER (D) 07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Police

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135480

The Law Society of England and Wales v Schubert Murphy (A Firm): CA 25 Aug 2017

The solicitors had made use of the online facility provided by the appellant Law Society to verify the bona fides of a firm of solicitors acting for a third party to a transaction. Relying upon the information, they suffered losses, and claimed in negligence. The Law Society now appealed against a refusal of its request for the claim to be struck out as arguable. It said that the information had been provided in pursuance of its function as a regulator.
Held: The appeal failed. The case remained arguable.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Gloster VP CA, Beatson LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1295

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974 6, Solicitors (Keeping of the Roll) Regulations 1999, SRA Practising Regulations 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Yuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1987
(Hong Kong) The claimant deposited money with a licensed deposit taker, regulated by the Commissioner. He lost his money when the deposit taker went into insolvent liquidation. He said the regulator was responsible when it should have known of the . .
Appeal From – Schubert Murphy (A Firm) v The Law Society QBD 17-Dec-2014
The claimant solicitors’ firm had acted in a purchase, but the vendors were represented by fraudsters presenting themselves as solicitors, registering with the defendant in names of retired solicitors, and who made off with the money intended for . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Cited – Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
Cited – T v Surrey County Council and Others QBD 21-Jan-1994
The mother of T, an injured baby who was under a year old, sued the council for failing to cancel the registration of a child minder who had previously cared for S, a four-month old child who suffered serious injury probably through shaking, and for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.593096

Christmas v Caledonian Club: 1952

A window cleaner. employed by independent contractors, came to clean the windows of a club. One window was defective, falling onto and trapping his hand, causing him to fall.
Held: He had no cause of action against the club. The landowner was concerned to see that the windows are safe for his guests to open and close, but he need not be concerned to see that they are safe for a window cleaner to hold on to. The risk of a defective window is a special risk, but it is ordinarily incident to the calling of a window cleaner, and so he must take care for himself, and not expect the householder to do so.

Citations:

[1952] 1 KBD 141

Cited by:

Cited – Roles v Nathan CA 15-May-1963
Two chimney sweeps were overcome by fumes, and died in the basement of the Manchester Assembly Rooms. Whilst occupied working in flues (against advice), a boiler had been lit.
Held: (Majority – Pearson LJ dissenting) The land-owner’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.568157

Staples v West Dorset District Council: CA 5 Apr 1995

There was no duty of care on a landowner to warn of obvious danger on Lyme Regis Cobb. The quay clearly dangerous for anyone to see.

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-1995, Times 28-Apr-1995, [1995] PIQR 439, [1995] EWCA Civ 30

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89496

NCM 2000 Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs: Admn 22 May 2015

Swift DBE J: ‘application by the Applicant, NCM 2000 Ltd, for permission to bring a claim for judicial review of a decision by the Respondent, the Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The decision in respect of which the application is made is a decision to refuse the Applicant’s claim for compensation for economic loss caused by what the Applicant claims was a misdirection, incorrect advice or a mistake by one or more of the Respondent’s officers as to the liability to value added tax (VAT) of supplies made by the Applicant and by its predecessors-in-title, a partnership trading as Northern Computer Markets, which has since been dissolved.’

Judges:

Swift DBE J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1342 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Negligence

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.547082

Makepeace v Evans Brothers (Reading) (A Firm) and Another: CA 23 May 2000

Scaffolding is an ordinary piece of equipment on a building site. As a general rule an occupier of a building did not owe a duty of care for the safety of employees of its independent contractor. However, there may be occasions when such a duty of care might arise. It would be an unwarranted extension of the nursemaid school of negligence to hold a main contractor liable to the employee of a sub-contractor for failing to verify his training in the use of scaffolding on a building site. The main contractor’s duties arose in favour of visitors to the site in respect of the condition of the site itself. Such judgements are not always easy or clear, since building sites and scaffolding are inherently dangerous places. Accordingly a main contractor was not liable in negligence nor under the Act where one contractor was injured as a result of using scaffolding erected by another sub-contractor. The person who erected the scaffolding was liable, but not in this case the site’s main contractor.

Judges:

Mantell LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Jun-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 171, [2000] BLR 287

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – EH Humphries (Norton) Ltd. Thistle Hotels Plc v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd CA 10-Nov-2006
The sub-contractor’s workman fell through a skylight and died. His employers having settled, obtained contribution orders from the main contractors and building owners who each now appealed.
Held: Whether main contractors were also liable to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83341

Jebson v Ministry of Defence: CA 28 Jun 2000

The claimant was a guardsman travelling in the rear of a service lorry. He fell from the tailgate suffering severe injury. He was drunk after a social trip.
Held: Though a person could normally expect to be responsible himself for incidents occurring whilst drunk, the rule is not absolute. The defendant had assumed some responsibility to the claimant, and that responsibility did not disappear only because of the claimant’s drunkenness. This was an organised night out from an army training camp. Ignoring any particular duties, the defendant would know that the troops were being carried in a lorry with a tailgate, and that the drunken soldiers might be expected to stand up in the back. It was foreseeable that injury (whether slight or serious) would occur as a result of the drunken and rowdy behaviour of the passengers, including the danger that someone would fall from the vehicle as a result, such wider risk being apt to include within its description the accident which actually happened. Though the defendant was liable, the claimant was still largely the author of his own misfortune and was 75% responsible for his own injuries.

Judges:

Kennedy, Potter LJJ, Steel J

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000, Gazette 13-Jul-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 198, [2000] 1 WLR 2055

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Haynes v Harwood CA 1935
The plaintiff, a policemen saw a horse running loose in the street among children. He ran out, chased it and caught it but was injured.
Held: The horseowner was liable. It was foreseeable that if a horse was let loose in a crowd, somebody, . .
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961
Foreseeability Standard to Establish Negligence
Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . .
Cited – Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council HL 24-May-2000
An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal, . .
Cited – Hughes v Lord Advocate HL 21-Feb-1963
The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. A child climbed down the hole. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. It fell into the hole and caused an explosion. The child was burned. The . .
Cited – Barrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995
The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. The claim was based upon the alleged negligent failure of the defendant to enforce disciplinary regulations against drunkenness so as to protect the deceased against his own known proclivity for alcohol . .
Cited – Sacco v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary and others CA 15-May-1998
The claimant a seventeen-year-old youth who had been arrested during a drunken brawl, kicked his way out through the door of the police van in which he was being transported and jumped out while it was moving at about twenty-five mph striking his . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cook v Thorne and Another CA 23-Jan-2001
. .
Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and Cheshire County Council CA 18-Jun-2001
The appellant sought leave to appeal against an order dismissing his claim for damages. He had been injured swimming in water on the defendant’s land. The defendant asserted that they had no duty of care to those who came onto the land and imperiled . .
Cited – Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008
The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82503

Invercargill City Council v Hamlin: PC 12 Feb 1996

(New Zealand) Seventeen years earlier the plaintiff had asked a builder to construct a house for him, but it now appeared that the foundations had been inadequate. The building company no longer being in existence, he sought damages from the local authority which had supervised the construction.
Held: A Local Authority was liable for economic losses for a negligent inspection of a house during construction. Murphy had not been followed in New Zealand and the Privy Council accepted that this was justified. The Pirelli date of physical damage had also been discarded in favour of the date of discoverability. The decision in Pirelli was unfortunate: Once it is appreciated that the loss in respect of which the plaintiff in the present case is suing is loss to his pocket, and not for physical damage to the house or foundations, then most, if not all the difficulties surrounding the limitation question fall away. The plaintiff’s loss occurs when the market value of the house is depreciated by reason of the defective foundations, and not before. If he resells the house at full value before the defect is discovered he suffers no loss. Thus in the common case the occurrence of the loss and the discovery of the loss will coincide . . But the plaintiff cannot postpone the start of the limitation period by shutting his eyes to the obvious . . . In other words the cause of action accrues when the cracks become so bad and all the defects so obvious, that any reasonable home-owner would call in an expert. Since the defects would then be obvious to a potential buyer or his expert, that marks the moment when the market value of the building is depreciated and therefore the moment when economic loss occurs. Their Lordships do not think it is possible to define the moment more accurately. The measure of the loss will then be the cost of repairs if it is reasonable to repair, or the depreciation in the market value if it is not . . . This approach avoids almost all the practical and theoretical difficulties to which the academic commentators have drawn attention and which led to the rejection of Pirelli by the Supreme Court of Canada . . . The approach is consistent with the underlying principle that a cause of action accrues when, but not before, all the elements necessary to support the plaintiff’s claim are in existence. For in the case of a latent defect in a building the element of loss or damage which is necessary to support a claim for economic loss in tort does not exist so long as the market value of the house is unaffected. Whether or not it is right to describe an undiscoverable crack as damage, it clearly cannot affect the value of the building on the market. The existence of such a crack is thus irrelevant to the cause of action . . . Whether Pirelli should still be regarded as good law in England is not for their Lordships to say. What is clear is that it is not good law in New Zealand.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Sir Michael Hardie Boys

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-1996, 50 Con LR 105, [1996] AC 624, [1996] UKPC 56, 78 BLR 78, [1996] 1 NZLR 513, [1996] 1 All ER 756

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Murphy v Brentwood District Council HL 26-Jul-1990
Anns v Merton Overruled
The claimant appellant was a house owner. He had bought the house from its builders. Those builders had employed civil engineers to design the foundations. That design was negligent. They had submitted the plans to the defendant Council for approval . .
Cited – Pirelli General Cable Works v Oscar Faber and Partners HL 2-Jan-1983
The plaintiff asked the defendant consulting engineer to design an extension to their factory in 1969. Not later than in April 1970, cracks developed in the chimney. In 1977 the cause of the damage was discovered. It arose from design faults in the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Abbott and Another v Will Gannon and Smith Ltd CA 2-Mar-2005
The claimant had employed the defendants to design refurbishment works for their hotel. The work was said to be negligent, and the claimant sought damages. The defendant argued as a preliminary point that the claim was time barred. The question was . .
Cited – W v W; J v Raewyn Bell PC 19-Jan-1999
PC (New Zealand) The claimants sught to recover exemplary damages from defendants convicted of criminal offences against them.
Held: There were differences in the system between New Zealand and the English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Construction, Local Government, Negligence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82411

Harris v Evans and Health and Safety Executive: CA 24 Apr 1998

A Health and Safety inspector, making negligently excessive requirements of operators of a bungee jump, was not liable since he operated under a statutory duty and had no duty of care to the operators. His duty was owed to members of the public.

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott VC, Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Schiemann

Citations:

Times 05-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 709, [1998] 1 WLR 1285, [1998] 3 All ER 523

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Trent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Health and Safety

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81253

Domicrest Ltd v Swiss Bank Corporation: QBD 7 Jul 1998

An English claimant sued a Swiss bank for a negligent mis-statement made in a telephone call between England and Switzerland. The Swiss banker represented that the transmission of a copy payment order by the bank to the claimant was a guarantee that payment would be made for the amount referred. The claimant relied on the representations to release goods in Switzerland and Italy on receipt of the copy payment order from the bank rather than waiting until it had been paid. The bank refused to pay on three copy payments orders in respect of goods which had been released from store in Switzerland and Italy.
Held: The place of the damage was in Switzerland and Italy, where the goods were released without payment, rather than England, where the Swiss purchaser would have paid the price. The reasons for that finding were (a) that it was by reference to the loss of the goods that the damages were pleaded; and (b) that the essence of the complaint was that the goods were released prior to payment. Where negligent misstatement is alleged, the law governing the action is that of the country where the statement was made. The tortious act occurs when the statement is made not when and where the statement is relied upon.

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1998, [1999] QB 548, [1998] EWHC 2001 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988

Cited by:

Cited – Mazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Negligence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80090

Darby v National Trust: CA 29 Jan 2001

The claimant’s husband drowned swimming in a pond on the National Trust estate at Hardwick Hall. Miss Rebecca Kirkwood, the Water and Leisure Safety Consultant to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, gave uncontradicted evidence, which the judge accepted, that the pond was unsuitable for swimming because it was deep in the middle and the edges were uneven. She said The National Trust should have made it clear that swimming in the pond was not allowed and taken steps to enforce the prohibition.
Held: It was for the court to set the standard, not the witness. The risk from drowning in a small pond is obvious, and no warning should be required. Where there is a special risk, of catching Weill’s disease from swimming in a stretch of water, and a notice would have prevented the deceased swimming, the owner’s negligence in not erecting a warning sign is irrelevant where this was not in fact a cause of the death.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2001, [2001] PIQR 372, [2001] EWCA Civ 189

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Negligence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79804

Clark Boyce v Mouat: PC 4 Oct 1993

(New Zealand) No duty of wisdom is owed to client in full command of his faculties by a lawyer. If the client requires only action from his lawyer, that is what is required. Informed consent can be sufficient to allow a solicitor to act for two parties even if there may be a conflict: ‘When a client in full command of his faculties and apparently aware of what he is doing seeks the assistance of a solicitor in the carrying out of a particular transaction, that solicitor is under no duty whether before or after accepting instructions to go beyond those instructions by proffering unsought advice on the wisdom of the transaction.’ and ‘There is no general rule of law to the effect that a solicitor should never act for both parties in a transaction where their interests may conflict. Rather is the position that he may act provided that he has obtained the informed consent of both to his acting. Informed consent means consent given in the knowledge that there is a conflict between the parties and that as a result the solicitor may be disabled from disclosing to each party the full knowledge which he possesses as to the transaction or may be disabled from giving advice to one party which conflicts with the interests of the other.’
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: ‘Their Lordships are accordingly satisfied that Mrs Mouat required of Mr Boyce no more than that he should carry out the necessary conveyancing on her behalf and explain to her the legal consequences of the transaction. Since Mrs Mouat was already aware of the consequences if her son defaulted Mr Boyce did all that was reasonably required of him before accepting her instructions when he advised her to obtain and offered to arrange independent advice. As Mrs Mouat was fully aware of what she was doing and had rejected independent advice, there was no duty on Mr Boyce to refuse to act for her. Having accepted instructions he carried these out properly and was neither negligent nor in breach of contract in acting and continuing to act after Mrs Mouat had rejected his suggestion that she obtain independent advice. Indeed not only did Mr Boyce in carrying out these instructions repeat on two further occasions his advice that Mrs Mouat should obtain independent advice but he told her in no uncertain terms that she would lose her house if Mr R.G. Mouat defaulted. One might well ask what more he could reasonably have done.
When a client in full command of his faculties and apparently aware of what he is doing seeks the assistance of a solicitor in the carrying out of a particular transaction, that solicitor is under no duty whether before or after accepting instructions to go beyond those instructions by proffering unsought advice on the wisdom of the transaction. To hold otherwise could impose intolerable burdens on solicitors.’

Judges:

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Citations:

Independent 12-Oct-1993, Times 07-Oct-1993, Gazette 03-Nov-1993, [1994] 1 AC 428, [1993] UKPC 34

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Farrington v Rowe McBride and Partners 1985
(New Zealand) When a solicitor acts for two clients and there is a conflict in his responsibilities, the solicitor must ensure that he fully discloses the material facts to both clients and obtains their informed consent to his so acting. There may . .

Cited by:

Cited – Pickersgill and Another v Riley PC 25-Feb-2004
PC (Jersey) The solicitor appealed a finding of negligence. He had failed to advise his client when he acted as a guarantor for a proposed assignee of a lease that the company may be a shell company. It had been . .
Cited – Hilton v Barker Booth and Eastwood HL 3-Feb-2005
The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for him, where he was to contract with another client of the same solicitor in a land development. The solicitor failed to disclose that the other client had convictions for dishonesty, and . .
Cited – Burkle Holdings Ltd v Laing TCC 23-Mar-2005
The parties had each instructed the same solicitor, but now disputed the entitlement of the other to see documents held by the solicitor. . .
Cited – The Football League Ltd v Edge Ellison (A Firm) ChD 23-Jun-2006
The claimants operated football leagues, and asked the defendant solicitors to act in negotiating the sale of television rights to ONdigital. The broadcasts went ahead, but no guarantees were taken for the contract. The claimants alleged . .
Cited – Credit Lyonnais Sa (A Body Corporate) v Russell Jones and Walker (A Firm) ChD 2-Jul-2002
The claimant sought damages for professional negligence against the defendant solicitors. A corporate lawyer had been assigned to deal with a property matter, and he had failed to appreciate the need to comply strictly with time conditions in a . .
Cited – Phelps v Stewarts (A Firm) and Another ChD 2-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages for the negligent drafting of a deed of trust, saying that he had not been advised of a charge to tax which would arise. The defendant said that her duties were limited, and did not include advice on this point, having . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Legal Professions, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79183

Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council: QBD 5 Dec 2000

A school had a duty to protect its pupils from bullying, but that duty stopped at the school gate. Even though the school might know of the bullying, it would not be practical, nor just, nor fair, nor reasonable, to extend its duty in such a way. The school should take effective defensive measure, as regards what happened within the school. It could choose to take pro-active measures beyond that, but it should not be obliged to do so.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Dec-2000, Times 05-Dec-2000

Negligence, Education

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78544

Blake and Another v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council: QBD 1 Nov 1996

A Local Authority has no duty of care for the correctness of a valuation undertaken for a right to buy transaction. It was not just or reasonable to impose a duty of care on a local authority in connection with its statement of its opinion as to price in a Section 125 Notice.

Judges:

Douglas Brown J

Citations:

Times 01-Nov-1996, [1996] EGCS 145, [1997] 30 HLR 963

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 125

Cited by:

Cited – Payne and Woodland v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barnet CA 22-May-1997
The sale of a council house imposed an additional duty on a local authority to disclose known structural defects to buyers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Local Government

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78443

Barrett v Ministry of Defence: QBD 3 Jun 1993

The MOD was liable in negligence for an airman’s death due to its breach of duty if regulations were not kept to.

Citations:

Independent 03-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Cited by:

Appeal from – Barrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995
The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. The claim was based upon the alleged negligent failure of the defendant to enforce disciplinary regulations against drunkenness so as to protect the deceased against his own known proclivity for alcohol . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78256

Broom v Morgan: CA 1953

The plaintiff and her husband were employed by the defendant to manage and work in a beer and wine house. The Plaintiff was injured through the negligence of her husband in the course of his employment. In an action by her against the defendant in respect of the injury . .
Held: Where a servant while acting in the scope of his employment negligently harms another the fact that his relationship to the injured person is such that suit cannot be brought against him does not relieve the master from liability. An employer was liable to a person injured by the negligence of his servants, notwithstanding the legal immunity of the servants from action at the suit of the injured party, and, therefore the defendant was liable to the plaintiff, despite the inability of the plaintiff to sue her husband in respect of the injury.
Denning LJ said that the master’s liability for the negligence of his servant is not a vicarious liability but a liability of the master himself going to his failure to see that his work is properly and carefully done. The master’s liability is his own liability and remains on him notwithstanding the immunity of the servants, but even if the master’s liability is a vicarious liability, the husband’s immunity is a mere rule of procedure, and not a rule of substantive law. It is an immunity from suit and not and immunity from duty or liability and so, on that view of the law also, the master would be liable for the negligence of the servant.

Judges:

Denning LJ

Citations:

[1953] 1 QB 597

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Negligence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.606510

Almeroth v WE Chivers and Son Ltd: CA 1948

The plaintiff peddler had his barrow by one kerb. He crossed the road to serve a customer, but on return when crossing the kerb from a roadway tripped over a small pile of slates and was injured. The slates did not overlap the kerb. They had been left there for collection as part of the clearance of war damaged buildings.
Held: The slates were a nuisance, even though they made no substantial obstruction.
The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. The slates ‘might easily not be noticed by a reasonably careful person crossing the road as the plaintiff did’, talking to someone. Somervell LJ said that a person walking along a pavement does not have to keep ‘his eyes on the ground to see whether or not there is any obstacle in his path’.
The ordinary principles of causation in tort are applicable to an action in nuisance. The obstacle was capable of being a nuisance despite its small size.

Judges:

Somervell LJ

Citations:

[1948] 1 All ER 53, 92 Sol Jo 71

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harper v GN Haden and Sons CA 1932
The occupier of a ground floor and basement shop sought damages from the tenants of the upper floors. In order to construct an additional storey, they had erected scaffolding and a hoarding which obstructed the highway outside the plaintiff’s . .

Cited by:

Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.517227

Brown v Nelson and others: 1971

A pupil at an approved school went on an Outward Bound course including riding on a cable and pulley slung between two trees. From the cable hung a knotted rope. When the pupil got onto the rope the cable snapped, and he fell with it. He suffered serious injuries from which some years later he died. The Outward Bound confidence course was run by parties independent of the school.
Held: The claim was dismissed against the school. Nield J said: ‘What duty did the school authorities owe to the deceased? They were not the occupiers of the site or of the apparatus. They had, in my view, a general duty to take reasonable steps for the safety of those under their charge and use such care as would be exercised by a reasonably careful parent. Counsel tell me that there is no authority covering the situation where a school makes use of someone else’s equipment at premises other than the school premises. In my judgment, where a school must take their pupils to other premises, they discharge their duty of care if they know the premises and if the premises are apparently safe, and if they know that the premises are staffed by competent and careful persons. They further discharge their duty if they permit their pupils there to use equipment which is apparently safe and is under the control of competent and careful persons who supervise the use of such equipment. They do not in such circumstances have an obligation themselves to make an inspection.’

Judges:

Nield J

Citations:

[1971] LGR 20

Cited by:

Cited – Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.445619

Berry v Stone Manganese and Marine Ltd: 1972

The plaintiff sought damages in common law negligence respect of noise at work which ‘amounted to about 115 to 120 decibels, whereas the. . tolerable noise is about 90’ and no ear muffs had been provided.
Held: The claim succeeded.

Citations:

[1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 182

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.440380

Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dredge “Willemstad”: 9 Dec 1976

Austlii (High Court of Australia) Negligence – Duty of care – Foreseeability of harm – Economic loss not consequential upon damage to person or property – Damage to property of one person – Economic loss suffered by person as a result – Pipeline carrying oil to plaintiff’s depot – Damaged by defendant’s negligence – Supply interrupted – Pipeline and depot owned by different persons – Expense incurred by plaintiff in arranging alternative means of delivery – Whether recoverable – Remoteness of loss or damage.
Shipping and Navigation – Action in rem – Action against ship – Negligence – Master not sued as defendant – Appearance entered by master – No proprietary interest in ship – Whether master liable to judgment.
A pipeline was damaged and the owner of the terminal (who was not the owner of the pipeline) incurred expense in transporting refined oil to the terminal while the pipeline was out of use.
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to recover that expense from the dredger which had damaged the pipeline. Jacobs J said that the duty of care owed to the owner of the pipeline was also owed to ‘a person whose property was in such physical propinquity to the place where the acts of omissions of the dredge . . had their physical effect that a physical effect on the property of that person was foreseeable as the result of such acts or omissions’.

Judges:

Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ.

Citations:

[1976] HCA 65, (1976) 136 CLR 529

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Approved – Candlewood Navigation Corporation Limited v Mitsui OSK Lines Limited and Matsuoka Steamship Co Limited PC 1-Jul-1985
(New South Wales) Two ships had collided, after, without negligence, an anchor on one ship failed. The Supreme Court had found the crew negligent after failing to react appropriately to the loss of the anchor. The company now appealed against the . .
Cited – D Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others QBD 31-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Damages, Negligence, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.331084

Chin Keow v Government of Malaysia: PC 1967

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 813

Citing:

Dicta Approved – Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Whitehouse v Jordan HL 17-Dec-1980
The plaintiff sued for brain damage suffered at birth by use of forceps at the alleged professional negligence of his doctor. The Court of Appeal had reversed the judge’s finding in his favour.
Held: In this case most of the evidence at issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.269667

Ancell and Another v McDermott and Others: CA 17 Mar 1993

Police are under no duty to warn road users of a hazard on road. The police have no general liability in negligence for reasons of public policy.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1993, [1993] 4 All ER 355

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001
The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . .
Cited – Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 21-Apr-2005
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when they were both attacked and Mr Lawrence killed. He claimed damages for the negligent way the police had dealt with his case, and particularly said that they had failed to assess him as a victim of crime, . .
Cited – Welton, Welton v North Cornwall District Council CA 17-Jul-1996
The defendant authority appealed a finding that it was liable in negligence from the conduct of one of its environmental health officers. The plaintiff had set out to refurbish and open a restaurant. He said the officer gave him a list of things he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Police

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77784

Hill v William Hill (Park Lane) Limited: HL 1949

The policy behind the 1845 Act was to discourage gambling.
Viscount Simon said: ‘it is to be observed that though a Parliamentary enactment (like Parliamentary eloquence) is capable of saying the same thing twice over without adding anything to what has already been said, the repetition in the case of an Act of Parliament is not to be assumed. When the legislature enacts a particular phrase in a statute the presumption is that it is saying something which has not been said immediately before. The rule that a meaning should, if possible, be given to every word in the statute implies that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, the words add something which would not be there if the words were left out’

Judges:

Viscount Simon

Citations:

[1949] 2 All ER 452, [1949] AC 530

Statutes:

Gaming Act 1845 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008
The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Licensing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.266992

McArdle v Andmac Roofing Co and Others: 1967

Non-employers can owe a duty of care analogous to those owed by an employer particularly where the non-employer is engaged in operations which may affect the sub-contractor or his employee

Citations:

[1967] 1 All ER 583, [1967] 1 WLR 356, 111 Sol Jo 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – EH Humphries (Norton) Ltd. Thistle Hotels Plc v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd CA 10-Nov-2006
The sub-contractor’s workman fell through a skylight and died. His employers having settled, obtained contribution orders from the main contractors and building owners who each now appealed.
Held: Whether main contractors were also liable to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Negligence

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.246407

Arneil v Paterson: 1931

Viscount Dunedin spoke of a hypothetical case in which two dogs had worried a sheep to death: ‘Would we then have to hold that each dog had half killed the sheep?’
Viscount Hailsham said: The owner of one of the two dogs which had worried the sheep was liable for the whole damage because ‘each of the dogs did in law occasion the whole of the damage which was suffered by the sheep as a result of the action of the two dogs acting together’

Judges:

Viscount Dunedin, Viscount Hailsham

Citations:

[1931] AC 560

Cited by:

Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Negligence

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.241496

J Doltis Limited v Issac Braithwaite and Sons (Engineers) Limited: 1957

Citations:

[1957] 1 Ll L Rep 522

Cited by:

Cited – LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.230981

Cruz-Vargas v R J Reynolds Tobacco Company: 2003

(United States Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit) Relatives of a deceased smoker brought a negligence and strict liability suit against a tobacco company, alleging that it was responsible for his death. The action was brought in the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. There was evidence that ‘the average consumer in Puerto Rico during the 1950’s, during the 1960’s’ was aware both of health risks, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, associated with smoking and that ‘smoking was or could be difficult to quit’. In discussing the evidence regarding common knowledge, the Court of Appeals said: ‘This case calls for us to evaluate application of the common knowledge doctrine in the context of tobacco litigation. The doctrine stems from the principle that a manufacturer cannot be held liable under either strict liability or negligence for failure to warn of a danger commonly known to the public. See, e.g., Guevara v Dorsey Labs., Div. of Sandoz, Inc., 845 F 2d 364, 367 (1st Cir. 1988) (‘The duty to warn in general is limited to hazards not commonly known to the relevant public’); Aponte Rivera v Sears Roebuck, 44 P.R. Offic. Trans. 7, 144 D.P.R. 830 (1998) (‘[A] manufacturer need not warn of a hazard if the average consumer ordinarily has knowledge of the dangers of the product.’). […]
A products liability plaintiff alleging failure to warn must prove
‘(1) the manufacturer knew, or should have known of the risk inherent in the product; (2) there were no warnings or instructions, or those provided were inadequate; (3) the absence of warnings made the product inherently dangerous; (4) the absence of adequate warnings or instructions was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury.’
Aponte Rivera, 44 P.R. Offic. Trans. at 6. Under the common knowledge doctrine, however, a defendant neither breaches a duty nor causes the product to be inherently dangerous when the allegedly omitted warning concerns a danger of which the public is well aware. […]
The crux of appellants’ entreaty on appeal is that neither the strict liability nor the negligence claim requires any affirmative showing, and thus the burden rested entirely on Reynolds. Whether or not this is a correct view of the law, after searching the record we have found no evidence which supports appellants’ allegations that there was a lack of common knowledge and thus we are compelled to find that Reynolds met its burden in any event.’
(5) In Roysdon v R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 849 F.2d 230 (6th Cir. 1988), a smoker and his wife brought an action against a tobacco manufacturer to recover for disease allegedly caused by smoking. The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, inter alia affirmed the dismissal by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee of the plaintiffs’ failure to warn claim. At p.236, para.10, the Court of Appeals said:
‘[T]he district court took judicial notice that ‘tobacco has been used for over 400 years and that its characteristics have also been fully explored. Knowledge that cigarette smoking is harmful to health is widespread and can be considered part of the common knowledge of the community.’
Roysdon, 623 F.Supp. at 1192. Remembering that this action was limited to the ten years preceding the filing of this complaint [on 5 July 1984], we think this approach was appropriate. The extensive information regarding the risks of smoking available to the public during that time precluded the existence of a jury question as to whether cigarettes are unreasonably dangerous. We find that whether there was knowledge regarding Mr Roysdon’s specific medical problem is irrelevant in light of the serious nature of the other diseases known at that time to be caused by cigarette smoking.’

Citations:

[2003] 348 F3d 271 (1st Cir.2003)

Cited by:

Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, International

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.226222

Pelman v McDonald’s Corporation: 1993

(United States District Court, S.D. New York,) Customers sued McDonald’s for the excess sale of fatty fast food products to children.
Held: The action was dismissed. the defendants owed no duty to warn consumers of the products’ well-known attributes, setting out the causes of action alleged by the plaintiffs, two of which were expressed in these terms: ‘Count III sounds in negligence, alleging that McDonalds acted at least negligently in selling food products that are high in cholesterol, fat, salt and sugar when studies show that such foods cause obesity and detrimental health effects. Count IV alleges that McDonalds failed to warn the consumers of McDonalds’ products of the ingredients, quantity, qualities and levels of cholesterol, fat, salt and sugar content and other ingredients in those products, and that a diet high in fat, salt, sugar and cholesterol could lead to obesity and health problems.’ As to count III, at ‘It is well-known that fast food in general, and McDonalds’ products in particular, contain high levels of cholesterol, fat, salt and sugar, and that such attributes are bad for one. . . If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of super- sized McDonalds’ products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain (and its concomitant problems) because of the high levels of cholesterol, fat, salt and sugar, it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses. Nobody is forced to eat at McDonalds. As long as a consumer exercises free choice with appropriate knowledge, liability for negligence will not attach to a manufacturer. […] Plaintiffs have failed to allege in the Complaint that their decisions to eat at McDonalds several times a week were anything but a choice freely made and which now may not be pinned on McDonalds.’

Judges:

District Judge Sweet

Citations:

237 F.Supp.2d 512 (S.D.N.Y.2003).

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Negligence, Consumer

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.226711

Hamilton v Fife Health Board: 1993

A child was born but with injuries incurred while in utero alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the doctors attending the mother. The parents sued the health board for loss of the child’s society. The Board argued the action to be irrelevant as the child had not been a person for the purposes of the 1976 Act at the time when the injuries were sustained. The Lord Ordinary held that personal injuries could only be sustained by a person and that the child had not been a person at the relevant time. The pursuers reclaimed.
Held: Reversing the judgment of the Lord Ordinary, the case depended on the construction of section 1(1) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976, that there could be no liability until both damnum and iniuria concurred, but once the child was born and became a person the necessary concurrence was established and the child acquired the right to sue the person whose breach of duty resulted in its loss; and it followed that the defenders were liable to pay damages to the pursuers in accordance with section 1(1) of the 1976 Act.
Lord McCluskey said: ‘As the act or omission must be one giving rise to liability to pay damages, there can be no liability until both damnum and iniuria concur. There can be no liability to pay damages until there is a person in respect of whose loss the claim to damages arises.’
Lord Caplan said: ‘However the duty is not breached nor does a right of action arise at the point when the careless act is committed (assuming there were such an act). The duty which rests on a person charged with taking care is not the academic responsibility of not being negligent but rather the duty not to cause harm by negligence. The delict is only committed when the initial negligent act actually causes harm. That is to say the concurrence of iniuria and damnum is required. ‘

Citations:

1993 SC 369

Statutes:

Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Watson v Fram Reinforced Concrete Co (Scotland) Ltd HL 1960
A workman had been injured through the breaking of a defective part in the machine with which he was working. He brought an action of damages against his employers, and later convened as second defenders the manufacturers of the machine, who had . .
Cited – B v Islington Health Authority; De Martell v Merton and Sutton Health Authority CA 6-May-1992
A doctor’s duty of care to an unborn child is an established duty in common law despite some cases apparently to the contrary. Phillips J: ‘The duty in the law of negligence is not a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid risk of causing injury. . .

Cited by:

Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.226699

Paugh v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company: 1993

(United States District Court, N.D.Ohio, E.D) A tobacco company was sued in negligence.
Held: ‘The dangers posed by tobacco smoking have long been within the ordinary knowledge common to the community. In fact, tobacco is specifically mentioned in the Restatement (Second) of Torts as an example of a product which is not defective merely because the effects of smoking may be harmful. Rest. (2d) of Torts -402A(i).’ and ‘[E]specially in light of the Sixth Circuit’s holding in Roysdon, this Court finds that the better-reasoned decisions are those finding the dangers of smoking to have been common knowledge. Much as in the case of alcohol, users of tobacco products have made a consumer choice in the face of health risks that are common to ordinary knowledge . . That some ignore or underestimate these risks has little bearing on the extent to which knowledge of the dangers [is] salient within the community. Therefore, because the risks posed by smoking are an inherent characteristic of cigarettes, and because knowledge of these risks has been common to the community since well before 1966, Paugh’s allegations are insufficient to support her claim for damages caused by a product in an ‘unsafe and defective’ condition. . .’

Citations:

834 F.Supp. 228 (N.D.Ohio 1993)

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Negligence

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.226710

Dick v Burgh of Falkirk: HL 1976

Their lordships were prepared to contemplate the idea of a defender owing a common law duty of care to the victim’s relatives.

Citations:

1976 SC (HL) 1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Not followed – Robertson v Turnbull HL 1982
. .
Cited – JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.224420

Mekew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland): 1970

Citations:

[1970] CLY 612

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Applied – Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Area Health Authority CA 1-Jul-1984
A sterilisation operation had been performed negligently and failed and the claimant was born.
Held: The birth of a child with congenital abnormalities was a foreseeable consequence of the surgeon’s careless failure to clip a fallopian tube . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.221680

Rutter v Palmer: 1922

A party is not exempted by his contract from his own negligence ‘unless adequate words are used.’
Scrutton LJ said: ‘For the present purposes a rougher test will serve. In construing an exemption clause certain general rules may be applied: First the defendant is not exempted from liability for the negligence of his servants unless adequate words are used; secondly, the liability of the defendant apart from the exempting words must be ascertained; then the particular clause in question must be considered; and if the only liability of the party pleading the exemption is a liability for negligence, the clause will more readily operate to exempt him.”

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1922] All ER Rep 367, [1922] 2 KB 87, [1922] 91 LJKB 657, [1922] 127 LT 419

Cited by:

Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Applied – Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd CA 1945
Exclusion allowed where only one possible cause of
Articles were sent by the plaintiff to the defendants’ laundry to be washed, and they were lost. In an action by the plaintiff against the defendants for damages, the defendants relied on the following condition to limit their liability: ‘The . .
Cited – Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd CA 19-Nov-1971
The plaintiff left his car with the defendant garage for repair. Whilst there it was substantially damaged by fire. The defendant sought to rely upon their terms which would negative liability, saying that the terms had been incorporated by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.216366

Scholes v Brook: 1891

Counsel for the appellant had submitted that the damages ought to be the difference between the value of the estate as stated by the valuers and the real value at that time. This submission was rejected.
Held: The argument was rightly rejected.

Citations:

(1891) 64 LT 674

Cited by:

Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.216367

Grote v Chester and Holyhead Ry: CEC 1848

The defendants had constructed a bridge over the Dee on their railway and had licensed the use of the bridge to the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway to carry passengers over it, and had so negligently constructed the bridge that the plaintiff, a passenger of the last named railway, had been injured by the falling of the bridge. At the trial before Vaughan Williams J. the judge had directed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover if the bridge was not constructed with reasonable care and skill. On a motion for a new trial the Attorney-General (Sir John Jervis) contended that there was misdirection, for the defendants were only liable for negligence, and the jury might have understood that there was an absolute liability.
Held: After consulting the trial judge as to his direction, the court refused the rule.

Citations:

(1848) 2 Ex 251

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.197987

McKillen v Barclay Curle and Co Ltd: 1967

The Lord Ordinary had awarded the pursuer damages for tuberculosis, on the basis that in the accident he had fractured a rib and this had reactivated his pre-existing tuberculosis.
Held: The pursuer had failed to prove the causal connexion between the fractured rib and the tuberculosis, since there was no corroboration of the evidence of the pursuer’s expert witness. They accordingly allowed the reclaiming motion. In Scots law a wrongdoer takes his victim as he finds him. Foreseeability had no relevance to the determination of the measure of damage, once liability had been established.

Judges:

Lord President Clyde

Citations:

1967 SLT 41

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Confirmed – Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd CA 1962
The reasoning in The Wagon Mound did not affect the rule that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him.
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘The test is not whether these employers could reasonably have foreseen that a burn would cause cancer and that . .
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961
Foreseeability Standard to Establish Negligence
Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . .
Cited – Bourhill v Young’s Executor HL 5-Aug-1942
When considering claims for damages for shock, the court only recognised the action lying where the injury by shock was sustained ‘through the medium of the eye or the ear without direct contact.’ Wright L said: ‘No doubt, it has long ago been . .

Cited by:

Cited – Simmons v British Steel plc HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was injured at work as a consequence of the defender’s negligence. His injuries became more severe, and he came to suffer a disabling depression.
Held: the Inner House had been wrong to characterise the Outer House decision as . .
Obiter rmarks doubted – M’Kew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd 1969
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196527