Category: Personal Injury

Brunsden v Humphrey: CA 1884

The defendant had negligently caused damage to a cab driver and his vehicle in the same accident. The cab driver obtained damages for the damage to his vehicle.
Held: He was not disentitled from bringing fresh proceedings for damages for personal injury. There were two causes of action.
Bowen LJ discussed the single action rule, saying: ‘Nobody can doubt that if the plaintiff had recovered any damages for injury to his person, he could not have maintained a further action for fresh bodily injuries caused by the same act of negligence, merely because they had been discovered or developed subsequently.’ and ‘It is a well settled rule of law that damages resulting from one and the same cause of action must be assessed and recovered once for all.’ The rule is based on the maxim interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium, ‘otherwise great oppression might be done under colour and pretence of law.’

Judges:

Bowen LJ

Citations:

(1884) 14 QBD 141

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Cited – Watkins and Another v Jones Maidment Wilson (A Firm) CA 4-Mar-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence by the defendant solicitors in advising them to agree to a postponment of a completion. The defendants raised as a preliminary issue the question of limitation. The claimant said that the limitation . .
Applied – Conquer v Boot CA 1928
The householder recovered damages in the county court in an action against a builder for breach of a building contract to complete the works in a good and workmanlike manner. He then brought a second action upon the same contract. In the second . .
Cited – Moorjani and Others v Durban Estates Ltd and Another TCC 15-May-2019
Allegations of breach of landlords’ repairing obligations – defendants’ strike out application.
Held: ‘ the critical question is whether this second action is based on the same cause, or causes, of action, and not whether it pleads the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.260120

Hammond and Brown and King v Bristow Helicopters Limited: SCS 13 Nov 1998

Three actions arising from three separate incidents which occurred when the respective pursuers were passengers on board helicopters operated by the defenders, Bristow Helicopters Limited, serving North Sea Oil Platforms and Installations.

Citations:

[1998] ScotCS 66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.163382

Polmear and Another v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust: QBD 5 Feb 2021

Hearing of the Defendant’s application to strike out the claims by the First and Second Claimants as secondary victims for damages alleged to have been suffered as a result of witnessing the sudden and horrifying events surrounding the collapse and death of their daughter.

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 196 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.658672

Barrett v Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust: QBD 18 Sep 2015

Claim for damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of the alleged clinical negligence of staff at the Birmingham and Midland Eye Centre where he was being treated.

Judges:

Blair J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2627 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.552431

Bridgeman v Brown: CA 19 Jan 2000

A statement of case is not suitable for striking out if it raises a serious live issue of fact which can only be properly determined by hearing oral evidence. Hale J, said: ‘the essence of a strike out is that one does not look at the evidence on the claim’

Judges:

Evans, Hale, Rattee LJJ

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 524

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wyatt v Vince SC 11-Mar-2015
Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds
The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied . .
Cited – CXZ v ZXC QBD 26-Jun-2020
Malicious Prosecution needs court involvement
W had made false allegations against her husband of child sex abuse to police. He sued in malicious prosecution. She applied to strike out, and he replied saying that as a developing area of law a strike out was inappropriate.
Held: The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.442021

Harris v Perry and others: QBD 8 May 2008

The claimant was a child. He was at a friend’s birthday party when he was severely injured on a bouncy castle. He was ten years old and another child who was fifteen. The unit was unsupervised. The parents denied that the claimant had been given permission to go on the castle.
Held: The parents who organised the party were liable in negligence. The hire company had advised them both to supervise the equipment and to avoid the kind of behavior which had caused the accident.

Judges:

David Steel J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 990 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Perry and Another v Harris (A Minor) CA 31-Jul-2008
The defendant had organised a children’s party. The claimant (11) was injured when a bigger boy was allowed to use the bouncy castle at the same time. The defendants appealed the award of damages.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.267562

Perry and Another v Harris (A Minor): CA 31 Jul 2008

The defendant had organised a children’s party. The claimant (11) was injured when a bigger boy was allowed to use the bouncy castle at the same time. The defendants appealed the award of damages.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The relevant standard of care was that which a reasonably careful parent would show for her own children: ‘It is quite impractical for parents to keep children under constant surveillance or even supervision and it would not be in the public interest for the law to impose a duty upon them to do so. Some circumstances or activities may, however, involve an unacceptable risk to children unless they are subject to supervision, or even constant surveillance. Adults who expose children to such circumstances or activities are likely to be held responsible for ensuring that they are subject to such supervision or surveillance as they know, or ought to know, is necessary to restrict the risk to an acceptable level.’ The judge had stated the duty of care too highly.
Lord Phillips CJ said: ‘A reasonable parent could foresee that if children indulged in boisterous behaviour on a bouncy castle, there would be a risk that, sooner or later, one child might collide with another and cause that child some physical injury of a type that can be an incident of some contact sports. We do not consider that it was reasonably foreseeable that such injury would be likely to be serious, let alone as severe as the injury sustained by the claimant.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, May LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2009] 1 WLR 19, [2008] EWCA Civ 907, Times 25-Aug-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Harris v Perry and others QBD 8-May-2008
The claimant was a child. He was at a friend’s birthday party when he was severely injured on a bouncy castle. He was ten years old and another child who was fifteen. The unit was unsupervised. The parents denied that the claimant had been given . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cockbill v Riley QBD 22-Mar-2013
The claimant sufferd catastrophic injury diving into a paddling pool at a party held by the defendant for his daughter to celebrate completing her GCSEs.
Held: The claim failed. ‘It was reasonably foreseeable that someone would lose his . .
Cited – Williams v Williams (The Estate of) CA 30-Apr-2013
A child aged three had been injured as a passenger in her mother’s car when it was hit by another negligently driven vehicle. The mother appealed against a finding that she was 25% contributorily negligent in that the child seat used had been . .
Cited – Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.272242

Pennington v Surrey County Council and Surrey Fire and Rescue Service: CA 9 Nov 2006

The claimant firefighter crushed a finger trying to release a traffic accident victim with a heavy machine for expanding gaps in metal. The defendant appealed on liability. The court was asked whether a simple warning of the possible danger was sufficient.
Held: The employer’s appeal failed (majority). The employer had given inadequate training. The judge had been wrong to find the equipment itelf unsuitable, but the employer’s view that a firefighter should be expected to put his own health and safety before that of an accident victim was quite unacceptable: ‘The implication is that the respondent ought not to have taken over from the leading hand and should not have attempted to save the driver’s life. The respondent had no opportunity to assess what equipment ought to be used; if the rescue attempt was to continue, it had to be with the 1040 ram. Not only is it unrealistic to conclude that the respondent should not have continued with the rescue attempt but the judge found that he did what was expected of him. On the evidence, the respondent acted reasonably. ‘ The claimant took over where the previous firefighter had chosen the equipment, but had become exhausted. He had no choice other than to use equipment on which he had not been trained, and that unfamiliarity with the equipment was causative. The pinch point on the ram was a dangerous part: ‘In the stressful circumstances undoubtedly present at the material time, the absence of training and experience in handling the additional weight substantially increased the risk of the type of injury which occurred, a slip of the hand while manoeuvring the ram in a confined space.’

Judges:

Pill LJ, Arden LJ, Neuberger LJ

Citations:

[20061 EWCA Civ 1493

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 4 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marks and Spencer plc v Palmer CA 9-Oct-2001
A shopper carrying some heavy bags tripped and fell over a weather strip, which was proud of the floor at an exit door to the extent of some 8 to 9.5 mm high. The recorder had said that, once he was satisfied that the claimant came into contact with . .
Cited – Yorkshire Traction Company Limited v Searby CA 19-Dec-2003
Buses had not been fitted with safety screens protecting drivers from possible assaults by passengers.
Held: There was no breach of regulation 4: ‘… It does not follow that liability is established simply by showing that it is reasonably . .
Cited – Griffiths v Vauxhall Motors Ltd CA 12-Mar-2003
The court considered the effect of the regulations: ‘Regulation 4 and indeed 5 are concerned with the physical condition of the equipment on the assumption that they will be properly operated by properly trained and instructed personnel.’ A risk . .
Cited – Nimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd HL 1967
The employer was prosecuted under the 1961 Act.
Held: the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make and keep a place of work safe rested upon the defendant employer. If an exception was to be established, it was for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.245991

King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd: IHCS 25 Oct 2000

The definition ‘any other bodily harm’ contained in the Warsaw Convention was wide enough to include psychiatric harm. Returning to the original text of the convention it was clear that it was not intended simply to import the French law, and that the words were ones of expansion, rather than limitation of the scope of damages which could be claimed. Psychiatric harm which was not claimed to be consequent from physical injury or condition, was claimable under the Convention.

Citations:

Times 25-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.82783

Fox v Foundation Piling Ltd: CA 7 Jul 2011

Parties are entitled to make a Calderbank offer outside the framework of Part 36. The precise formulation of such an offer would of course depend upon the facts of a particular case, but the offer would be made without prejudice save as to costs and, unless accepted, would thus be available to the defendant when the issue of costs came to be considered by the trial judge at the end of a trial.

Judges:

Ward, Moore-Bick, Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 790, [2011] CP Rep 41, [2011] 6 Costs LR 961

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Mole Valley District Council and Another Admn 15-Nov-2013
Decision after successful request for judicial review of decision to grant planning permission. The respondent and interested party resisted costs orders saying that the claimant had not been successful on all points.
Held: In general the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441532

Kew v Bettamix Ltd and others: CA 14 Nov 2006

The defendant appealed a finding of negligence and the associated costs order.
Held: The claimant had obtained an order allowing an extension of the limitation period in order to pursue the claim. Whilst the substantial damages award should be left in place, but on the limitation issue, the claimant had failed in several respects, and the costs award should be adjusted to reflect that failure. Parties to litigation should choose carefully which points they wished to pursue, and costs awards can play a part in encouraging them so to do.

Judges:

Waller LJ VP, Leveson LJ

Citations:

Times 04-Dec-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1535, [2007] PIQR P16, [2007] 4 Costs LR 527

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.246008

Norfolk County Council v Durrant: QBD 30 Dec 2020

Appeal by the Council from a decision finding it liable in negligence for personal injuries suffered by the Respondent. They were sustained during an incident when she was a teaching assistant at an Infant School and a 6 year old child in her care at the school became upset when segregated from the classroom by her and another member of the staff.

Judges:

Mrs Justice Foster DBE

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3590 (QB)

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Statutes:

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.657374

Zurich Insurance Company Plc v Hayward: CA 27 May 2011

The court was asked whether an action alleging that the settlement of an earlier personal injuries action was obtained by fraud should be struck out on the grounds that the issues are res judicata or that the action is an abuse of process because the defendant in that earlier action had alleged that the claimant was exaggerating his injuries for gain.
Held: The settlement gave rise to no estoppel of any kind. The action was not an abuse of process.
However, Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘If it is to succeed in its action Zurich will have to persuade the court that it was induced to agree to the settlement by fraud on the part of Mr. Hayward, a task that may not prove easy, given the fact that it already knew enough to justify the service of a defence in the terms indicated earlier.’

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Smith, Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 641, [2011] CP Rep 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc CA 31-Mar-2015
The claimant sought damages alleging his back had been injured at work. The insurers accepted liability but said that the claimant had exaggerated the extent of his injury. The claim was settled, but later a neighbour of the claimants said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440225

C v Middlesbrough Council: CA 21 Dec 2004

Damages were sought following sex abuse whilst in care.

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Latham Sir Swinton Thomas

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1746

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.220521

Beer v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis: CA 2 May 1997

The plaintiff had claimed for personal injuries, alleging that police officers had slammed a door shut on his fingers. He sought leave to appeal out of time against a dismissal of his claim.
Held: He had brought nothing new to the judge which would allow an appeal, and similarly nothing new to this court. Leave refused.

Judges:

Justice Hobhouse

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1620

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Personal Injury

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.142016

Fryers v Belfast Health and Social Care Trust: QBNI 1 Dec 2008

Citations:

[2008] NIQB 136

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.278569

Doherty and others v Rugby Joinery (UK) Limited: CA 17 Feb 2004

The claimant had used a sander, and been injured with vibration induced white finger syndrome. The employee appealed against a finding of non-liability saying the company should have known of the risk.
Held: It had become accepted that use of such equipment for more than a certain time each day would be dangerous. The defendant in fact did not know of the danger. Any liability would rely upon a finding of constructive knowledge. Knowledge of the danger had been disseminated only from 1990, and none of the employer’s duties were triggered before 1991.
Hale LJ said that there is: ‘a distinction between holding that a reasonable employer should have been aware of the risks and holding that certain steps should have been taken to meet that risk’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, Lady Justice Hale, Mr Justice Wilson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 147, Times 03-Mar-2004, [2004] ICR 1272

Links:

Bailii

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 . .
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, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.193924

Hide v The Steeplechase Company (Cheltenham) Ltd and Others: CA 22 May 2013

The court considered liability after serious injury was suffered by a professional jockey during a steeplechase. His horse threw him after landing and he collided with a guard rail. He now appealed against dismissal of his claim.
Held: His appeal succeeded: ‘it is not enough for a defendant, where Regulations apply, simply to comply with the requirements of reasonableness imported by the common law or the Occupiers’ Liability Act. Where the Regulations apply, the test for an employer (or one in a position comparable to an employer under Regulation 3) is stricter. If, in any particular case arising hereafter, it is shown that what occurred was due to unusual and unforeseeable circumstances, beyond the employer’s control; or if it is shown that what occurred was due to exceptional events the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due care: then that will mean the employer will have no liability. That, it can be accepted, may be in some situations onerous for an employer. But the Regulations are evidently designed to be stringent; and the test laid down is in general terms workable.’

Judges:

Longmore, McFarlane, Davis LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 545, [2013] WLR(D) 195, [2014] 1 All ER 405, [2013] LLR 697, [2014] ICR 326, [2013] PIQR P22

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Gazette

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.510008

Vann and Others v Ocidental-Companhia De Seguros Sa: CA 4 Jun 2015

Appeal by the defendant in a personal injuries action against a finding that there was no contributory negligence. The issue in this appeal is whether two pedestrians, who were knocked down by a speeding car, were taking reasonable care for their own safety.

Judges:

Lord Justice Jackson

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 572

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.547671

Roe v Sheffield City Council, South Yorkshire Light Rail Ltd, South Yorkshire Supertram Ltd, Balfour Beatty Power Construction Ltd: CA 23 Mar 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 329

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.194841

Bailey and Others v Glaxosmithkline (UK) Ltd: CA 8 Nov 2019

Action for damages for personal injury brought by the appellant Claimants in which it is alleged that Seroxat, a prescription-only antidepressant and one of a class of Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors or SSRIs, is defective within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1924

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Protection Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.643873

LHS v First-Tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) and Another: Admn 21 Apr 2015

The claimant as a child had taken methadone left about the house by his parents. He sought compensation from the CICB. The parties now disagreed as to the calculation of interest of the damages award.

Judges:

Jay J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1077 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 181

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Damages Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.545691

Milleer v Chivas Brothers Ltd: SCS 11 Jul 2014

Extra Division, Inner House – The appellant averred that she had fallen and injured herself on a floor made slippery by an accumulation of cardboard dust. The respondents averred that they operated a cleaning schedule under which floors required to be cleaned regularly to eliminate the build-up of dust, that the appellant had reported to a fellow employee Karen Griffin that the accident had been her own fault, and did not mention that she slipped on dust.

Judges:

Lady Dorrian, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Philip

Citations:

[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 65

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Scotland, Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.534169

Gabriel v Kirklees Metropolitan Council: CA 24 Mar 2004

The claimant (aged 6) sought damages after being hurt when other children playing on a building site threw stones from the site, hitting him as he passed by.
Held: The case raised questions of law and it was incumbent on the judge to provide detailed findings on the facts. A question of law was arguable, but the court was unable to determine the issue without the necessary findings of fact. The case would be remitted for retrial before a different judge.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 345, Times 12-Apr-2004

Links:

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 . .
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 – 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 – 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 – Glasgow Corporation v Muir HL 16-Apr-1943
The House considered the proper test to define the standard of care that must be adopted by the reasonable man in a claim for negligence.
Held: Lord Clauson said that the test is whether the person owing the duty of care ‘had in contemplation . .
Cited – Bolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.194897

Jones v First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): CA 12 Apr 2011

The claimant had been driving his lorry. A man jumped in front of a second lorry in an apparent attempt to commit suicide. In a failed attempt to avoid the suicide, the second lorry crashed into the claimant causing catastrophic injuries. The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for Criminal Injuries Compensation made on the basis that the act of the suicide had not been an act of violence.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The main issue was whether a person committing suicide had committed an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Lord Justice Patten said: ‘The question whether a criminal offence has been committed and whether the applicant’s injuries are directly attributable to that offence are undoubtedly questions of fact for the [authority] or the [First-tier] tribunal. They are required to weigh up the evidence and decide whether it supports a finding that a criminal offence has been committed. As part of this process they have to decide what primary facts are established and what inferences it is possible to draw from those facts. But in this case I do not accept that the determination as to whether a section 20 offence is a crime of violence within the Scheme rule is anything but a question of law which can only admit of one answer . . the reference by Lawton LJ in Ex Parte Webb to the meaning of a ‘crime of violence’ being very much a jury point. But that was said in the context of his stated reluctance to attempt to produce an exhaustive definition of the term. To say that it is difficult to articulate the precise limits of a given description does not mean that there is no wrong answer in marginal cases . . ‘.

Judges:

Mummery, Rix, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 400, [2011] RTR 29, [2011] 3 WLR 971, [2012] QB 345

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb CA 1987
Interpretation of CICB Scheme
The court should not construe the scheme as if it were a statute but as a public announcement of what the Government was willing to do. This entails the court deciding what would be a reasonable and literate man’s understanding of the circumstances . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Jones v First Tier Tribunal and Another SC 17-Apr-2013
The claimant had been injured when a lorry driver swerved to avoid hitting a man who stood in his path. He said that the deceased’s act of suicide amounted to an offence of violence under the 1861 Act so as to bring his own claim within the 2001 . .
Cited – CICA v CICP/First-Tier Tribunal and TS UTAA 19-Nov-2012
TS (aged 14) was riding his bicycle. A dog ran out and chased him into the path of a car. He suffered serious injury. The dog had known aggressive characteristics. His claim to CICA was rejected on the basis that no crime of violence was involved. . .
Cited – Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) CA 3-Feb-2014
The claimant had been riding his cycle. A dog, known to be aggressive, chased him, he swerved ino the path of a car and was severely injured. His claim was rejected by the appellant saying that no crime of violence had been involved. CICA now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432647

Dalling v R J Heale and Co Ltd: CA 5 Apr 2011

The claimant sought damages after injuring his head at work. He suffered a a second accident elsewhere whilst intoxicated, but said that the first injury had left him less able to manage his drinking.

Judges:

My P, Smith, Aikens LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 365

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431827

Dennis v White and Co: HL 14 Jun 1917

Master and Servant – Workmen’s Compensation – ‘Arising out of’ Employment – Collision whilst Riding a Bicycle – Risk Run by the General Public – Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58), sec. 1 (1).

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Finlay), Earl Loreburn, Lords Shaw, Parker, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1917] UKHL 517, 55 SLR 517

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.631007

Vaile v London Borough of Havering: CA 11 Mar 2011

The claimant teacher sought damages after being assaulted at school by a child with special needs. The pupil had been identified as having an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) but the claimant was not aware of that and had not been advised as to the techniques that she should adopt when dealing with him. The judge at first instance did not find negligence and further found that, even if negligence had been established, the claimant had not proved that knowledge of the pupil’s ASD and use of the correct techniques for handling him would have prevented the claimant’s injury.
Held: The appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Longmore, Etherton, LJJ, Sir David Keene

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 246

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Drake v Harbour CA 31-Jan-2008
The plaintiff engaged the defendants to re-wire her house. She was away, and the defendants in sole charge of the house when it suffered a major fire originating in a room used by the defendants. The defendants appealed a finding of liability saying . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wilson v Haden (T/A Clyne Farm Centre) QBD 15-Feb-2013
The claimant sought damages after being injured on an adventure sports weekend hosted by the defendant.
Held: The defendants had failed to follow their own safety procedures associated with this particular feature. The landing area cushioning . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430545

Wilkinson v City of York Council: CA 18 Jan 2011

The claimant cyclist suffered injury being thrown from her cycle on hitting a pothole. She now appealed against dismissal of her claim on the basis that the defendant highway authority had a defence under section 58.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Wilson, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 207

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highway Act 1980 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430539

A Child v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 4 Mar 2011

The court gave its reasons for making an order preventing identification of a child claimant in professional negligence proceedings.
Held: By virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court, as a public authority, must take account of these competing principles where they become engaged, as in the case of the application of section 39. The rights under Articles 8 and 10 are qualified, and neither the best interests of the child nor the principle of open justice necessarily dictate the conclusion in any particular case, so that in many, if not most, instances a balance has to be struck between a number of weighty claims.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 454 (QB), [2011] EMLR 18

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8 10, Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39

Cited by:

Cited – A, Regina (on The Application of) v Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court Admn 26-Mar-2013
A had pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk in a public place, while having the charge of a child under the age of 7 years, contrary to section 2(1) of the Licensing Act 1902. The child in question was A’s daughter, to whom I shall refer as B. B . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Human Rights

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430319

Employers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation, Re: CA 8 Oct 2010

Companies restored to the register, and the personal representatives of former employees, appealed against rejection of their claims from the insurers of the former companies for damages from mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos during employment. The court had held that the claims arose on exposure to the asbestos, and not at the point where symptoms became apparent.
Held: The appeals failed. Rix and Stanley Burnton LJJ, by majority upheld the judge in relation to some of the EL insurance policies (particularly those covering disease ‘contracted’ during the relevant insurance period); however they concluded that other policies (particularly those covering disease ‘sustained’ during the insurance period) responded only on an occurrence or manifestation basis.

Judges:

Rix, Smith, Stanley Burnton LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1096, [2011] PIQR P2, [2011] 1 All ER 605, [2011] Lloyd’s Rep IR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930, Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Employers’ Liability Policy ‘Trigger’ Litigation; Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd etc QBD 21-Nov-2008
The court heard six claims against companies restored to the register of companies to make claims under their insurance policies for personal injury in the form of death from mesothelioma from asbestos, and particularly whether liability could be . .
Cited – Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others HL 20-Jun-2002
The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work. Their employers pointed to several employments which might have given rise to the condition, saying it could not be clear which particular employment gave rise to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore SC 9-Mar-2011
The Court considered appeals where defendants challenged the factual basis of findings that they had contributed to the causes of the claimant’s Mesothelioma, and in particular to what extent a court can satisfactorily base conclusions of fact on . .
Appeal From – Employers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Ltd v Durham and Others SC 28-Mar-2012
The court considered the liability of insurers of companies now wound up for mesothelioma injuries suffered by former employees of those companies, and in particular whether the 1930 Act could be used to impose liability. The insurers now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.425248

Webster and Others v Ridgeway Foundation School: QBD 5 Feb 2010

The claimant had been severely injured when attacked at school. He was a white youth, and his attackers all Asian. The school had a history of inter-racial tension, and he claimed in negligence, and that they had failed to protect his human right not to be subjected to torture.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 157 (QB), [2010] ELR 694

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Webster and Others v The Governors of the Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 21-May-2009
The first claimant had been severely beaten as he left school. He and his parents also claimed post traumatic stress. They alleged that the school had been negligent in having allowed racial tensions to develop. The claimant was white, and his . .
Cited – Todd v Crown Prosecution Service; T v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another; Todd v DPP QBD 6-Oct-2003
The defendant had been under 18 at the commencement of proceedings but attained 18 during them. The newspaper was granted leave to refer to him by name upon his becoming 18.
Held: Denying the appeal. The balance between the freedom of the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Webster and Others v The Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 2-Mar-2010
The court considered whether costs should be payable on a standard or indemnity basis. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Human Rights

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.401008

Jones v North West Strategic Health Authority: QBD 5 Feb 2010

The claimant, now 17 years old, sought damages alleging negligence by the doctors at his birth. The court now heard as a preliminary issue questions as to the liability of the defendants for the injuries suffered. He said that his mother had not been warned of the risks associated with dystocia so as to allow to her the choice of a cesarian birth which would have avoided the particular risks which led to his injuries.
Held: The risk of shoulder dystocia was in itself sufficiently serious for the expectant mother to be entitled to be informed.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 178 (QB), [2010] Med LR 90

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board SC 11-Mar-2015
Change in Doctors’ Information Obligations
The pursuer claimed that her obstetrician had been negligent, after her son suffered severe injury at birth. The baby faced a birth with shoulder dystocia – the inability of the shoulders to pass through the pelvis. The consultant considered that a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.401006

Harris v BRB (Residuary) Ltd and Another: CA 18 Jul 2005

The appellant, a former train driver, appealed against the rejection of his claim for damages for hearing losses incurred whilst carrying out his duties, which had involved regular exposure between 1974 and 2000 to noise levels between 85dB(A) and 90dB(A) gave rise to liability for any noise-induced hearing loss shown to have resulted.
Held: On the evidence before the court that, ‘at least until the 1989 Regulations came into force . . an employer would not normally be expected to be liable to an employee who was exposed to a level of sound lower than 90dB(A)leq’, but said that ‘this evidence cannot go so far as to negative in all circumstances liability to employees whose health is impaired as a result of exposure to sound below that level’

Judges:

Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 900, [2005] ICR 1680

Links:

Bailii

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 . .
Doubted – 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 . .
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

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.228795

Pearson v J Ray Mcermott Diving International Inc: SCS 20 Jun 2006

The pursuer and reclaimer sought damages from the defenders and respondents for personal injuries said to have been sustained in an accident, which occurred on or about 6 May 1997, when the pursuer was engaged in the course of his employment with the defenders as a diver or life support technician in the course of a diving operation aboard Derrick Barge 27 in the Panna Field in the Arabian Sea, west of Bombay.

Citations:

[2006] ScotCS CSIH – 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.279617

Askey v Wood: CA 21 Apr 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 574

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc CA 11-May-2004
The court considered the effect on costs orders of a refusal to take part in alternate dispute resolution procedures. The defendant Trust had refused to take the dispute to a mediation. In neither case had the court ordered or recommended ADR.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Costs

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.225050

Quigley v Hart Builders (Edinburgh) Ltd: SCS 28 Jul 2006

The pursuer, a construction worker employed by the defenders, sues in respect of two incidents or series of incidents as a result of which he claims to have suffered an injury to his lower back.

Citations:

[2006] ScotCS CSOH – 118

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.279618