Owing to negligence in the construction of a carriage it broke down. A third party sought damages for injuries which he alleged were due to negligence in the work.
Held: The doctrine of privity of contract precluded actions in tort by third parties arising from negligence by a party to a contract in carrying it out. He had no cause of action either in tort or arising out of contract. ‘The only safe rule is to confine the right to recover to those who enter into the contract; if we go one step beyond that, there is no reason why we should not go fifty.’

Judges:

Alderson B

Citations:

(1842) 10 M and W 109, 152 ER 402

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Blacker v Lake and Elliot Ld HL 1912
A brazing lamp which, by exploding owing to a latent defect, injured a person other than the purchaser of it, and the vendor was held not liable to the party injured. The House considered earlier cases on liability for defectively manufactured . .
Applied – Earl v Lubbock CA 1905
The plaintiff was injured when a wheel came off a van which he was driving for his employer, and which it was the duty of the defendant, under contract with the employer, to keep in repair. The county court judge and the Divisional Court both hold . .
Cited – Heaven 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.192606

After a dance, the plaintiff, a girl of nineteen, was walking along the pavement of a poorly lit street at about 10.45 p.m. with an escort. The pavement was covered with snow and slush. From time to time, they had to step off it and walked in the roadway in or near the gutter. Her escort was walking in front close to the kerb with the plaintiff some way behind slightly to his right. The plaintiff was struck from behind by the defendant’s car. The plaintiff’s escort testified that he neither heard nor saw the car which struck the plaintiff but that he saw it drive past him at a fast speed of about 30 to 40 miles an hour with full beams on.
Held: The driver was entirely responsible.
Stephenson LJ assumed the girl, clad in a dark blue coat and naval blue trousers without ‘wearing or carrying anything white, light-coloured or reflective, walking in the roadway nest to the kerb and not on the pavement and not on the right hand side of the road facing oncoming traffic but with her back to it’, to be in breach of the Highway Code: ‘The perfect pedestrian would, I suppose, have crossed to the other side every time he found the left hand pavement uncomfortable to walk on and, if he found the other pavement no better, would have walked in the roadway on the other side facing the traffic and carrying a lamp. But the question is not what was ideal but what was required by common sense; was the common sense codified in these three rules for pedestrians applicable to the conduct of this particular road user on foot, the plaintiff, at this time and place? More precisely, has the defendant proved that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for her own safety by leaving the pavement when they got too slushy in order to walk a few feet out in the road for distance of about 20 yards in the straight street in a built up area with street lights on? My answer to that is an unhesitating ‘No’. Even if it were ‘Yes, there was some negligence on her part’, I should not feel able to find that it made any real contribution to the accident. If she had been on the pavement, she would not have been injured, and if the defendant had proved that he was driving at a reasonable speed with suitable lights on and at least tried to give a proper lookout, I might not have regarded his negligence as substantially the sole cause of the accident.’
A breach of the Highway Code by a road user, itself creates no presumption calling for an explanation or a presumption of negligence but is one of the circumstances on which one party is entitled to rely in establishing negligence.

Judges:

Stephenson LJ

Citations:

[1972] 3 All ER 864

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Probert v Moore QBD 9-Aug-2012
The claimant, a 13 year old girl, was severely injured walking along the carriageway on a 60mph unlit road at 5:00pm on a December day. A hedgerow obliged her to walk in the road. The defendant driver said that she was contibutorily negligent in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.471194

Judges:

Lord Justice Tomlinson

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1158

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.463714

A stevedore’s workman, whilst unloading a ship, was injured owing to a defect in the tackle, and he was suing his master. The learned Judge withdrew the case from the jury, on the ground that the stevedore was not responsible for a defect in the ship’s tackle because the tackle did not belong to him.
Held: Lord Scroll said: ‘In my opinion, if the employer uses plant which is net his own for the purpose of doing something which he has engaged to do, it cannot possibly be said that he has no duty whatever in relation to that plant. Otherwise he would be able to take anything that came from anybody and to use anything in the work he was engaged upon without making any inquiry at all, and then say, in the event of an injury arising from a defect in the plant, that he had nothing to do with it, and so escape liability. That, to my mind, is unreasonable, and is not consistent with the second section. What I take to be the meaning of that is that if the employer uses plant which does not belong to him, he may have a duty in regard to the persons employed to take reasonable care to see that it is proper for the purpose for which it is need. It may be that in a case of this character, although he had that duty, yet, if he had dealt with these shipowners before and had never had any cause for complaint, the jury might think that he had reasonably discharged that duty. On the other hand, when you have evidence that the plant was old and had been in use for a long time, the jury might say they ware not satisfied that reasonable care had been taken to see that it was in a proper condition. Once establish the duty the question la, What would the jury consider a discharge of that duty?’.

Judges:

Lord Scroll

Citations:

[1907] 1 KB 649

Cited by:

Cited – Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co CA 24-Apr-1958
Pearce LJ said that if an employer sends an employee to work, ‘for instance in a respectable private house’, he could not be held negligent for not visiting the house himself ‘to see if the carpet in the hall created a trap’. . .
Cited – Davie 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.445621

In case against engineers for so negligently constructing and erecting a machine, that it exploded, and killed the husband of the plaintiff, the defendants pleaded, that, at the time of the accident, the machine was unfit for use, by reason of the dampness of the brick-work in which it was set; that they so informed the deceased, and cautioned him not to use it; and that, by reason of the premises, the machine exploded, as in the declaration mentioned,-concluding with a verification :-Held, that the plea did not present a confession and avoidance of the whole cause of action,but was an informal traverse of a part only, and therefore bad.

Citations:

[1849] EngR 749, (1849) 8 CB 92, (1849) 137 ER 443

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.299054

The court considered the judment in McGhee: ‘It seems to me that it follows from McGhee that where there is a situation in which a general duty of care arises and there is a failure to take a precaution, and that very damage occurs against which the precaution is designed to be a protection, then the burden lies on the defendant to show that he was not in breach of duty as well as to show that the damage did not result from his breach of duty.’

Citations:

[1983] 1 All ER 416

Cited by:

Cited – Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority HL 24-Jul-1986
A premature baby suffered injury after mistaken treatment by a hospital doctor. He had inserted a monitor into the umbilical vein. The claimant suggested the treatment should have been by a more senior doctor. The hospital appealed a finding that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.272563

Citations:

[1991] 1 Lloyds Rep 309

Cited by:

Cited – Marc 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.251598

The House considered liability in negligence after a motor accident.
Lord Wright said: ‘In one sense, but for the negligence of the pursuer (if she was negligent) in attempting to cross the road, she would not have been struck, and as a matter simply of causation, the facts formed a necessary element in the final result, since without them no accident could have occurred. The decision, however, of the case must turn not simply on causation, but on responsibility; the plaintiff’s negligence may be what is often called causa sine qua non, yet as regards responsibility it becomes merely evidential or matter of narrative, if the defendant acting reasonably could and ought to have avoided the collision.’

Judges:

Lord Wright

Citations:

(1932) TLR 467

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.231181

The court was asked whether the development of multiple sclerosis had been caused by physical injury sustained in a motor accident. Medical science was not able to demonstrate the connection between the two, and reliance was placed on epidemiological evidence.
Held: The court referred to the case of Davie as affording: ‘[a]uthoritative guidance on the approach which a court should take to expert evidence’ and ‘Perhaps the essential point is that parties who come to court are entitled to the decision of a judicial tribunal. Such a decision may take account of many rather intangible things such as the demeanour of witnesses and the way that they gave their evidence, but, whatever its components may be, such a decision must be reasoned. As Lord Cooper says, an oracular pronouncement will not do.’ The Lord Ordinary required to test the experts’ evidence and, having done so, to use those parts which he accepted and apply them to the facts of the case. If he did not do so it must be inferred that he misdirected himself, and ‘As with judicial or other opinions, what carries weight is the reasoning, not the conclusion.’
Lord Prosser said: ‘I would wish to make two other general observations, before turning to the issues between the parties. First, there was a certain amount of evidence to the effect that certain views on causation were very widely held, or were no longer widely held. If a particular process of reasoning is widely accepted, then that I think may be persuasive for a court. But the fact that a particular view is widely held, without any persuasive explanation as to why it should be so held, and constitute a conclusion, does not appear to me to be a matter to which a court should give significant weight. Rather similarly, the fact that a particular view was or is held by someone of great distinction, whether he is a witness or not, does not seem to me to give any particular weight to his view, if the reasons for his coming to that view are unexplained, or unconvincing. As with judicial or other opinions, what carries weight is the reasoning, not the conclusion.’ and
”In ordinary (non-lawyers’) language, to say that one regards something as ‘probable’ is by no means to say that one regards it as ‘established’ or ‘proved’. Yet in the civil courts, where we say that a pursuer must prove his case on a balance of probabilities, what is held to be probable is treated as ‘proved’. I do not suggest that any lawyer will be confused by this rather special meaning of the word ‘proved’. But speaking very generally, I think that the civil requirement of a pursuer – that he satisfy the court that upon the evidence his case is probably sound – would in ordinary language be regarded as very different from, and less stringent than, a requirement that his case be established or proved. More importantly in the context of such a case as the present, the fact that the two concepts are distinct in ordinary language, but the same in this legal context, seems to me to give rise to a risk of ambiguity or misunderstanding in the expressed opinions of expert witnesses. And this risk will be increased if the expert in question would normally, in the exercise of his profession, adopt an approach to such issues starkly different from that incumbent upon a court. Whether one uses the word ‘scientific’ or not, no hypothesis or proposition would be seen as ‘proved’ or ‘established’ by anyone with any form of medical expertise merely upon the basis that he had come to regard it as probably sound. (Indeed, I think even the word ‘probable’ would be reserved for situations where the likelihood is thought to be much more than marginal). And even if, in relation to any possible proposition or hypothesis, such an expert even troubled to notice that he had come to the point of regarding it as not merely possible but on balance ‘probable’, then I think he would regard that point as one from which he must set off on further inquiry, and by no means as being (as it is in the courts) a point of arrival. Mere marginal probability will not much interest him. But it must satisfy a court.”
Lord Prosser discussed the method of proof: ‘I am not much impressed by one argument advanced for the defender to the effect that the pursuer’s argument is essentially ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’, and therefore unsound. Plainly, one will more readily conclude that B is caused by A, or probably caused by A, if one can identify, or at least envisage, some kind of mechanism whereby B might be caused by A. Equally, if one simply cannot identify or envisage such a mechanism, the mere fact that on one occasion B happened after A (and perhaps very quickly after A) would not, in the absence of other indications, lead one easily to conclude that B was caused by A. But no one, certainly in this case, suggests that such a single coincidence is to be interpreted as involving a causal relationship. And once one moves from single coincidence to a number of occasions when B follows (perhaps quickly) upon A, dismissiveness of ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ reasoning seems to me to become less and less appropriate. Indeed, unless and until one can identify or envisage a connecting mechanism, countless conclusions as to causal relationship are reached precisely upon a form of ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ reasoning: if B is observed never to occur except shortly after A, the conclusion may be relatively easy – but if B is observed to occur frequently after A, then even if each sometimes occurs without the other, the frequency with which B occurs after A may nonetheless well justify a more or less firm conclusion that A, in certain circumstances, causes B. I do not regard such conclusions as based on false (or indeed simple) logic. The approach is in my opinion inherent not only in conclusions drawn from one’s general experience or ‘anecdotal evidence’. It is inherent also in much experimental research, and also, as it seems to me, in epidemiology. And while it may always seem somewhat insufficient, until one can find an identifiable possible mechanism, as a basis for claiming that the causal link is proved or established, in either ordinary or scientific terms, that feeling of insufficiency strikes me as much less appropriate if one stops short of such claims and contents oneself with saying that the causal relationship is marginally probable (or is proved or established only as required in civil litigation).’

Judges:

Lord President (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry), Lord Prosser

Citations:

1998 SC 548

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh 1953
Issues arose in relation to the expert evidence which had been led.
Held: The court rejected a submission that, where no counter evidence on the science in question had been adduced for the pursuer, the Court was bound to accept the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Dingley v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police HL 11-May-2000
The officer had been injured in an accident in a police van. He developed multiple sclerosis only a short time afterwards. The respondent denied that the accident caused the MS.
Held: There is no proof of what causes MS, but it was common . .
Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Cited – Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore SC 9-Mar-2011
The Court considered appeals where defendants challenged the factual basis of findings that they had contributed to the causes of the claimant’s Mesothelioma, and in particular to what extent a court can satisfactorily base conclusions of fact on . .
Cited – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.226223

The plaintiffs, London barge repairers claimed after an explosion on the Anglo-American Oil Company’s oil tank barge Warwick, when she was being repaired by the plaintiffs, to whom she had been sent for that purpose by the defendants. As a result of the explosion several lives were lost and considerable damage done. In the second action, which was in the nature of a test action, the plaintiff, a boilermaker employed by Messrs Hodge and Sons, claimed damages for personal injuries caused by the explosion.
Held: Scrutton LJ said: ‘Personally, I do not understand the difference between a thing dangerous in itself, as poison, and a thing not dangerous as a class, but by negligent construction dangerous as a particular thing. The latter, if anything, seems the more dangerous of the two; it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing instead of an obvious wolf.’ and ‘The law, therefore, seems to be: (1) That if the barge which has carried petrol is an article dangerous in itself, it is the duty of the owners to take proper and reasonable precautions to prevent its doing damage to people likely to come into contact with it. These precautions may be fulfilled by entrusting it to a competent person with reasonable warning of its dangerous character, if that danger is not obvious. If such precautions are not taken, the owner will be liable to third persons with whom he has no contact for damage done by the barge, which they could not have avoided with reasonable care. . . (2) If the barge which has carried petrol is not dangerous in itself, but becomes dangerous because it has been insufficiently cleaned, and the owner is ignorant of the danger, the owner is not liable for damage caused by it to persons with whom he has no contract. (Earl v Lubbock [1905] 1 K.B. 253) . . (3) In the case of a thing dangerous in itself, where either the danger is obvious or the owner has given proper warning to the person entrusted with it, not being his servant, the owner is not liable for negligence of such person causing injury to a third party; such negligence is nova causa interveniens.’

Bankes LJ: ‘It is in these circumstances that the question of liability arises. The Anglo-American Oil Co were, in my opinion, under a double duty, (a) the duty of using reasonable means for securing the efficient cleaning out of the tank, and (b) the duty of giving any necessary warning of the dangerous character of the tank even after a proper and sufficient cleaning. The first duty, in my opinion, extended to all those who necessarily came into contact with the tank in the course of carrying out the repairs, including therefore the plaintiff Willmott. With regard to the second duty, a warning would not, in my opinion, be required where the person who would otherwise be entitled to warning was already aware of the danger, or […] might reasonably be assumed to be aware of it. Messrs Miller obviously required no warning; they were perfectly well aware of the danger. Messrs Hodges were in relation to the Anglo-American Oil Co in a different position to Messrs Miller: but I assume that the Anglo-American Oil Co were aware that the barge was being sent to Messrs Hodges for repair. If so, Messrs Hodges would be entitled to a warning unless they, like Messrs Miller, are to be taken to have been aware of the danger. Having regard to what must be the state of knowledge among ship and barge repairers on the Thames as to the danger of dealing with cleaned petrol tanks, I think that the Anglo-American Oil Co were entitled to assume that Messrs Hodges needed no warning as to that danger. . . I do not think that the present is a case in which the Anglo-American Oil Co were under any duty to Messrs Hodges’ workmen to give them any individual warning. Whether a warning to an employer of the dangerous character of an article sent to him for repair is a sufficient warning to the workmen directed by the employer to carry out those repairs must be a question of fact depending upon the particular circumstances of each case. There are in this case, in my opinion, no such special circumstances as placed the Anglo-American Oil Co under any duty to give any warning to the plaintiff Willmott or to the other employees of Messrs Hodges.’

Judges:

Scrutton LJ, Bankes LJ

Citations:

(1922) 12 Ll L Rep 183

Citing:

Cited – Caledonian Ry Co v Mulholland or Warwick HL 1898
The appellant company were held not liable for injuries caused by a defective brake on a coal wagon conveyed by the railway company to a point in the transit where their contract ended, and where the wagons were taken over for haulage for the last . .
Cited – Dominion Natural Gas Co Ltd v Collins 1909
The defendants had installed a gas apparatus to provide natural gas on the premises of a railway company. They had installed a regulator to control the pressure and their men negligently made an escape-valve discharge into the building instead of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.197988

(Tasmania)

Judges:

Fullagar J

Citations:

(1950) 80 CLR 357

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Leta Almeda v Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar PC 24-Nov-2003
PC (Gibraltar) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195693

Citations:

[1978] CLY 1789

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.193430

A shopkeeper in Minehead sold a ‘blank cartridge pistol’ to a twelve year old boy. Later, when the boy fired the pistol in the air, the plaintiff was injured by a tiny piece of copper going into his eye.
Held: The duty of care was owed not only to the boy who bought the gun. The shopkeeper also owed a duty of care towards ‘all such persons as may reasonably be contemplated as likely to be endangered’.

Judges:

Atkinson J

Citations:

[1939] 2 KB 743

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – The Attorney General v Hartwell PC 23-Feb-2004
PC (The British Virgin Islands) A police officer had taken the police revolver, and used it to shoot the claimant. It was alleged that the respondent police force were vicariously liable for his acts and also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.193883

The defendants had installed a gas apparatus to provide natural gas on the premises of a railway company. They had installed a regulator to control the pressure and their men negligently made an escape-valve discharge into the building instead of into the open air. The railway workmen, the plaintiffs, were injured by an explosion in the premises.
Held: They were liable. Those who sent forth inherently dangerous articles were subject to a common law duty to take precautions. Though there was no relation of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants: ‘There may be, however, in the case of anyone performing an operation, or setting up and installing a machine, a relationship of duty. What that duty is will vary according to the subject-matter of the things involved. It has, however, again and again been held that in the case of articles dangerous in themselves, such as loaded firearms, poisons, explosives, and other things ejusdem generis, there is a peculiar duty to take precaution imposed upon those who send forth or install such articles when it is necessarily the case that other parties will come within their proximity.’

Judges:

Lord Dunedin

Citations:

[1909] AC 640

Citing:

Cited – Caledonian Ry Co v Mulholland or Warwick HL 1898
The appellant company were held not liable for injuries caused by a defective brake on a coal wagon conveyed by the railway company to a point in the transit where their contract ended, and where the wagons were taken over for haulage for the last . .

Cited by:

Cited – The Attorney General v Hartwell PC 23-Feb-2004
PC (The British Virgin Islands) A police officer had taken the police revolver, and used it to shoot the claimant. It was alleged that the respondent police force were vicariously liable for his acts and also . .
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Hodge and Sons v Anglo-American Oil Co 1922
The plaintiffs, London barge repairers claimed after an explosion on the Anglo-American Oil Company’s oil tank barge Warwick, when she was being repaired by the plaintiffs, to whom she had been sent for that purpose by the defendants. As a result of . .
Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.193882

The plaintiff was hit by a cricket ball hit from a cricket ground, and sought damages.
Oliver J described the balancing exercise required in nuisance cases: ‘Whether such an act does constitute a nuisance must be determined not merely by an abstract consideration of the act itself, but by reference to all the circumstances of the particular case, including, for example, the time of the commission of the act complained of; the place of its commission; the manner of committing it, that is, whether it is done wantonly or in the reasonable exercise of rights; and the effect of its commission, that is, whether those effects are transitory or permanent, occasional or continuous; so that the question of nuisance or no nuisance is one of fact.’

Judges:

Oliver J

Citations:

[1949] 1 All ER 237

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bolton v Stone CA 2-Jan-1949
(Reversed, but dicta of Oliver J approved) . .
At First Instance – Bolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
Cited – Thornhill and Others v Nationwide Metal Recycling Ltd and Another CA 29-Jul-2011
The appellants challenged a decision that the defendants had ceased to be committing an actionable nuisance after erecting a sound barrier between their metal scrap yard and the claimants’ properties.
Held: The judge had correcly applied the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190136

Citations:

[1949] 2 All ER 843

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Paris v Stepney Borough Council HL 13-Dec-1950
(Reversed) The House considered a breach of a duty of care in respect of a man blinded in one eye, when there would be no breach of duty if his sight had not been impaired.
Held: The claim succeeded because he was known by his employers to . .
Cited – Withers v Perry Chain Co Ltd CA 21-Jul-1961
An employee with dermatitis returned to work when it was known both to him and his employers that continuing to work would carry a small risk of it recurring or being exacerbated.
Held: The Court allowed the employer’s appeal against the trial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190139

Both the driver and his passenger had drunk about eight to nine pints of beer, and on their way home the driver lost control of his car so that it collided with a lamppost. The passenger sued in negligence. The driver said the passenger was contributorily negligent.
Held: The court cited Canadian and Australian authorities and the ALI Restatement of the Law of Torts (Restatement, Second, Torts) section 406.
Watkins J said: ‘ . . it appears to me that there is widespread and weighty authority for the proposition that a passenger may be guilty of contributory negligence if he rides with the driver of a car whom he knows has consumed alcohol in such quantity as is likely to impair to a dangerous degree that driver’s capacity to drive properly and safely. So, also, may a passenger be guilty of contributory negligence if he, knowing that he is going to be driven in a car by his companion later, accompanies him upon a bout of drinking which has the effect, eventually, of robbing the passenger of clear thought and perception and diminishes the driver’s capacity to drive properly and carefully. Whether this principle can be relied upon successfully is a question of fact and degree to be determined in the circumstances out of which the issue is said to arise.’

Judges:

Watkins J

Citations:

[1977] QB 859

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190050

(Canada) A policeman was injured when a driver drove his car off the policeman’s arm was pinned in the window. The driver was held not liable in negligence, since by reason of severe mental disorder he was not capable of foreseeing the harm that resulted from his acts.
Held: Because the driver could not foresee the risk of harm there was no duty of care. ‘With great respect it seems to me that to apply the objective reasonable person test at the stage of assessing the standard of care, but to apply the different foreseeability test is effectively to apply an overall test which depends upon the individual defendant in question.’

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

(1990) 64 DLR (4th) 84

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – Mansfield and Another v Weetabix Limited and Another CA 26-Mar-1997
A lorry belonging to the defendants failed to take a bend crashing into the plaintiffs’ shop causing extensive damage. Mr Terence Tarleton, the driver later died, as did Mrs Mansfield. Mr Tarleton did not know he had malignant insulinoma, resulting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190022

A lift engineer had failed adequately to repair a lift which as result later fell to the bottom of its shaft. The plaintiff was consequently injured. Scott LJ said: ‘The common law has throughout its long history developed as an organic growth, at first slowly under the hampering restrictions of legal forms of process, more quickly in Lord Mansfield’s time, and in the last one hundred years at an ever-increasing rate of progress as new cases, arising under new conditions of society, of applied science, and of public opinion, have presented themselves for solution by the courts.’

Judges:

Scott LJ

Citations:

[1941] 2 KB 343, [1941] 3 All ER 156, 111 LJKB 45, 165 LT 185

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189965

The court set out the reasonable man test for forseeability: ‘If the possibility of danger emerging is reasonably apparent, then to take no precautions is negligence; but if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then there is no negligence in not having taken extraordinary precautions’.’

Judges:

Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkin

Citations:

[1932] All ER Rep 81, (1932) 146 LT 391

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Explained – Searle v Wallbank HL 1947
There existed an ancient common law immunity in respect of animals straying onto a public highway. An owner or occupier of land adjacent to a highway has no legal obligation at common law to highway users so to keep and maintain his hedges, fences . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188839

Slesser LJ said: ‘It is clear that the ultimate employer is not responsible for the acts of an independent contractor merely because what is to be done will involve dangers to others if negligently done. The incidence of liability is limited to certain defined classes, and for the purpose of this case it is only necessary to consider that part of this rule of liability which has reference to extra-hazardous acts, that is, acts which, in their very nature, involve in the eyes of the law special dangers to others.’

Judges:

Slesser LJ

Citations:

[1934] 1 KB 191

Cited by:

Cited – Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club CA 7-Nov-2003
The claimant was very badly injured at a bonfire organised by the defendants. He had been asked to help with a part of the display, organised by sub-contractors, which exploded as he was filling it.
Held: The nature of the activity to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187566

Parcq LJ said: ‘In order to establish the defence of contributory negligence, the defendant must prove, first, that the plaintiff failed to take ‘ordinary care for himself,’ or, in other words, such care as a reasonable man would take for his own safety, and, secondly, that his failure to take care was a contributory cause of the accident. The doctrine of contributory negligence ‘cannot be based upon a breach of duty to the negligent defendant.” The onus is to be discharged on the balance of probabilities.

Judges:

Parcq LJ

Citations:

[1939] 1 KB 540

Cited by:

Cited – Smith v Finch QBD 22-Jan-2009
The claimant cyclist was severely injured in an accident when hit by a motorcyclist, the defendant. He was not wearing a cycle helmet, and the injuries were to his head. He was slowing down to turn right, and was hit a heavy glancing blow by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.463742

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 duty had been discharged.

Judges:

Parker LJ

Citations:

[1958] 1 All ER 67

Citing:

Cited – Biddle v Hart 1907
A stevedore’s workman, whilst unloading a ship, was injured owing to a defect in the tackle, and he was suing his master. The learned Judge withdrew the case from the jury, on the ground that the stevedore was not responsible for a defect in the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.445622

The court considered the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the burden of proof in establishing negligence: ‘I doubt whether it is right to describe res ipsa loquitur as a ‘doctrine’. I think that it is no more than an exotic, although convenient, phrase to describe what is in essence no more than a common sense approach, not limited by technical rules, to the assessment of the effect of evidence in certain circumstances. It means that a plaintiff prima facie establishes negligence where (i) it is not possible for him to prove precisely what was the relevant act or omission which set in train the events leading to the accident; but (ii) on the evidence as it stands at the relevant time it is more likely than not that the effective cause of the accident was some act or omission of the defendant or of someone for whom the defendant is responsible, which act or omission constitutes a failure to take proper care for the plaintiff’s safety. I have used the words ‘evidence as it stands at the relevant time’. I think that this can most conveniently be taken as being at the close of the plaintiff’s case. On the assumption that a submission of no case is then made, would the evidence, as it then stands, enable the plaintiff to succeed because, although the precise cause of the accident cannot be established, the proper inference on the balance of probability is that that cause, whatever it may have been, involved a failure by the defendant to take due care for the plaintiff’s safety? If so, res ipsa loquitur. If not, the question still falls to be tested by the same criterion, but evidence for the defendant, given thereafter, may rebut the inference. The res, which previously spoke for itself, may be silenced, or its voice may, on the whole of the evidence, become too weak or muted.’

Judges:

Megarry LJ

Citations:

[1971] 2 All ER 1240, [1971] 1 WLR 749

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Negligence

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.190004

A taxi driver’s duty extended to setting his passenger down by the kerb. His duty did not extend so as to make him responsible to a drunken passenger who failed then to cross the road safely.

Citations:

Times 23-Oct-1998

Negligence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81045

An authority sending a young and inexperienced worker on a camping holiday with very limited provisions and no instruction, was partially responsible when she changed a gas canister near a lighted candle causing an explosion and fire and consequential injury. She might have known better, but the provision of candles implied that she was to use them.

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80669

There is no public policy reason to exclude damages for loss of profit arising from a claim in negligence. Where as here, the damage was not too remote, and arose directly from the physical damage caused, the loss should recoverable. A burglar alarm service having informed the police a report of a burglary, it failed to inform the claimant customer.

Citations:

Times 20-Jun-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78078

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

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-1996

Negligence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78097

The claimant was injured crossing the village green when she fractured her leg in the hole left for the maypole.
Held: The claimant’s appeal was dismissed. The hole had been filled by the defendants, and the filling removed by an unknown third party. ‘If the court were to set a higher standard of care than what was reasonable, fear of the consequences might mean that there would be no fetes, no maypole dancing and no similar activities on village greens.’

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge P, Laws LJ, Scott LJ

Citations:

Times 06-Apr-2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.251424

The House should not alter the apportionment of responsibility for an accident assessed by the judge save in exceptional circumstances.

Judges:

Viscount Simon

Citations:

1947 SC (HL) 70

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.247758

One party in litigation owes no duty of care to the other.

Citations:

[1984] Ch 512

Cited by:

Cited – HM 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242684

Citations:

[1967] 1 All ER 583

Cited by:

Cited – Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd and others QBD 3-Mar-2006
The deceased, a maintenance engineer died after falling through a skylight at work. The court considered the respective liabilities of his employer and the landowner. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.241305

A fire resulting from a non-natural user of land (i.e. a fire to which the rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies) was outside the protection of the Act, because, in such circumstances, the relevant fire was not regarded as having been started accidentally. Atkinson J: ‘A private nuisance arises out of a state of things on one man’s property whereby his neighbour’s property is exposed to danger’,

Judges:

Atkinson J

Citations:

[1946] 1 ALL ER 489

Statutes:

Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774

Cited by:

Cited – LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Cited – Anthony and others v The Coal Authority QBD 28-Jul-2005
The claimants lived adjacent to an old coal tip, which caught fire spontaneously and burned for three years. They claimed in nuisance. The defendant argued that the risk of spontaneous ombustion was not reasonable, and that the use was safe.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.230977