Category: Personal Injury

Davies v Forrett and Others: QBD 23 Jun 2015

The claimant had been very severely injured as a passenger in a car (uninsured) which had attempted an overtaking manouvre past three cars. One pulled out, and the car in which he was a passenger swerved off the road and crashed. Damages were now sought against the car which had pulled out. A settlement had been all but reached with the defendant accepting some responsibility. The court now considered liability for costs.
Held: The defendant and his insurers had behaved in a way which was designed to secure an advantage to which they were not entitled, increasing costs.

Edis J
[2015] EWHC 1761 (QB)
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Company CA 1903
Where a party sues two or more defendants and succeeds against one but fails against one or more other defendants, the court has a discretion to order the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs of the claimant in pursuing the successful defendant . .
Cited – Bullock v London General Omnibus Company 1907
An order was made for the payment of the successful defendants’ costs, but with liberty to the plaintiff to include those costs in the costs of the action recoverable by the plaintiff from the unsuccessful defendant. The plaintiff had been unable . .
Cited – Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson CA 4-May-1993
Nine rules were set out for allowing a costs order against someone who is not a party to the action. Such orders should be exceptional. The normal rule is that witnesses in either civil or criminal proceedings enjoy immunity from any form of civil . .
Cited – Irvine v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Carillion Plc, Town and Country Flooring Limited CA 3-Feb-2005
Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘There is no doubt that the jurisdiction to make a Bullock or Sanderson order has survived the introduction of the CPR, though the exercise of discretion to make such an order must be guided by the overriding objective and the . .
Cited – Moon v Garrett and others CA 28-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable for the personal injury to the claimant. The claimant was employed to collect blocks and bring them to the site. He fell and injured himself.
Held: The defendant, the occupier of the land, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Road Traffic, Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549417

Lazar (Judgment): ECJ 10 Dec 2015

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation No 864/2007 – Article 4(1) – Concepts of ‘country in which the damage occurs’, ‘damage’ and ‘indirect consequences of the tort or delict’ – Damage sustained personally by a family member of a person who died as a result of a road traffic accident – Applicable law

[2015] EUECJ C-350/14, [2016] CEC 990, [2016] ILPr 5, [2016] 1 WLR 835, [2015] WLR(D) 511, ECLI:EU:C:2015:802, [2016] RTR 7
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Opinion – Lazar (Opinion) ECJ 10-Sep-2015
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.670801

Newcastle City Council v PV and Another: CoP 26 Mar 2015

This judgment considers the role of the Court of Protection in connection with applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (‘CICA’). In particular, it looks at cases in which the CICA requires a trust to be created in order to exclude any possibility that the assailant may benefit from the compensation award. These cases arise almost exclusively in the context of domestic violence, where the assailant is a family member.

Lush SJ
[2015] EWCOP 22
Bailii

Personal Injury, Family

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546275

Webb v Liverpool Womens’ NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 1 Apr 2015

The court had found the defendant negligent in its management of the claimant’s labour. The parties had settled the damages at a level more advantageous to the claimant than earlier offers. The parties now disputed the claimant’s contention that ‘the consequences of Part 36.14(3) should apply and that the claimant should have all her costs on an indemnity basis from the expiry of the relevant period plus interest thereon at the enhanced ‘Part 36 rate’ plus the enhancement of damages specified in 36.14(3)(a) and (d).’

Saffmaan HHJ
[2015] EWHC 449 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545140

GB v Home Office: QBD 31 Mar 2015

The claimant, GB, pursued a claim in negligence against the defendant arising out of medical treatment which she received whilst detained by the defendant at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre between 16 June and 27 July 2012. It is said that the prescription of an anti-malarial drug caused her to suffer a severe psychotic reaction.

Coulson J
[2015] EWHC 819 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545023

Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc: CA 31 Mar 2015

The claimant sought damages alleging his back had been injured at work. The insurers accepted liability but said that the claimant had exaggerated the extent of his injury. The claim was settled, but later a neighbour of the claimants said that the claim of a serious back injury had been dishonest. The insurers sought recission of the settlement agreement. The claimant contended that the Tomlin order created an estoppel per rem judicatam and/or by record, alternatively that the action was an abuse of the process because the issue of fraud had been compromised by the settlement.
Held: The appeal was allowed. In the light of its pleaded assertions that the claimant’s presentation of his injuries had been dishonest, the insurers could not be said to have relied on his presentation when entering into the settlement.
Underhill LJ said: ‘it is important to recall the very particular context in which the reliance is said to occur – that is, that the contract in issue is a settlement agreement and the misrepresentations relied on comprise the very allegations advanced as part of the claim being settled. No doubt in one sense those allegations do operate on the mind of the defendant in his consideration of whether to settle, and at what level: he may actually believe them to be true, but even if he does not he will inevitably be influenced by the possibility that they will be believed by the Court – which is of course what the Judge found to be the case here. But to my mind that does not constitute reliance in the relevant sense. The defendant is not concerned with the truth or otherwise of the statements as the factor motivating his action. Rather, he is treating them simply as part of the claimant’s case. It is inherent in the antagonistic relationship of claimant and defendant that in deciding whether to settle he has to form an independent judgment about whether the disputed statements made as part of the claim are (to the extent that they are material to the outcome) likely to be accepted by the Court. I do not believe that a relationship of reliance arises in that context.’
Briggs LJ said: ‘the judge’s finding that Zurich was induced into making the settlement agreement by reliance on the Appellant’s dishonest misrepresentations about his continuing injury was based upon a view of the law for which there is no authority, which is wrong in principle and the recognition of which would have most unfortunate consequences.’ and: ‘ the true principle is that the equitable remedy of rescission answers the affront to conscience occasioned by holding to a contract a party who has been influenced into making it by being misled or, worse still, defrauded by his counterparty. Thus, once he discovers the truth, he must elect whether to rescind or to proceed with the contract. It must follow that, if he already knows or perceives the truth by the time of the contract, he elects to proceed by entering into it, and cannot later seek rescission merely because he later obtains better evidence of that which he already believed, still less if he merely repents of it. This seems to me to be a fortiori the case where, as here, the misrepresentation consists of a disputed claim in litigation, and the contract settles that claim.’
Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘If it is to succeed in its action Zurich will have to persuade the court that it was induced to agree to the settlement by fraud on the part of Mr Hayward, a task that may not prove easy, given the fact that it already knew enough to justify the service of a defence in the terms indicated earlier.’

Underhill, Briggs, King LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 327
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Arkwright v Newbold CA 1881
Cotton LJ discussed the tort of deceit and said: ‘In my opinion, it would not be right in an action of deceit to give a plaintiff relief on the ground that a particular statement, according to the construction put on it by the court, is false, when . .
See Also – Zurich Insurance Company Plc v Hayward CA 27-May-2011
The court was asked whether an action alleging that the settlement of an earlier personal injuries action was obtained by fraud should be struck out on the grounds that the issues are res judicata or that the action is an abuse of process because . .
Cited – Redgrave v Hurd CA 1881
The plaintiff, an elderly solicitor wishing to retire, advertised for someone to enter into partnership with him and to buy his house. The defendant responded to the advertisement and negotiations followed, in which the plaintiff stated that the . .
Cited – Strover v Harrington 1988
A property was at first wrongly described by the agents as having mains drainage. Correcting information was sent to the buyer’s solicitors by the Agents, but the solicitors did not pass on the correction to their client. The mistake was later . .
Cited – Sprecher Grier Halberstam Llp and Another v Walsh CA 3-Dec-2008
Ward LJ said: ‘a man cannot be deceived if he knows the truth’ . .
Cited – Callisher v Bischoffsheim 1870
The settlement of an ill-founded claim is nonetheless binding. However, that would not be the case where the claim was fraudulent. A forgoing of a bona fide but unfounded claim is good consideration for a payment made in settlement of it but not the . .
Cited – Gilbert v Endean CA 1878
The plaintiff had obtained an order against a defendant for the defendant to give a bond for payment of money to the plaintiff and to deposit some shares as security for compliance. Subsequently, the plaintiff entered into a compromise with the . .
Cited – Wauton v Coppard 1899
A statement was made as to the meaning or effect of a document can amount to an actionable misrepresentation. The defendant had said that running a boys’ school was not capable of amounting to nuisance, but he was wrong.The running of a boys’ school . .
Cited – Kyle Bay Ltd (T/A Astons Nightclub) v Underwriters CA 7-Feb-2007
The claimant had been insured under a business interruption insurance policy issued by the respondent defendaants. A claim had arisen, and had been settled, but the caimant said that the parties had mistaken the basis of the policy and had settled . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .
Cited – Gohil v Gohil SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court was asked ‘Do the principles referable to the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal, as propounded in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, have any relevance to the determination of a spouse’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544995

Milroy v British Telecommunications Plc: QBD 5 Mar 2015

The claimant was severely injured when electrocuted by an overhead cable at work. He was on a platform raised by an associate.
Held: the system of work did give rise to danger. Because of the failure to provide Mr Milroy with proper training or other satisfactory notification of the appropriate system, BT created and are liable for this breach of statutory duty, with a contribution of one third for his own negligence.

William Davis J
[2015] EWHC 532 (QB)
Bailii
Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Personal Injury, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543898

Wucher Helicopter And Euro-Aviation Versicherung v Fridolin Santer: ECJ 26 Feb 2015

ECJ Judgment – References for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 – Air carriers and aircraft operators – Insurance – Requirements – Definitions of ‘passenger’ and ‘member of the crew’ – Helicopter – Carriage of an expert in the blasting of avalanches using explosives – Injury suffered during a work flight – Compensation

A. Tizzano, P
C-6/14, [2015] EUECJ C-6/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:122
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 785/2004
European

European, Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543692

Campbell v Peter Gordon Joiners Ltd and Forsyth, The Liquidator Thereof and Gordon: SCS 3 Feb 2015

(Extra Division – Inner House) The pursuer was injured working as an apprentice for a company operated by its sole director, the second defender. Though he was an apprentice joiner, the company’s insurance excluded (in breach of the 1969 Act) injury by electric powered woodworking machinery. The company was now liquidated, and the appellant sought to recover from the director who had failed to comply with the 1969 Act.
Held: The defenders’ appeal failed. The 1969 did not expressly make a director liable for such a failure, but equally other statutes expressly excluded liability, and again this was not the case here: ‘Where a statute imposes a duty or prohibition and where that duty or prohibition can be seen to have been imposed for the benefit of a particular group of people (in other words a duty is owed to them) then, as a matter of necessary inference, the statute may be construed as conferring a right on members of that particular group to sue on breach, as the correlative of the duty’

[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 11, 2015 GWD 5-109, 2015 SC 453, 2015 SCLR 434, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep IR 35, 2015 SLT 134, [2015] CSIH 11
Bailii
Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Richardson v Pitt-Stanley CA 11-Aug-1994
The directors of a company did not become personally liable for damages, only because they had failed to insure the company for liability for personal injuries suffered as a result of the company’s activities, even though they may be criminally . .

Cited by:
At SCS – Campbell v Gordon SC 6-Jul-2016
The employee was injured at work, but in a way excluded from the employers insurance cover. He now sought to make the sole company director liable, hoping in term to take action against the director’s insurance brokers for negligence, the director . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543675

Welch v Waterworth: CA 22 Jan 2015

Appeal from an order whereby judgment was entered for the claimant against the defendant for andpound;155,000 as damages for negligence on the part of the defendant in a surgical procedure performed by him upon the claimant’s late wife.

McCombe, Beatson LJJ, Sir David Keene
[2015] EWCA Civ 11
Bailii
England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541714

Broni and Others v Ministry of Defence: QBD 20 Jan 2015

‘three appeals before the court which raise the same point of law, namely whether the fixed success fee regime in (pre- 1 April 2013) CPR Part 45 Section IV applies to claims brought by members of the armed forces in respect of injuries suffered at work.’

Supperstone J
[2015] EWHC 66 (QB)
Bailii

Costs, Personal Injury, Armed Forces

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541571

Dusek and Others v Stormharbour Securities Llp: QBD 19 Jan 2015

The claimants were personal representatives of passengers who had died in a helicopter crash. They alleged that StormHarbour was in breach of its duty as employers to provide Mr Dusek with a safe place of work, safe equipment and a safe system of working.

Hamblen J
[2015] EWHC 37 (QB)
Bailii
Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541572

Hayes v South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 15 Jan 2015

Claim for damages brought on behalf of the Claimant Mrs Michelle Hayes and her three sons as well as on behalf of the estate of her former husband Mr Paul Hayes.

Coe QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 18 (QB)
Bailii
Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541573

Baxter v Barnes (T/A We Barnes Tree Surgeons And/Or Upand Out Platform Hire: QBD 12 Jan 2015

Claim for damages for personal injuries and consequential loss arising out of an accident suffered by the Claimant on 1 December 2010. On that day, the Claimant was engaged in his business, together with some of his employees, in the pruning of a tree. He and one of his employees, Mr Milbourn, were working from the basket of a sophisticated piece of equipment called a Mobile Elevated Work Platform (MEWP) which had been hired by the Claimant from the Defendant.

Collender QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 54 (QB)
Bailii

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541570

Brown v Fisk and Others: QBD 29 Sep 2021

An application made by the second defendant, for reverse summary judgment against the claimant in relation to this claim, brought by the claimant following his allegedly being wrongfully injured by a car driven by the first defendant in an area of land at Ham Lane, Lewes, Sussex

Master Dagnall
[2021] EWHC 2769 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.669695

AB v Chief Constable of X Constabulary: QBD 8 Jan 2015

‘The claimant is a former undercover police officer and the defendant is the Chief Constable of the force of which he was a member. The case concerns a claim for damages for psychiatric injury in the form of an adjustment disorder. The claimant complains that his adjustment disorder arises from a breach of the duty of care owed to him by the Chief Constable, who for the purposes of this claim has accepted vicarious liability for the acts and omissions of the collaborative police unit within which the claimant worked. The context is the claimant’s deployment to another region (outside the area covered by the collaborative unit) as an undercover officer tasked with the obtaining of intelligence in relation to a serious organised criminal group.’

Males J
[2015] EWHC 13 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540497

XYZ v Various (Including Transform Medical Group (CS) Ltd and Spire Healthcare Limited) and Others: QBD 3 Dec 2014

The court considered further direction in a personal injury claim involving over 1,000 women complaining of the breast implants supplied by the defendants. The claimants wanted the defendant’s insurers to be joined so as to ascertain the viability of the action.
Held: A claimant must take the defendant as he finds him. Application refused.

Thirlwall DBE J
[2014] EWHC 4056 (QB)
Bailii
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 4(2), Civil Procedure Rules 19.2

Personal Injury, Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539750

Greenway and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc: QBD 26 Nov 2014

The five claimants had been employed by the defendant. Whilst at work, and in breach of Health an Safety regulations, they had been exposed to complex halogenated platinum salts, and now claimed a sensitisation to such salts. The defendant argued that the sensitisation was not an injury capable of founding a claim.
Held: The claims failed.
Jay J said: ‘the scope of the rule of public policy in operation in these cases, and all cases of employers’ liability, is to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of employees from the careless acts and omissions of their employers; and, in the event of breach, where personal injury is suffered to require the payment of condign compensation. The concepts of health, safety and welfare, properly understood, embody the notion of protection from personal injury and not from economic or financial loss suffered without personal injury. Put another way, it is because the implied contractual duty is precisely conterminous with and reflects the obligations imposed by the law of tort – and, in particular, the tort of negligence – that the outcome must be the same however the cause of action is sought to be classified.’

Jay J
[2014] EWHC 3957 (QB), [2015] PIQR P10, [2014] CN 2094
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At QBD – Greenway and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc CA 28-Apr-2016
The claimants had been exposed to platinum salts while employed by the defendant company in breach of the employer’s duties in negligence and Health and Safety. Though they had suffered no symptoms, they claimed in damages. The employer said that no . .
At QBD – Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc SC 21-Mar-2018
Sensitisation to salt can be personal injury
The claimants, had developed platinum salt sensitisation due to the defendant employer’s breach of health and safety regulations and common law duty, claimed a cause of action for personal injury. Platinum salt sensitisation is, in itself, an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539347

Laporte and Another v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: QBD 31 Oct 2014

Turner J setout a series of propositions relating to the use of force in excluding people from public meetings: ‘i) Those running a public meeting, including local authorities, have a common law power (or perhaps duty in certain circumstances) to exclude attendees whose disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour disrupts or threatens to disrupt the business of the meeting.
ii) This power extends to the exclusion of all members of the general public in those cases where the attendance of the public as a whole is liable to give rise to disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour which would disrupt or threatens to disrupt the business of the meeting.
iii) The power to exclude, particularly where it is directed at all or most members of the public, will and must be exercised particularly sparingly and only in the absence of a reasonably viable alternative but, in appropriate cases, can be used either in advance of the meeting (as in Brent) or on the occasion of the meeting itself.
iv) The power may be exercised by the deployment of such force (if any) as may be necessary and proportionate to achieve and maintain the exclusion of those against whom it is directed.
v) It is not necessary that a breach of the peace should have occurred or be imminent to justify laying hands on a trespasser; although in any given case passive resistance may often become active and result in a subsequent breach of the peace.
vi) If the police are called upon to assist in the exercise of the common law power they are acting lawfully in the use of force so long as such force is necessary and not excessive.’

Turner J
[2014] EWHC 3574 (QB), [2015] PTSR 440
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Laporte and Another v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 19-Feb-2015
. .
Cited – Skelton, Regina (on The Application of) v Winchester Crown Court Admn 5-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown Court could properly refuse to state a case for the opinion of the divisional court, having convicted a defendant, on her appeal from the magistrates’ court, of an offence of common assault. She was evicted from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538341

Smoldon v Whitworth and Nolan: CA 17 Dec 1996

The claimant sued another player and the referee at a colts rugby match in which he was badly injured when the scrum collapsed. The claim against the player was dismissed, but the referee was found liable and he now appealed.
Held: The referee’s appeal failed. The liability of a referee for a sports injury incurred during the course of a match of which he was in charge had to be seen in the light of all circumstances of that case, including the relative inexperience of the players. The threshold of liability must be high. Of the floodgates argument: ‘We do not accept this fear as well-founded. The level of care required is that which is appropriate in all the circumstances, and the circumstances are of crucial importance. Full account must be taken of the factual context in which a referee exercises his functions, and he could not be properly held liable for errors of judgement, oversights or lapses of which any referee might be guilty in the context of a fast-moving and vigorous contest. The threshold of liability is a high one. It will not easily be crossed. There is in our judgment no inconsistency between this conclusion and that reached by the Court of Appeal in Wooldridge v Sumner and Wilks v Cheltenham Homeguard Motor Cycle Co and Light Car Cycle Club. In these cases it was recognised that a sporting competitor, properly intent on winning the contest, was (and was entitled to be) all but oblivious of spectators. It therefore followed that he would have to be shown to have very blatantly disregarded the safety of spectators before he could be held to have failed to exercise such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances.’

Lord Bingham CJ
Times 18-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1225, (1997) ELR 249, [1997] PIQR 133
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Smoldon v Whitworth and Another QBD 23-Apr-1996
A claim was brought against a player and a referee in a rugby match when a scrum collapsed. A rugby referee at a colts game has a duty of care to players as regards scrimmaging. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Richard Vowles v David Evans, and The Welsh Rugby Union Limited CA 11-Mar-2003
The claimant had been injured in a rugby match, and had recovered damages from the referee, who now appealed.
Held: The relationship was proximate, and the injury reasonably forseeable, and if the referee failed to exercise reasonable care, . .
Cited – Caldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald CA 27-Jun-2001
The claimant, a professional jockey, had been injured when he was unseated as a result of manoeuvres by two fellow jockeys. At trial the judge identified five principles: ‘[1] Each contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.141093

Pentecost v John: QBD 10 Jul 2015

The defendant had lost its defence of a personal injury claim, but succeesfully challenged the claim on the basis that a proper analysis of the contractual framework led to the inevitable conclusion that BBK had no enforceable claim against the claimant in respect of those costs incurred after 2 July 2009. The consequence of this finding was that by the operation of the indemnity principle a very considerable proportion of the costs claimed against the defendant were thereby rendered irrecoverable and BBK were substantially out of pocket.

Turner J
[2015] EWHC 1970 (QB), [2015] 4 Costs LO 497
Bailii
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58
England and Wales

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.550078

Smoldon v Whitworth and Another: QBD 23 Apr 1996

A claim was brought against a player and a referee in a rugby match when a scrum collapsed. A rugby referee at a colts game has a duty of care to players as regards scrimmaging.

Times 23-Apr-1996, (1997) ELR 249
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Smoldon v Whitworth and Nolan CA 17-Dec-1996
The claimant sued another player and the referee at a colts rugby match in which he was badly injured when the scrum collapsed. The claim against the player was dismissed, but the referee was found liable and he now appealed.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.89352

Brady and Wife v Giles: 22 Jun 1835

In an action for damage done through negligent driving of a carriage and horses let to hire and driven by the servants of the owner, it is a question for the Jury whether the servants were acting as the servants of the person hiring, or of the
owner.

[1835] EngR 857, (1835) 1 M and Rob 494, (1835) 174 ER 170
Commonlii
England and Wales

Vicarious Liability, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.316365

Wilson v North Star Shipping (Aberdeen) Ltd and Another: SCS 29 Oct 2014

The pursuer sought reparation from the defenders for injuries sustained on 28 July 2009, while in the employment of the second defenders, as a second year apprentice deck hand. The first defenders were sued as operators of the vessel on which the pursuer was serving at the material time.

Lord Bannatyne
[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 156
Bailii
Scotland

Personal Injury

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538178

Ford v Seymour-Williams: CA 8 Dec 2021

Questions as to the scope of the strict liability obligation that arises under s. 2 of the Animals Act 1971 (‘s. 2’) (‘the Act’). It arises out of a claim by the Appellant for personal injury damages and consequential losses following an incident on 15 September 2018 when the horse that she was riding (‘the horse’) reared and fell on top of her. The Appellant suffered severe injuries. She sued the Respondent on the basis that, as keeper of the horse, he was strictly liable to her under s. 2(2) of the Act (and s. 2(2) alone); no allegations of fault-based liability were made.

Lady Justice Macur,
Lady Justice Carr,
And,
Lord Justice William Davis
[2021] EWCA Civ 1848
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Animals, Personal Injury

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.670333

Best v Samuel Fox and Co Ltd: 1952

The court considered liability for injury to secondary victims. Lord Morton of Henryton: ‘it has never been the law of England that an invitor, who has negligently but unintentionally injured an invitee, is liable to compensate other persons who have suffered, in one way or another, as a result of the injury to the invitee. If the injured man was engaged in a business, and the injury is a serious one, the business may have to close down and the employees be dismissed; a daughter of the injured man may have to give up work which she enjoys and stay at home to nurse a father who has been transformed into an irritable invalid as a result of the injury. Such examples could easily be multiplied. Yet the invitor is under no liability to compensate such persons, for he owes them no duty and may not even know of their existence.’

Lord Morton of Henryton
[1952] AC 716, (1951) 2 KB 639, [1952] 2 All ER 394
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
Cited – JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.184754

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 negligent party on that account’.

Denning LJ
[1953] 1 QB 429, [1952] 2 All ER 459
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 by:
Cited – White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
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 . .
Applied – Page v Smith CA 4-May-1994
The plaintiff was driving his car at 30 miles an hour when the defendant turned right immediately into his path. In the accident both cars suffered damage but the occupants all escaped physical injury. The Plaintiff, however, had suffered for 20 . .
Cited – Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006
Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
Cited – Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995
The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.184749

RE and Others v Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 12 Apr 2017

Damages were claimed on behalf of RE after she suffered profound hypoxic ischaemic insult in the moments around her birth at the defendant hospital.

Goss J
[2017] EWHC 824 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.581981

Peat and Kerr Executors Over The Estate of The Late Margaret Gilfillan Colquhoun Peat v Assembly Theatre Ltd: SCS 25 Sep 2014

Outer House – ‘The pursuers aver that the deceased sustained personal injuries when she fell at the defenders’ premises in George Street, Edinburgh on the evening of 6 August 2010; and that the accident was caused through the defenders’ fault.’

Lord Doherty
[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 144
Bailii

Scotland, Personal Injury

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.537042

Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust and Another: QBD 19 Sep 2014

The claimant had begun to suffer a condition which would lead to her being confined to a wheelchair. She now claimed damages after developing severe pressure sores and similar. The court was asked to disentangle the related injuries

Foskett J
[2014] EWHC 3016 (QB)
Bailii

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.537041

Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp: SCS 19 Sep 2014

The respondent, Mrs Kennedy was working for the reclaimers as a carer. She had been injured walking up a snowy client’s path. The reclaimer appealed against an award for damages after a finding that she should have been provided with grips for her feet in these conditions.
Held: The reclaimer was granted. The Lord Ordinary had wrongly deferred to the expert, the failure to comply with the Management Regulations could not be a direct cause of injury, regulation 4(1) of the PPE Regulations did not apply to the circumstances of the accident.

Lady Smith, Lord Brodie, Lord Clarke
[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 76, 2014 Rep LR 127, 2014 SLT 984, 2015 SC 154, 2014 GWD 31-616
Bailii
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Scotland
Citing:
At Outer House – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SCS 7-Aug-2013
Outer House – damages after carer’s fall in snow.
Held: The Outer House found Cordia liable under the PPE Regulations, the Management Regulations, and the common law. Both risk assessments for Cordia had been faulty.
Lord McEwan . .

Cited by:
Cited – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.537048

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.

(1927) 43 TLR46
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

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.650946

Sloan v The Governors of Rastrick High School: CA 29 Jul 2014

The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim for personal injuries. She was employed as a teaching assistant providing support for children with mobility issues. She said that she suffered a soft tissue injury in her cervical spine and in her right, dominant, shoulder as a consequence of pushing one or more students in their wheelchairs, resulting in chronic pain in her shoulder and back which continued down to the trial.
Held: The evidence before the court fully justified the recorder’s conclusion that the school had taken appropriate steps to reduce the risk of injury to the lowest level reasonably practicable and the criticisms referred to above, together with other minor criticisms, do not undermine her conclusion.

Moore-Bick, Ryder LJJ, David Richards J
[2014] EWCA Civ 1063
Bailii
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Swain v Denso Marston Ltd CA 12-Apr-2000
An injury suffered by the claimant when stripping down part of the conveyor system at his employer’s premises. To replace bearings, he had to remove various components and then the roller itself. Unexpectedly the roller was solid metal, weighing . .
Cited – Ghaith v Indesit Company UK Ltd CA 17-May-2012
The claimant suffered a back injury lifting materials from a van during a stock take.
Held: The court considered the issue of causation under the Regulations. Longmore LJ said: ‘This is not a separate hurdle for the employee, granted that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535403