Liddell v Middleton: CA 17 Jul 1995

A husband and wife crossed a road. The wife, appreciating that the danger from the traffic, ran across. The husband stood in the middle of the road and then went ahead, but was struck by a vehicle and injured. He was significantly affected by alcohol, and evidence had been led at the trial indicating the effect of alcohol on accident statistics, particularly relating to men. The judge concluded that the husband was 25 per cent to blame for the accident.
Held: The driver’s appeal succeeded to the extent that the plaintiff was 50% responsible for his injuries.
Stuart-Smith LJ considered the correct approach to the fact that the husband had been affected by alcohol in the context of the issue of apportionment. He replied to a submission which sought to equate the approach to a drunken driver to the situation of a drunken pedestrian, as follows: ‘That may be so in the case of a driver who puts himself in the control of an object which is capable of great damage if it is not properly controlled, but I am not persuaded that it makes a significant difference in this case in the case of a pedestrian. It seems to me that the pedestrian’s conduct has to be judged by what he did rather than the explanation as to why he did it.’ Having referred to the statistical information which had been before the judge, he said: ‘The result of that statistical survey is no doubt a matter of expert knowledge not available to a layman. But whether it is of any material assistance in this case is another matter. It is not the fact that a plaintiff has consumed too much alcohol that matters, it is what he does. If he steps in front of a car travelling at 30 mph at a time when the driver has no opportunity to avoid an accident, that is a very dangerous and unwise thing to do. The explanation of his conduct may be that he was drunk: but the fact of drunkenness does not, in my judgment, make the conduct any more or less dangerous and it does not in these circumstances increase the blameworthiness of it.’
As to the test of admissibility laid down in the 1972 Act 1972: ‘But that section in no way extends the principles upon which expert evidence is admissible. An expert is only qualified to give expert evidence on a relevant matter, if his knowledge and expertise relate to a matter which is outside the knowledge and experience of a layman. In the reference to an ‘issue in the proceedings in question’ relates to a factual issue and not to the conclusion of law based upon such fact’.
Stuart-Smith LJ laid down the limits of expert evidence: ‘In such cases the function of the expert is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria and assistance based upon his special skill and experience not possessed by ordinary laymen to enable the Judge to interpret the factual evidence of the marks on the road, the damage or whatever it may be. What he is not entitled to do is to say in effect ‘I have considered the statements and special evidence of the eyewitnesses in this case and I conclude from their evidence that the defendant was going at a certain speed, or that he could have seen the plaintiff at a certain point’. These are facts for the trial Judge to find based on the evidence that he accepts and such inferences as he draws from the primary facts found. Still less is the expert entitled to say that in his opinion the defendant should have sounded his horn, seen the plaintiff before he did or taken avoiding action and that in taking some action or failing to take some other action, a party was guilty of negligence. These are matters for the Court, on which the expert’s opinion is wholly irrelevant and therefore inadmissible’.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Peter Gibson and Hutchison LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-Jul-1995, (1996) PIQR 36

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1), Civil Evidence Act 1972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBailey v Warre CA 7-Feb-2006
The claimant had been severely injured in a road traffic accident. His claim was compromised and embodied in a court order, but later a question was raised as to whether he had had mental capacity at the time to make the compromise he had.
CitedLunt v Khelifa CA 22-May-2002
The claimant pedestrian had been injured when hit by a car driven by the defendant as she stepped into the roadway. Both parties appealed against the assessment of contributory negligence. The claimant had a blood alcohol level three times that . .
CitedAllen v Cornwall Council QBD 20-May-2015
The claimant was injured riding his bicycle, and alleged failure by the respondent highway authority. The court now considered an application for leave to appeal against an order allowing the production of evidence of an expert in cycling skills and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.83063

Fowles v Bedfordshire County Council: CA 22 May 1995

The claimant had received some instruction as to the use of gymnastic mats, but the instruction from the defendants was inadequate and had not made him aware of the dangers. Subsequently, when the claimant used the mats with a friend on a subsequent occasion, without supervision, he suffered a serious injury. A Local Authority allowing facilities for unsupervised gymnastics may be liable in negligence for injury. Where the only connection between the acts of the claimant and the defendant is the fact that the defendant made it possible for the claimant to harm himself, the claimant’s acts are taken to be the sole cause of the harm.
Millett LJ upheld the original decision for the defendant’s assumption of responsibility in respect of the inadequate teaching and advice given to the claimant: ‘Having assumed the task of teaching Mr Fowles how to perform the forward somersault, the defendants voluntarily assumed a responsibility to teach him properly and to make him aware of the dangers. They failed to do either; and then compounded their failure by providing unrestricted access to the crash mat, thereby encouraging him to use it to practice what he had been taught, without warning him that he must on no account do so without supervision.
This appears to me to be a sound basis for ascribing some degree of responsibility to the defendants. It is true that it is not how the case was primarily pleaded or presented, but it is supported by the evidence and it would cause no injustice to the defendants if liability was put on this basis.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Times 22-May-1995, [1996] ELR 51, [1995] PIQR P380.

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPortsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton CA 12-Jun-2008
The claimant was injured climbing without ropes (‘bouldering’) at defendant’s activity centre. The defendant appealed against a finding of 25% responsibility in having failed to warn climbers that the existence of thick foam would not remove all . .
CitedGeary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80650

Siddiqui v University of Oxford: QBD 5 Dec 2016

The University applied to have struck out the claim by the claimant for damages alleging negligence in its teaching leading to a lower class degree than he said he should have been awarded.
Held: Strike out on the basis that the claim was bound to fail was refused. Nor was the claim bound to fail under limitation difficulties. Application refused

Judges:

Kerr J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3150 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedE D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another CA 4-Apr-2003
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success.
Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of . .
CitedClark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
CitedPhelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
CitedBolam 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 . .
CitedAbramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice QBD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant had failed to provide her with the Legal Practice Course promised. The complaints included, in particular, an attack on the practice of having students mark their own mock examination papers.
CitedWinstanley v Sleeman and Another QBD 13-Dec-2013
The claimant’s PhD thesis had initially failed, but on an internal appeal that decision was reversed, the appellate body accepting the contention that the supervision or other arrangements during his period of study had been unsatisfactory. The . .
CitedSpargo v North Essex District Health Authority CA 13-Mar-1997
The test of ‘When a plaintiff became aware of the cause of an injury’ is a subjective test of what passed through plaintiff’s mind. ‘(1) the knowledge required to satisfy s14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or . .
CitedMinistry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
CitedCave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf (a Firm) HL 25-Apr-2002
An action for negligence against a solicitor was defended by saying that the claim was out of time. The claimant responded that the solicitor had not told him of the circumstances which would lead to the claim, and that deliberate concealment should . .
See AlsoSiddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 2016
Kerr J refused an application for him to recuse himself based inter alia on the fact that counsel for the Defendant before him was a member of his former chambers: ‘It is true that I was a member of the same chambers of Mr Milford until June 2015. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoSiddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford QBD 7-Feb-2018
. .
See AlsoSiddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 16-Mar-2018
Post judgment issues . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Education, Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.572350

Taleb v Trina Coaches Ltd: CA 5 Oct 2009

The claimant cyclist said that the defendant’s coach driver had caught her handlebar causing her to fall and be injured as he passed her on Euston Road. She appealed against a decision that she had not established that the driver was at fault, despite having found the driver’s evidence to be inconsistent. She said that the judge had incorrectly relied on and misinterpreted the CCTV evidence.
Held: The judge had rejected the claimant’s evidence for no good reason. Her error was not a sufficient basis for his conclusion. The CCTV evidence did not show the actual event, and the judge had been wrong to rely on it to overrule her evidence. Though an appeal court will only rarely reverse a judge’s interpretation of the facts and evidence, this was one case where they should, and the appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Smith LJ, Rimer LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1250

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.381577

Kumar v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 31 Jan 1995

The claimant complained that in instituting and continuing a patently hopeless prosecution for rape, based only on the evidence of a woman who had made repeated false allegations of rape, the police had acted in breach of a duty of care to him.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against the striking out of his claim failed. Sir Ralph Gibson: ‘In my judgment, for similar reasons [to those given in Elguzouli-Daf], the interests of the whole community are better served by not imposing a duty of care upon the police officers in their decisions whether or not to place sufficient reliance upon the account of a complainant to justify the making of a charge against an accused.’

Judges:

Sir Ralph Gibson

Citations:

Unreported, 31 January 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBrooks 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: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.225892

Hallam-Eames and Others v Merrett Syndicates Ltd and Others: CA 25 Jan 1995

Members of Lloyd’s who faced re-insurance underwriting liabilities alleged negligence on the part of the active underwriter, their members’ agents and their syndicates’ managing agents. Limitation defences were raised.
Held: Mere knowledge of the damage of which complaint is later made, is not sufficient to start time running. Hoffmann LJ emphasised the statutory words ‘attributable . . to the act or omission which is alleged to constitute negligence’ and explained: ‘In other words the act or omission of which the plaintiff must have knowledge must be that which is causally relevant for the purposes of an allegation of negligence . . It is this idea of causal relevance which various judges of this court have tried to express by saying the plaintiff must know ‘the essence of the act or omission to which the injury is attributable’ (Purchas LJ in Nash v Eli Lilly and Co [1993] 1WLR 782 at 799) or ‘the essential thrust of the case’ (Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. in Dobbie [1994] 1WLR 1238) or that ‘one should look at the way the plaintiff puts his case, distil what he is complaining about and ask whether he had in broad terms knowledge of the facts on which that complaint is based’ (Hoffmann LJ in Broadley [1993] 4 Med LR 328, 332)’.

Judges:

Hoffmann LJ

Citations:

Independent 25-Jan-1995, Times 25-Jan-1995, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 178, [1995] 7 Med LR 122

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHaward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
CitedSmith v Leicestershire Health Authority CA 29-Jan-1998
The plaintiff appealed a finding that she had sufficient knowledge of her possible claim for medical negligence against the defendants, and that she was out of time. She had known of her condition, but said she had no sufficient reason to see that . .
CitedPierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 13-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages, saying that the local authority had failed to protect him when he was a child against abuse by his parents.
Held: The claimant had been known to the authority since he was a young child, and they owed him a duty of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Negligence

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.81173

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 abuse.
Held: The Ministry of Defence has no duty to prevent a forces member from the abuse of drink. It was not liable, even though the death from drunkenness was contributed to by an officer’s encouragement. The Ministry was liable on the basis that, following his collapse, service personnel voluntarily assumed a duty of care by acting as the deceased’s quasi-rescuer and were negligent in that capacity. In relation to the original drunkenness of the deceased, the court emphasised that foresight of harm alone was not sufficient to create a duty to guard him against his own folly.
Beldam LJ said: ‘The plaintiff argued for the extension of a duty to take care for the safety of the deceased from analogous categories of relationship in which an obligation to use reasonable care already existed. For example, employer and employee, pupil and schoolmaster, and occupier and visitor. It was said that the defendant’s control over the environment in which the deceased was serving and the provision of duty-free liquor coupled with a failure to enforce disciplinary rules and orders were sufficient factors to render it fair just and reasonable to extend the duty to take reasonable care found in the analogous circumstances. The characteristic which distinguishes those relationships is reliance expressed or implied in the relationship which the party to whom the duty is owed is entitled to place on the other party to make provision for his safety. I can see no reason why it should not be fair just and reasonable for the law to leave the responsible adult to assume responsibility of his own actions in consuming alcoholic drink … . To dilute self-responsibility and to blame one adult for another’s lack of self-control is neither just nor reasonable and in the development of the law of negligence an increment too far.’
As to the context of the armed forces and its regulations: ‘In my view the judge was wrong to equate Queen’s Regulations and Standing Orders with guidance give in the Highway Code or in pamphlets relating to safety in factories. The purpose of Queen’s Regulations and Standing Orders is to preserve good order and discipline in the Service and to ensure that personnel remain fit for duty and, while on duty, obey commands and, off duty, do not misbehave, bringing the service into disrepute. All regulations which encourage self-discipline, if obeyed, will incidentally encourage service personnel to take greater pride in their own behaviour but in no sense are the Regulations and Orders intended to lay down standards or to give advice in the exercise of reasonable care for the safety of men when off duty drinking in bars. . .’

Judges:

Beldam LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Jan-1995, Independent 03-Jan-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 1217, [1994] EWCA Civ 7, [1995] 3 All ER 87

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBarrett 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. . .

Cited by:

CitedJebson 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 . .
CitedCalvert 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, . .
AppliedMichael Alexander Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World Boxing Organisation Incorporated CA 19-Dec-2000
The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendant’s rules. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. By the time he received resuscitation . .
CitedGeary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Armed Forces

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.78255

First National Comercial Bank plc v Humberts: CA 27 Jan 1995

The plaintiff loaned money on the basis of a negligent survey by the defendant. The borrower subsequently defaulted, and the lender issued a writ. The defendant said that the claim was time barred.
Held: The court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal. A cause of action against surveyor arose only when the loss was sustained and crystalised, and it was not sustained on the survey.
Saville LJ said: ‘To my mind it would be wrong simply to take the debit side of the deal and to describe it as loss or damage flowing from the breach of duty without taking into account the credit side of the deal. The reason for this is that the inquiry is as to what loss or damage (if any) has been sustained through making the deal and when such loss or damage has been incurred. On this basis, on the evidence, I am quite unpersuaded that in July 1983 the plaintiffs were, to put it colloquially, out of pocket in respect of these expenses as a result of making the deal. They had no doubt incurred some expenditure but they had also received some benefit and there is nothing to show that the former exceeded the latter.’ and
‘At the hearing and in the judgment much reliance was placed on the cases where the claimant entered into a transaction which through a breach of duty owed to the claimant provided the claimant with less rights than should have been secured, or imposed liabilities or obligations on the claimant which should not have been imposed. Examples of these cases are: Forster v Outred and Co [1982] 1 WLR 86, Iron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 808, and Bell v Peter Browne and Co. [1990] 2 QB 495. In all those cases, however, the court was able to conclude that the transaction then and there caused the claimant loss, on the basis that if the injured party had been put in the position he would have occupied but for the breach of duty, the transaction in question would have provided greater rights, or imposed lesser liabilities or obligations than was the case; and that the difference between these two states of affairs could be quantified in money terms at the date of the transaction.’
‘At the hearing and in the judgment much reliance was placed on the cases where the claimant entered into a transaction which through a breach of duty owed to the claimant provided the claimant with less rights than should have been secured, or imposed liabilities or obligations on the claimant which should not have been imposed. Examples of these cases are: Forster v Outred and Co (a firm) [1982] 1 WLR 86, Iron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 808 and Bell v Peter Browne and Co (a firm) [1990] 2 QB 495. In all those cases, however, the court was able to conclude that the transaction then and there caused the claimant loss, on the basis that if the injured party had been put in the position he would have occupied but for the breach of duty, the transaction in question would have provided greater rights, or imposed lesser liabilities or obligations than was the case; and that the difference between these two states of affairs could be quantified in money terms at the date of the transaction. By contrast, in the present case, as in UBAF Ltd v European American Banking Corp [1984] QB 713 (and indeed Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 109 ALR 247) it seems to me that whichever of the legally recognised kinds of loss is examined, it is impossible on the material available to conclude that the plaintiffs suffered such loss at any time more than six years from the date of their writ. For the reasons given, it has not been shown that they lost the amount of their advances at that time, or incurred expenses in respect of which they were out of pocket at that time; or at that time lost other transactions or the opportunity to make other transactions of a value greater than the deal they made.’ and ‘It is the law that a cause of action for the tort of negligence only arises when there has been a breach of duty resulting in actual (as opposed to potential or prospective) loss or damage of a kind recognised by the law.’

Judges:

Saville LJ

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-1995, Independent 14-Feb-1995, [1995] 2 All ER 673

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedForster v Outred and Co CA 1981
A mother signed a mortgage deed charging her property to H as security for a loan to her son. She claimed the solicitor had been negligent in his advice. The solicitor replied that the claim was out of time. The loss accrued not when demand for . .
CitedIron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd 1990
The negligence of the plaintiffs’ insurance brokers led to the insurance policies being voidable for non-disclosure.
Held: The plaintiffs suffered immediate damage on entering into the policies because they did not get the protection they . .
CitedBell v Peter Browne and Co CA 1990
Mr Bell asked his solicitors to transfer the matrimonial home into his wife’s sole name. He was to receive a one-sixth interest of the gross proceeds on a sale. His interests were to be protected by a trust deed or mortgage. The solicitor drafted . .

Cited by:

HelpfulLaw Society v Sephton and Co (a Firm) and Others HL 10-May-2006
A firm of solicitors had a member involved in a substantial fraud. The defendant firm of accountants certified the firm’s accounts. There were later many calls upon the compensation fund operated by the claimants, who sought recovery in turn from . .
CitedPegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another ChD 11-Nov-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence in advice given by the defendant on a share purchase, saying that it should have been structured to reduce Capital Gains Tax. The defendants denied negligence and said the claim was statute barred.
CitedAxa Insurance Ltd v Akther and Darby Solicitors and Others CA 12-Nov-2009
The court considered the application of the limitation period to answering when damage occurred when it arises under an unsecured contingent liability. The claimant insurance company had provided after the event litigation insurance policies to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Negligence

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.80562

Smith v The London and South Western Railway Company: 1870

Blackburn J said: ‘I take it that, since the case of Vaughan v Taff Vale Ry Co, which was expressly affirmed in Brand v Hammersmith Ry Co, it is clear that when a railway company is authorized by their Act of parliament to run engines on their line, and that cannot be done without their emitting sparks, the company are not responsible for injuries arising therefrom, unless there is some evidence of negligence on their part.’

Citations:

(1870-71) LR 6 CP 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedVaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company 20-Nov-1858
A wood adjoining the defendants’ railway was set alight and burned by sparks from the locomotives. On several previous occasions it had been set on fire, and the Company had paid for the damage. Evidence was given that the defendants had done . .
Appeal fromSmith v The London and South Western Railway Company 1869
Negligence requires duty to injured
Workmen, employed by the defendant railway company to cut the grass and trim hedges bordering the railway, placed the trimmings in heaps near the line, and allowed them to remain there for fourteen days, during very hot weather in the month of . .

Cited by:

CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.512174

Smith v The London and South Western Railway Company: 1869

Negligence requires duty to injured

Workmen, employed by the defendant railway company to cut the grass and trim hedges bordering the railway, placed the trimmings in heaps near the line, and allowed them to remain there for fourteen days, during very hot weather in the month of August. Fire from a passing engine ignited one of these heaps, and burned the hedge, and was carried by a high wind across a stubblefield and a public road, and burned the plaintiff’s goods in a cottage about 200 yards away. The question was whether there was evidence of negligence to go before the jury. No one argued that the railway company was strictly liable.
Held: Bovill CJ said: ‘I agree that the mere circumstance of the fire being caused by an engine of the company, is not enough to give a cause of action against them; but the plaintiff must shew some breach of duty on their part which occasioned the injury he complains of.’

Judges:

Bovill CJ

Citations:

(1869-70) LR 5 CP 98

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedVaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company 20-Nov-1858
A wood adjoining the defendants’ railway was set alight and burned by sparks from the locomotives. On several previous occasions it had been set on fire, and the Company had paid for the damage. Evidence was given that the defendants had done . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromSmith v The London and South Western Railway Company 1870
Blackburn J said: ‘I take it that, since the case of Vaughan v Taff Vale Ry Co, which was expressly affirmed in Brand v Hammersmith Ry Co, it is clear that when a railway company is authorized by their Act of parliament to run engines on their line, . .
CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.512173

Silven Properties Ltd and Another v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and Others: CA 21 Oct 2003

The claimants complained that the receivers appointed by the bank had failed to get the best price for properties charged to the bank and sold, in that they had failed to obtain planning permissions which would have increased the values of the properties.
Held: The court was being asked ‘whether the express appointment in the mortgage of receivers as agents of the mortgagor leads to the assumption by receivers who accept such appointment of responsibilities and duties which differ from those owed by the mortgagees, and it is important that any doubt in this regard should be resolved in the interests of mortgagees, mortgagors and receivers.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ, Tuckey LJ, Lightman J

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1409, [2004] 4 All ER 484, [2004] 1 WLR 997

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNash v Eads CA 1880
Sir George Jessel MR: ‘The mortgagee was not a trustee of the power of sale for the mortgagor, and if he was entitled to exercise the power, the Court could not look into his motives for so doing. If he had a right to sell on June 1, and he then . .
CitedCuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd CA 1971
A mortgagee selling as mortagee in possession must ‘take reasonable care to obtain the true value of the property at the moment he chooses to sell it’ and obtain the best price for the property reasonably obtainable on the open market. However, . .
CitedRaja v Austin Gray (A Firm) CA 19-Dec-2002
A mortgagee is at all times free to consult his own interests alone as to whether and when to exercise his power of sale. The relationship and duties owed by the receiver are equitable only. Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘(1) A mortgagee with the power of . .
CitedMedforth v Blake and others CA 26-May-1999
A receiver appointed to manage a business had duties over and above those of mere good faith. A receiver who failed to obtain discounts normally obtainable for supplies to the business might be liable for that failure. when considering the position . .
CitedStandard Chartered Bank Ltd v Walker CA 1982
The mortgagee having obtained insufficient on the sale at auction of the property charged to recover the sum secured, applied for summary judgment against the mortgagor for that sum. The mortgagor resisted the application alleging that the mortgagee . .
CitedStandard Chartered Bank Ltd v Walker CA 1982
The mortgagee having obtained insufficient on the sale at auction of the property charged to recover the sum secured, applied for summary judgment against the mortgagor for that sum. The mortgagor resisted the application alleging that the mortgagee . .
CitedYorkshire Bank Plc v Hall and Others CA 18-Dec-1998
The Court of Appeal is not strictly bound by the terms of leave to appeal given, but where the points had been specifically considered a point could only be heard with the leave of the Court of Appeal which had full power to regulate its own . .
CitedPalk v Mortgage Services Funding Plc CA 1993
The mortgagees had obtained an Order for possession with the intention, not of proceeding to sell the property but of waiting in the hope that the market might improve. The mortgagor was anxious that the property should be sold so that the proceeds . .
CitedDownsview Nominees Ltd and Another v First City Corporation Ltd and Another PC 19-Nov-1992
(New Zealand) The holder of a second debenture appointed receivers to the assets. The first debenture holder then also appointed receivers not to obtain repayment of its debt, but to disrupt the work of the first appointed receivers and in order to . .
CitedStandard Chartered Bank Ltd v Walker CA 1982
The mortgagee having obtained insufficient on the sale at auction of the property charged to recover the sum secured, applied for summary judgment against the mortgagor for that sum. The mortgagor resisted the application alleging that the mortgagee . .
CitedRe Charnley Davies Ltd (No 2) ChD 1990
An administrator owed a duty to the company over which he was appointed to take reasonable care to obtain the best price that the circumstances, as he reasonably perceived them to be, permitted, including a duty to take reasonable care in choosing . .
CitedTse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen HL 1983
A company associated with the mortgagee purchased the land taken into possession by the mortgagee. The court considered the extent of its duties.
Held: ‘The mortgagee and the company seeking to uphold the transaction must show that the sale . .
CitedChina and South Sea Bank Limited v Tan Soon Gin PC 1990
A mortgagee’s decision on sale is not constrained by reason of the fact that the exercise or non-exercise of the power will occasion loss or damage to the mortgagor. He can sit back and do nothing. He is not obliged to take steps to realise his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Negligence

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.341787

Tilly v Hamleys of London: CA 19 May 1999

The claimant had brought an action in negligence against the shop defendant. She had been stopped on leaving, when a library book caused the anti-theft alarm to go off. She felt humiliated by the public way she was dealt with. Her action had been struck out on the basis that there was no duty toward her in negligence for the selection of the system for testing for thefts.
Held: The judge’s order was correct and an appeal would undoubtedly fail. Leave to appeal refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Swinton Thomas Lord Justice Potter

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1435

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.146350

Moore v Kirklees Metropolitan Council: CA 30 Apr 1999

The claimant was employed as a dinner lady at a junior school. Whilst supervising playtime, a child jumped on her, causing her injury. The council appealed a finding of negligence. The boy had been recognised as being in need of special management for his behaviour, and had behaved in a similar fashion before. There were steps which could have been taken to reduce the risks, including the issue of earnings, training, and the employment of more staff.
Held: Mere forseeability was insufficient to establish liability. Each such case must turn on its own facts. In this case the finding was correct in law.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Potter

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1326

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSmith 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.146241

CFC 26 Ltd v Brown Shipley and Co Ltd and Others: ChD 29 Nov 2016

Complaint of the alleged sale of an underlease at a low price, working as a corrupt agreement. It was said that one of the defendants, a local council, was liable for malicious prosecution of an enforcement notice. The Council’s replied that the tort ‘cannot apply in relation to the mere service of an enforcement notice’ because, as it is put in Clerk and Lindsell: ‘To prosecute is to set the law in motion and the law is only set in motion by an appeal to some person clothed with judicial authority in regard to the matter in question.’ The Council argued that the service of an enforcement notice involved no ‘appeal to some person clothed in judicial authority’
Held: Neey J said: ‘In my view, [Counsel for the Council] is right on this point. While it is now clear that the tort of malicious prosecution can apply without a criminal prosecution, there remains a requirement that the law has been ‘set in motion by an appeal to some person clothed with judicial authority’ and service of an enforcement notice cannot, as it seems to me, suffice for this purpose. I do not see Churchill v Siggers as providing authority to the contrary.’

Judges:

Newey J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3048 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCXZ 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.

Torts – Other, Negligence, Commercial

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.571982

Farah and Others v British Airways and Another: CA 6 Dec 1999

The Court was asked whether the Home Office can be liable for the loss caused to immigrants as a result of an immigration liaison officer negligently and wrongly advising an airline that the immigrants did not have the required documentation to obtain access to this country, if, as a result of this the airline did not fly the immigrants to this country.
It is not appropriate to strike out a claim in an area of developing jurisprudence, since, in such areas, decisions as to novel points of law should be based on actual findings of fact

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR

Citations:

Times 26-Jan-2000, [1999] EWCA Civ 3052

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBarrett 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.

Cited by:

CitedCXZ 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.

Negligence, Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.465063

Levy v Spyers: 1856

‘It is negligence where there are two ways of doing a thing, and one is clearly right, and the other is doubtful, to do it in the doubtful way’

Citations:

[1856] 1 F and F 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoberts vWinbow (3) CA 4-Dec-1998
The plaintiff was treated for depression by the defendant by prescription of drugs. She sufferred a reaction, but now claimed that the doctor’s slow reaction caused her to suffer lasting injury. The question on appeal was, if a plaintiff suffers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.186437

Griffiths v Evans: CA 1953

The parties disputed the terms on which the solicitor had been engaged, and in particular as to the scope of the duty undertaken by and entrusted to the solicitor as regards advising the client.
Held: Where there is a dispute between a solicitor and the client about the existence or the terms of an oral retainer the Court may give some preference to the client’s evidence.
Denning LJ, dissenting, said: ‘On this question of retainer, I would observe that where there is a difference between a solicitor and his client upon it, the courts have said, for the last 100 years or more, that the word of the client is to be preferred to the word of the solicitor, or, at any rate, more weight is to be given to it (see Crossley v. Crowther, per Turner V-C, and Re Paine, per Warrington J.). The reason is plain. It is because the client is ignorant and the solicitor is, or should be, learned. If the solicitor does not take the precaution of getting a written retainer, he has only himself to thank for being at variance with his client over it and must take the consequences.’ and
‘The general principle is that ‘a solicitor is the agent of his client in all matters that may reasonably be expected to arise for decision in the cause”.

Judges:

Denning LJ

Citations:

[1953] 2 All ER 1364, [1953] 1 WLR 1424

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCrossley v Crowther 20-Nov-1851
A, who was an equitable mortgagee by deposit of deeds ot property belonging to the estate of B, was paid off by C, on an agreement with the executors of B. (as their solicitor stated) that proceedings should be taken in A’s name to enforce the . .

Cited by:

CitedJarvis v Swans Tours Ltd CA 16-Oct-1972
The plaintiff had booked a holiday through the defendant travel tour company. He claimed damages after the holiday failed to live up to expectations.
Held: In appropriate cases where one party contracts to provide entertainment and enjoyment, . .
CitedMidland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett Stubbs and Kemp (a firm) ChD 1978
A solicitor had failed to register an option as a land charge over property. The court was asked what steps should have been taken by a solicitor in the conduct of a claim: ‘Mr Harman [leading counsel for the plaintiff] sought to rely upon the fact . .
CitedGlyn v McGarel-Groves CA 14-Jul-2006
The claimant had employed a French veterinary surgeon to treat her horse ‘Anna’. She engaged the defendant English veterinary surgeon to attend the treament and observe. The horse died at the principal negligence of the French vet. The English vet . .
CitedSibley and Co v Reachbyte Ltd and Another ChD 4-Nov-2008
Solicitors appealed against a costs order made refusing them payment of all of Leading and Junior counsel’s fees.
Held: The leading counsel involved had not provided anything like a detailed account of the time he had spent on what was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Damages, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.186347

Osman and another v Ferguson and another: CA 7 Oct 1992

Limits of Police duty to protect

A schoolmaster developed an infatuation for a teenage pupil. It led to the killing of the pupil’s father, the wounding of the pupil, the wounding of a deputy headmaster and the killing of the deputy headmaster’s son. Mr Osman’s widow and the pupil claimed against, with another, the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim.
Held: The appeal was allowed. In light of previous authorities, no action could lie against the police in negligence in the investigation and suppression of crime on the grounds that public policy required an immunity from suit. The Commissioner and his officers owed the father and the pupil no duty of care.

Judges:

Lord Justice McCowan

Citations:

[1993] 4 All ER 344, [1992] EWCA Civ 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal followingOsman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
CitedWelton, 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 . .
CitedHertfordshire 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Negligence

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.183662

Fish v Kelly: 1864

Mere casual observations are not to be used to found a duty of care.

Citations:

(1864) 17 CBNS 194, 144 ER 78, 42 Digest 108

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMutual Life And Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd And Another v Evatt PC 16-Nov-1971
The plaintiff had been an investor with the defendant. He asked them about an associated company. He was given advice which was incorrect. He claimed damages for negligence.
Held: The company was not itself in the business of giving such . .
CitedHedley 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

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.181264

Shiells v Blackburne: 1789

A merchant agreed without taking any reward to enter a parcel of goods of another, along with his own at the Customs House for export. He negligently entered the goods under the wrong denomination, and both parcels were seized.
Held: The plaintiff’s action failed. Nevertheless, ‘. . . Where a bailee undertakes to perform a gratuitous act, from which the bailor alone is to receive benefit, there the bailee is only liable for gross negligence; but if a man gratuitously undertakes to do a thing to the best of his skill, where his situation or profession is such as to imply skill, an omission of that skill is imputable to him as gross negligence. If in this case a ship-broker or a clerk in the Custom-House, had undertaken to enter the goods, a wromh entry would in them be gross negligence, because their situation and employment necessarilty imply a competent degree of knowledge in making such entries.’ (Lord Loughborough) ‘. . . The surgeon would also be liable for such negligence, if he undertook gratis to attend a sick person, because his situation implies skill in surgery; but if the patient applies to a man of a different employment or occupation for his gratuitous assistance, who either does not exert all his skill, or administers remedies to the best of his ability, such a person is not liable.’ (Heath L)

Judges:

Lord Loughborough, Heath L

Citations:

(1789) 1 HB1 158, 126 ER 94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMutual Life And Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd And Another v Evatt PC 16-Nov-1971
The plaintiff had been an investor with the defendant. He asked them about an associated company. He was given advice which was incorrect. He claimed damages for negligence.
Held: The company was not itself in the business of giving such . .
CitedHedley 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

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.181267

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co: 1856

Judges:

Baron Alderson

Citations:

(1856) 11 Exch 781

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.181260

Johnson v Berentzen and Another: QBD 26 Apr 2021

Trial of a preliminary issue to determine whether the claimant’s claim in tort for damages for personal injury in a road traffic accident which occurred in Scotland but was issued in the jurisdiction of England and Wales was brought within the limitation period or is time barred. It raises issues of the proper role and operation of the applicable law in tort selected under the conflict of laws rules in Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (‘the Rome II Regulation’).

Judges:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Stacey

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 1042 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Negligence, European

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.662425

M/S Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd: 1987

A proprietary liquid waterproofing compound called Lupguard was stacked in plastic pails in Kuwait in full sunshine. The pails collapsed and the Lupguard was lost.
Held: The manufacturers of the pails were not liable in tort: ‘The distinction between a defective product which renders the product itself less valuable, and a defective product which creates a danger to other property of the plaintiff, was the corner-stone of Lord Brandon of Oakbrook’s dissenting speech in the Junior Books case . . . . It is a distinction which is well established both in English and American law. Where the defect renders the product less valuable, the plaintiff’s remedy (if any) lies in contract. Where it creates a danger to other property of the plaintiff, the remedy (if any) lies in tort . . If Aswan had bought empty pails from a third party and then used the pails for exporting the Lupguard, clearly there would have been damage to other property of the plaintiffs. But in the present case the property in the pails and the property in the Lupguard passed to the plaintiffs simultaneously. Indeed, it is rather artificial to think of the property in the pails passing at all. Aswan were buying Lupguard in pails. They were not buying Lupguard and pails. One can think of other cases by way of illustration without difficulty. If I buy a defective tyre for my car and it bursts I can sue the manufacturer of the tyre for damage to the car as well as injury to my person. But what if the tyre was part of the original equipment? Presumably the car is other property of the plaintiff, even though the tyre was a component part of the car, and property in the tyre and property in the car passed simultaneously. Another example, perhaps even closer to the present case, would be if I buy a bottle of wine and find that the wine is undrinkable, owing to a defect in the cork. Is the wine other property, so as to enable me to bring an action against the manufacturer of the cork in tort? Suppose the electric motors in the Muirhead case [1986] QB 507 had overheated and damaged the pumps. Would the plaintiff have recovered for physical damage to the pumps as well as the lobsters?
I do not find these questions easy. There is curiously little authority on the point in England compared with America, where the law as to product liability is more highly developed. My provisional view is that in all these cases there is damage to other property of the plaintiff, so that the threshold of liability is crossed. Whether liability would be established in any particular case is, of course, another matter.
So while I recognise the existence of the first ground of distinction between the Muirhead case and the present case, and while I accept that the purchase of the pail was only incidental to the purchase of the Lupguard, I am not prepared to decide this case in favour of [the manufacturers of the pails] on that ground.’

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[1987] 1 All ER 135, [1987] 1 WLR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedI v Director of Public Prosecutions etc HL 8-Mar-2001
A group of youths carried petrol bombs in public, anticipating a confrontation with another group. They did not brandish them or actually threaten anybody. On dispersal by the police the bombs were dropped. On being charged with affray it was held . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.237691

Watson, Bradford City Association Football Club (1983) Limited v Gray, Huddersfield Town Association Football Club Limited: CA 22 Apr 1999

The first claimant succeeded in claiming damages against the first and second defendants. He had been a professional footballer injured in a negligent tackle by the first defendant. The tackle was outside the range acceptable within the sport. The decision of the judge at first instance had been an assessment of the facts. As such it was not for re-opening by the Court of Appeal.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 341

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.139605

Sochacki v Sas: 1947

A claim was made after the escape of a fire in a domestic fireplace. The defendant had left the room for two or three hours with the fire burning, with no fire guard or fender,
Held: The use was not a non-natural use for a house, the room was being used ‘in the ordinary, natural way in which the room could be used’. Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘Everybody knows fires occur through accidents which happen without negligence on anybody’s part.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1947] 1 ALL ER 344

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLMS 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 . .
CitedWilliams v Owen QBD 1955
Mr Williams left his car overnight in the hotel garage. A fire broke out and destroyed his car.
Held: The strict liability of an innkeeper was limited to loss of his guest’s goods rather than to their destruction.
As to section 86 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.230980

Chalk v Devizes Reclamation Company Limited: CA 24 Feb 1999

Where a task required common-sense, and no obvious instructions were capable of avoiding a danger, an employer was not required to produce instruction and training. The judge erred in finding liability without finding what would have helped.

Judges:

Sir Stephen Brown Lord Justice Swinton Thomas

Citations:

Times 02-Apr-1999, Gazette 24-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 849

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence, Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145764

Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others: CA 27 Jul 2006

Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty under the 1980 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. The court was asked whether Burnside v Emerson remained binding on the court. The cases relied upon did not undermine that case. S111 had altered the duty but without revisiting the Burnside decision. Burnside remained binding.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor, Carnwath LJ, Moses LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1089, Times 17-Aug-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 3356

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 41(1), Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 111

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBurnside and Another v Emerson and Others CA 1968
The plaintiffs were injured in a road accident caused by flooding. They sued the executors of the deceased driver whose car spun out of control into the path of their own car, and also the highway authority, who had installed a proper system of . .
CitedRegina v Inhabitants of High Halden 1859
highhalden1859
The court considered the liability of the parish for injury arising from a failure to repair the road. The road was ‘an old soft road formed of Weald of Kent clay, and had never been repaired with hard substances’. The evidence was that in wet . .
CitedFiona Thompson v Hampshire County Council CA 27-Jul-2004
The claimant fell into a ditch by a path on the highway in the dark. She appealed a finding of no liability on the highway authority.
Held: The authority’s responsibility was as to the surface structures of the road way and not as to the . .
CitedGorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
CitedBurgess v Northwich Local Board 1880
In the context of the duty of a local parish to maintain a highway, Lindley J said: ‘An occasional flooding, even if it temporarily renders a highway impassable, is not sufficient to sustain an indictment for non-repair.’
Counsel accepted . .
CitedYoung v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
CitedBurnside and Another v Emerson and Others CA 1968
The plaintiffs were injured in a road accident caused by flooding. They sued the executors of the deceased driver whose car spun out of control into the path of their own car, and also the highway authority, who had installed a proper system of . .
CitedHereford and Worcester County Council v Newman CA 1975
The council had been found responsible by the magistrates for allowing footpaths to be ‘out of repair’. The paths were unusable for various reasons including having a hawthorn hedge growing down the middle, and having barbed wire fencing strung . .
CitedHaydon v Kent County Council CA 1978
Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully . .
CitedThoburn v Northumberland County Council CA 19-Jan-1999
The claimant alleged that the defendant by allowing a flood across a road not to be cleared was in breach of their statutory duty under the 1980 Act.
Held: Though the blockage was not entirely on the Highway, the nature and extent of it was . .
CitedGoodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
CitedDublin United Tramways Co Ltd v Martin Fitzgerald HL 1903
The plaintiff sued when his horse slipped on tramlines in the road and fell. Stone setts or paving between the rails of a tramway in Grafton Street, Dublin, had become slippery owing to the grit or roughness of setts being worn away. In that state, . .
CitedBishop v Consolidated London Properties Ltd 1933
Lord du Parq treated the landlord’s duty of repair as including the removal of blockages from rainwater downpipes: ‘to repair after all merely means to prepare or make fit again to perform its function: it means to put in order.’ . .
CitedQuick v Taff Ely Borough Council CA 1986
Because of fungus, mould growth and dampness, the tenant’s council house was virtually unfit for human habitation in the winter when the condensation was at its worst. Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act implied in the tenancy a covenant by the council to . .
CitedLondon and North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman HL 1946
Railway workers duties outside scope for damages
A railway worker’s widow sought compensation after her husband was killed by a train.
Held: He had been involved in routine maintenance and oiling at the time of the accident and was not ‘relaying or repairing’ tracks. She was not entitled to . .
CitedSandgate UDC v Kent CC 1898
The court considered an arbitration award relating to responsibilities for the cost of maintaining a so-called ‘Esplanade’ adjoining the highway, and a sea-wall and groynes which had been built to protect it from inundation. The statute enabled the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Negligence

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.244098

Froom v Butcher: 24 Jun 1974

The plaintiff was a front seat passenger injured in a car crash. The defendant sought to have the damages award reduced for the contributory negligence of the plaintiff in not wearing a seat belt.
Held: There was considerable disagreement between people as to the wisdom of wearing seatbelts. In the absence of such agreement us, the plaintiff could not be said to be negligent.
Nield J said: ‘I do not feel that the courts are justified in invading the freedom of choice of the motorist by holding it to be negligence, lack of care or fault, to act upon an opinion firmly and honestly held and shared by many other sensible people.’

Judges:

Nield J

Citations:

[1974] 1 WLR 1297

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromFroom 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.

Negligence

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.237430

Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey: 1970

The court considered how progress is made in developing the law of liability for damages for psychiatric injury, saying ‘The field is one in which the common law is still in course of development. Courts must therefore act in company and not alone. Analogies in other courts, and persuasive precedents as well as authoritative pronouncements, must be regarded.’

Judges:

Windeyer J

Citations:

(1970) 125 CLR 383

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedWhite, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.184753

Brewer v Delo: 1967

A golfer had hooked his tee shot so that his ball struck another player playing an adjacent hole some 200 yards ahead.
Held: The action failed on the ground that the consequences were not foreseeable, alternatively the risk was so slight that it could properly be ignored. The duty of the golfer must be based on a reasonable foreseeability of damage. ‘… in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not foresee that the act of driving off would cause damage that, even if damage was foreseeable, the possibility of injury to person on sixth fairway involved risk so small that reasonable man would be justified in disregarding it; that, therefore, defendant was not in breach of his duty to take care and plaintiff’s claim failed.’

Judges:

Hinchcliffe J

Citations:

[1967] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 488

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMarvin John Pearson v Anthony Lightning CA 1-Apr-1998
The parties were golfers playing different holes at the same time. The shot of one hit the other in the eye. The shot was a recovery shot over where he should have known others would be playing. Where a golfer hit a shot which was difficult but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.184788

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd v Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd: 1997

(Supreme Court of Canada) Saint John Shipbuilding Limited (SJSL) constructed an oil rig for Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Limited (BVHB) which was to conduct drilling operations off the east coast of Canada. A heat trace system was required in order to prepare the rig for winter operations. The purpose of a heat trace system was to prevent the rig’s pipes or ‘mud lines’ from freezing. The heat trace system which was installed was supplied by Raychem Canada Limited and Raychem Corporation (Raychem). This system was chosen after consultation with Raychem representatives because it had a self-regulating heater. Raychem’s heat trace system used Thermaclad wrap to keep moisture from the insulation and heat trace wire. The specification for the Raychem heat trace system required the installation of a ground fault circuit breaker system, the purpose of which was to cut off the power in the event of an electrical fault, to prevent arcing of the heat trace wire. The ground fault circuit breaker system initially installed by SJSL was unsuitable, and a functioning system was not installed on the rig until after the incident which formed the basis of the case. During the drilling of an exploratory well a fire broke out on the oil rig, causing damage to cables.
In a subsequent litigation, the trial judge held inter alia that SJSL was liable in tort for breach of duty to warn of the inflammability of Thermaclad. He also held that the defendant Raychem was liable in tort for breach of its duty to warn. When the case reached the Supreme Court of Canada, it was held by a majority that SJSL’s appeal with regard to the duty to warn should be allowed. The majority of the court held that BVHB was not entitled to claim against SJSL on the basis of the tort duty to warn, by reason of provisions of the contract between them. The majority did not however disagree with what was said by the minority of the court about the duty to warn.
The opinion of the minority was delivered by McLachlin J., who said at: ‘SJSL argues that in order for a duty to warn to arise, there must be an ‘informational imbalance’ between the manufacturer or supplier and the party who is owed the warning. SJSL submits that the plaintiff BVHB knew as much about the inflammability of the Thermaclad as it did.
The law may be simply stated. Manufacturers and suppliers are required to warn all those who may reasonably be affected by potentially dangerous products: Lambert v Lastoplex Chemicals Co [1972] S.C.R. 569, and Hollis v Dow Corning Corp. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634. This duty extends even to those persons who are not party to the contract of sale: Rivtow Marine Ltd v Washington Iron Works [1974] S.C.R. 1189. The potential user must be reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer or supplier – manufacturers and suppliers (including a builder-supplier like SJSL) do not have the duty to warn the entire world about every danger that can result from improper use of their product.
The plaintiff BVHB was clearly within the class of persons that SJSL and Raychem ought to have known might reasonably be affected by the use of Thermaclad. SJSL was in a contractual relationship with BVHB, and Raychem had directly approached BVHB’s predecessor […] to encourage the use of its products in the construction of the rig.
The defendant SJSL submits that there is an additional requirement for a duty to warn: a knowledge imbalance between the manufacturer or supplier and the consumer. It goes on to argue that since BVHB knew about the inflammability of Thermaclad no duty to warn arose. The Court of Appeal held that knowledge may be a defence, but only where the plaintiff can be viewed as accepting the risk (volenti non fit iniuria).
I agree with the Court of Appeal that knowledge that there may be a risk in some circumstances does not negate a duty to warn. Liability for failure to warn is based not merely on a knowledge imbalance. If that were so every person with knowledge would be under a duty to warn. It is based primarily on the manufacture or supply of products intended for the use of others and the reliance that consumers reasonably place on the manufacturer and supplier. Unless the consumer’s knowledge negates reasonable reliance, the manufacturer or supplier remains liable. This occurs where the consumer has so much knowledge that a reasonable person would conclude that the consumer fully appreciated and willingly assumed the risk posed by use of the product, making the maxim volenti non fit iniuria applicable: Lambert, supra.
The evidence establishes that the plaintiff BVHB knew that Thermaclad would burn under some circumstances. The defendants SJSL and Raychem, however, had much more detailed knowledge of the specific inflammability characteristics of the Thermaclad. Raychem gained this knowledge through its own testing as manufacturer. SJSL gained it through its request to Raychem for information on Thermaclad’s inflammability. BVHB did not have the degree of knowledge necessary to negate reliance on SJSL and Raychem. SJSL and Raychem did not demonstrate that BVHB accepted the risk of using Thermaclad. It follows that both SJSL and Raychem owed BVHB a duty to warn […].’

Judges:

McLachlin J (minority)

Citations:

[1997] 3 SCR 1210

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedMcTear 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.

Commonwealth, Negligence

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.226221

Dixon v Bell: 18 Jun 1816

The defendant had left a loaded gun at his lodgings and sent his servant, a mulatto girl aged about thirteen or fourteen, for the gun, asking the landlord to remove the priming and give it her. The landlord did remove the priming and gave it to the girl, who later levelled it at the plaintiff’s small son, drew the trigger and injured the boy.
Held: The law requires of persons having in their custody instruments of danger, that they should keep them with the utmost care The defendant was liable to damages in an action upon the case.
CASE. The plaintiff declares that the defendant was possessed of a gun, then being in a certain messuage [outbuilding], situate, andc.; and that he, well knowing the same to be loaded with powder and printing types, wrongfully and injuriously sent a female servant to the said messuage, to fetch away the gun so loaded, he well knowing that the said servant was too young, and an unfit and improper person to be sent for the gun, and to be entrusted with the care or custody of it; and which said servant afterwards, and while she was so sent and entrusted by the defendant, and had the custody of the said gun accordingly, carelessly and improperly shot off the same, at and into the face of the plaintiff’s son and servant, and struck out his right eye and two of his teeth, whereby he became sick, andc., and was prevented from performing his lawful business, and the plaintiff was deprived of his service, and put to great expence in procuring his cure, andc. There was a second count, for taking such improper care of the gun, knowing that it was loaded, that the gun was afterwards discharged against the plaintiff’s son, andc. Plea, not guilty. At the trial, before Lord Ellenborough C. J., at the last Middlesex sittings, the case was thus:
The plaintiff and defendant both lodged at the house of one Leman, where the defendant kept a gun loaded with types, in consequence of several robberies having been committed in the neighbourhood. The defendant left the house on the 10th of October, and sent a mulatto [p. 199:] girl, his servant, of the age of about thirteen or fourteen, for the gun, desiring Leman to give it her, and to take the priming out. Leman accordingly took out the priming, told the girl so, and delivered the gun to her. She put it down in the kitchen, resting on the butt, and, soon afterwards took it up again, and presented it, in play, at the plaintiff’s son, a child between eight and nine, saying she would shoot him, and drew the trigger. The gun went off, and the consequences stated in the declaration ensued. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 100l.
The Attorney General moved for a new trial, on the ground that the defendant had used every precaution which he could be expected to use on such on occasion, and, therefore, was not chargeable with any culpable negligence.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. The defendant might and ought to have gone farther; it was incumbent on him, who, by charging the gun, had made it capable of doing mischief, to render it safe and innoxious. This might have been done by the discharge or drawing of the contents; and though it was the defendant’s intention to prevent all mischief, and he expected that this would be effectuated by taking out the priming, the event has unfortunately proved, that the order to Leman was not sufficient; consequently, as by this want of care, the instrument was left in a state capable of doing mischief, the law will hold the defendant responsible. It is a hard case, undoubtedly; but I think the action is maintainable.
BAYLEY J. The gun ought to have been so left as to be out of all reach of doing harm. The mere removal of the priming left the chance of some grains of powder escaping through the touch-hole.

Judges:

Lord Ellenborough CJ, Bayley J

Citations:

(1816) 5 M and Sel 198

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDonoghue (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: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.187437

McShane v Burnwynd Racing Stables Ltd: SCS 5 Jun 2015

‘This case concerns an accident at the defenders’ racing stables on 25 March 2011. The pursuer was employed there by the defenders as trainer or assistant trainer. He was exercising a horse (‘Psalm 23′) on the training gallop. At the far end of the gallop, just before the third or final bend, his horse fell and landed on him. He was badly hurt. His left arm was injured and he has been left with a permanent impairment to his left side. He sues the defenders on the basis, in short, that the gallop was unsafe and that that was the cause of the fall.’

Judges:

Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 70

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Work at Height Regulations 2005, Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Health and Safety, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547657

Stanton v Collinson: QBD 2 Mar 2009

The claimant was severely injured when a car driven by the defendant crashed. No-one was wearing a seat belt. The driver died. The driver’s estate argued that the claimant was contributorily negligent in not wearing a seat belt. The claimant said that the failure had not contributed to his actual injuries.
Held: Having regard to the provisions of the 1945 Act and to the decision in Froom, the damages recoverable by this Claimant should not be reduced by reason of his failure to wear a seat belt. He is, consequently, entitled to recover damages on a full liability basis.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 342 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedFroom 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 . .
CitedGawler v Raettig CA 3-Dec-2007
The parties had resolved their claims of negligence, but asked the court to set the level of contributory negligence even though the appeal was academic.
Held: The court refused leave to appeal, but stated that its judgment could be reported. . .
CitedGawler v Raettig CA 3-Dec-2007
The parties had resolved their claims of negligence, but asked the court to set the level of contributory negligence even though the appeal was academic.
Held: The court refused leave to appeal, but stated that its judgment could be reported. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Damages

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.314303

Rouse v Squires: CA 22 Mar 1973

Citations:

[1973] EWCA Civ 9, [1972] 2 All ER 903, [1973] 2 WLR 925, [1973] RTR 550, [1973] QB 889

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDymond v Pearce CA 13-Jan-1972
A motorcyclist crashed into the rear of a lorry stationary on the carriageway. The plaintff said that the parking of the lorry was a nuisance, and that if it had not been so parked, there would have been no accident.
Held: The appeal failed. . .

Cited by:

CitedHoughton v Stannard QBD 29-Oct-2003
. .
CitedHughes v Guise Motors Ltd QBD 1-Nov-2007
The claimant’s car had cut out while being driven on a motorway. The driver had been able to pull onto chevrons at a junction but not onto the hard shoulder. The defendant drove into the rear of the vehicle.
Held: The driver had attempted to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.262736

Randall v Tarrant: CA 1955

The defendant had crashed into the plaintiff’s parked vehicle as he tried to pass. The defendant denied negligece.
Held: A driver on a highway who sees a stationary vehicle has to take all possible care to avoid a collision. If there is insufficient room to pass, he is negligent if he attempts to do so. If however, there is enough room but a collision occurs, then prima facie he is again negligent, the onus being on him to show that he has taken all the steps which a reasonable man would take in the circumstances, that is, all possible care to avoid a collision.
The court discussed the extent of public rights of way over land: ‘The rights of members of the public to use the highway are, prima facie, rights of passage to and from places which the highway adjoins; but equally clearly it is not a user of the highway beyond what is legitimate if, for some purposes, a driver of a vehicle pauses from time to time on the highway. Nobody would suggest to the contrary. On the other hand, it is well established that a highway must not be used in quite a different manner from passage along it and the pretext of walking up and down along it will not legitimise such a use’

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1955] 1 WLR 255

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other, Negligence

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.192195

Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd: TCC 10 Jul 2001

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richard Havery QC

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Technology 394, [2002] QB 929, [2001] 4 All ER 326

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd TCC 14-May-2001
. .

Cited by:

CitedDavis and Another v Balfour Kilpatrick Ltd and others CA 23-May-2002
The claimants sought damages for sickness they claimed arose from exposure to radiation when erecting radio transmitter masts. The risk had been recognised, and a safety assessment undertaken and adjustments made to the transmitter power before work . .
Appeal fromThames Water Utilities Limited v Marcic CA 7-Feb-2002
The claimant owned land over which sewage and other water had spilled from the appellant’s sewage works. His claim having been dismissed under Rylands v Fletcher, and there being no statutory means of obtaining compensation, the judge was asked to . .
See AlsoMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd TCC 14-May-2001
. .
At First instanceMarcic 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Human Rights, Negligence, Nuisance, Utilities

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.167236

Hawkins v Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council: CA 1954

Denning LJ suggested that there was a confluence between the laws applying to invitees and the laws applying to licensees.
Somervell LJ said: ‘reasonable foresight could not depend on ‘attributes which properly belong to a person of exceptional perspicuity and foresight’

Judges:

Denning, Somervell LJJ

Citations:

[1954] 1 All ER 97 CA, [1954] 2 WLR 122, [1954] 1 QB 319

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.182864

Ashdown v Samuel Williams and Sons Ltd: CA 1957

Employees used a short cut to reach premises occupied by their employer, the second defendants. The short cut crossed various railway lines, on premises belonging to the first defendants. While she was using the short cut, the plaintiff was struck by trucks that were being shunted on one of the railway lines. She sued both the first defendants and her employer, the second defendants. It had been argued that an employer’s responsibility for the safety of his employees only began when employees entered his premises.
Held: That duty was not restricted to access over the employer’s own property, or property under his control, but may extend to access over other property.
Singleton LJ held that the risk to the plaintiff was obvious, and nothing that the employer could have done would have made it more obvious. He pointed out that the plaintiff was aware that shunting operations were carried on; consequently a warning of the danger would not have been of any help to her.
Jenkins LJ said that it could not be said that the short cut was not reasonably safe. It had been used by employees for a matter of twenty years, and for five months by the plaintiff, and this was the first accident that had ever happened.
Parker LJ held that there was no duty to warn the plaintiff of the danger of crossing the railway lines, because such danger was patent and well known to her. He further held that, because the short cut had been used by employees for twenty years without an accident, there was no reason that the employer should have foreseen the danger in shunting operations.

Judges:

Jenkins LJ, Parker LJ, Singleton LJ

Citations:

[1957] 1 QB 409

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAshdown v Samuel Williams and Sons Ltd QBD 1956
The plaintiff sought damages after being hit when, on her way into work taking a short cut across a stockyard, she was hit.
Held: Havers J, having referred to the employer’s duty in respect of access where the place of work abuts a highway, . .

Cited by:

CitedWhite v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650949

Osborne v London and North Western Railway: 1888

Wills J said: ‘If the defendants desire to succeed on the ground that the maxim volenti non fit injuria is applicable, they must obtain a finding of fact that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk he ran, impliedly agreed to incur it’

Judges:

Wills J

Citations:

(1888) 21 QB220

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .
CitedWhite v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
ApprovedLetang v Ottawa Electric Railway Co 1926
To accept a plea of non fit injuria, there has to be a finding that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk he ran, impliedly agreed to incur it. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650948

O’Dowd v Frazer-Nash: 1951

Mr. Justice McNair exonerated from blame the driver of a motor-car in a road race in Jersey who crashed at speed owing to a failure of brakes, killing the plaintiff’s husband.

Judges:

McNair J

Citations:

[1951] WN172

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650947

Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club: CA 1933

The organisers of a racing circuit were not liable for personal injuries suffered when a racing car leapt the barriers and crashed into the crowd, having taken reasonable precautions to prevent such events.
Lord Justice Scrutton said: ‘What is reasonable care would depend upon the perils which might be reasonably expected to occur, and the extent to which the ordinary spectator might be expected to appreciate and take the risk of such perils.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Scrutton

Citations:

[1933] 1 KB 206

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWhite v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650942

Ashdown v Samuel Williams and Sons Ltd: QBD 1956

The plaintiff sought damages after being hit when, on her way into work taking a short cut across a stockyard, she was hit.
Held: Havers J, having referred to the employer’s duty in respect of access where the place of work abuts a highway, said: ‘A different position may arise if – as in the present case – the employer’s place of work is entirely surrounded, for all practical purposes, by private land belonging to somebody else. The employer clearly has to provide some means of access to his employees by which they can reach their place of work . . In such a case, where there is a right of way which the employee is entitled to use, it seems to me that if the employer intends his employees to use it, he would be under a general duty to take reasonable care that that way was reasonably safe for his employees to use. As regards the precautions which he could take, of course, regard would have to be had to the fact that he had a limited right only on the land, and that the land belonged to somebody else. I hold, in such circumstances, that there would be a duty upon the employer to take reasonable care to ensure that that way was reasonably safe for his employees’

Judges:

Havers J

Citations:

[1956] 2 QB 580

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromAshdown v Samuel Williams and Sons Ltd CA 1957
Employees used a short cut to reach premises occupied by their employer, the second defendants. The short cut crossed various railway lines, on premises belonging to the first defendants. While she was using the short cut, the plaintiff was struck . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650950

Hood v Anchor Line (Henderson Bros) Ltd: HL 1 Jul 1918

An English court may exercise its jurisdiction in personam over the liquidator to enforce the contract between the chargee and the company, and may require the liquidator to pay the proceeds to the chargee, The Scottish courts did not recognise the validity of a floating charge on a company’s assets.
Whether term brought to notice of party.

Judges:

Lord Dunedin

Citations:

[1918] AC 837, [1918] UKHL 2, (1918) 2 SLT 118, 1918 SC (HL) 143

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedHood v Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers) Ltd SCS 25-Feb-1916
Court of Session Inner House Second Division ‘Notice. – This ticket is issued to and accepted by the passenger subject to the following conditions’
In an action at the instance of a passenger on an Atlantic steamer against the shipping company . .
Appeal fromHood v Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers) Ltd SCS 31-Oct-1917
Court of Session Inner House Second Division – Carriage of Passengers – Conditions on Ticket Limiting Liability of Carrier – Notice of Conditions – A passenger on a trans-Atlantic steamer, who brought an action against the owners thereof for damages . .

Cited by:

CitedTICC Limited v Cosco (UK) Limited CA 5-Dec-2001
The claimants sought to have incorporated by notice into a contract of bill of lading, the terms of a freight surcharge. Notice had been given to the shipping agents in Hong Kong only. The shippers claimed the surcharge under the 1992 Act, saying . .
CitedInterfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd CA 12-Nov-1987
Incorporation of Onerous Terms Requires More Care
Photographic transparencies were hired out to the advertising agency defendant. The contract clauses on the delivery note included a fee which was exorbitant for the retention of transparencies beyond the set date.
Held: The plaintiff had not . .
CitedWhite v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Company, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.279677

Ahanonu v South East London and Kent Bus Company Ltd: CA 8 Oct 2007

Laws LJ said: ‘There is sometimes a danger in cases of negligence that the court may evaluate the standard of care owed by the defendant by reference to fine considerations elicited in the leisure of the court room, perhaps with the liberal use of hindsight. The obligation thus constructed can look more like a guarantee of the claimant’s safety than a duty to take reasonable care.’

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedStewart v Glaze QBD 7-Apr-2009
Coulson J considered the place of expert evidence in cases involving road traffic accidents, saying: ‘it is the primary factual evidence which is of the greatest importance in a case of this kind. The expert evidence comprises a useful way in which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.264467

Wooldridge v Sumner and Another: CA 4 Jun 1962

The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player cannot in the normal case at least of competition or game rely on the maxim volenti non fit injuria in answer to a spectator’s claim, for there is no liability unless there is negligence and the spectator comes to witness skill and with the expectation that it will be exercised. But provided the competition or game is being performed within the rules and the requirement of the sport and by a person of adequate skill and competence the spectator does not expect his safety to be regarded by the participant.’
Danckwerts LJ said: ‘Mr. Holladay’s duty to his employer was to utilise the qualities of the horse so as to show it to the best advantage. This involved the horse going at a fast gallop. Decisions have to be taken in a split second and it is impossible for a rider, as it seems to me, in such circumstances to calculate every possible result in his mind. He could not possibly be expected to foresee that someone would jump out from the line of the bench into the track of the horse. Persons who stand so close to the scene of such events must take the risk of something going wrong in the ordinary course of the sport, and which is a risk incidental to it.’
Diplock LJ said: ‘A reasonable spectator attending voluntarily to witness any game or competition knows and presumably desires that a reasonable participant will concentrate his attention upon winning, and if the game or competition is a fast-moving one, will have to exercise his judgment and attempt to exert his skill in what, in the analogous context of contributory negligence, is sometimes called ‘the agony of the moment.’ If the participant does so concentrate his attention and consequently does exercise his judgment and attempt to exert his skill in circumstances of this kind which are inherent in the game or competition in which he is taking part, the question whether any mistake he makes amounts to a breach of duty to take reasonable care must take account of those circumstances.’

Judges:

Sellers, Danckwerts, Diplock LJJ

Citations:

[1962] EWCA Civ 3, [1962] 3 WLR 616, [1963] 2 QB 43, [1962] 2 All ER 978

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCleghorn v Oldham 1927
The court considered the liability of a golfer, not in the course of play, swinging a club and injuring a person standing by. . .
CitedHall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club CA 1933
The organisers of a racing circuit were not liable for personal injuries suffered when a racing car leapt the barriers and crashed into the crowd, having taken reasonable precautions to prevent such events.
Lord Justice Scrutton said: ‘What is . .
CitedO’Dowd v Frazer-Nash 1951
Mr. Justice McNair exonerated from blame the driver of a motor-car in a road race in Jersey who crashed at speed owing to a failure of brakes, killing the plaintiff’s husband. . .
CitedBolton 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 . .
CitedBenmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd HL 1955
Except for cases which are expressly limited to questions of law, an appellant is entitled to appeal from the Court of Session to the House against any finding, whether it be a finding of law, a finding of fact or a finding involving both law and . .
CitedDonoghue (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 . .
CitedOsborne v London and North Western Railway 1888
Wills J said: ‘If the defendants desire to succeed on the ground that the maxim volenti non fit injuria is applicable, they must obtain a finding of fact that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the . .
CitedAdmiralty Commissioners v SS Volute (Owners), The Volute HL 1921
When assessing negligence the court must ask whether it was ‘so much mixed up with the state of things brought about’ by the defendant that ‘in the ordinary plain common sense of this business’ it must be regarded as having contributed to the . .
CitedKelly v Farrans Ltd 1954
Lord MacDermott discussed the plea of volentia non fit injuria: ‘The question raised by a plea of volenti non fit iniuria is not whether the injured party consented to run the risk of being hurt, but whether the injured party consented to run that . .
CitedBourhill 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 . .
CitedDann v Hamilton 1939
The maxim volenti non fit injuria, which originates from Roman law, is a notorious source of confusion. The court doubted whether the maxim ever could apply to license in advance a subsequent act of negligence, for if the consent precedes the act of . .
CitedLetang v Ottawa Electric Railway Co 1926
To accept a plea of non fit injuria, there has to be a finding that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk he ran, impliedly agreed to incur it. . .
CitedHaynes 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, . .
CitedCutler v United Dairies CA 1933
A horse pulling one of the defendant’s vans was seen running loose without a driver. It left the roadway onto private land. The driver caught up and called for help. The plaintiff jumped into the field and was injured trying to restrain the horse. . .

Cited by:

CitedWhite v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.262808

Slater v Clay Cross Co Ltd: 1956

The plaintiff was injured walking down a narrow railway tunnel. The tunnel had been regularly used by locals as a short cut.
Held: Though there was a risk in doing so, that did not mean that she had accepted also the risk that the train driver would drive negligently. The chance which she took was no doubt limited to the danger from a train operated properly, in the ‘ordinary and accustomed way’. Lord Denning MR said: ‘knowledge of the danger is only a bar where the party is free to act on it so that the injury can be said to be due solely to his own fault . . Where knowledge of the danger is not such as to render the accident solely the fault of the injured party, then it is not a bar to the action but only a ground for reducing the damages.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1956] 2 QB 264, [1956] 3 WLR 236

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTitchener v British Railways Board HL 24-Nov-1983
A 15 year old was hit by a train as she crossed a railway line. She said the defender had not maintained a fence separating the street from the railway. The defenders knew that people went through the gaps walked across. She had crossed several . .
CitedMcTear 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 . .
CitedWhite v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.226756

Letang v Ottawa Electric Railway Co: 1926

To accept a plea of non fit injuria, there has to be a finding that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk he ran, impliedly agreed to incur it.

Citations:

[1926] AC 725

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Citing:

ApprovedOsborne v London and North Western Railway 1888
Wills J said: ‘If the defendants desire to succeed on the ground that the maxim volenti non fit injuria is applicable, they must obtain a finding of fact that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the . .

Cited by:

CitedMcTear 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 . .
CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .
CitedWhite v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.226705

Kelly v Farrans Ltd: 1954

Lord MacDermott discussed the plea of volentia non fit injuria: ‘The question raised by a plea of volenti non fit iniuria is not whether the injured party consented to run the risk of being hurt, but whether the injured party consented to run that risk at his own expense so that he and not the party alleged to be negligent should bear the loss in the event of injury. In other words, the consent that is relevant is not consent to the risk of injury but consent to the lack of reasonable care that may produce that risk.’

Judges:

Lord MacDermott

Citations:

[1954] NI 41

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.226229

Cunningham v Reading Football Club Ltd: 20 Mar 1991

The plaintiff sought damages after being injured by a piece of concrete thrown by a hooligan at a football match.
Held: Where a land owner could reasonably expect that visiting fans might use broken off pieces of concrete and hurl them at others, and did not ensure that such pieces were removed, it could be liable in damages as occupier.

Judges:

Drake J

Citations:

Independent 20-Mar-1991

Statutes:

Occupier’ Liability Act 1957

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.188818

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 stated and often restated that if the wrong is established the wrongdoer must take the victim as he finds him. That, however, is only true . . on the condition that the wrong has been established or admitted. The question of liability is anterior to the question of the measure of the consequences which go with the liability.’
Lord Russell of Killowen: ‘In considering whether a person owes to another a duty a breach of which will render him liable to that other in damages for negligence, it is material to consider what the defendant ought to have contemplated as a reasonable man. This consideration may play a double role. It is relevant in cases of admitted negligence (where the duty and breach are admitted) to the question of remoteness of damage, ie, to the question of compensation not to culpability, but it is also relevant in testing the existence of a duty as the foundation of the alleged negligence, ie, to the question of culpability not to compensation.’

Judges:

Lord MacMillan, Lord Wright, Lord Russell of Killowen

Citations:

[1943] AC 92, [1943] SC (HL) 78, 1943 SLT 105, [1942] UKHL 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

DisapprovedOwens v Liverpool Corporation CA 1938
Four family mourners at a funeral appealed against rejection of their claims for damages for distress caused by witnessing a collision between a negligently driven tramcar and the hearse.The incident had involved no apprehension, or sight, or sound . .

Cited by:

CitedAlcock 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 . .
CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
CitedGiullietta Galli-Atkinson v Seghal CA 21-Mar-2003
The claimant’s daughter was fatally injured in car accident, dying shortly after. The mother came upon the scene, witnessed a police cordon at the scene of the accident and was told of her death. She later saw the injuries at the mortuary and . .
CitedKing v Phillips CA 1952
Denning LJ said: ‘there can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock.’ A person ‘who suffers shock on being told of an accident to a loved one cannot recover damages from the . .
CitedSalter v UB Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003
The pursuer was involved in an accident at work, where his co-worker died. He suffered only psychiatric injury.
Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . .
CitedSmith 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 . .
CitedAB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD 26-Mar-2004
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
CitedSteel v Glasgow Iron and Steel Co Ltd 1944
The question was whether the actions of the deceased had broken the chain of causation when he intervened in an attempt to save property. ‘This rule of the ‘reasonable and probable consequence’ is a key that opens several locks; for it not only . .
CitedSimmons 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 . .
CitedOverseas 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 . .
CitedMcKillen 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 . .
CitedIslington London Borough Council v University College London Hospital NHS Trust CA 16-Jun-2005
The local authority sought repayment from a negligent hospital of the cost of services it had had to provide to an injured patient. They said that the hospital had failed to advise the patient to resume taking warfarin when her operation was . .
CitedCorr 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 . .
CitedJohnston 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 . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police QBD 31-Jul-1990
Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police CA 31-May-1991
The defendant policed a football match at which many people died. The plaintiffs, being relatives and friends of the deceased, inter alia suffered nervous shock having seen the events either from within the ground, or from outside or at home on . .
RejectedMcLoughlin v O’Brian HL 6-May-1982
The plaintiff was the mother of a child who died in an horrific accident, in which her husband and two other children were also injured. She was at home at the time of the accident, but went to the hospital immediately when she had heard what had . .
CitedLiverpool Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne CA 17-Jun-2015
The respondent was an experienced ambulance driver. His wife underwent emergency treatment at the appellant’s hospital. He had claimed as a secondary victim for the distress he suffered witnessing her suffering.
Held: The hospital’s appeal . .
CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages, Negligence

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.180104

Cameron v Hamilton’s Auction Marts Ltd: 1955

The court considered the extent of liability for negligent acts: ‘No Scots judge, so far as I know, has ever suggested liability for a consequence of negligence which was not natural and probable in the sense of being foreseeable, subject, of course, to the qualification that a negligent person takes the risk that his victim (and the victim’s dependants) may be in poor health.’

Judges:

Sherriff Hector McKechnie QC

Citations:

1955 SLT (Sh Ct) 74

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedSimmons 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196525

Williams v Jervis (Lex Komatsu): QBD 8 Oct 2008

The defendant drove into the rear of the claimant’s car, but the defendant later said that car did not have working tail lights and she was using her mobile phone. She alleged serious injury which was disputed.
Held: The claimant’s evidence was credible, and contributory negligence was not established. She had suffered brain damage and adverse changes to her personality. Damages accordingly.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2346 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoWilliams v Jervis (Komatsu) (Hearing Costs) QBD 30-Jul-2009
. .
See AlsoWilliams v Jervis (Komatsu) (Costs Liability) QBD 30-Jul-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.276810

Smith v London and St Katharine Docks Co: 1868

The plaintiff sought damages after being injuring crossing a gangway onto a ship.
Held: The defendant had invited the plaintiff to the property and must have known the gangway would be used for this purpose.

Citations:

[1868] LR 3 CP 326

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHeaven v Pender, Trading As West India Graving Dock Company CA 30-Jul-1883
Duty Arising to Use Ordinary Care and Skill
The plaintiff was a painter. His employer engaged to repaint a ship, and the defendant erected staging to support the work. The staging collapsed because one of the ropes was singed and weakened, injuring the plaintiff.
Held: The defendant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.218818

Thomas v Winchester: 1852

(New York) A chemist carelessly issued poison in answer to a request for a harmless drug, and he was held responsible to a third party injured by his neglect.

Citations:

(1852) 6 NY 697

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDonoghue (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 . .
CitedMacPherson v Buick Motor Co 1916
(New York Court of Appeal) A manufacturer of a defective motor-car was held liable for damages at the instance of a third party. A motor-car might reasonably be regarded as a dangerous article: ‘There is no claim that the defendant know of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.197981

Collis v Selden: 1868

The defendant installed a chandelier in a public house. It fell and injured the plaintiff.
Held: There was nothing to say that the defendant had any knowledge that the plaintiff, as opposed to members of the public in general, would enter the public house. He was not liable.

Judges:

Willes J

Citations:

(1868) L R 3 C P 495

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedLangridge v Levy ExP 1836
A man sold a gun which he knew to be dangerous for the use of the purchaser’s son. The gun exploded in the son’s hands.
Held: The son had a right of action in tort against the gunmaker, but, Parke B said: ‘We should pause before we made a . .

Cited by:

CitedDonoghue (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 . .
DistinguishedHeaven v Pender, Trading As West India Graving Dock Company CA 30-Jul-1883
Duty Arising to Use Ordinary Care and Skill
The plaintiff was a painter. His employer engaged to repaint a ship, and the defendant erected staging to support the work. The staging collapsed because one of the ropes was singed and weakened, injuring the plaintiff.
Held: The defendant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.197979

Farrant v Barnes: 1862

A duty of care from a consignor to a carrier’s servant that the goods to be transported can be safely carried, is owed independently of any contract.

Citations:

(1862) 11 CB (NS) 553

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDonoghue (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.

Transport, Negligence

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.197990

Gordon v M’Hardy: 1903

The pursuer sought to recover damages from a retail grocer on account of the death of his son by ptomaine poisoning, caused by eating tinned salmon purchased from the defender. The pursuer averred that the tin, when sold, was dented, but he did not suggest that the grocer had cut through the metal and allowed air to get in, or had otherwise caused injury to the contents.
Held: The action was irrelevant: ‘I do not see how the defender could have examined the tin of salmon which he is alleged to have sold without destroying the very condition which the manufacturer had established in order to preserve the contents, the tin not being intended to be opened until immediately before use.’

Judges:

Lord Justice-Clerk

Citations:

(1903) 6 F 210

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDonoghue (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, Contract, Scotland

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.197995

M’Kew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd: 1969

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk (Grant)

Citations:

[1969] 3 All ER 1621, 1969 SC 14

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Obiter rmarks doubtedMcKillen 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 . .
CitedGlasgow 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 by:

CitedSimmons 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Damages

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196530

Malone v Rowan: 1984

The burden of proving contributory negligence rests on the defendant.

Judges:

Russell J

Citations:

[1984] 3 All ER 402

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJohn 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: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.227908

Blackmore v Bristol and Exeter Ry Co: 1858

Judges:

Coleridge J

Citations:

(1858) 8 E and B 1035

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDonoghue (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: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.197978

Cunnington v Great Northern Ry Co: 1883

Judges:

Brett MR

Citations:

(1883) 49 LT 392

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDonoghue (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: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.197983

Brass v Maitland: 1856

There is an implied warranty from a consignor to the carrier as to the non-dangerous nature of what is to be carried.

Citations:

(1856) 6 E and B 470

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDonoghue (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: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.197989

Ahmed v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: CA 28 Jul 1998

The court considered whether, and if so, the circumstances in which, police officers may be liable in negligence to suspects for failure to comply with the Codes of Practice.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1305

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 66 67

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence, Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.144784

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd: 12 Aug 1999

(High Court of Australia) The plaintiff farmers sought damages for financial losses incurred after the defendant negligently introduced a disease. Although the disease was not shown to have spread, neighbouring farm owners suffered economic loss by the imposition of a potato marketing ban in Western Australia attributable to the proximity of their farms to the outbreak of the disease, and sued the defendant for what was therefore pure economic loss (the absence of any escape of the disease preventing a claim under Rylands v. Fletcher).
Held: The appeal was allowed with costs. An important criterion for the imposition of liability for economic loss lay in ascertaining the extent to which the plaintiff was vulnerable to incurring loss by reason of the defendant’s conduct, and the extent to which that was or should have been apparent to the defendant.
Kirby J said: ‘As against the approach which I favour, it has been said that the three identified elements are mere ‘labels’. So indeed they are . . Labels are commonly used by lawyers. They help steer the mind through the task in hand.’
Gleeson CJ considered the exclusionary rule (and its distinction between physical and economic loss), but did not need to discuss what exactly happened to the Perre’s potatoes, so as to establish whether it was physical damage. The loss was categorised as pure economic loss. Callinan J said that what happened to the uninfected potatoes ‘may not have been actual physical damage’, but he compared what happened to them with what happens to land which is said to be subject to planning blight.

Judges:

Gleeson CJ, Callinan J, Kirby J

Citations:

(1999) 198 CLR 180, [1999] HCA 36, [1999] 64 ALR 606, [1999] 64 73 ALJR 1190, [1999] 73 ALJR 1190

Links:

Austlii, Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedHM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
CitedCalvert 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, . .
CitedD 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.

Negligence, Agriculture, Damages

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.331082

CLT v Connon and Others: 8 May 2000

Austlii (Supreme Court of South Australia) The father, the appellant, was accused of sexually abusing his three children. He sued for damages alleging negligence on the part of the medical practitioners who examined the children for signs of sexual abuse and on the part of the Department of Community Welfare who requested that police investigations be carried out and who took steps to ensure children were not returned to the care of the appellant – appellant’s relationship with his children significantly impaired – appellant conceded that previous decision of this Court in Hillman v Black could not be distinguished – Master considered himself bound by Hillman v Black and struck out claim as disclosing no cause of action. Whether recent High Court decisions dealing with the approach to be taken to duty of care require a reconsideration of Hillman v Black – whether duty of care was owed to appellant by medical practitioners and/or Department of Community Welfare when investigating and reporting the claims of sexual abuse. Gray J ‘Devastating consequences can follow an incorrect finding that a child has been sexually abused. Those consequences flow not only to the person against whom the findings are made, but also to the child and the family.’

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2000] SASC 223

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedJD 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.

Commonwealth, Negligence, Health Professions

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.224409

Wilkinson v Coverdale: 1793

The defendant had gratuitously undertaken to arrange insurance for the plaintiff. He had not done so, and the plaintiff sued him in negligence.
Held: He was liable.
Case will lie where a party undertakes to get a policy done for another therein, without any consideration, if the party so undertaking it takes any steps for that purpose, but does it so negligently, that the person has no benefit from it.

Judges:

Lord Kenyon

Citations:

(1793) 1 Esp 74, [1801] EngR 101, (1793, 1796, 1801) 1 Esp 75, (1801) 170 ER 284 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHedley 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

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.216370

Owners of the Ship Herceg Novi v Owners of the Ship Ming Galaxy: CA 16 Jul 1998

A claim for daages was made after ships collided, and one sank.
Held: The judge had been wrong not to stay an action here where the proper jurisdiction was Singapore. That higher damages might be available under a different convention applying here did not mean that a party should be deprived of justice in Singapore. There is no one dominant international standard.

Citations:

Times 30-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA (Civ) 1223

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Negligence, Jurisdiction

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.84506

Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd: HL 1959

The employer provided an employee with a simple metal tool, a drift, with no apparent defect, which had, in fact, been manufactured to excessive hardness, as the result of negligent heat treatment by the otherwise reputable manufacturer. That was a defect not discoverable, other than by testing of a kind which an employer could not reasonably have been expected to undertake, before issuing the tool to an employee.
Held: In those circumstances, the employer was not liable to the injured employee for the consequences of the manufacturer’s negligence.
Viscount Simonds said that the employers were not in breach of a duty to provide safe plant and equipment to their employees where they purchased tools from well-known makers which subsequently were revealed to be defective, but were entitled to assume they were proper for use. He approved what was said by Finnemore J. in an assizes case to the following effect: ”Employers have to act as reasonable people, they have to take reasonable care; but if they buy their tools from well-known makers, such as the second defendants are, they are entitled to assume that the tools will be proper for the purposes for which both sides intended them to be used, and not require daily, weekly or monthly inspection to see if in fact all is well.’ My Lords, a prolonged examination of the authorities could not have led him to a sounder conclusion.’

Judges:

Viscount Simonds

Citations:

[1959] AC 604, [1959] 1 All ER 346, [1959] 2 WLR 331, [1959] 2 Lloyds Rep 587

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromDavie v New Merton Board Mills CA 1958
Parker LJ pointed out that the reasoning in Biddle was inconsistent with other decisions to the effect that there is no duty of care in respect of premises over which the master has no control, but it is consistent with alternative ratios that the . .

Cited by:

CitedWoodland 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 . .
CitedDevine v Colvilles Ltd HL 11-Mar-1969
The House considered the position of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitir. The plaintiff had been injured falling or jumping from a raised platform.
Held: The claim succeeded. ‘ I hold it proved that there was a general panic. Now the defenders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Negligence

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.445620

Regina v London Borough of Sutton, ex parte Jolley: CA 19 Jun 1998

The plaintiff, a boy, was injured when playing on a derelict boat left on council land. The council appealed an award of damages against it.
Held: A local authority may be liable for injury caused by a derelict boat not removed from their land which attracted children, but not for an injury arising from unforeseeable later dealings with that boat. Lord Woolf MR: ‘Even making full allowance for the unpredictability of children’s behaviour, I am driven to conclude that it was not reasonably foreseeable that an accident could occur as a result of the boys deciding to work under a propped up boat. Nor could any reasonably similar accident have been foreseen. Ironically the state of the boat was so poor that it made it less likely that it would be repairable or that boys would embark on doing the necessary repairs. The photographs of the boat and the evidence of Mr. Hall indicate that it was a fairly heavy structure. It would be by no means easy for the boat to be moved or raised. In deciding whether the accident was foreseeable it is important not only to consider the precise accident which occurred but the class of accident.’
Roch LJ: ‘If a result of its unsafe condition a child had been injured while doing so the subsequent claim for damages would have succeeded. Whether it would have succeeded on the basis of an injury resulting from the mere presence of the boat – as opposed to its unsafe condition – is a separate question which does not arise for decision.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Roch LJ

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jul-1998, Times 23-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1049, [1998] 1 WLR 1546, [1998] PIQR P377, [1998] 3 All ER 559

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromJolley v Sutton London Borough Council QBD 1998
The claimant, a boy was injured when playing around a boat abandoned on land owned by the defendant. He had propped it up to attempt a repair, and was crushed when it fell on him. He said that in not removing the boat they had been negligent.
CitedOverseas 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 . .
CitedHughes 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 by:

Appeal fromJolley 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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Negligence

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144528

Perrett v Collins, Underwood PFA (Ulair) Limited (T/a Popular Flying Association): CA 22 May 1998

The plaintiff was a passenger in an aircraft which crashed, and there was a preliminary issue as to the liability to him of those who certified that the aircraft was fit to fly. The propeller was mismatched to the gearbox.
Held: A certifying authority and its inspector were both liable in negligence having certified an experimental aircraft as fit to be flown, and the duty extended to any passenger who was carried in the aircraft. ‘What the second and third defendants seek to achieve in this case is to extend the decisions upon ‘economic’ loss to cases of personal injuries. It represents a fundamental attack upon the principle of tortious liability for negligent conduct which has caused foreseeable personal injury to others. That such a point should be considered to be even arguable shows how far some of the fundamental principles of the law of negligence have come to be eroded.’ and ‘The denial of a duty of care owed by such a person in relation to the safety of the aircraft towards those who may suffer personal injuries, whether as passengers in the aircraft or upon the ground, would leave a gap in the law of tort notwithstanding that a plaintiff has suffered foreseeable personal injury as a result of the unsafety of the aircraft and the unreasonable careless conduct of the defendant. It would be remarkable if that were the law.’
Hobhouse LJ said: ‘It is a truism to say that any case must be decided taking into account the circumstances of the case, but where those circumstances comply with established categories of liability, a defendant should not be allowed to seek to escape from liability by appealing to some vaguer concept of justice or fairness; the law cannot be re-made for every case. Indeed, the previous authorities have by necessary implication held that it is fair, just and reasonable that the plaintiff should recover in the situations falling within the principles they have applied.’
‘Marc Rich should not be regarded as an authority which has a relevance to cases of personal injury or as adding any requirements that an injured plaintiff do more than bring his case within established principles. If a plaintiff is attempting to establish some novel principle of liability, then the situation would be different.’

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ

Citations:

Times 23-Jun-1998, 1999 SLT 224, [1998] EWCA Civ 884, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s LR 255, 1999 SCLR 126, (1999) 1 TCLR 1, [1999] BLR 35, [1999] Lloyds Rep IR 105, [1999] 1 WLR 9

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Air Navigation Order 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAdler v Dickson; ‘the Himalaya’ CA 29-Oct-1954
The defendants were the master and boatswain of the P and O passenger liner Himalaya. The plaintiff was a passenger who was injured when an insecure gangway slipped and he fell 16ft to the wharf. The plaintiff had a contract with P and O which . .
CitedMarc Rich and Co Ag and Others v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd and Others HL 6-Jul-1995
A surveyor acting on behalf of the classification society had recommended that after repairs specified by him had been carried out a vessel, the Nicholas H, should be allowed to proceed. It was lost at sea.
Held: The marine classification . .

Cited by:

ConsideredMichael Alexander Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World Boxing Organisation Incorporated CA 19-Dec-2000
The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendant’s rules. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. By the time he received resuscitation . .
CitedBinod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council CA 20-Feb-2004
The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it.
Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . .
CitedSutradhar 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 . .
CitedPortsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton CA 12-Jun-2008
The claimant was injured climbing without ropes (‘bouldering’) at defendant’s activity centre. The defendant appealed against a finding of 25% responsibility in having failed to warn climbers that the existence of thick foam would not remove all . .
CitedGeary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .
CitedRobinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144363

Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another: CA 26 Jan 2006

Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The defendants appeals succeeded. The claimants had three possible claims, none of which on their own would amount to a basis for a claim, and the three could not be aggregated to construct a claim. Pleural plaques are the most common development from exposure to asbestos, but are themselves symptomless. They are a necessary pre-condition to the development later of other asbestos related conditions. Negligence is actionable only on proof of damage. Though historically liability had been found for pleural plaques, this was a matter of policy, and the law had changed since Cartledge v Jopling: ‘there is no legal precedent in this country, beyond first instance decisions, for aggregating three heads of claim which, individually, could not found a cause of action, so as to constitute sufficient damage to give rise to a legal claim. ‘ As to the claims for anxiety: ‘Anxiety is a form of psychiatric prejudice that is less serious than one of the recognised forms of psychiatric injury. The law does not recognise a duty to take reasonable care not to cause anxiety. It does not even recognise a duty to take reasonable care not to cause psychiatric injury. Control mechanisms, the creatures of policy, restrict the circumstances in which a defendant will be liable for causing foreseeable psychiatric injury. ‘

Judges:

Longmore LJ, Smith LJ, Lord Phillips CJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 27, [2006] ICR 1458, Times 31-Jan-2006, [2006] 4 All ER 1161, (2006) 90 BMLR 88

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLynch v Knight HL 17-Jul-1861
Lord Wensleydale said: ‘Mental pain or anxiety the law cannot value, and does not pretend to redress, when the unlawful act complained of causes that alone; though where material damage occurs, and is connected with it, it is impossible a jury, in . .
Appeal fromRothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another QBD 15-Feb-2005
The claimant had been exposed to asbestos whilst employed by the defendant and sought damages for the pleural plaques which had developed as a consequence. The defendant replied that such plaques and pleural thickening were not a sufficient injury . .
CitedGregg v Scott HL 27-Jan-2005
The patient saw his doctor and complained about a lump under his arm. The doctor failed to diagnose cancer. It was nine months before treatment was begun. The claimant sought damages for the reduction in his prospects of disease-free survival for . .
CitedFairchild 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 . .
CitedCartledge v E Jopling and Sons Ltd CA 1962
The court gave guidance on when an injury passes from being de minimis to being sufficiently significant to found a cause of action: ‘there is from the beginning some injury occurring from day to day, as each of the minute particles which enter the . .
CitedCartledge v E Jopling and Sons Ltd HL 1963
The plaintiffs were steel dressers who, in the course of their employment, had inhaled quantities of noxious dust which had caused them to suffer from pneumoconiosis. They issued proceedings on 1 October 1956 but were unable to show any breach of . .
CitedPage 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 . .
CitedChurch v Ministry of Defence QBD 23-Feb-1984
The 62 year old claimant sought damages after working in in the defendant’s dockyard and being exposed to asbestos. Pleural plaques were apparent on X-ray and the pleura would constrict the lung and induce breathlessness; and the asbestos must have . .
CitedSykes v Ministry of Defence QBD 19-Mar-1984
The claimant was exposed to asbestos whilst working for the defendant in the naval dockyard at Portsmouth, and sought damages having developed pleural plaques, but no further damage was expected, save ‘a slightly increased risk of developing a lung . .
MentionedDarley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell HL 1886
The owner of land whose land was affected by subsidence in 1868 and who received compensation from those who had worked coal and caused the subsidence, was able, in 1882 when further subsidence took place causing further injury, to bring a fresh . .
MentionedPirelli 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 . .
CitedAlcock 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 . .
CitedPatterson v Ministry of Defence QBD 29-Jul-1986
The plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos when working for the defendant. X-rays revealed development of pleural plaques, but these would remain asymptomatic.
Held: Material damage sufficient to set time running was the same as damage . .
CitedBittles v Harland and Wolffe Plc and a W Hamilton and Co Ltd NIHC 24-May-2000
‘In a case such as the present where the plaintiff has been exposed to and has inhaled asbestos dust as a result of the defendant’s negligence and has in consequence developed pleural plaques, the development of the pleural plaques even if . .
CitedGibson v McAndrew Wormald and Co Ltd 1998
Pleural plaques constituted an identifiable injury for which damages were recoverable. . .
CitedDulieu v White and Sons KBD 1901
A pregnant barmaid suffered nervous shock causing her to give premature birth as a result of the tortfeasor’s horse van bursting into her bar at the Bonner Arms in Bethnal Green from the roadway. The defendant pleaded that the damages claimed were . .
CitedKing v Phillips CA 1952
Denning LJ said: ‘there can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock.’ A person ‘who suffers shock on being told of an accident to a loved one cannot recover damages from the . .
CitedMcLoughlin v O’Brian HL 6-May-1982
The plaintiff was the mother of a child who died in an horrific accident, in which her husband and two other children were also injured. She was at home at the time of the accident, but went to the hospital immediately when she had heard what had . .
CitedWhite, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
CitedCreutzfeld Jakob Disease Litigation; Newman and Others v Medical Research Council and Another CA 20-Dec-1997
The claimants had been negligently injected as children with Hartree HGH, a human growth hormone that exposed them to the risk of contracting CJD. One issue was whether this rendered the defendants liable for psychiatric illness caused by the shock . .
CitedHartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
CitedFletcher v The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland 21-Feb-2003
(Irish Supreme Court) . .
CitedSutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
CitedBarber 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 . .

Cited by:

CitedFrench and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006
The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force.
Held: The claim failed: ‘these claimants have no . .
CitedCape Plc and Others, Re Companies Act 1985 ChD 16-Jun-2006
The court was asked to sanction a scheme of arrangements, and particularly to approve a proposed scheme which itself contained the power to make amendments to the scheme.
Held: The court did have power to sanction such a proposed scheme of . .
Appeal fromJohnston 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.238135

Dublin United Tramways Co Ltd v Martin Fitzgerald: HL 1903

The plaintiff sued when his horse slipped on tramlines in the road and fell. Stone setts or paving between the rails of a tramway in Grafton Street, Dublin, had become slippery owing to the grit or roughness of setts being worn away. In that state, the paving between the rails was dangerous and a nuisance, particularly when wet. The defendants said that they had no obligation to remedy transient conditions of rain or snow by putting down sand.
Held: The tramway company were negligent in the omission of sanding and as a result were negligent in the maintenance of the pavement. The 1870 Act is to be construed in the context of an interference with the highway. The promoters, ‘while they are permitted to use the public highway, shall take care that the safety and convenience of the public shall be preserved’ and ‘What they have got to keep in good condition is the structure or fabric of the roadway. But the surface is part of that structure or fabric, and, as this is a roadway, a very important part . . .’
Lord Robertson said that the surface of the roadway was part of the structure or fabric of the roadway, and, if the authority used materials having a kind of surface which would be in bad condition in wet weather ‘they must from time to time supply by sand to this material what other materials might of themselves in all conditions supply by the roughness of their own surface.’

Judges:

Lord Halsbury, Lord Robertson

Citations:

[1903] AC 99

Statutes:

Tramways Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoe 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 . .
CitedDepartment for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others CA 27-Jul-2006
Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty . .
CitedGoodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.181215

Marvin John Pearson v Anthony Lightning: CA 1 Apr 1998

The parties were golfers playing different holes at the same time. The shot of one hit the other in the eye. The shot was a recovery shot over where he should have known others would be playing. Where a golfer hit a shot which was difficult but carried a clear if small risk of injury to someone else on the course, then he was liable in negligence for a resulting injury. The outcome of any case concerning golf course injuries must depend on its particular facts.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Otton, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Times 30-Apr-1998, Gazette 20-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 591

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLewis v Buckpool Golf Club 1993
A high handicap golfer was negligent in failing to wait before driving off from the fifth tee with the result that when he mis-hit his shot at an acute angle it injured the plaintiff who was putting on the adjacent fourth green. ‘The question that . .
CitedMcLoughlin v O’Brian HL 6-May-1982
The plaintiff was the mother of a child who died in an horrific accident, in which her husband and two other children were also injured. She was at home at the time of the accident, but went to the hospital immediately when she had heard what had . .
CitedBolton 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 . .
CitedBrewer v Delo 1967
A golfer had hooked his tee shot so that his ball struck another player playing an adjacent hole some 200 yards ahead.
Held: The action failed on the ground that the consequences were not foreseeable, alternatively the risk was so slight that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144069

LSG (Europe) Ltd v Payen: CA 1 Mar 2013

The defendant sought leave to appeal against judgment given against it after a staff member had been involved in a road traffic accident. It had sought to recover the damages arising from his absence from work.

Judges:

Kitchin LJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472894

Gaynor v Allen: 1959

McNair J considered that when looking at the driving of a police officer, the standard remained that of the experienced skilled and careful driver. McNair considered a submission: ‘that if the motor-cyclist had been a civilian he would undoubtedly have been guilty of some negligence in driving at 60mph, though not necessarily entirely to blame for the accident. To show that a police officer was driving at that speed on a restricted road does not prima facie show negligence’
Held: McNair J said: ‘The driver of this police motor-cycle on this occasion must be judged, as regards civil liability, in exactly the same way as any other driver of a motor-cycle in similar circumstances. He, like any other driver, owed a duty to the public to drive with due care and attention and without exposing the members of the public to unnecessary danger.’

Judges:

McNair J

Citations:

[1959] 2 QB 403

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

OutdatedKeyse v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis, Scutts CA 18-May-2001
The court considered liability where a police car on emergency duty hit Mr Scutts causing very serious injuries. The officer appealed against a finding of liability saying that the judge had declared irrelevant the fact he was on an emergency . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Police, Negligence

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.375099

Higginbotham v Mobil Oil Corporation Long: 7 Mar 1977

(United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit) The court considered the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in an action for damages after a helicopter crash where there was no clear explanation for the crash.
Held: d’Auvergne J said: ‘Major improvements in design and manufacturing technology, in pilot training and in ground control, communications, and navigational aids, among other things, have combined to give air travel an estimable safety record . . Logic, experience and precedent compel us to reject the argument that airplane crashes ordinarily occur in the absence of default by someone connected with the design, manufacture, or operation of the craft’.

Judges:

d’Auvergne J

Citations:

[1977] USCA5 438, [1977] 545 F 2d 422

Links:

Worldlii

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

CitedGeorge v Eagle Air Services Ltd PC 12-May-2009
(Saint Lucia) The claimant sought damages after an aircrash. There was no obvious failure or explanation of the cause of the crash.
Held: The claimant could rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to transfer the burden to the defendant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Negligence, Transport

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.346205

B and B v A County Council: CA 21 Nov 2006

The claimants sought damages from the defendant local authority after their identities had been wrongfully revealed to the natural parents of the adoptees leading to a claimed campaign of harassment. The adopters has specifically requested that their names and address be not revealed, but they details were let slip in a case conference. Both parties appealed. There had been one adoption, and then a second open adoption.
Held: The authority did not have to gve the undertaking, and should itself have understood the risks it ran. The council did owe a duty of care. The parents sought to continue their claim in breach of confidence, wanting to expand the claim for damages, but the court declined to take the view that additional damages might be recovered. The parents’ appeal against a finding that the harassment had not been shown to have derived from the birth family failed.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Sedley LJ, Bodey J

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1388

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSmith 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 . .
CitedA and Another v Essex County Council CA 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought damages. The respondent had acted as an adoption agency but had failed to disclose all relevant information about the child.
Held: Any such duty extended only during the period where the child was with the prospective . .
CitedRoberts v Johnstone CA 1989
The measure of damages in respect of additional housing costs necessitated by a plaintiff’s injuries is the additional cost over his lifetime of providing that accommodation. As regards the discount to be applied for the immediate receipt of funds . .
CitedHenderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
CitedSeager v Copydex Ltd CA 1967
Mr Seager had invented a patented carpet grip which he manufactured and marketed under the trade mark Klent. There were protracted negotiations between Mr Seager and Copydex over a proposal for Copydex to market the Klent. One of the issues in the . .
CitedCaparo 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 . .
CitedAN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA 21-Dec-2005
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . .
CitedSwinney and Another v Chief Constable of Northumbria CA 22-Mar-1996
The plaintiff, a woman and her husband, had passed on information in confidence to the police about the identity of a person implicated in the killing of a police officer, expressing her concern that she did not want the source of the information to . .
CitedIn re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Negligence

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.246338

Whitehead v Bruce and Others: CA 21 Mar 2013

The three defendants each appealed against apportionment of liability for serious personal injuries incurred in a road traffic accident. The first defendant a motor cycle driver, with the claimant his pillion passenger took suddent action to evade a crash with vehicles belonging to the other two defendants, one broken down and parked and one overtaking.
Held: Interfering with a judge’s assessment of the apportionment of damages should be done only in exceptional circumstances, but ‘ the judge below has mischaracterised the contribution of the Second Defendant in this case. I do not, with all respect to the judge, think that it can properly be described as relatively low. She was, albeit through no fault of her own, forced to overtake and move into the opposite carriage way at a point where she necessarily posed a potential danger to oncoming traffic. It was highly incumbent upon her in those circumstances to return to her own lane with all due despatch and she failed to do that. Instead she undertook the manoeuvre in a most lackadaisical manner and even failed to return to her side of the road when she could and should have done so. ‘ The awards were adjusted accordingly.

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Elias, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 229

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPlumb v Ayres and Ryford Limited CA 17-Mar-1999
Appeals in personal injury cases against a judge’s finding on liability are very unlikely to succeed, and in future, leave to appeal should only be given where there is a clear evidence that the judge had made an error of principle. However, Brook . .
CitedWells v Mutchmeats Ltd and Another CA 28-Feb-2006
. .
CitedBritish Fame v MacGregor (‘The MacGregor’) HL 1947
Two ships had collided. One party sought to appeal the apportionment of damages.
Held: The House considered the reluctance of an appellate court to interefere with an apportionment of damages applied by the court at first instance: ‘It seems . .
CitedBessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark CA 28-May-2002
The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was . .
CitedAssicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
CitedManning v Stylianou CA 26-Oct-2006
Where an appeal is against a judge’s evaluation of the facts, the Court of Appeal should consider the evaluation in the same way it would approach an appeal against the exercise of discretion. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471932