Category: Personal Injury

Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd: CA 6 Nov 2009

The claimant was the daughter of a lady who died of mesothelioma. The defendant appealed saying that the judge had found that the exposure for which it was responsible had increased the risk above the background risk by only 18%, and this was insufficient to found liability.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1159, [2010] QB 370, [2010] 2 WLR 951

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Compensation Act 2006 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.377780

Floyd v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council: CA 5 Aug 2009

The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for personal injuries. He had tripped over an uneven pavement. The authority denied that the pavement was within its responsibility. The roadway had been constructed by a developer with an agreement for the authority to adopt it, but the authority said that it had not been a footpath and was therefore excluded at the time of the adoption of the carriageway.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Though there were discrepancies, the area had been within the area of land intended to be adopted, and ‘the relevant area of the quadrant serves and has, so far as I know, always served as a footway. It covers the area expressly demarcated on the section 38 agreement plan as a footway. We are told there was a provisional certificate. The Borough Engineer was clearly satisfied in 1984 that the footway should be adopted pursuant to the section 38 agreement.’

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1137

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 38(3) 41(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.377528

AB and others v Department of Trade and Industry S/A British Coal Corporation: CA 21 Dec 2005

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Neuberger Sir Anthony Clarke MR

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1737

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and Coal Mining Contractor Defendants QBD 22-Jun-2004
. .

Cited by:

See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and others CA 19-Oct-2006
A collective compensation agreement, which required affected persons to submit their claims, along with medical evidence, through authorised solicitors to be compensated on the basis of agreed damages formula, was introduced. . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and Another ComC 18-May-2007
Resolution of disputes that have arisen between four claimants and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to the smoking history of four miners, (three of them now deceased), in respect of whom claims for damages have been made . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade and Industry) QBD 27-Jun-2007
The parties disputed the effect of the Claims Handling Agreement (CHA) which regulated claims for compensation for respiratory diseases incurred by people working for the defendant as regards the circumstances for claimants with chronic bronchitis. . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade and Industry) (Costs) QBD 27-Jun-2007
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Rulings Appended) QBD 13-Aug-2007
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation ComC 15-Jan-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.239957

Cassin v London Borough of Bexley and Commissioner of Police for Metropolis: CA 8 Feb 1999

A local authority was negligent in having removed bollards from a roadway before a demonstration to prevent them being used as missiles, the road was not immediately closed, causing the accident. They should have liaised properly with the Police.

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 740

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.145655

Enion v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 9 Feb 1999

The roadway was regularly closed off when flooded by the sea, and then cleaned up afterwards. The claimant slipped on seaweed on the road. The Council appealed against an award of damages, saying it was not practicable to close the road off to pedestrian, and that it would have been cleaned when the tide retreated.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The danger was apparent to the claimant, and the council had no additional duty to her. She made a choice to proceed, and assumed the risk.

Judges:

kennedy, Laws LJJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 743

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Heydon’s Case 1584
Mischief rule of Iinterpretation
Lord Coke stated the basis of the mischief rule of interpretation: ‘For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law), four things are to be discerned and . .
Cited – Cross v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council CA 27-Jun-1997
The Council’s duty to maintain a highway is not absolute. It must take reasonable steps to prevent or clear ice forming on pathway. Lord Justice Evans analysed the application of Section 41 to a situation which arose from ice and snow. In any case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.145658

White v Lidl UK Ltd: QBD 2005

The primary victim suffered an accident in the supermarket car park when a crash barrier which had been poorly maintained came through her windscreen. Her mental state deteriorated and, some months later, she committed suicide by hanging herself. The secondary victim was her husband, who found her hanging body and suffered psychiatric injury. The Court was asked what constituted the shocking event. If it was the original accident, the claim would fail (since the secondary victim never witnessed that); if it was the suicide, the claim could succeed.
Held: The claim was bound to fail.
Even with the benefit of hindsight his injury was not reasonably foreseeable. He cannot bring himself within the category of people who suffer shock as a result of seeing or hearing a tragic event or its immediate aftermath. This is because in my judgement the relevant event for the purposes of this case is the incident with the barrier.
. . . I agree with [counsel for the respondent] that one cannot simply ignore the incident in which injury was actually and negligently caused to the primary victim. Mrs White’s cause of action based on the respondent’s negligence arose at that time. Had Mr White come across the accident and his wife’s car and suffered shock as a result, he would no doubt have had a claim. But he did not. It took a second event six months later for that to happen. This was not a combination of circumstances making up one event or even one series of events of a seamless nature. Nor was there an inexorable progression. The shocking event in this case was a completely distinct event, a second event separated in time and space from the accident. . .
It follows from what I have said that I do not accept that the decision in Walters extends the law in the way that [counsel for the Claimant] might wish. In Walters it is clear from the judgement that the event with which the court was concerned was the fit suffered by the baby and its aftermath. The defendant’s negligence caused the fit, which caused the brain damage, which in turn led to the death. Thus the event or series of events began with the fit, ‘the negligent infliction of damage’ and continued ‘through to the conclusion of its immediate aftermath’. That is why there was, as the court found an inexorable progression from fit to death, which occurred in the mother’s sight and hearing. It was in that context that the court found the claimant succeeded in bringing herself within the class of people with a legitimate claim in law.
As I have indicated, I am not persuaded that Mr White can do the same. He could not have sued for his own personal injury had his wife’s health simply deteriorated after the accident. A distraught parent cannot sue for the progressive assaults upon him or her caused by the despair of looking after a brain-damaged child. Sadly, not all those who suffer can be compensated in damages. It is difficult to see therefore why the law should be extended to cover Mr White’s reaction to his wife’s death simply because six months after the accident it was for him an undoubtedly shocking event.’

Judges:

Hallett J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 871 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.651246

Quaatey v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 21 May 2020

Appeal from strike out of claim for damages for personal injury arising from clinical negligence on the basis that the expert medical evidence relied upon by the Claimant did not substantiate the claim; although not expressed in his Order, the Master also determined that, had he not struck out the claim, he would have entered summary judgment for the Defendant because of the very long delay between the alleged negligence and the commencement of the action in 2018 and the effect of that delay on the cogency of the evidence.

Judges:

Mrs Lambert J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1296 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.651230

Paul v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust: QBD 4 Nov 2019

Claim for damages – witnesses to father’s death from heart attack.
Held: On the facts pleaded, Saffron’s and Mya’s claims were bound to fail.

Judges:

Master Cook

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2893 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.643130

Liverpool 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 succeeded. This was not a case in which there was a sudden appreciation of an event: ‘what the Claimant saw on these two occasions was not in my judgment horrifying by objective standards. Both on the first occasion and on the second the appearance of the Claimant’s wife was as would ordinarily be expected of a person in hospital in the circumstances in which she found herself. What is required in order to found liability is something which is exceptional in nature. On the first occasion she was connected to monitors and drips. The reaction of most people of ordinary robustness to that sight, given the circumstances in which she had been taken into the A. and E. Department, and the knowledge that abnormalities had been found, including a shadow over the lung, necessitating immediate exploratory surgery, would surely be one of relief that the matter was in the hands of the medical professionals, with perhaps a grateful nod to the ready availability of modern medical equipment.’

Judges:

Sullivan, Tomlinson, Beatson LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 588, [2015] WLR(D) 263

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bourhill v Young’s Executor HL 5-Aug-1942
When considering claims for damages for shock, the court only recognised the action lying where the injury by shock was sustained ‘through the medium of the eye or the ear without direct contact.’ Wright L said: ‘No doubt, it has long ago been . .
Cited – McLoughlin 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 . .
Cited – Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991
The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. The defendant police service had not . .
Cited – Taylor v Somerset Health Authority 1993
The plaintiff’s husband had suffered a heart attack at work and soon died at the defendant’s hospital. She went to the hospital within an hour and was told of his death by a doctor about 20 minutes after her arrival. She was shocked and distressed. . .
Cited – Taylorson v Shieldness Produce Ltd 1994
A fourteen year old boy died three days after he had been crushed by a reversing vehicle. The appellants were informed of the accident soon after it occurred and went to the hospital. The boy was seen in the ambulance and as he was rushed to the . .
Cited – Sion v Hampstead Heath Authority CA 1994
A young man was injured in a motor-cycle accident and was taken to the defendant’s hospital. His father attended to him at his bedside for fourteen days, watching him deteriorate in health, fall into a coma and die. The father alleged that the staff . .
Cited – North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters CA 6-Dec-2002
A new mother woke in hospital to see her baby (E) fitting. E suffered a major epileptic seizure leading to coma and irreparable brain damage. E was transferred to a London hospital and the following day the claimant was told by a consultant that E’s . .
Cited – Giullietta 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 . .
Cited – Ward v The Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust QBD 2004
The court considered a claim by a mother who had witnessed her 22 year old daughter motionless in the recovery unit after failing to emerge from anaesthesia following a routine operation to remove a wisdom tooth. Four events said to be shocking were . .
Cited – Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA 18-Mar-2013
The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendant’s admitted negligence. She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. The . .
Cited – Wild and Another v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust QBD 3-Dec-2014
Claim for damages arising from alleged want of care of child in the womb, leading to a stillbirth. The claimant father suffered psychiatric damage after being told of the death of his wife’s baby in utero as a result of negligent treatment by . .
Cited – Brock and Another v Northampton General Hospital Nhs Trust and Another QBD 12-Dec-2014
The claimants sought damages after the death of their daughter whilst in the care of the defendant. . .
Cited – Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust QBD 25-Mar-2015
The claimant saw her sister in undeniably distressing circumstances in hospital. It was suggested that the claimant’s professional background, as a radiographer, gave her an unusual degree of insight into her sister’s medical condition and that, as . .

Cited by:

Cited – Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.549103

Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust: QBD 25 Mar 2015

The claimant saw her sister in undeniably distressing circumstances in hospital. It was suggested that the claimant’s professional background, as a radiographer, gave her an unusual degree of insight into her sister’s medical condition and that, as a result, she would have been more sensitive to events at the hospital and therefore more likely to find them ‘horrifying’.
Held: Swift DBE J said: ‘ . . it seems to me that it is necessary to be cautious in finding that the Claimant’s professional expertise made the sight of Mrs Sharma more ‘horrifying’ than it would have been to a person without that knowledge. I consider that the ‘event’ must be one which would be recognised as ‘horrifying’ by a person of ordinary susceptibility; in other words, by objective standards. After all, certain people would find it more frightening to have no medical knowledge and not to know what was going on; they may feel helpless and isolated. Others may have armed themselves in advance with medical information from the internet which leads them to feel far greater fear than is in fact justified. It would be unfortunate if secondary victims’ claims were to become embroiled in debates about an individual claimant’s level of medical knowledge and its effects upon whether an ‘event’ should be classified as ‘horrifying’.’

Judges:

Swift DBE J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 614 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Taylor v Somerset Health Authority 1993
The plaintiff’s husband had suffered a heart attack at work and soon died at the defendant’s hospital. She went to the hospital within an hour and was told of his death by a doctor about 20 minutes after her arrival. She was shocked and distressed. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Liverpool 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 . .
Cited – Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.544846

Wild and Another v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 3 Dec 2014

Claim for damages arising from alleged want of care of child in the womb, leading to a stillbirth. The claimant father suffered psychiatric damage after being told of the death of his wife’s baby in utero as a result of negligent treatment by clinicians working for the defendant hospital. He argued that Taylor v A. Novo could not preclude a claim ‘in a case where the first manifestation of the injuries sustained by the primary victim occurs in front of (or within sight or hearing of) the secondary victim (or where he comes across the primary victim in the immediate aftermath of this injury) but is separated in time from the act or omission constituting negligence’. In a clinical negligence case where the first manifestation of the negligent act or omission was a shocking event seen, heard or otherwise directly experienced by the secondary victim, a claim would lie. It was argued that it could be seen from the reference to Walters that the Court of Appeal in Taylor v A. Novo had not intended to state any new principle.
Held: The argument failed.
Michael Kent QC, expressed ‘difficulty’ with the proposition because of Lord Dyson’s approval of Auld J’s observation in Taylor v Somerset and his observation that Peter Gibson LJ’s remarks in Walters were obiter. The term ‘external event’ was ‘explained by the context of these claims which is that they are all made by those who are not directly participating in the events which have been engulfed the primary victims and which are in that sense external to the claimant’. It was ‘arguably going too far’ to argue, as the defendant had, that Lord Wilberforce’s reference to the ‘fact and consequence of the negligence’ meant that the negligence must itself be synchronous with the sustaining of shock by the secondary victim. It was ‘a little unlikely’ that the Court of Appeal in Walters had overlooked the fact that the fit was a result of the earlier negligent treatment, so that the cause of action had already accrued prior to the start of the relevant ‘event’. Ultimately, however, it was not necessary to resolve any of these points, because the claimant learned of the death after it had happened and witnessed no shocking event. This was fatal to the claim:

Judges:

Michael Kent QC

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4053 (QB), [2016] PIQR P3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Liverpool 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 . .
Cited – Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.539569

Neina Graham v Chorley Borough Council: CA 21 Feb 2006

The defendant had submitted after the close of the claimant’s case that it had no case to answer. The judge did not put the defendant to its election as to whether to call evidence, but instead decided to accede to the submission. The claimant now appealed that order, the defendant denied that an appeal lay.
Held: The appeal succeeded. An order such as this was a final order so as to allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal rather than to the High Court. The claimant said that the court should have put the defendant to its election. The judge had been wrong to listen to the submission without first putting the defendant to an election. He had done so because he had found the claimant’s evidence not credible. The failure to put the defendant to the election deprived the claimant of her right to ask the court to draw adverse influences from any failure to put evidence forward.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke (Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division) Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

Times 20-Mar-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 92

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000 49a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mills v Barnsley Borough Council CA 1992
The court considered the extent of defect in a highway needed to found a claim that it was dangerous. It emphasised that the duty must not be made too high, balancing the public need against the private interest.
Steyn LJ said: ‘For my part I . .
Cited – Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 2) (Practice Note) CA 20-Jul-2004
The court gave guidance on the destination of appeals from county court cases. It was vital to identify the precise nature of the order under appeal: ‘The judges of this court (and the staff at the Civil Appeals Office) have to interpret the order . .
Cited – Alexander v Rayson CA 1936
The action was for arrears of rent. The evidence at trial was that the plaintiff granted a lease to the defendant at a rent of pounds 1200 and contracted that certain services in connection with the flat would be performed. The plaintiff sent the . .
Cited – Lawrie v Raglan CA 1942
The court considered the obligation on a judge to put a defendant to his election before hearing a submission on whether there was a case to answer. It was unfortunate that the judge had not followed the practice ‘which ought to be followed in such . .
Cited – Bentley v Jones Harris and Co CA 1-May-2001
The judge below acceded to a submission of no case to answer without putting the defendant to his election.
Held: ‘At the time of this trial it was, it seems, common ground between counsel for both parties and the judge that under the CPR . .
Cited – Mullen v Birmingham City Council QBD 29-Jul-1999
Under the new rules, judges were required to take greater control over court proceedings, and accordingly had the power to entertaining a submission of no case to answer at the close of the claimant’s case and without first requiring the defendant . .
Cited – Miller (T/A Waterloo Plant) v Cawley CA 30-Jul-2002
At the end of the claimant’s case the defendant wished to submit that there was no case for her to answer. The judge then put the defendant to an election as to whether or not she would call any evidence. She appealed.
Held: It is not . .
Cited – Boyce v Wyatt Engineering and Others CA 1-May-2001
The discretion of a judge to deal with a case at the close of the claimant’s case, and without putting the defendants to their respective election was only to be exercised with the greatest caution. There was a risk that, if the claimant appealed . .
Cited – Bentley v Jones Harris and Company CA 2-Nov-2001
Latham LJ said: ‘it will only be in a rare case that the judge should be asked to determine the issues before him before all the evidence has been completed. However, it seems to me that, if a judge concludes at the end of a claimant’s evidence, . .
Cited – Lloyd v John Lewis Partnership CA 1-Jul-2001
The judge allowed the defendant’s submission of no case to answer without putting them to their election and again the claimant’s appeal succeeded. The trial judge had been persuaded that the rule in Alexander -v- Rayson had been altered by the . .
Cited – Benham Limited v Kythira Investments Ltd and Another CA 15-Dec-2003
The appellant complained that the judge had accepted a case of no case to answer before the close of the claimant’s case and without putting them to their election. The claimant estate agents sought payment of their account. The defendants alleged a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.239882

Rosser v Lindsay: CA 4 Feb 1999

The use of mirrors when manouvering a road vehicle is only advisory under the Highway Code. It is not mandatory, and a judge could not be criticised for not requiring such a counsel of perfection in a situation where a vehicle was being driven within a builder’s yard.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1999, Times 25-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 708

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145623

Jacobs v Coster, Avon Insurance: CA 25 Jan 1999

Citations:

[1998] CLY 3374, [1999] EWCA Civ 647, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep IR 506

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – MacCaferri Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc ComC 19-Jun-2015
maccafferiCoC201506
The claimant manufacturer challenged a refusal of indemnity from his insurers, the defendants under its product liability policy. An end user consumer had been injured. The insurer said that the claimant had delayed on notifying the possible claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Insurance

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145562

Brannan v Airtours Plc: CA 18 Jan 1999

The judge at first instance had set the level of contributory negligence too high. He looked at the defendant’s apparent folly rather than looking to the defendant’s folly in exposing the defendant to the risk, and promoting that folly by providing free drinks.

Judges:

Auld, Ward LJJ

Citations:

Times 01-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 588

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jackson v Murray and Another SC 18-Feb-2015
Child not entirely free of responsibility
The claimant child, left a school bus and stepped out from behind it into the path of the respondent’s car. She appealed against a finding of 70% contributory negligence.
Held: Her appeal succeeded (Majority, Lord Hodge and Lord Wilson . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145503

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority: CA 27 May 1994

An amendment to pleadings was allowed after the limitation period had expired in order to add a claim based on the same facts. The claim was brought by the father of a young man injured in a motor cycle accident. For fourteen days the father stayed at his son’s bedside, watching him deteriorate in health and fall into a coma and then die. The father now appealed against an order striking out his claim.
Held: Appeal dismissed, finding that there was no trace in the medical report of ‘shock’ no sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event. The report described a process continuing for some time, from first arrival at the hospital to the appreciation of medical negligence after the inquest. In particular the son’s death when it occurred was not surprising but expected. There was no reason in logic why a breach of duty causing an incident involving no violence or suddenness, such as where the wrong medicine is negligently given to a hospital patient, could not lead to a claim for damages for nervous shock, for example where the negligence has fatal results and a visiting close relative, wholly unprepared for what has occurred, finds the body and thereby sustains a sudden and unexpected shock to the nervous system.

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ, Staughton LJ, Waite LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Jun-1994, [1994] 5 Med LR 170, [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters CA 6-Dec-2002
A new mother woke in hospital to see her baby (E) fitting. E suffered a major epileptic seizure leading to coma and irreparable brain damage. E was transferred to a London hospital and the following day the claimant was told by a consultant that E’s . .
Cited – Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA 18-Mar-2013
The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendant’s admitted negligence. She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. The . .
Cited – Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Damages, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.89280

Manning v Hope (t/a the Priory): CA 8 Dec 1998

Where there was an award of damages for personal injuries arising under the Act, the judge was obliged to make some reference to the statutory duties under the Act and his findings relative to them. In the absence of a finding of a breach of duty, the judgment could not be allowed to stand.

Citations:

Times 18-Feb-2000, [1998] EWCA Civ 1930

Statutes:

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145409

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

Moran v First Choice Holidays: QBD 2005

Judges:

Ms Nicola Davies QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queens Bench Division

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2478 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.651078

Gulliksen v Pembrokeshire County Council: QBD 2002

Mr Gulliksen was walking on a footpath on a housing estate to the house of a friend. He had an accident at a depressed manhole cover on the footpath over which he tripped. The footpath had been constructed by Pembrokeshire County Council, who were both the local housing authority and the highway authority at the time of the path’s construction and at the time of the accident. The footpath was a highway, because it had become deemed to be dedicated as such by the time of the accident. At the trial in the County Court Judge Hickinbottom accepted the council’s argument that the McGeown decision defeated any claim in negligence, but in what was described on appeal as a ‘clear and careful judgment’ he found for the claimant on the basis that the council had constructed the path; they were the highway authority; and that was sufficient to establish that they owed the claimant the statutory duty under s 41 of the 1980 Act. The county council appealed.
Held: ‘I turn then to the issue of construction relating to section 36(2)(a). In order to be ‘a highway constructed by a highway authority’ does the way have to have been constructed as a highway and/or does it have to have been constructed by the highway authority as such? I have been referred to no helpful authority, and judging by the notes to section 36 of the 1980 Act in Halsbury’s Statutes of England and Wales, 4th ed, vol 20 (1999 reissue) and in the Encyclopaedia of Highway Law and Practice it would appear that there is no helpful authority on the point.
It is said with obvious force by Mr Thomas, on behalf of Mr Gulliksen, that to construe ‘a highway constructed’ as meaning ‘a highway constructed as such’ and/or to construe ‘by a highway authority’ as meaning ‘by a highway authority as such’ involves implying words into a statutory provision which are not there, and that the court is at least as slow to imply words into a statutory provision as it is to imply words into a contractual provision.
That has considerable force on the face of it. However, it seems to me that, as with any words in a statute or in a contract, one has to take the words in their context and by reference not to what each word means, but by reference to what the phrase naturally conveys to the reader. As has been pointed out in many cases, it is sometimes difficult to identify precisely why a word or set of words conveys a particular meaning either in general or in its or their particular context. To my mind, the notion of ‘a highway constructed by a highway authority’ means ‘a highway constructed as a highway by a highway authority in its capacity as such’. I suspect that the two aspects are almost always going to lead to the same result. It must be rare that a council or other body which is a highway authority constructs a road which is a highway other than in its capacity as a highway authority. Equally, it must be rare for a council which is a highway authority to construct a highway other than in its capacity as a highway authority. Of course, there will be circumstances, of which this appears to be an example, where a council which is a highway authority will construct a highway other than in its capacity as a highway authority or where a highway authority as such will construct a way which is not a highway.
In my view, the notion of a way constructed by someone which in due course becomes a highway through dedication, for instance under section 31 in the present case, would not be thought of as a highway constructed by a highway authority. As I say, it is idle to pretend that there is not considerable linguistic force in Mr Thomas’s contention that a way which was constructed by someone who was a highway authority at the time, albeit in a different capacity, which has become a highway through dedication, has become, as a matter of language, a highway constructed by a highway authority, but I do not think that that is what the section naturally conveys in its context.
It would be somewhat surprising if the result were otherwise. One can conceive of circumstances, such as the present, where a housing authority constructs a housing estate with private roads and subsequently sells off the estate to the residents or to a third party, and subsequently the residents or the third party allow the public to use the private roads so that they become impliedly dedicated as highways under section 31. To my mind, it would be surprising if, in those circumstances, some 20 years later after selling the estate, the local authority found itself being liable to maintain those roadways at public expense because much earlier it, in its capacity as the housing authority, had constructed the roads as private roadways on the estate. If the words of section 36(2)(a) were clear and conveyed the contrary view to that which I think they convey, then I cannot pretend that this somewhat odd consequence should deter the court from giving the words their natural meaning. However, in my judgment, their natural meaning in their context, at least to me, is as the council in the present case contends.
A little support for the conclusion that the reference to a highway in section 36(2)(a) is to a highway constructed as such seems to me to be found in the provisions of section 24 of the 1980 Act, subsection (2) of which provides: ‘A local highway authority may construct new highways . . ‘ To my mind, in section 24(2) the power given to the local highway authority is not to construct ways which in due course may, for instance by dedication, become highways, but to construct ways which are intended to be highways from their inception. Again, it would be wrong to make too much of that point, but the terminology of section 24(2) in Part III of the 1980 Act is similar to, and therefore of some relevance when considering, section 36(2)(a) in Part IV of the 1980 Act.
Further, it appears to me that if section 36(2)(a) was intended to extend to the council in whatever capacity, it would have referred to ‘a council or other body which is the highway authority’ and not ‘a highway authority’.
26. It seems to me that whether a highway authority means the highway authority as such or the council which happens to be the highway authority must depend on context. For example, if money was left by someone to enable the employees of the highway authority to enjoy a Christmas party, I would have thought that it could not seriously be argued that all employees of the local authority were entitled to attend the Christmas party because the local authority was the highway authority: it would only be those employees in the highways department. Similarly, it is noteworthy that under section 1(1) of the 1980 Act it is the minister which is the highway authority for certain main roads, including trunk roads. Technically, the minister does not exist, he is an emanation of the Crown. Yet it is clear from that very first subsection of the Act, and other provisions of the Act, that the draftsman of the Act identifies for the purposes of the Act the minister as a separate entity. By the same token, it seems to me, that at any rate in section 36(2)(a) the highway authority is being referred to in its capacity as such and not in its capacity as the council or other entity which happens to be the highway authority.
27. Although I can well understand how the judge arrived at a contrary conclusion, and it should be said he did not have the benefit of all the arguments raised before me, I have reached the conclusion that the council’s argument is correct.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

[2002] QB 825

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive HL 24-Jun-1994
The plaintiff lived with her husband in a house in a housing estate of which he was a tenant. Part of the land of the estate, in the ownership of the defendant housing authority, was crossed by footpaths, over which the public had acquired the right . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gulliksen v Pembrokeshire County Council CA 11-Jul-2002
The claimant had tripped on a footpath on a housing estate. There was a depressed manhole cover on the footpath over which he tripped. The footpath had been constructed by Pembrokeshire County Council, who were both the local housing authority and . .
Cited – Barlow v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Jun-2020
Presumption of dedication dates back.
The claimant tripped over a tree root raising a path in the park. The court was now asked whether the pathway through a public park, but which was not a public right of way, was maintainable at public expense as a highway governed by the 1980 Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.651083

Barlow v Wigan Council: QBD 19 Jun 2019

Responsibility for personal injury after trip over a tree root on a path in a park owned and maintained by the Council. The Court was now asked whether the public footpath was a highway under the 1980 Act for which the council was responsible for maintenance.
Held: Having found for the Claimant on the intention to dedicate and capacity issues and rejecting the Council’s retrospectivity argument, the Court allowed the appeal and the Claimant succeeded on primary liability under s 36(2)(a) of the 1980 Act.
It unnecessary to decide whether she could succeed under s 36(1). But as to that: ‘. . this argument requires that the Path was not only created but dedicated before 16 December 1949. It might have been, by long usage at common law, but this was not a point considered by the Judge on the evidence before him (because this argument was not then in play) and while it was common ground that as at least 1994, the Path was a highway by reason of s31 of the Act, there was no common ground as to a much earlier date. Accordingly, while the Path might have been dedicated before 16 December 1949, I cannot speculate and that being so, and since the point is academic, it is preferable not to consider it any further.’

Judges:

Waksman J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1546 (QB), [2020] 1 WLR 29

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 36(2) 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive HL 24-Jun-1994
The plaintiff lived with her husband in a house in a housing estate of which he was a tenant. Part of the land of the estate, in the ownership of the defendant housing authority, was crossed by footpaths, over which the public had acquired the right . .
Cited – Gautret v Egerton 1867
A man fell to his death when crossing a bridge used with the consent and permission of the defendants by persons proceeding to and coming from the defendants’ docks.
Held: The claim by his widow against the bridge owner was dismissed.
Cited – Turner v Walsh PC 1881
(From Supreme Court of New South Wales) The appellant owned land in New South Wales, acquired from the Crown in 1879, over which there was a track. The respondent was sued for trespass when he went upon the track and removed fences running across it . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Barlow v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Jun-2020
Presumption of dedication dates back.
The claimant tripped over a tree root raising a path in the park. The court was now asked whether the pathway through a public park, but which was not a public right of way, was maintainable at public expense as a highway governed by the 1980 Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.638770

Marshall v The Motor Insurers’ Bureau and Others: QBD 27 Nov 2015

The court considered the potential liability of the defendant where British citizens were hit by an uninsured french driver in France.
Held: (1) French law applies to the issue of liability of the claims made by Mrs Marshall and Mr Pickard; (2) RSA and Generali are liable to Mrs Marshall under French law and the FdG is not liable to Mrs Marshall; (3) neither RSA nor Generali are liable to Mr Pickard under French law and the FdG is liable to Mr Pickard; (4) the MIB is not liable to Mrs Marshall; and (5) the MIB is liable to Mr Pickard.

Judges:

Dingemans J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3421 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation 864/2007 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, European

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.556117

Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated: QBD 19 Feb 2014

The claimant and her husband had been in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The tour was booked in London. The defendant denied jurisdiction.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 273 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At first Instance – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.521513

Parker v Tui UK Ltd: CA 27 Nov 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1261

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.381581

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

Judges:

Denning, Jenkins, Morris LJJ

Citations:

[1955] 1 QB 158, [1954] 2 All ER 397, [1954] 3 WLR 696, 98 Sol Jo 787, [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267, [1954] EWCA Civ 3, [1955] 1 QB 158, [1954] 3 WLR 696, [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267, [1954] 3 All ER 397

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL 13-Mar-2003
Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill.
Held: The specific . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Contract

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.223887

Maguire v Harland and Wolff Plc and Another: CA 26 Jan 2005

The claimant was a wife who had been exposed to asbestos dust when washing the clothes of her husband who had worked with asbestos for the defendants. She died of mesothelioma. His employer appealed an award of damages to her.
Held: Courts must be careful of hindsight. The judge had accepted that there was nothing in the literature to warn of a risk from secondary exposure to asbestos. The alarm as to secondary exposure was not heard until 1965, and before that time, the finding that the risk of injury was forseeable was itself unsustainable. (Mance LJ dissenting)

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1, Times 27-Jan-2005, [2005] PIQR P21

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Maguire v Harland and Wolff plc and Another QBD 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was the wife of a former employee of the defendant. She claimed that having cleaned asbestos dust from her husband’s clothes on his return home from work, she had herself suffered asbestosis.
Held: The risks were known at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.221753

Knott v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust: CA 13 May 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 771

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Knott v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust QBD 16-Oct-2002
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Knott v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust QBD 16-Oct-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.183389

Trobridge v Hardy: 1995

(High Court of Australia) Police (W.A.) – Action against police constable – Acts done in carrying the provisions of the Police Act 1892-1953 into effect – Person ‘suspected of offending against’ Act – Statutory protection without. ‘direct proof of malice’ – Police Act 1892- 1953 (W.A.), ss. 50, 138 – Interpretation Act 1918-1948 (W.A.), s. 47, par, H, Second Schedule.

Judges:

Fullagar(1), Kitto(2) and Taylor(3) JJ.

Citations:

(1955) 94 CLR 147, [1955] HCA 68, [1956] ALR 15

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Crooks v Ebanks PC 30-Mar-1999
PC (Jamaica) Whilst chasing an armed criminal, the police officer tripped, discharging his gun, which hit the claimant. She sought damages. The officer claimed immunity under the Act.
Held: The dropping of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.183135

Brady v Sunderland Association Football Club Ltd: CA 17 Nov 1998

The plaintiff appealed refusal of his claim for damages. He had suffered injury whilst training for football, and alleged negligence agains the club and its doctors. He accepted that his contract imposed no higher duty than the standard one. The judge had found the condition to be one which a doctor might see once in his lifetime.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘Only in rare cases will this court do so either because the judge has misunderstood some important evidence, misconstrued or overlooked documentary evidence inconsistent with his findings or for some other reason this court is convinced that he has reached the wrong conclusion notwithstanding his advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.’

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1780

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.145259

McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive: HL 24 Jun 1994

The plaintiff lived with her husband in a house in a housing estate of which he was a tenant. Part of the land of the estate, in the ownership of the defendant housing authority, was crossed by footpaths, over which the public had acquired the right of way. The plaintiff was walking on one of the paths when she tripped in a hole in it and broke her leg. The hole was a danger to persons using the path and resulted from a failure to keep the path in good repair.
Held: A landowner was not liable to the public using a right of way for negligent non-feasance. No positive duty of care exists toward users of public right of way over private land.
The person using the public right of way did so by right and could not be said to be an invitee of the landowners.
Although the plaintiff would have been a licensee of the housing authority in respect of the path on which she had fallen, before it had become a public right of way, that license had merged in the right of way subsequently established; and accordingly it made no difference that the path had formed part of a means of access for the plaintiff to and from the house of which her husband was tenant
Lord Keith of Kinkel referred to a number of authorities before saying: ‘the rule in Gautret v Egerton is deeply entrenched in the law. Further, the rule is in my opinion undoubtedly a sound and reasonable one. Rights of way pass over many different types of terrain and it would place an impossible burden upon landowners if they not only had to submit to the passage over them of anyone who might choose to exercise the right, but also were under a duty to maintain them in a safe condition. Persons using rights of way do so not with the permission of the owner of the solum but in the exercise of a right. There is no room for the view that such persons might have been licensees or invitees of the land owner under the old law or that they are his visitors under the English and Northern Irish Acts of 1957.’
Lord Keith added: ‘If the pathway on which the Plaintiff fell in the present case had not become subject to a public right of way it seems clear that the Defendants would have owed her a common duty of care under the Act of 1957 and would have been liable accordingly.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel

Citations:

Gazette 03-Aug-1994, Independent 28-Jun-1994, Times 24-Jun-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 53, [1994] 3 WLR 187, [1995] 1 AC 233

Statutes:

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, Occupiers’ Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957 2

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Cited – Gautret v Egerton 1867
A man fell to his death when crossing a bridge used with the consent and permission of the defendants by persons proceeding to and coming from the defendants’ docks.
Held: The claim by his widow against the bridge owner was dismissed.

Cited by:

Cited – Barlow v Wigan Council QBD 19-Jun-2019
Responsibility for personal injury after trip over a tree root on a path in a park owned and maintained by the Council. The Court was now asked whether the public footpath was a highway under the 1980 Act for which the council was responsible for . .
Cited – Barlow v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Jun-2020
Presumption of dedication dates back.
The claimant tripped over a tree root raising a path in the park. The court was now asked whether the pathway through a public park, but which was not a public right of way, was maintainable at public expense as a highway governed by the 1980 Act. . .
Cited – Gulliksen v Pembrokeshire County Council QBD 2002
Mr Gulliksen was walking on a footpath on a housing estate to the house of a friend. He had an accident at a depressed manhole cover on the footpath over which he tripped. The footpath had been constructed by Pembrokeshire County Council, who were . .
Cited – Gulliksen v Pembrokeshire County Council CA 11-Jul-2002
The claimant had tripped on a footpath on a housing estate. There was a depressed manhole cover on the footpath over which he tripped. The footpath had been constructed by Pembrokeshire County Council, who were both the local housing authority and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Land

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.83539

AXN and Others v Worboys and Others: QBD 25 Jun 2012

W had used his taxi driving as an oportunity to drug and then rape passengers. He had been prosecuted for several offences, and the court now considered whether additional civil actions could proceed, claiming under his road traffic insurance.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1730 (QB), [2013] Lloyd’s Rep IR 207

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AXA Insurance UK Ltd v EUI Ltd (T/A Elephant Insurance) QBD 14-May-2020
The claimant insurer had insured a garage in respect of a car it used for loan to customers when their own car was being repaired. There was a collision on the customer driving home from work. The defendant insurer was the driver’s own insurer. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Insurance

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.460858

Reilly and Another v Merseyside Regional Health Authority: CA 28 Apr 1994

Citations:

[1994] EWCA Civ 30

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hinz v Berry CA 1970
Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. The question was whether, having regard to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.263226

Johnson v Warren: CA 2 May 2007

The question in this personal injuries appeal is whether the judge was wrong not to make an award for future disadvantage on the labour market of the kind often referred to as a Smith v Manchester award.

Judges:

Lord Justice Hughes

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 595

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.253507

Asdown v Williams: 1957

People regularly took a short cut over the defendants’ land. There was no contract by which they entered. They just walked across the land. The defendants put up notices which were clearly visible to all of them. The notices told these bare licensees that they took the short cut at their own risk. The plaintiff was injured on the land.
Held: The notices were effective to protect the occupier. They did little more than tell the licensees the position at common law: a bare licensee came at his own risk.

Citations:

[1957] 1 QB 409

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Crticised – White 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.

Land, Personal Injury

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650944

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:

Cited – 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 . .
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:

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

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650942

Hood 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 for damages for injuries sustained by him on the voyage the pursuer averred that his attention had not been drawn to conditions on the ticket limiting the liability of the shipowner to pounds 10 in the case of accident, and that he was not aware of the same. The Court allowed a proof before answer as to the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage between the parties.
Neither the shipowner nor the passage broker or agent is responsible for loss of or injury to the passenger, or his luggage or personal effects, or delay on the voyage, arising from steam, latent defects in the steamer, her machinery, gear, or fittings, or from the act of God, king’s enemies, perils of the sea or rivers, restraints of princes, rulers and people’s barratry or negligence in navigation of the steamer, or of any other vessel.
Neither the shipowner nor the passage broker or agent is in any case liable for loss of or injury to the passenger or his luggage, or delay in delivery of luggage or personal effects of the passenger, beyond the amount of pounds 10 in the case of each first-class passage, or pounds 5 in the case of each second-class or steerage passage, unless the value of the passenger’s luggage in excess of that sum be declared at or before the issue of this contract ticket, and freight at current rates for every kind of property (except pictures, statuary, and valuables of any description, upon which one per cent. will be charged) is paid.

Judges:

Lord Anderson, Ordinary

Citations:

[1916] SLR 429

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – Hood 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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Personal Injury

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.618272

Hood 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 for injuries sustained by him during the voyage, averred that his attention had not been drawn to conditions on the ticket limiting the liability of the shipping company to pounds 10 in the event of an accident occurring. Held that in the circumstances the shipowners had given reasonable notice of the conditions to the passenger.

Judges:

Lord Anderson, Ordinary

Citations:

[1917] SLR 48

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Hood 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 . .

Cited by:

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

Contract, Personal Injury

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.616831

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:

Cited – Hood 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 from – Hood 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:

Cited – TICC 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 . .
Cited – Interfoto 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 . .
Cited – White 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:

Cited – Stewart 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

Smith v Northamptonshire County Council: CA 11 Mar 2008

The claimant was employed as a care worker to collect patients to take them to a day centre. She was injured when a wheelchair ramp in a patient’s home collapsed.
Held: The council were not responsible under the Regulations. They did not own or control the ramp. The ramp was not work equipment used by the appellant at work for the purposes of the Regulations. The ramp had been installed by people other than the council’s own employees, the council had no ability to maintain it and in ordinary parlance it was part of the client’s premises.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Rimer

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 181, Times 24-Mar-2008, [2008] ICR 826, [2008] 3 All ER 1054

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Smith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.266131

Roles v Nathan: CA 15 May 1963

Two chimney sweeps were overcome by fumes, and died in the basement of the Manchester Assembly Rooms. Whilst occupied working in flues (against advice), a boiler had been lit.
Held: (Majority – Pearson LJ dissenting) The land-owner’s appeal succeeded.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘the warnings which were given to the sweeps were enough to enable them to be reasonably safe. The sweeps would have been quite safe if they had heeded these warnings. They should not have come back that evening and attempted to seal up the sweep-hole while the fire was still alight. They ought to have waited till next morning, and then they should have seen that the fire was out before they attempted to seal up the sweep-hole. In any case they should not have stayed too long in the sweep-hole. In short, it was entirely their own fault. The Judge held that it was contributory negligence. I would go further and say that under the Act the occupier has, by the warnings, discharged his duty.’
Harman LJ said: ‘the sweeps had been warned by the occupier through his agent, Collingwood, of the danger which killed them. That, however, as the section says does not without more absolve the occupier from liability. The crucial question is whether, in all the circumstances, the warning was ‘enough to enable the visitors’ ( that is, the sweeps )’to be reasonably safe’. In my judgment,it was. The occupier did not request or even authorise the sweeps to close the sweep hole while the fire was alight. Mr Corney did not expect the return of the sweeps on Friday night; they told him they were coming back in the morning. He had arranged that they should do the work on Saturday morning. He said also that he anticipated that the fire burning on Friday night would be out by Saturday morning, thus making the work safe. It is true that the caretaker apparently did not let the fire out, and it is said that Corney failed in his duty because he did not expressly order the caretaker to do so, nor did he expressly forbid the sweeps to attempt the work with the fire on. Nevertheless, these sweeps knew as much about the danger as he did. There was no obligation on than to proceed without drawing the fire, they were free to do so, and they deliberately chose to assume the risk notwithstanding the advice given.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Harman, Pearson LJJ

Citations:

[1963] EWCA Civ 6, [1963] 1 WLR 1117, [1963] 2 All ER 908

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – London Graving Dock Co Ltd v Horton HL 1951
An experienced welder had for a month been carrying out work on a ship as an employee of sub-contractors engaged by ship-repairers in occupation of the ship. He was injured, without negligence on his part, owing to the inadequacy of certain staging, . .
Cited – Christmas v Caledonian Club 1952
A window cleaner. employed by independent contractors, came to clean the windows of a club. One window was defective, falling onto and trapping his hand, causing him to fall.
Held: He had no cause of action against the club. The landowner was . .
Cited – Greene v Chelsea Borough Council CA 1954
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Knowledge or notice of the danger is only a defence when the plaintiff is free to act upon that knowledge or notice so as to avoid the danger’. . .

Cited by:

Cited – White 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

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.262804

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:

Cited – Cleghorn 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. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Bolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
Cited – Benmax 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 . .
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Admiralty 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Bourhill v Young’s Executor HL 5-Aug-1942
When considering claims for damages for shock, the court only recognised the action lying where the injury by shock was sustained ‘through the medium of the eye or the ear without direct contact.’ Wright L said: ‘No doubt, it has long ago been . .
Cited – Dann 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 . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Haynes v Harwood CA 1935
The plaintiff, a policemen saw a horse running loose in the street among children. He ran out, chased it and caught it but was injured.
Held: The horseowner was liable. It was foreseeable that if a horse was let loose in a crowd, somebody, . .
Cited – Cutler 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:

Cited – White 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

Cape Plc v The Iron Trades Employers Insurance Assc Ltd: 21 Apr 1999

ComC An exclusion in an employers’ liability policy of ‘pneumoconiosis’ (fibrosis of the lungs caused by the inhalation of dust) does not embrace mesothelioma (cancer of the pleura or peritoneum caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust) – Asbestosis (pneumoconiosis caused by inhalation of asbestos dust) was therefore within the exclusion, but mesothelioma was not. There was no case for rectification of the policy to extend the exclusion to all asbestos related diseases, and even if there had been, the remedy of rectification would fail for laches in circumstances where the issue had been seen by the insurer in 1969 but not raised with the insured until points of defence in the 1995 proceedings. The insurer’s case of estoppel by convention or acquiescence failed. The insurer’s case of non-disclosure of mesothelioma claims failed, since there were only two relevant such claims, the insurer knew in general that its insured would be receiving such claims, it was not clear that the cause of death was ascribed to mesothelioma as distinct from mesothelioma due to asbestosis, the normal arrangement between the parties was for the insured to provide claims records in only general terms without differentiations as to disease, and in any event no inducement was proved.

Judges:

Rix J

Citations:

[1999] PIQR Q212

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Personal Injury

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.225404

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:

Disapproved – Owens 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:

Cited – Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991
The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. The defendant police service had not . .
Cited – British 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 . .
Cited – Giullietta 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 . .
Cited – King 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 . .
Cited – Salter 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 . .
Cited – Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
Cited – AB 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.
Cited – Steel 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 . .
Cited – Simmons v British Steel plc HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was injured at work as a consequence of the defender’s negligence. His injuries became more severe, and he came to suffer a disabling depression.
Held: the Inner House had been wrong to characterise the Outer House decision as . .
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961
Foreseeability Standard to Establish Negligence
Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . .
Cited – McKillen v Barclay Curle and Co Ltd 1967
The Lord Ordinary had awarded the pursuer damages for tuberculosis, on the basis that in the accident he had fractured a rib and this had reactivated his pre-existing tuberculosis.
Held: The pursuer had failed to prove the causal connexion . .
Cited – Islington 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 . .
Cited – Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .
Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Cited – Alcock 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 . .
Cited – Alcock 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 . .
Rejected – McLoughlin 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 . .
Cited – Liverpool 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages, Negligence

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.180104

Mighell v Reading and Another and Evans v Motor Insurers Bureau and White v White and Another: CA 30 Sep 1998

Passengers were injured in motor vehicles. The drivers were uninsured, and the MIB had declined to make payment. The doctrine of direct effect did not apply where the allegation was that the Motor Insurers Bureau arrangement did not comply with a European Directive. It was not clear whether the Bureau was an emanation of state, but government had had a choice of institutions through which to implement the Directive. As to the nature of the MIB: ‘Its members are private law insurance companies who have chosen for the time being to write motor insurance business. It is true that they have a statutory position in that it is compulsory for the user of a motor vehicle on the road to take out a policy with a company which is a member of the Bureau. (Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988). But the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme has been in existence from a time earlier than the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Communities (or Union) and agreements between the Bureau and the Secretary of State relating to uninsured drivers and untraced drivers have long formed part of that scheme.’

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1465, [1999] 1 LLR 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Evans v Motor Insurance Bureau ComC 29-Jul-1997
ComC Untraced Drivers Scheme of the Motor Insurers Bureau – obligation to award interest – power to award interest under section 19A of the 1950 Act. . .
See Also – Evans v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA 18-Jan-2001
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Evans v Motor Insurance Bureau ComC 29-Jul-1997
ComC Untraced Drivers Scheme of the Motor Insurers Bureau – obligation to award interest – power to award interest under section 19A of the 1950 Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144944

Sykes v Harry: CA 14 Oct 1998

The plaintiff sought damages against the defendant after he was severely injured by inhaling carbon monoxide fumes whilst a tenant of the defendant. The defendant sought to strike out the claim, saying that the plaintiff had himself maintained the fire which caused the injury.
Held: The strike out application was misconceived and failed.

Judges:

Simon Browne LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1533

Statutes:

Defective Premises Act 1972 4, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Sykes v Harry and Trustee of Estate of Harry, a Bankrupt CA 1-Feb-2001
The tenant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages. He had suffered serious injury after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes from a defective gas fire. The fire had not been maintained and a fall of soot eventually prevented the escape of fumes.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145012

Dorman Long and Co Ltd v Hillier: 1951

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

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1951] 1 All ER 357

Statutes:

Factories Act 1937 26(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.440370

Prince v Carrier Engineering Co Ltd: 1955

Citations:

[1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 401

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.440371

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 Also – Williams v Jervis (Komatsu) (Hearing Costs) QBD 30-Jul-2009
. .
See Also – Williams 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

Keating v Elvan Reinforced Concrete Co Ltd: 1968

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 722

Statutes:

New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hertfordshire County Council v Veolia Water Central Ltd CA 27-Jul-2010
The council sought under section 81 the cost of having had to place bollards over a manhole cover owned by the defendant. The cover was said to have been cracked leading to injury, and temporary arrangements had been made for its safety. The judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.421564

Novartis Grimsby Ltd v Cookson: CA 29 Nov 2007

The claimant sought damages from his employers for causing him bladder cancer. It is known that bladder cancer is caused by exposure to amines and the claimant had been so exposed from two sources. One was his employment, which wrongfully exposed him to amines used in the manufacture of dyes. The other was smoking, for cigarette smoke contains amines. Expert evidence established that the occupational exposure had more than doubled the risk caused by smoking. There was an issue as to whether Bonnington applied or whether the claimant had to prove that ‘but for’ the occupational exposure he would not have suffered the cancer.
Held: Smith LJ did not find it necessary to resolve this issue, holding that the ‘but for’ test was satisfied: ‘In terms of risk, if occupational exposure more than doubles the risk due to smoking, it must, as a matter of logic, be probable that the disease was caused by the former.’

Judges:

Smith LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1261

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore SC 9-Mar-2011
The Court considered appeals where defendants challenged the factual basis of findings that they had contributed to the causes of the claimant’s Mesothelioma, and in particular to what extent a court can satisfactorily base conclusions of fact on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.261610

Attia v British Gas: CA 26 Jun 1987

The defendant set the plaintiff’s house on fire when installing central heating. She claimed damages for the shock she suffered on hearing of the fire.
Held: The plaintiff could recover damages for psychiatric injury she suffered when the house was burnt down so long as such illness was foreseeable and therefore not too remote. The court considered where to draw a line between psychiatric and physical harm. The court referred to mental or emotional trauma ‘which precipitated the plaintiff’s psychiatric damage’, and in his own word, he defined psychiatric evidence as ‘comprehending all relevant forms of mental illness, neuroses and personality change’.

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1988] 1 QB 304, [1987] EWCA Civ 8, [1987] 3 All ER 455

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fook, Regina v CACD 22-Oct-1993
The defendant appealed his conviction for assault. He had suspected a lodger of theft, and was accused of having assaulted him while interrogating him about it. He locked the complainant in his room, but he then fell whilst escaping through a first . .
Cited – Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust CA 4-Feb-2009
The defendant hospital had custody of sperm samples given by the claimants in the course of fertility treatment. The samples were effectively destroyed when the fridge malfunctioned. Each claimant was undergoing chemotherapy which would prevent them . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.245861

Foulkes v Metropolitan District Railway Co: 1880

The court considered the liability of a railway company where the plaintiff had bought his ticket from one railway company, but claimed liability from another which had undertaken responsibility for part of the services to be rendered to the plaintiff under the contract evidenced by the ticket.

Citations:

(1880) 5 CPD 157

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Contract

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.214713

Birkitt v Hayes: 1982

Where a case takes a long time to come on for trial because there has been unjustifiable delay by the plaintiff, he has been kept out of his money by his own default for part of the period. It is a ‘special reason’ for not giving some of the interest.

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 816

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Eagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .
Cited – Spittle v Bunney CA 1988
The plaintiff made a claim in damages for the loss of her mother’s services.
Held: In assessing a FAA claim on behalf of a child a judge, directing himself as he would a jury, was, in valuing the mothers services to take into account the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.200638

Francis v Bostock: 8 Nov 1985

The court considered the question of whether the court should award the additional costs of receiving investment advice to deal with an award of damages: ‘The award I make is compensatory. The whole object of the exercise upon which I have embarked by the progress of multipliers and multiplicands is to achieve a figure which compensates the plaintiff one and for all. The calculation of that figure, so far as future economic loss is concerned, seeks to achieve such a sum as will enable the plaintiff to recover her annual economic loss for the rest of her life, whilst in the process dissipating the fund. The result is what should be achieved by the award itself. Having acknowledged that the proposition however, the Court is not concerned with the disposal of the award once it is made. The plaintiff may spend it as she wishes. The defendant, in my judgment, should not be called upon to find further monies to assist the plaintiff in the proper administration of an award which, in itself, affords adequate compensation. Furthermore in my view the employment of financial advisers and the like is a consequence of my award and not a consequence of negligence of the defendant. The claim fails on the ground of remoteness.’

Judges:

Russell J

Citations:

Unreported, November 8 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Not Followed – Anderson v Davis QBD 1993
The court referred to the judgment in Francis -v- Bostock: ‘That judgment of Russell J., as he then was, has been followed in other cases and it is with some trepidation that I decided not to follow it here, for the following reasons. First, in a . .
Cited – Eagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.200635

Appleton and others v Garrett: 1996

The plaintiffs were patients of the defendant dentist who had carried out unnecessary treatment on them; they claimed damages for trespass and sought aggravated damages.
Held: There was no reason in principle why awards of aggravated damages should not be made for feelings of anger or indignation in cases of trespass to the person where injury to the feelings were an important part of the damage for which compensation was awarded: ‘To say that the law permits recovery of aggravated damages where the relevant conduct has caused injury to feelings, insult indignity, humiliation and a heightened sense of injury or grievance, but not where it has caused anger or indignation, is very difficult to justify in terms of principle or common sense’. The plaintiffs were entitled to aggravated but moderate damages: ‘If substantial awards are made to reflect the court’s disapproval of the defendant’s conduct, they would become punitive. It is important to keep in mind that aggravated damages are compensatory.’

Citations:

[1996] PIQR P1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – AB v South West Water Services Ltd CA 1993
Exemplary and aggravated damages were claimed in an action for nuisance arising out of the contamination of water by the defendant utility.
Held: Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘A defendant accused of crime may ordinarily be ordered (if . .
Cited – W v Meah 1986
The defendant had attacked two women, one he raped and the other he seriously sexually assaulted. They both brought actions claiming damages for personal injuries. The woman who was raped was subjected to what was described by the trial judge as . .

Cited by:

Cited – Richardson v Howie CA 13-Aug-2004
The claimant sought damages for assault. In the course of a tempestuous relationship, she said the respondent had physically assaulted her in Barbados. He was later convicted of soliciting her murder. She sought and was awarded aggravated damages, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.200254

Graham v David A Hall Ltd: 1996

The pursuer’s symptoms, other than some initial bruising to her back resulting from her fall, were caused not by the accident but by the defenders’ treatment of her afterwards including their refusal to acknowledge liability for it and to give her light work.

Citations:

1996 SLT 596

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.196521

Skerratt v Linfax Ltd (T/A Go Karting for Fun): CA 6 May 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 695

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33(3)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Coad v Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority CA 17-Jul-1996
A nurse suffered a back injury in 1983 in the course of her employment. She left the employment of the health authority in either 1990 or 1991. The judge had accepted her evidence that she did not know that she had a right of action against her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.182352