Category: Personal Injury

Missir Mamachi Di Lusignano v Commission: ECFI 10 Jul 2014

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Non-contractual liability – Personal Injury relatives of a deceased official – Damage suffered by the employee before his death – Powers of the Court and the Court of Public – Rule match demand for compensation and the complaint against the decision rejecting the application

MM. M. Jaeger, P
T-401/11, [2014] EUECJ T-401/11, [2017] EUECJ T-401/11, [2019] EUECJ T-401/11P-DEP_CO
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

European, Personal Injury

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.534100

Glaister and Others v Appelby-In-Westmorland Town Council: CA 9 Dec 2009

The claimant was injured when at a horse fair. A loose horse kicked him causing injury. They claimed in negligence against the council for licensing the fair without ensuring that public liability insurance. The Council now appealed agaiinst a finding that they were liable, saying that this had been a wrongful extension of the law of negligence.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Council owed the claimant no duty of care as asserted.
Toulson LJ said: ‘The fact that this is a novel claim is not necessarily fatal because the categories of negligence are never closed. But the Privy Council and the House of Lords have approved the well-known judgment of Brennan J in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60 ALR 1, 43-44, where he expressed the view that: ‘the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care restrained only by indefinable ‘considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of the person to whom it is owed’. See Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175, 191 and Caparo (618, 633-634).
As Lord Oliver observed in Caparo (634), Brennan J was echoing a theme expressed in Hedley Byrne and Co Limited v Heller and Partners Limited [1964] AC 465 by Lord Devlin, whose speech in that case has come to be seen as particularly significant. (See the observations of Lord Goff in Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Limited [1995] 2 AC 145, 178 and ff.) In Caparo (634-635) Lord Oliver cited a lengthy passage from Lord Devlin’s speech about the development of the law since Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, in which he concluded:
‘The real value of Donoghue v Stevenson to the argument in this case is that it shows how the law can be developed to solve particular problems. Is the relationship between the parties in this case such that it can be brought within a category giving rise to a special duty? As always in English law, the first step in such an enquiry is to see how far the authorities have gone, for new categories in the law do not spring into existence overnight.’
Lord Oliver in an important passage . . observed that the extension of the concept of negligence since the decision in Hedley Byrne to cover cases of pure economic loss had given rise to ‘a considerable and as yet unsolved difficulty of definition’. The postulate of a simple duty to avoid any harm that was, with hindsight, reasonably capable of being foreseen was untenable without the imposition of some intelligible limits to keep the law of negligence within the bounds of common sense and practicality. He observed that those limits had been found by the requirement of what has been called a ‘relationship of proximity’ between the claimant and the defendant and by the imposition of a further requirement that the attachment of liability for the harm which had occurred be ‘just and reasonable’. But it was impossible to identify some common dominator by which the existence of the essential relationship could be tested, and that ‘to search for any single formula which will serve as a general test of liability is to pursue a will-of-the-wisp’. The most that could be attempted is a broad categorisation of the decided cases according to the type of situation in which liability has been established in the past in order to found an argument by analogy.
These words needs to be emphasised because there is sometimes a tendency (as the present case shows) to pluck out the words ‘fair, just and reasonable’ as if they provide some comprehensive touchstone. In itself, the expression means little more than that the court should only impose a duty of care if it considers it right to do so. The various speeches in Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc [2006] UKHL 28, [2007] 1 AC 181 underline the point that the ‘threefold test’ provides no straightforward answer to the question whether in a novel situation a party owes a duty of care (Lord Bingham at 6, Lord Hoffmann at 35-36, Lord Rodger at 53, Lord Walker at 71 and Lord Mance at 93). In considering whether there is sufficient ‘proximity’ to make it just and reasonable to impose a duty of care, the courts examine carefully the nature of the relationship between the parties and begin by considering whether it is reasonably analogous to other cases in which such a duty has been recognised. The court is looking to see whether there is ‘that special relationship of proximity which is required to give rise to the duty of care’ to protect the claimant from economic loss (using the language of Lord Oliver in Caparo at 650F) – which is another way of framing the question posed by Lord Devlin in Hedley Byrne ‘Is the relationship between the parties in this case such that it can be brought within a category giving rise to a special duty?’ . . For a duty of care to arise, there needs to be something particular about the relationship between the defendant and the claimant, in relation to some particular transaction or activity likely to have economic consequences for the claimant, such that the claimant can properly expect to be entitled to rely on the defendant to safeguard him from economic harm likely to result from want of care on the part of the defendant. This need is reflected by the usage of the words ‘special duty’ or ‘special relationship. There was no such relationship in the present case between the Town Council and the many tens of thousands of members of the general public, including the claimants, who visited the fair.’

Lord Neuberger, MR, Toulson, Jacob LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1325, [2009] NPC 143, [2010] PIQR P6
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
Cited – Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and Others CA 24-Jul-2002
The claimant sought damages. She had been injured after the negligent erection of a stand which was known to be potentially hazardous. The contractor was uninsured, and the claimant sought damages from the Hospital which had arranged the fair in its . .
Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Cited – Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman 4-Jul-1985
(High Court of Australia) The court considered a possible extension of the law of negligence.
Brennan J said: ‘the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories. ‘
Dean J said: . .
Cited – Yuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1987
(Hong Kong) The claimant deposited money with a licensed deposit taker, regulated by the Commissioner. He lost his money when the deposit taker went into insolvent liquidation. He said the regulator was responsible when it should have known of the . .
Cited – Naylor (T/A Mainstreet) v Payling CA 7-May-2004
The claimant was injured by a door attendant employed as an independent contractor by the defendant.
Held: The defendant’s duty in selecting an independent contractor was limited to assessing the competence of the contractor. The duties of . .
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 – HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
Cited – Naylor (T/A Mainstreet) v Payling CA 7-May-2004
The claimant was injured by a door attendant employed as an independent contractor by the defendant.
Held: The defendant’s duty in selecting an independent contractor was limited to assessing the competence of the contractor. The duties of . .
Cited – Smith v Eric S Bush, a firm etc HL 20-Apr-1989
In Smith, the lender instructed a valuer who knew that the buyer and mortgagee were likely to rely on his valuation alone. The valuer said his terms excluded responsibility. The mortgagor had paid an inspection fee to the building society and . .
Cited – Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Michael and Others v South Wales Police and Another CA 20-Jul-2012
The deceased had called the police and said her life was under immediate threat. An officer downgraded its seriousness, and she was killed within 15 minutes by her partner, and before the officers arrived. She had sought assistance four times . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.383789

Beattie v Ulster Television Plc: QBNI 21 Apr 2005

[2005] NIQB 36
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.224602

Harding v Wealands: CA 17 Dec 2004

The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to be displaced. Roerig implied a bright line between matters of assessment and heads of damages. Applying Boys v Chapman there was no such clear line. Though the 1995 Act may have abolished the common law rule of double actionability, at the same time it intended to vary the common law so far as quantification and assessment of damages was concerned. The meaning of substance and procedure for the purposes of section 14 of the 1995 Act must be sought in the context of the 1995 Act. (Majority) The judge had been wrong to apply English law in preference to the restrictions on damages which would apply under the New South Wales Act.
Lady Justice Arden: ‘In the context of section 14, a principled approach requires the court to start from the position that it has already decided that the proper law of the tort is not the law of the forum, ie that some other law applies to the tort, either because it is the lex loci delicti or because it is substantially more appropriate than the lex loci delicti. On this basis, a reference to the law of the forum must be the exception, and it must be justified by some imperative which, relative to the imperative of applying the proper law, has priority.’ There is ‘a guiding principle’ that: ‘Once the court has decided that the law of New South Wales is the proper law of the tort, it is logical, so far as possible, to apply the law of New South Wales throughout.’

Lord Justice Waller Lady Justice Arden Sir William Aldous
[2004] EWCA Civ 1735, Times 05-Jan-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 1539
Bailii
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Harding v Wealands QBD 27-May-2004
The claimant had been injured in a traffic accident in Australia. The parties lived together in England, but the driver was insured by an Australian company. He sought to sue here to avoid a limitation on damages imposed by Australian law. The issue . .
Cited – Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
Cited – Boys v Chaplin HL 1969
The plaintiff sued in England for a traffic accident which had happened in Malta. The law of Malta would have denied certain elements of damages which would be available in this jurisdiction.
Held: Liability in respect of the road accident in . .
Cited – Edmunds v Simmonds QBD 4-Oct-2000
The claimant suffered damages in a road traffic accident in Spain caused by the respondent. A Spanish court would have allowed much lower damages. Such damages should normally be assessed in accordance with the law of the country where the accident . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .
Cited – Mehdi Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited (No 2) CA 11-Nov-1999
The claimant film artist showed a film to an advertising agency, who did not make use of it, but later appeared to use techniques and styles displayed in the film in subsequent material sold to third parties.
Held: A film was protected as a . .
Cited – Stevens v Head 18-Mar-1993
(High Court of Australia) The court considered a claim for damages arising out of a motor accident in New South Wales, where the claim had been brought in the courts of Queensland. The questions arose as to whether or not a provision in the Motor . .
Cited – Cope v Doherty 1858
Owners of an American ship which had collided with and sunk another American ship applied to limit their liability pursuant to section 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854.
Held: The section did not apply to collisions between foreigners. . .
Cited – Cope v Doherty CA 2-Jan-1858
Turner LJ: ‘An attempt was made on the part of the appellants to bring this case within Don v Lippman and cases of that class, but I think those cases have no bearing upon the point. This is a question of liability, and not of procedure.’ . .
Cited – John Pfeiffer Pty Limited v Rogerson 16-Apr-1999
(High Court of Australia) The double actionability rule should be discarded with regard to claims brought in an Australian court in respect of a civil wrong arising out of acts or omissions that occurred wholly within one or more of the law areas of . .
Cited – Phillips v Eyre CEC 1870
The court considered the rule of double actionability. The court laid down the test for whether a tort committed abroad was actionable in this jurisdiction: ‘As a general rule, in order to found a suit in England for a wrong alleged to have been . .
Cited – Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin CA 14-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages from what were said to be speculative trades carried out by the defendant whilst working in Russia. The claims were in both equity and in tort. He was a director of the company which was incorporated in Guernsey.
Cited – Konamameni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd 2002
The entitlement to bring a derivative action in the English courts is governed by the law of the place of incorporation of the company in question. . .
Cited – Caltex Singapore Pte Ltd v BP Shipping Ltd 1996
A provision of Singapore law giving a ship-owner the right to limit his liability for damage resulting from a collision in Singapore was procedural, or at least not substantive. The limitation in question did not qualify the right of the claimants . .

Cited by:
Cited – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Appeal from – Harding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.220346

National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot Firers, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 1 May 2003

Pitchford J
[2003] EWHC 607 (Admin)
Bailii
Social Security Contributions Benefit Act 1992 108
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot Firers, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Costs) Admn 1-May-2003
. .

Cited by:
See Also – National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot Firers, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Costs) Admn 1-May-2003
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Personal Injury

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.185349

Christian v South East London and Kent Bus Company: CA 10 Jul 2014

Appeal against a judgment dismissing a claim for damages for personal injury which the appellant, Miss Jade Christian, suffered when the respondent’s double decker bus, driven by its employee, a Mr Adepeju Lawal, braked suddenly. The appellant was thrown forward and another passenger fell on her. As a result of the incident, Miss Christian suffered a back injury and fibromyalgia.

Gloster, Floyd LJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 944
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533930

Colefax v First Tier Tribunal and Another: CA 8 Jul 2014

The court considered the provision allowing an extension of time for the submission of a claim for criminal injuries compensation, and in particular ‘if the victim of a violent crime suffers immediate consequential injury (‘injury A’), but also suffers some different injury (‘injury B’) which, even if apparent within two years, is only diagnosed as having been caused by the violent crime after the expiry of the two-year period, is the condition in paragraph 18(b) capable of being satisfied by reference to an application which includes or is limited to compensation for injury B, or must the condition be satisfied by the applicant showing that it would not have been reasonable to expect him to have made, within the two-year period, an application for compensation in relation only to injury A, which he knew from the outset had been caused by the violent crime? ‘

Arden, Black, Briggs LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 945, [2014] WLR(D) 296
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2008) 18
England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533931

The Bodo Community and Others v The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd: TCC 20 Jun 2014

15,000 or more claimants and claims on behalf of children, sought damages at common law and statutory compensation under the law of Nigeria in relation to oil spills from pipelines said to have been caused by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria in the Niger Delta and said to affect people living in or with connections to neighbouring areas known as Bodo and Gokana.

Akenhead J
[2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC)
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .

Cited by:
Principal judgment – The Bodo Community and Others v Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd TCC 4-Jul-2014
Subsidiary judgment identifying on which issues the parties had respectively won or lost so as to allow apportionment of costs. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533821

The Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust v Federal-Mogul Ltd and Others: ComC 27 Jun 2014

The claimant trust sought declarations regarding the responsibility of the defendant re-insurers to indemnify the insurers in respect of claims for asbestos related injuries on claims by the Trust on behalf of those injured.

Eder J
[2014] EWHC 2002 (Comm)
Bailii

Insurance, Personal Injury

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533191

Beasley v Alexander: QBD 27 Jul 2012

Sir Raymond Jack
[2012] EWHC 2197 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Liability – Beasley v Alexander QBD 9-Oct-2012
beasley_alexanderQBD2012
The parties had disputed liability for personal injuries in a road traffic accident. The court had held the defendant liable, but held over the assessment of damages. The defendant sought to refer to the fact of his offer of settlement when . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.463325

Mansfield v Mansfield: CA 27 Jul 2011

The court was asked as to the degree to which the judge in ancillary relief proceedings should reflect the origin of the family assets in a substantial damages award on the settlement of a personal injuries claim brought in the Queen’s Bench Division.

Thorpe, Jackson, Black LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1056, [2012] Fam Law 17, [2011] 3 FCR 167
Bailii
England and Wales

Family, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.443753

Rowe v Dolman: QBD 16 Nov 2007

Simon J
[2007] EWHC 2799
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Rowe v Dolman CA 23-Jul-2008
The claimant had been very severely injured in a road accident. The court was asked to determine the effect on his life expectancy, the experts had diverged as to the appropriate range of life expectancy.
Held: The judge had assessed the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.276756

Baker v Quantum Clothing Group: CA 22 May 2009

The court considered the responsibility of employers for hearing losses resulting from exposure to noise at a level not at the time appreciated to cause a risk of injury. Smith LJ considered the interpretation by Asquith LJ of the words ‘reasonably practicable’ and said that, in referring to the ‘quantum of risk’, Asquith LJ must have been referring to the gravity of the harm which might occur as well as the likelihood of its occurrence.

Sedley, Smith, Jacob LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 499, [2009] PIQR P19, [2009] PIQR P332
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Another CA 11-Jun-2008
Application by claimant for order that the respondents would be responsible for their own costs of the appeal irrespective of its outcome. . .
See Also – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd CA 28-Jun-2007
. .

Cited by:
See Also – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group and Others CA 5-Jun-2009
The court considered a request that one of the three judges (Sedley LJ) recuse himself on the grounds of apparent bias. It was a case claiming damages for personal injury in the form of hearing losses incurred at work. Sedley LJ was Hon President of . .
See Also – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.346304

Condon v Basi: CA 30 Apr 1985

The parties were playing football. The defendant executed a late dangerous and foul tackle on the plaintiff breaking his leg. The defendant was sent off, and the plaintiff sued.
Held: Those taking part in competitive sport still owed a duty of care to others taking part with them. The standard of care was objective and matched the circumstances. If a player fell below the normal and expected standards he should expect to be held liable. There was an obvious breach of the defendant’s duty of care because he showed a reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s safety and his conduct fell far below the standards which might reasonably be expected of anyone playing the game. ‘The standard is objective, but objective in a different set of circumstances. Thus there will of course be a higher degree of care required of a player in a First Division football match than of a player in a Fourth Division football match.’

Sir John Donaldson MR, Stephen Brown LJ, Glidewell J
[1985] 2 All ER 253, [1985] 1 WLR 866, [1985] EWCA Civ 12
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Rootes v Shelton 1965
(High Court of Australia) Barwick CJ said: ‘By engaging in a sport or pastime the participants may be held to have accepted risks which are inherent in that sport or pastime: the tribunal of fact can make its own assessment of what the accepted . .

Cited by:
Cited – Blake v Galloway CA 25-Jun-2004
The claimant was injured whilst playing about with other members of his band throwing sticks at each other. The defendant appealed against a denial of his defence on non fit injuria.
Held: The horseplay in which the five youths were engaged . .
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, Negligence

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.188813

Murphy v Culhane: CA 10 Jun 1976

The widow of the deceased claimed damages from one of the attackers who had been convicted of her husband’s manslaughter. The question was whether, given the conviction, she was entitled to entry of judgment as to liability without trial. The defendant argued that the deceased had provoked that assault, and that the maxims ex turpi causa non oritur actio, volenti non fit injuria, both applied.
Held: The case had to go forward to trial for a full exploration of the facts and assessment of any mitigation.

Lord Denning MR, Orr, Waller LJJ
[1976] EWCA Civ 3, [1977] QB 94
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gray v Barr CA 1971
A husband had accidentally shot and killed his wife’s lover after threatening him with a shotgun.
Held: The court confirmed the decision at first instance. He was not liable to be indemnified by his insurers for the losses claimed against him . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Personal Injury

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.262710

Collins-Williamson v Silverlink Train Services Ltd: CA 25 Mar 2009

Application for permission to appeal against a judgment finding in favour, on the question of liability, of Mr Collins-Williamson, who had claimed damages for personal injury arising out of an accident which occurred at Gunnersbury railway station. The claimant was seriously injured in the accident. He fell between the platform and the train, which moved off and caused him injury.

Lord Justice Pill,
And,
Lord Justice Moore-Bick
[2009] EWCA Civ 458
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.346780

Hughes v Guise Motors Ltd: QBD 1 Nov 2007

The claimant’s car had cut out while being driven on a motorway. The driver had been able to pull onto chevrons at a junction but not onto the hard shoulder. The defendant drove into the rear of the vehicle.
Held: The driver had attempted to get to the hard shoulder but failed. The highway code required him to stay in the vehicle if it was dangerous to get out. There was no contributory negligence.

[2007] EWHC 2529 (QB)
Bailii
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rouse v Squires CA 22-Mar-1973
. .
Cited – Houghton v Stannard QBD 29-Oct-2003
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.261918

Mason v Satelcom Ltd and others: QBD 24 Jul 2007

The claimant IT engineer was injured replacing a computer card. He was employed by other defendants contracting for the now only continuing defendant.

His Honour Judge Reddihough,
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
[2007] EWHC 2540 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Mason and Another v Satelcom Ltd and East Potential Ltd CA 14-May-2008
The claimant was replacing a computer memory card. He fell from a ladder suffering injury. He was employed by the defendant contracting for another defendant, and used a ladder on loan from another neighbour.
Held: The contribution sought from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Employment

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.261904

Multiple Claimants v Sanifo-Synthelabo Ltd. and Anr: QBD 31 Jul 2007

The claimants were children of mothers who suffered from epilepsy and during their pregnancy, it is said, took an anti-epileptic drug (or anti-convulsant drug) called sodium valproate, which the defendants marketed Under the name Epilim. The claimants say that Epilim is a known teratogen, which crosses the placenta during pregnancy and is recognised to cause various deformities, and that therefore it is unsafe for all pregnant women whose fetuses are exposed to it.

Mr Justice Andrew Smith
[2007] EWHC 1860 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.261907

Spillman v Bradfield Riding Centre: QBD 6 Feb 2007

The claimant child suffered very severe brain injury when kicked in the head by a horse at the defendant’s riding stables. The claimant appealed an interim award of damages. It had not been possible to determine her future earnings.

Langley J
[2007] EWHC 89 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stringman v McCardle CA 19-Nov-1993
The Judge is not to be concerned with the intended application or use of interim damages requested to be paid to a Plaintiff. . .
Cited – Campbell v Mylchreest CA 23-Jan-1998
The claimant sough an interim award of damages.
Held: An ‘unlevel playing field’, in the sense that an interim award might prejudge arguments which might be run at a full trial, is not an absolute bar to making the requested order but only a . .
Cited – Dolman v Rowe 2005
. .
Cited – Campbell v Mylchreest CA 23-Jan-1998
The claimant sough an interim award of damages.
Held: An ‘unlevel playing field’, in the sense that an interim award might prejudge arguments which might be run at a full trial, is not an absolute bar to making the requested order but only a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.248403

Royster v Cavey: CA 1946

The plaintiff sought damages after being injured on her way to work. The Crown nominated the superintendent of a factory in which the plaintiff was injured as its occupier in order to allow the claim which would otherwise have failed for Crown privilege. The court below had refused to allow this fiction.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed. Crucial admissions on which the case had been conducted at first instance should not be accepted, because they were contrary to fact.
Scott LJ said: ‘As a matter of fact . . the defendant so named had nothing whatever to do with the accident; he was not the occupier of the premises; he had not been guilty of any negligence, nor of any breach of statutory duty under the Act. Those allegations, that he did occupy that position and was so guilty, were accepted by the defence to the extent of not raising the question of his personal position.’
Buckhill LJ said: ‘The result is, in my view, that this court cannot pronounce judgment against a defendant when in truth and in fact he is not under any liability at all.’

Scott, Buckhill LJJ
[1946] 2 All ER 642, [1947] KB 204
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – Adams v Naylor HL 1946
The House disapproved of the practice of appointing a nominee defendant in tort actions against whom damages could be awarded as opposed to a party with crown immunity. The House refused to entertain a claim against a nominated army officer arising . .

Cited by:
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Dec-2005
The complainant a prisoner sought an order that he should not be kept in conditions found to be inhumane. He had been detained in Barlinnie priosn. The Crown replied that a mandatory order was not available against the Scottish Ministers.
Constitutional, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.237563

Barlow v Borough of Broxbourne: QBD 2003

The claimant sought damages alleging having been bullied and harassed at work.
Held: The questions to be determined when considering whether alleged bullying and harassment give rise to a potential liability in negligence were: ‘(i) whether the claimant has established that the conduct complained of in the Particulars of Claim took place and, if so, whether it amounted to bullying or harassment in the ordinary connotation of those terms. In addressing this question it is the cumulative effect of the conduct which has to be considered rather than the individual incidents relied on;
(ii) did the person or persons involved in the victimisation or bullying know, or ought they reasonably to have known, that their conduct might cause the claimant harm;
(iii) could they, by the exercise of reasonable care, have taken steps which would have avoided that harm and
(iv) were their actions so connected with their employment as to render the defendant vicariously responsible for them. ‘

Gray J
[2003] EWHC 50 QB
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Helen Green v DB Group Services (UK) Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2006
The claimant sought damages from her former employers, asserting that workplace bullying and harassment had caused injury to her health. She had had a long term history of depression after being abused as a child, and the evidence was conflicting, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Personal Injury

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.244173

Haigh v Royal Mail Steampacket Co Ltd: CA 1883

”personal injury’ is not ‘loss’ because a limb may be broken without being lost. The word ‘injury’ would certainly have been more apt, but the word ‘damage’ can certainly mean personal injury’.

Brett MR
[1883] 52 LJ QB 640
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council; Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham Housing Association EAT 8-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation
In each case, The employee sought additional damages for non-economic loss after an unfair dismissal.
Held: The Act could be compared with the Discrimination Acts . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.183846

Helen Green v DB Group Services (UK) Ltd: QBD 1 Aug 2006

The claimant sought damages from her former employers, asserting that workplace bullying and harassment had caused injury to her health. She had had a long term history of depression after being abused as a child, and the evidence was conflicting, but she said that the renewed depression arose after many low level acts of exclusion by fellow employees.
Held: The claim succeeded. The claimant ‘was subjected to a relentless campaign of mean and spiteful behaviour designed to cause her distress’ and ‘the connection between the nature of the employment of the women in question and the behaviour in issue was so close that it would be just and reasonable to hold the defendant liable for it. ‘ and ‘Bullying can take many forms. As I have already observed, and as was acknowledged by the claimant, the incidents upon which she relies when viewed individually are not of major significance. It is their cumulative effect that is of importance. His behaviour to her was domineering, disrespectful, dismissive, confrontatory, and designed to undermine and belittle her in the view of others. I am satisfied that such a course of conduct pursued over a considerable period amounted to bullying within the ordinary meaning of the term. ‘ Accordingly the claimant stands to be compensated for two major episodes of depressive disorder followed by a period of four years in which she has not been well enough to return to work and in which her capacity to enjoy life to the full has been seriously disrupted in particular by the relapse in her condition in 2004. She is also entitled to be compensated for the degree to which her vulnerability to depressive disorder has been increased.

The Honourable Mr Justice Owen
[2006] EWHC 1898 (QB), [2006] IRLR 764
Bailii
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 1 7
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Garrett v Camden London Borough Council CA 16-Mar-2001
The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: ‘Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Bernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica PC 7-Oct-2004
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .
Cited – Barlow v Borough of Broxbourne QBD 2003
The claimant sought damages alleging having been bullied and harassed at work.
Held: The questions to be determined when considering whether alleged bullying and harassment give rise to a potential liability in negligence were: ‘(i) whether . .
Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited – Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Simon Hughes CA 18-Jul-2001
A civilian police worker had reported officers for racist remarks. The newspaper repeatedly printed articles and encouraged correspondence which was racially motivated, to the acute distress of the complainant.
Held: Repeated newspaper stories . .
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 . .

Cited by:
Approved – Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd QBD 1-Nov-2007
Peter Coulson QC J said that in order to establish harassment under the 1997 Act, there must be conduct:
i) which occurs on at least two occasions;
ii) which is targeted at the claimant;
iii) which is calculated in an objective sense . .
Cited – Rayment v Ministry of Defence QBD 18-Feb-2010
The claimant sought damages alleging harassment by officers employed by the defendant. An internal investigation had revealed considerable poor behaviour by the senior officers, and that was followed by hostile behaviour. The defendant had put up . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury, Employment, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.244131

Zarb v Odetoyinbo: QBD 20 Nov 2006

The Claimant claims damages for negligence against her General Practitioner, saying that he failed to make an immediate call to an orthopaedic surgeon, or a same day referral, in respect of the symptoms with which she was presenting to him.

Mr Justice Tugendhat
[2006] EWHC 2880 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.246227

Goodes v East Sussex County Council: HL 16 Jun 2000

The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road in repair did not include an absolute duty to remove all ice. The 1959 Act was a consolidating Act and did not extend the responsibilities of highway authorities. ‘Maintenance and repair’ might sometimes include the removal of ice, but, and contrary to established authority, those words related to works to the surface of the roadway not to matter which might accumulate on it. The presence of ice and snow did not mean that the highway was out of repair. Removing ice and snow was a different kind of obligation which could be imposed on highway authorities only by Parliament. A highway authority’s duty under section 41(1) of the 1980 Act to maintain the highway was a duty to keep the fabric of the highway in such good repair as to render its physical condition safe for ordinary traffic to pass at all seasons of the year. It did not include a duty to prevent the formation of ice or remove an accumulation of snow on the road.
Lord Clyde said: ‘I have no difficulty in holding that Section 41 of the Highways Act, 1980 imposes an absolute duty on the highway authority. There is no hardship in so holding since the section has to be taken along with Section 58 which provides a defence that reasonable care has been taken by the authority. The scheme of the provisions is in its broad effect that the authority should be liable for damage caused by a failure to take reasonable care to maintain the highway, but the injured party is not required to prove the failure to take reasonable care. It is for the authority to prove that it has exercised all reasonable care. Such a reversal of the onus which would have been imposed on a plaintiff in an action for damages at common law is justifiable by the consideration that the plaintiff is not likely to know or be able to readily to ascertain in what respects the authority has failed in its duty. All that the plaintiff will know is that there is a defect in the road which has caused him injury and it is reasonable to impose on the authority the burden of explaining that they had exercised all reasonable care and should not be found liable. But the question in the case is precisely what is the meaning and scope of the absolute duty . . Maintenance certainly includes the work of repair and the taking of measures which will obviate the need to repair, to forestall the development of a defect in the road which will, if allowed to develop, require remedial action. The standard of maintenance is to be measured by considerations of safety. The obligation is to maintain the road so that it is safe for the passage of those entitled to use it. But the question still remains as to precisely what is the scope of that maintenance. It certainly requires that the highway be kept in a structurally sound condition. . . To use the words of Diplock, L.J. in Burnside -v- Emerson [1968] 1 WLR 1490 . . the obligation is to keep the highway ‘in such good repair as renders it reasonably passable for the ordinary traffic of the neighbourhood at all seasons of the year without danger caused by its physical condition.”

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 16-Jun-2000, Gazette 29-Jun-2000, [2000] UKHL 34, [2000] 3 All ER 603, [2000] 1 WLR 1356
House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Highways Act 1980 41(1), Highways Act 1959
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Goodes v East Sussex County Council CA 7-Jan-1999
A council which failed to maintain a road ice free when they had decided on the need to prevent icing, and had had the opportunity to prevent it, but failed to take it, were in breach of statutory duty and liable for damages to driver of crashed . .
Cited – Regina v Heath QBD 1865
The highways board had sought and obtained an order against a householder who had built an extension part way over the highway. He had been orderd to pay costs but the taxed costs left a shortfall. The board now sought the difference from the . .
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 . .
Cited – Haydon v Kent County Council CA 1978
Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully . .
Cited – Regina v Inhabitants of Greenhow 1876
A roadway had slipped down the hillside. At one point it was some 25ft below its former position. Though the material underneath was poor and unstable, it was repairable at a substantial cost to the inhabitants of the local borough.
Held: The . .
Cited – Farrell v Alexander HL 24-Jun-1976
The House considered the construction of a consolidation Act.
Held: It is ordinarily both unnecessary and undesirable to construe a consolidation Act by reference to statutory antecedents, but it is permissible to do so in a case where the . .
Cited – Burnside and Another v Emerson and Others CA 1968
The plaintiffs were injured in a road accident caused by flooding. They sued the executors of the deceased driver whose car spun out of control into the path of their own car, and also the highway authority, who had installed a proper system of . .
Cited – Guardians of the Poor of the Union of Amesbury v Justices of the Peace of the County of Wiltshire QBD 1883
The removal of snow which obstructed the main roads of the district of a highway authority was an ‘expense incurred in the maintenance’ of the highways for the purposes of obtaining a contribution from the county under section 13. . .
Cited – Cowley v Newmarket Local Board HL 1892
No action in tort lay against highway authorities for a failure to repair a highway. They were no more liable than were the local inhabitants.
Lord Halsbury said: ‘We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute, and in particular for . .
Cited – Griffiths v Liverpool Corporation CA 1967
The Highways Act of 1961 had enlarged the duty of the highway authority and made it a general duty to take reasonable care to secure that the highway was not dangerous to traffic.
As to the effect of the 1961 Act, Diplock LJ said: ‘The duty at . .
Cited – Slater v Worthington’s Cash Store Ltd 1941
The defendant property owner was held to be liable for failing to remove snow from his roof, so that a minor avalanche injured a passer-by on the pavement. . .
Cited – Saunders v Holborn District Board of Works QBD 1895
Mr Saunders was injured when he slipped on an icy pavement, and claimed damages.
Held: A breach of the duty to remove snow did not give rise to a private law cause of action, any more than a breach of the duty to maintain the highway. Before . .
Cited – Acton District Council v London United Tramways KBD 1909
The court was asked whether the removal of four or five inches of snow from the tramway in Acton High Street was within the duty to maintain the highway imposed by section 28 of the Act of 1870.
Held: It was not. . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Scott 1905
A highway authority should ‘maintain the road according to an up-to-date standard.’ . .
Cited – Dublin United Tramways Co Ltd v Martin Fitzgerald HL 1903
The plaintiff sued when his horse slipped on tramlines in the road and fell. Stone setts or paving between the rails of a tramway in Grafton Street, Dublin, had become slippery owing to the grit or roughness of setts being worn away. In that state, . .
Cited – Latimer v AEC Limited HL 25-Jun-1953
The Appellant had recovered damages for injuries which he alleged had been the result of a failure on the part of the Respondents in their statutory duty to maintain one of the gangways in their works in an efficient state. He slipped on a factory . .

Cited by:
Cited – Roe v Sheffield City Council and others CA 17-Jan-2003
The claimant sought damages after his car was involved in an accident when a wheel struck a part of a tramway standing proud of the road surface. The defendant argued that they were excused liability by the 1988 Act, incorporating the effects of the . .
Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
Cited – Fiona Thompson v Hampshire County Council CA 27-Jul-2004
The claimant fell into a ditch by a path on the highway in the dark. She appealed a finding of no liability on the highway authority.
Held: The authority’s responsibility was as to the surface structures of the road way and not as to the . .
Cited – Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe.
Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . .
Cited – Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others CA 27-Jul-2006
Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty . .
Cited – Ali v The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Nov-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for damages after slipping on a footpath maintainable by the defendant after an accumulation of mud and debris. The claim appeared to be the first under section 130, and the highway authority . .
Cited – King Lifting Ltd v Oxfordshire County Council QBD 20-Jul-2016
A heavy crane had toppled from a road. The crane owners said that the highway authority were responsible for the poor condition of the road.
Held: The action failed. The evidence did not support the assertion that the accident arose from a . .
Cited – London Borough of Southwark and Another v Transport for London SC 5-Dec-2018
Question as to the meaning of the GLA Roads and Side Roads (Transfer of Property etc) Order 2000. When the highway was transferred was only the working surfaces, the road surface and the airspace and subsoil necessary for the operation, maintenance . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Local Government

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.80914

Pope v D Murphy and Son Ltd: QBD 1961

Both the injured plaintiff’s earning capacity and his expectation of life had been diminished and in assessing damages for the diminution of his earning capacity his Lordship had regard to the plaintiff’s pre-accident expectation of life.
Streatfeild J said: ‘In my view the proper approach to this question of loss of earning capacity is to compensate the plaintiff, who is alive now, for what he has in fact lost. What he has lost is the prospect of earning whatever it was he did earn from his business over the period of time that he might otherwise, apart from the accident, have reasonably expected to earn it.’

Streatfeild J
[1961] 1 QB 222
England and Wales
Citing:
Not Followed – Harris v Brights Asphalt Contractors Ltd QBD 1953
The plaintiff was not to be prevented from recovering the costs of private medical treatment.
It was argued and decided that (a) damages for the loss of earnings for the ‘lost years’ is nil, and (b) ‘the only relevance of earnings which would . .

Cited by:
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.654045

British Telecommunications Plc v Royal Mail Group Ltd: CA 8 Jul 2010

Claim for indemnity made by the appellant, British Telecommunications Plc (‘BT’), against the respondent, Royal Mail Group Limited (‘RMG’), in proceedings against BT by the widow of a victim of mesophelioma, Gordon Hilton.

[2010] EWCA Civ 974
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance, Personal Injury

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.551928

Hodgson v Trapp: HL 10 Nov 1988

The question was whether the attendance and mobility allowances which were payable to the plaintiff pursuant to statute should be deducted from damages she had received for personal injury.
Held: They should be. Damages for negligence are intended to be ‘purely compensatory’: it cannot be emphasised too often when considering the assessment of damages for negligence that they are intended to be purely compensatory. Where the damages claimed are essentially financial in character, being the measure on the one hand of the injured plaintiff’s consequential loss of earnings, profits or other gains which he would have made if not injured, or on the other hand, of consequential expenses to which he has been and will be put which, if not injured, he would not have needed to incur, the basic rule is that it is the net consequential loss and expense which the court must measure. If, in consequence of the injuries sustained, the plaintiff has enjoyed receipts to which he would not otherwise have been entitled, prima facie, those receipts are to be set against the aggregate of the plaintiff’s losses and expenses in arriving at the measure of his damages.’ The basic rule is that the court must measure the net consequential loss and expense. To the basic rule there are well-established exceptions, although they are not always ‘precisely defined and delineated’. The rule is ‘fundamental and axiomatic and the exceptions to it which are only to be admitted on grounds which clearly justify their treatment as such’ The benevolence exception applies where: ‘moneys [are] received by the plaintiff from the bounty or benevolence of third parties motivated by sympathy for his misfortune.’ and ‘In the end the issue in these cases is not so much one of statutory construction as of public policy. If we have regard to the realities, awards of damages for personal injuries are met from the insurance premiums payable by motorists, employers, occupiers of property, professional men and others. Statutory benefits payable to those in need by reason of impecuniosity or disability are met by the taxpayer. In this context to ask whether the taxpayer, as the ‘benevolent donor,’ intends to benefit ‘the wrongdoer’ as represented by the insurer who meets the claim at the expense of the appropriate class of policy holders, seems to me entirely artificial. There could hardly be a clearer case than that of the attendance allowance payable under the Act of 1975 where the statutory benefit and the special damages claimed for cost of care are designed to meet the identical expenses. To allow double recovery in such a case at the expense of both taxpayers and insurers seems to me incapable of justification on a rational ground. It could only add to the enormous disparity, to which the advocates of a ‘no-fault’ system of compensation constantly draw attention, between the position of those who are able to establish a third party’s fault as the cause of their injury and the position of those who are not.’
and as to the availability of benefits allowances: ‘If, in consequence of the injuries sustained, the plaintiff has enjoyed receipts to which he would not otherwise have been entitled, prima facie, those receipts are to be set against the aggregate of the plaintiff’s losses and expense in arriving at the measure of his damages. . . . I see no reason why the whole of the mobility allowance should not be regarded, just as the attendance allowance, as available to meet the cost of her care generally and thus as mitigating the damages recoverable in respect of the cost of that care.’

Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1989] AC 807, [1988] UKHL 9
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Westwood v Secretary of State for Employment HL 1985
The house considered the benevolence rule: ‘I do not see any analogy at all between the generosity of private subscribers to a fund for the victims of some disaster, who also have claims for damages against a tortfeasor, and the state providing . .

Cited by:
Cited – Longden v British Coal Corporation HL 13-Mar-1997
The plaintiff was injured whilst at work in one of the defendant’s collieries. The House considered the deductibility from damages awarded for personal injury of a collateral benefit.
Held: The issue of deductibility where the claim is for . .
Cited – Dimond v Lovell CA 29-Apr-1999
Mrs Dimond had a car accident as a result of Mr Lovell’s negligence and sought to recover from him the cost of the hire of a replacement vehicle while her car was being repaired. Under clause 5 of the hire agreement the hire company had the conduct . .
Cited – Pirelli General Plc and others v Gaca CA 26-Mar-2004
The claimant was awarded damages from his employers, who claimed that the benefits received by the claimant from an insurance policy to which the defendants had contributed should be set off against the claim.
Held: McCamley was no longer good . .
Cited – Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had . .
Cited – Clenshaw v Tanner and others CA 27-Nov-2002
The claimant was a cyclist. He passed along inside a line of traffic, and collided with a lorry turning left into a petrol station ahead of him, suffering serious injuries. He appealed against a finding that the lorry driver had signalled and that . .
Cited – Longden v British Coal Corporation HL 13-Mar-1997
The plaintiff was injured whilst at work in one of the defendant’s collieries. The House considered the deductibility from damages awarded for personal injury of a collateral benefit.
Held: The issue of deductibility where the claim is for . .
Cited – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.183222

Ashworth v Stanwix and Walker: 23 Feb 1861

The principle that a servant sustaining an injury from the negligence of a fellow servant while engaged in the common employment cannot recover in an action against the common master, does not exempt from liability to action a master who himself takes part in the servant’s work, and whilst so doing injures the servant through negligence

[1861] EngR 343, (1860-1861) 3 El and El 701, (1861) 121 ER 606
Commonlii
England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.284104

Read v Great Eastern Railway Company: QBD 25 Jun 1868

A railway passenger was injured; he sued and was awarded damages. He died later from injury on the accident.
Held: The widow could not bring an action for loss of dependency under section 1 of the 1846 Act. The cause of action was the defendants’ negligence, which had been satisfied in the deceased’s lifetime, and that the death of D. Read did not create a fresh cause of action.
Lush J said that the statute overcame the old rule that a person’s action ended with his death. It provided a different mode of assessing damages but did not give a fresh cause of action.
Blackburn J said: ‘Before that statute, the person who received a personal injury and survived its consequences, could bring an action and recover damages for the injury; but if he died from its effects, then no action could be brought. To meet this state of the law, the statute was passed.’ and ‘Here, the party injured could not ‘maintain an action in respect thereof’ because he had already received satisfaction.’ Section 2 regulated the amount of damages and provided for apportionment in a manner different from that which would have been awarded to a man in his lifetime. He continued: ‘This section may provide a new principle as to the assessment of damages but it does not give any new right of action.
The intention of the enactment was that the death of the person injured should not free the wrongdoer from an action and in those cases where the person injured could maintain an action, his personal representatives might sue.’

Blackburn J, Lush J
[1867-68] LR 3 QB 555, [1868] UKLawRpKQB 83
Commonlii
Fatal Accidents Act 1846 1 2
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Reader and others v Molesworths Bright Clegg Solicitors CA 2-Mar-2007
The claimants were children of the victim of a road traffic accident. The solicitors were conducting a claim on his behalf for damages, but when he died, they negligently discontinued the action.
Held: The claimants’ action as dependants of . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Wills and Probate

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.252561

Harris v Brights Asphalt Contractors Ltd: QBD 1953

The plaintiff was not to be prevented from recovering the costs of private medical treatment.
It was argued and decided that (a) damages for the loss of earnings for the ‘lost years’ is nil, and (b) ‘the only relevance of earnings which would have been earned after death is that they are an element for consideration in assessing damages for loss of expectation of life, in the sense that a person earning a reasonable livelihood is more likely to have an enjoyable life.’
Slade J held that no compensation could be awarded for earnings during the ‘lost years’ to the plaintiff of thirty-seven whose expectation of life had been reduced to two years: ‘I cannot think it right that I should give damages for loss of earnings for a period during which ex hypothesi he is not alive to earn them . . In my judgment, therefore, the only relevance of earnings which would have been earned after death is that they are an element for consideration in assessing damages for loss of expectation of life, in the sense that a person earning a reasonable
‘ livelihood is more likely to have an enjoyable life.’

Slade J
[1953] 1 QB 617
Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 2(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Phillips v London and South Western Railway
Co CA 1879
In an action against the railway company for personal injury to a passenger, a physician, making pounds 5,000 a year, and where is an increasing practice, the jury in assessing the damages to their consideration, besides the pain and suffering of . .
Cited – Roach v Yates CA 1937
The plaintiff had been gravely injured. His wife and sister-in-law had nursed him and gave up their employment for that purpose.
Held: The plaintiff could recover their lost wages, albeit there was no suggestion of any agreement between the . .

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 – Cunningham v Harrison CA 17-May-1973
The plaintiff had been severely injured, and would need nursing care for the rest of his life. His wife nursed him until her death, but had given a statement that if not for her two full time nurses would be required. His employer continued to pay . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .
Not Followed – Pope v D Murphy and Son Ltd QBD 1961
Both the injured plaintiff’s earning capacity and his expectation of life had been diminished and in assessing damages for the diminution of his earning capacity his Lordship had regard to the plaintiff’s pre-accident expectation of life.
Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.200631

Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport: QBD 3 Jun 2014

The claimant suffered severe personal injury as a passenger. The driver’s insurers removed payment, the passenger having failed to disclose his depression, his diabetes, and his cannabis use. Both claimant and driver had been found in possession of cannabis at the crash. The claim through the Motor Insurers Bureau had been rejected by the court on the grounds of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, but had succeeded on appeal, but the case still failed as the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of crime, namely the transportation of cannabis for the purpose of subsequent supply. The claimant now said that the MIB agreement I making that exclusion had failed properly to implement EU law.
Held: The claim succeeded: ‘ the issue is whether the Claimant had information from which he drew the conclusion that the driver might well be uninsured but deliberately refrained from asking questions for fear that his suspicions would be confirmed; or whether he was simply careless, giving no thought to the question of insurance, even though an ordinary prudent passenger in his position and with his knowledge, would have made inquiries.’

Jay J
[2014] EWHC 1785 (QB)
Bailii
Directive 84/5 1(4), Directive 72/166/EEC

Personal Injury, European

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526123

Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and Others: CA 23 May 2014

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injury which had been rejected on basis that it was out of time. He had contracted cancer in 2002, but had recovered. He later came to attribute this to exposure to asbestos at work in the docks up to 1967. He made his claim in 2012. The court was asked to what extent the court should take account of a delay between 1947 and 2003, the date of his constructive knowledge of the injury.
Held: Jackson LJ said: ‘Because the test in section 14 (3) is an objective one, the practical consequence is that some injured persons fail to make reasonable and timeous inquiries, with the result that they are time-barred. This is unsurprising. Sections 11 to 14 of the Limitation Act strike a balance between the interests of (a) persons who, having suffered latent injuries, seek compensation late in the day and (b) tortfeasors who, despite their wrongdoings, ultimately need closure. Parliament has struck that balance by means of an objective test. Parliament has also provided a safety net in the form of section 33 so as to prevent injustice arising.’ In this case a reasonable man in the claimant’s position would have been asking as to the causes of his condition by mid-2003. The judge had correctly fixed the date of his construcive knowledge

Jackson, Lewison, Macur LJJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 717
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 11(4) 14 33
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority CA 13-Mar-1997
The test of ‘When a plaintiff became aware of the cause of an injury’ is a subjective test of what passed through plaintiff’s mind. ‘(1) the knowledge required to satisfy s14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or . .
Appeal from – Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills QBD 2-May-2013
The claimant was seriously ill and claimed that this arose from exposure to asbestos fibres working for the defendant many years before. He now sought an extension of time to make the claim.
Held: The court upheld the limitation defences of . .
Cited – Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council HL 17-Jun-2004
A attended the defendant’s schools between 1977 and 1988. He had always experienced difficulties with reading and writing and as an adult found those difficulties to be an impediment in his employment. He believed them to be the cause of the . .
Cited – Johnson v Ministry of Defence and Another CA 21-Nov-2012
The claimant said that he had been exposed him to excessive noise during the course of his employment, causing his deafness. He noticed his hearing problems in 2001. He was also aware that exposure to noise could cause hearing loss, but did not . .
Cited – Price v United Engineering Steels Limited; J J Habershon and Sons Limited CA 12-Dec-1997
The plaintiff sought damages for deafness following exposure to excessive noise during his employment with the first and second defendants some 20 to 35 years previously. He issued his writ six years after the date of knowledge under LA section 14 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Personal Injury

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525867

Ovu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care): QBD 13 Oct 2021

Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty

The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good condition. The Coroner had made recommendations about improving how the London Underground procedures worked when a person had walked onto the fire escape stairs and only one member of staff was working there. The judge had to decide whether the Deceased was a trespasser and whether London Underground company owed a duty to the Deceased to take steps to ensure his safety on the stairs in these circumstances. The Judge decided that the Deceased was a trespasser when he fell down stairs and died and that the London Underground company did not owe a relevant duty of care to him.

Master Victoria Mccloud
[2021] EWHC 2733 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Braithwaite v South Durham Steel Co Ltd and Another QBD 1958
The Plaintiff was employed by South Durham Steel as a crane driver’s mate and he was preceding a mobile crane along a railway line. Another line, in the ownership of the British Transport Commission (BTC), and not his employers, ran alongside and . .
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 – Revill v Newbery CA 2-Nov-1995
The defendant owned a shed on an allotment and slept there at night in order to protect his property from the attentions of vandals and thieves. Among other items in the shed the defendant, aged 76 at the time, kept a 12-bore shotgun and cartridges. . .
Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
Cited – Ratcliff v McConnell and Jones CA 30-Nov-1998
The claimant, a nineteen year old student climbed into a college property in the early hours of the morning, and then took a running dive into the shallow end of a swimming pool, suffering severe injuries. He was accompanied by friends and had been . .
Cited – Tindall and Another v Thames Valley Police and Another QBD 7-Apr-2020
Circumstances in which a duty of care arises falling upon the police in the context of their actions at the scene of a road accident caused by locally icy and dangerous road conditions as a result of a water leak and flooding. He re the Claimant . .
Cited – Spearman v Royal United Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust QBD 4-Dec-2017
The Claimant suffered a hypoglycaemic attack (being Type 1 diabetic) and was taken by ambulance to the Hospital, arriving at 22.00 hours. Within 15 minutes, he had left the emergency department of the hospital, climbed five flights of stairs to a . .
Cited – Ahanonu v South East London and Kent Bus Company Ltd CA 23-Jan-2008
Laws LJ said that the duty to take reasonable care can sometimes look more like a ‘guarantee of the Claimant’s safety’ when evaluated by reference to ‘ . . fine considerations elicited in the leisure of the court room, perhaps with the liberal use . .
Cited – Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust CA 2-Feb-2006
The claimant a young boy fell from a fire escape on the defendant’s building. He suffered brain damage and in later life was convicted of sexual offences.
Held: His claim failed: ‘there was no suggestion that the fire escape was fragile or had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.669707

Reid v Lanarkshire Traction Co: SCS 1934

(Inner House) The shortening of life was accepted as a head of damage: ‘while the doctrine of an award in respect of the shortening of life may have originated in the theory of mental disquiet about the prospect or the possibility of death . . . that doctrine is now a matter positivi juris irrespective of the presence or absence of evidence as to the sufferer’s state of mind in the particular case’. But, Lord Devlin said, he should warn the jury that the weight to be given to this element must be moderate and they must not consider what price the man would have put upon his life.

Lord Blackburn Lord Devlin
1934 SC 79
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Benham v Gambling HL 1941
The injured person was a child of two and a half. He was unconscious from the moment of the accident until his death, which occurred later on the same day. He had acquired at the time of injury a cause of action for loss of expectation of life.
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.654041

Phillips v London and South Western Railway Co: CA 1879

In an action against the railway company for personal injury to a passenger, a physician, making pounds 5,000 a year, and where is an increasing practice, the jury in assessing the damages to their consideration, besides the pain and suffering of the plaintiff, and the expense incurred by him for medical and other and necessary attendance, the loss he sustained through his inability to continue a lucrative professional practice.
James LJ said: ‘You are to consider what his income would probably have been, how long that income would probably have lasted, and you have to take into consideration all the other contingencies to which a practice is liable.’
A new trial will be granted in an action for personal injuries sustained through the defendant’s negligence by the damages found by the jury are so small as to show that they must have omitted to take into consideration some of the elements of damage. The verdicts of juries as to the amount of damages, are subject, and must, for the sake of justice, be subject to the supervision of a court of first instance, and, if necessary by a court of Appeal in this way, that is to say, if in the judgement of the court, the damages are unreasonably large or unreasonably small then the court is bound to send the matter for reconsideration by another jury.

James LJ
(1879) 5 CPD 280, [1874-80] All ER Rep 1176, (1879) 49 LJQB 233, (1879) 42 LT 6, (1879) 44 JP 217
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .
Cited – Harris v Brights Asphalt Contractors Ltd QBD 1953
The plaintiff was not to be prevented from recovering the costs of private medical treatment.
It was argued and decided that (a) damages for the loss of earnings for the ‘lost years’ is nil, and (b) ‘the only relevance of earnings which would . .
Cited – Roach v Yates CA 1937
The plaintiff had been gravely injured. His wife and sister-in-law had nursed him and gave up their employment for that purpose.
Held: The plaintiff could recover their lost wages, albeit there was no suggestion of any agreement between the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.654044

Cookson v Knowles: CA 1977

Lord Denning MR said: ‘In Jefford v Gee . . we said that, in personal injury cases, when a lump sum is awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, interest should run ‘ from the date of service of the ‘writ to the date of trial’. At that time inflation did not stare us in the face. We had not in mind continuing inflation and its effect on awards. It is obvious now that that guide-line should be changed.
The courts invariably assess the lump sum on the ‘scale’ for figures current at the date of trial – which is much higher than the figure current at the date of the injury or at the date of the writ. The plaintiff thus stands to gain by the delay in bringing the case to trial.
He ought not to gain still more by having interest from the date of service of the writ.’

Lord Denning MR
[1977] 3 WLR 279
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Jefford v Gee CA 4-Mar-1970
The courts of Scotland followed the civil law in the award of interest on damages. The court gave examples of the way in which they apply the ex mora rule when calculating the interest payable in a judgment. If money was wrongfully withheld, then . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Cookson v Knowles HL 24-May-1978
The House described the approach to the calculation of damages for a dependency under the Fatal Accidents Acts.
Held: The multipliers in Fatal Accidents Act cases should be calculated from the date of death.
Sections 3 and 4 mark a . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.654046

Roach v Yates: CA 1937

The plaintiff had been gravely injured. His wife and sister-in-law had nursed him and gave up their employment for that purpose.
Held: The plaintiff could recover their lost wages, albeit there was no suggestion of any agreement between the plaintiff and the two ladies that he would reimburse them.
Greer LJ said: ‘He can get those services, and perhaps get them better than in any other way, from the attendance which is being given to him by his wife and his sister-in-law; but he would naturally feel that he ought to compensate them for what they have lost by giving up the work at which they were earning the sum of pounds 3 a week. I think that Mr Beyfus was right in saying that we must take into account, at any rate for the period during which the plaintiff may now be expected to live, the sum of pounds 3 a week as the minimum expense which the plaintiff would have to incur in retaining the nursing services of his wife and his sister-in-law.’
Slesser LJ said: ‘Criticism has been made of the suggestion that one method of estimating his loss [of wages] is to consider what he would have earned during his life. Speaking for myself, I see no justification for approaching that problem by starting with the assumption that he would only have lived so long as the accident has now allowed him to live. I think the proper way of approaching the problem is that which was followed in Phillips v. London and South Western Railway Co. (1879)5 QBD 78, the leading case on this matter – namely, first to consider what sum he would have been likely to make during his normal life if he had not met with his accident.’

Paull J, Greer LJ, Slesser LJ
[1937] 3 All ER 442, [1938] 1 KB 256
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Phillips v London and South Western Railway
Co CA 1879
In an action against the railway company for personal injury to a passenger, a physician, making pounds 5,000 a year, and where is an increasing practice, the jury in assessing the damages to their consideration, besides the pain and suffering of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .
Cited – Harris v Brights Asphalt Contractors Ltd QBD 1953
The plaintiff was not to be prevented from recovering the costs of private medical treatment.
It was argued and decided that (a) damages for the loss of earnings for the ‘lost years’ is nil, and (b) ‘the only relevance of earnings which would . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.654042

Williams v Mersey Docks and Harbour Board: CA 1905

The deceased suffered an injury in December 1902 which would have entitled him to institute proceedings against the harbour board within the special statutory period of six months pursuant to the 1893 Act. No such action was brought by the deceased, so that this action was statute-barred. Following his death in December 1904, his widow instituted proceedings under the 1846 Act in February 1905 to recover damages arising out of the death of her husband.
Held: The action could not be maintained. The right of action of the deceased, if he were still alive would have been barred by the provisions of the Act of 1893 which fixed a six-month time limit from the happening of the event.
Mathew L.J. stated: ‘The cases appear to establish the general principle that, where an action could not have been brought by the deceased person, it cannot be maintained in. respect of the same accident by his representative. In this case the deceased could not have maintained an action against the defendants at the time of his death, or at any time more than six months after the neglect which was said to have caused the injury to him.’

Mathew LJ
[1905] 1 KB 805
Fatal Accidents Act 1846, Public Authorities Protection Act 1893
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.654043

Thomson and Co v Mackay: HL 24 Jun 1921

The respondent after the war resumed work as a member of the Barry Dock Pilots Association, his remuneration being a fixed share in the pool made up from the payments by the various shipowners for services rendered by the pilots. On the 23rd July 1919 after he had been working for a short time he met with an accident while getting on board the steamship ‘Cramond’ and claimed compensation from her owners, the present appellants. The claim was resisted substantially on the ground that the respondent was not a ‘workman’ within section 13 of the Act. It was agreed at the hearing (1) that the respondent had resumed his occupation as dock pilot since the war within ten weeks of the happening of the accident and that his earnings during that period were pounds 6 a-week; that the amount earned by the members of the association amounted to pounds 6 per week, and that the average amount earned by persons in the same grade and employed at the same work was pounds 6 a-week. The arbitrator held that the respondent’s remuneration did not exceed pounds 250 a-year and made an award in his favour, and his award was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Held that as there was no evidence before the County Court Judge beyond the fact that the respondent had been earning pounds 6 a-week and that men similarly engaged had received that sum during the previous year, it was open to him to consider the possibility that the employment might become irregular and that the rate of earnings might fall; that the question was one of fact, and that accordingly there being evidence on which the arbitrator could decide as he did, the award could not be disturbed.
Decision of the Court of Appeal (reported sub nom. Mackay v. Owners of the Steamship ‘Cramond,’ 123 L.T.R. 794) affirmed.

Lords Buckmaster, Sumner, Parmoor, Wrenbury, and Carson
59 SLR 586, [1921] UKHL 586
Bailii
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales

Employment, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.632637

Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau: HL 1971

The plaintiff suffered injury as a passenger when getting a lift to work from a co-worker. The driver was uninsured and had given lift to several co-workers over a period of time, mking a charge.
Held: The lift arrangement was in the nature of a contract, and therefore under the MIB scheme, the MIB were obliged to pay compensation.
Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘To constitute carriage for hire or reward, it is not, of course, necessary that payment is made before the journey. If there is an arrangement that payment will be made for that it matters not when the payment is in fact made.’

Viscount Dilhorne
[1971] 3 WLR 291
England and Wales

Road Traffic, Insurance, Personal Injury, Contract

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.565344

Ellis v Joseph Ellis and Co: CA 1905

A member of a partnership formed to work a mine worked in it as foreman. He took weekly wages from the profits. He suffered a fatal accident in the mine and his widow sought compensation under the 1897 Act from the surviving partners. To qualify he had to have been a workman, which was defined broadly in the Act and extended beyond employees strictly defined: ”Workman’ includes every person who is engaged in an employment to which this Act applies, whether by way of manual labor or otherwise, and whether his agreement is one of service or apprenticeship or otherwise and is expressed or implied, is oral or in writing’. The Court was asked whether, given his position as a partner, he came within the definition. Could he be regarded as a workman in the employ of the partnership with the other partners being his employer?
Held: The action failed.
Lord Collins MR thought that he could not: ‘The supposition that the deceased man was ’employed’, within the meaning of that term as used in the Act, would appear to involve that he, as one of the partners, must be looked upon as occupying the position of being one of his own employers. It seems to me that, when one comes to analyse an arrangement of this kind, namely, one by which a partner himself works, and receives sums which are called wages, it really does not create the relation of employers and employed, but is, in truth, a mode of adjusting the amount that must be taken to have been contributed to the partnership assets by a partner who has made what is really a contribution in kind, and does not affect his relation to the other partners, which is that of co-adventurer and not employee. Such a partner cannot put himself in the position of not being a partner when he is one, or of being a workman employed, when that position would involve that he would be both employer and employee. The definition of a ‘workman’ given in the Act might cover a person in such a position, apart from the difficulty that arises from the consideration that he would be his own employer; but that is not conclusive, because the applicability of the Act appears to depend not merely on the question whether the injured man was a workman within the definition given by the Act, but also on the existence of the relation of employer and workman. Sect.1 sub-s.1 provides that, ‘if in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act.’ That section appears to me clearly to contemplate a relation between two opposite parties, of whom one is employer and the other employee. It seems to me obvious, when the true position of the deceased is analysed, that he was not such a workman as is contemplated by the Act, and that a person cannot for the purposes of the Act occupy the position of being both employer and employee’.
Mathew LJ stated that it was legally impossible for the same person to occupy the position of being both master and servant, employer and employed.
Cozens-Hardy LJ held that ‘the Act only applies where there is on one side an employer, and on the other side a workman, who are different persons.’

Lord Collins MR, Cozens-Hardy, Mathew LJJ
[1905] 1 KB 324
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Bates van Winkelhof CA 26-Sep-2012
The claimant was a solicitor partner with the appellant limited liability partnership at their offices in Tanzania. She disclosed what she believed to be money laundering by a local partner. She was dismissed. She had just disclosed her pregnancy . .
Cited – Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof SC 21-May-2014
Solicitor Firm Member was a Protected Worker
The solicitor appellant had been a member of the firm, a limited liability partnership. She disclosed criminal misbehaviour by a partner in a branch in Africa. On dismissal she sought protection as a whistleblower. This was rejected, it being found . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Company, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.465969

Wise v Kaye: CA 1 Dec 1961

Sellers LJ, Upjohn LJ, Diplock LJ
[1961] EWCA Civ 2, [1962] 1 QB 638, [1962] 1 All ER 257, [1962] 2 WLR 96
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Shephard v H West and Son Ltd HL 27-May-1963
The House looked at how personal injury damages shoud be set in cases of severe injury.
Lord Pearce said: ‘[i]f a plaintiff has lost a leg, the court approaches the matter on the basis that he has suffered a serious physical deprivation no . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.262816

Rose v Ford: HL 1937

Damages might be recovered for a loss of expectation of life. A claim for loss of expectation of life survived under the Act of 1934, and was not a claim for damages based on the death of a person and so barred at common law.
Lord Wright explained the object of the 1934 Act: ‘The purpose . . was to abolish in a special and particular way the rule preventing the prosecution of a claim in tort for personal injuries where the person who would otherwise be plaintiff or defendant in an action has died. The rule was expressed in the maxim ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona”.

Lord Wright
[1937] AC 826, [1937] 3 All ER 359
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Flint v Lovell CA 1934
The Court considered the conditions for it to interfere with an assessment of damages at first instance.
Greer LJ said: ‘I think it right to say that this Court will be disinclined to reverse the finding of a trial judge as to the amount of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Derrick v Williams CA 1939
The plaintiff had accepted a payment into court on a basis that a Court of Appeal decision declared the law in a form which precluded the recovery of certain types of damages. Subsequently the House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision and . .
Cited – Ashley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 23-Apr-2008
The claimants sought to bring an action for damages after a family member suspected of dealing drugs, was shot by the police. At the time he was naked. The police officer had been acquitted by a criminal court of murder. The chief constable now . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.236538

Murray v Shuter: CA 1972

The plaintiff had been badly injured and was not expected to live long. When his claim for damages was almost ready for trial, his lawyers requested an adjournment. It was not possible for a live plaintiff to claim damages for his ‘lost years’. They realised that, if judgment were to be given before he died, it would not be possible for dependants to claim in respect of their dependency. He would recover much less than would be recovered by his estate and dependants after his death. At the hearing of the application to adjourn the trial, there was no dispute as to the effect of judgment before the death and no dispute as to entitlement of the widow to bring another action for loss of dependency if the plaintiff died before his action was brought to judgment.
Held: The court granted the adjournment requested as an exercise of discretion. Lord Denning MR said that if the action were disposed of in the plaintiff’s lifetime, the dependants would have no separate action for their own benefit, but if the trial were deferred until after the death, his own action would continue for the benefit of his estate and in addition, his dependants could bring an action under the FAA. He said: ‘The two actions can be combined’.

Lord Denning MR
[1972] I Lloyds Rep 6
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Reader and others v Molesworths Bright Clegg Solicitors CA 2-Mar-2007
The claimants were children of the victim of a road traffic accident. The solicitors were conducting a claim on his behalf for damages, but when he died, they negligently discontinued the action.
Held: The claimants’ action as dependants of . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.252562

McCann v Sheppard: CA 1973

The injured plaintiff succeeded in his action for damages for personal injury. The defendants appealed the quantum of damage but before the appeal was heard the plaintiff died. The court was now asked to reduce the award because of the death.
Held: Damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities should be limited to an amount appropriate for the length of time that the injured party survived.
The court also considered what cause of action the widow might have. Lord Denning MR said: ‘It is open to doubt whether the widow here would have any claim under the Fatal Accidents Act. Her husband had sued Mr Sheppard to judgment. Under that Act, the matter must be looked at as at the time of his death. Applying the words of the statute ‘If death had not ensued’, would he himself have been entitled to maintain an action and recover damages for negligence? I do not think so: for the simple reason that he had already recovered judgment and having done that he could not maintain another action for the same cause.’

Lord Denning MR
[1973] 1 WLR 540, [1973] 2 All ER 881
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brown v Robinson and Sentry PC 14-Dec-2004
(Jamaica) The deceased claimant had been shot by a sentry employed by the respondent company. His estate appealed a finding that the sentry was not acting in the course of his employment.
Held: Older authorities had now been replaced by recent . .
Cited – Reader and others v Molesworths Bright Clegg Solicitors CA 2-Mar-2007
The claimants were children of the victim of a road traffic accident. The solicitors were conducting a claim on his behalf for damages, but when he died, they negligently discontinued the action.
Held: The claimants’ action as dependants of . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.220487

Shephard v H West and Son Ltd: HL 27 May 1963

The House looked at how personal injury damages shoud be set in cases of severe injury.
Lord Pearce said: ‘[i]f a plaintiff has lost a leg, the court approaches the matter on the basis that he has suffered a serious physical deprivation no matter what his condition or temperament or state of mind may be’.
And: ‘The court has to perform the difficult and artificial task of converting into monetary damages the physical injury and deprivation and pain and to give judgment for what it considers to be a reasonable sum. It does not look beyond the judgment to the spending of the damages.’
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest observed: ‘ . . money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All the judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation . . as far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards . . ‘

Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Devlin, Lord Pearce
[1963] UKHL 3, [1963] 2 All ER 625, [1963] 2 WLR 1359, [1964] AC 326
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Wise v Kaye CA 1-Dec-1961
. .
Cited – Benham v Gambling HL 1941
The injured person was a child of two and a half. He was unconscious from the moment of the accident until his death, which occurred later on the same day. He had acquired at the time of injury a cause of action for loss of expectation of life.
Cited by:
Cited – Heil v Rankin, Rees v Mabco (102) Ltd, Schofield v Saunders and Taylor Ltd and Other cases CA 23-Mar-2000
The Law Commission had recommended that the general level of damages awarded for pain suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury cases should be raised. The Court now considered several cases on the issue.
Held: The court would do so. . .
Cited – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.248551

Oliver v Ashman: CA 1961

The rule that loss of earnings, in the years lost to an injured plaintiff whose life expectancy had been shortened, were not recoverable, was still good law.
Pearce LJ summarised the authorities: ‘The Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1934 abolished the old rule ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona’ and provided for the survival of causes of action in tort for the benefit of the victim’s estate. The decision of this House in Rose v. Ford [19371 AC 826 that a claim for loss of expectation of life survived under the Act of 1934, and was not a claim for damages based on the death of a person and so barred at common law (cf The Amerika [1917] AC 38). The decision of this House in Benham v. Gamblin [1941] AC 157 that damages for loss of expectation of life could only be given up to a conventional figure, then fixed at pounds 200. The Fatal Accidents Acts under which proceedings may be brought for the benefit of dependants to recover the loss caused to those dependants by the death of the breadwinner. The amount of this loss is related to the probable future earnings which would have been made by the deceased during lost years ‘.
And ‘What is lost is an expectation, not the thing itself’
Willmer LJ said: ‘What has been lost by the person assumed to be dead is the opportunity to enjoy what he would have earned, whether by spending it or saving it. Earnings themselves strike me as being of no significance without reference to the way in which they are used. To inquire what would have been the value to a person in the position of this plaintiff of any earnings which he might have made after the date when ex hypothesi he will be dead strikes me as a hopeless
‘ task ‘

Pearce LJ, Willmer LJ
[1961] 3 WLR 669, [1961] 3 All ER 323, [1962] 2 QB 210
Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1934
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Admiralty Commissioners v Steamship Amerika (Owners), The Amerika PC 13-Aug-1917
The Admiralty sought to recover as an item of loss the pensions payable to the widows of sailors killed in an accident to a submarine: . .

Cited by:
Overruled – Pickett v British Rail Engineering HL 2-Nov-1978
Lost Earnings claim Continues after Death
The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .
Not Followed – Skelton v Collins 7-Mar-1966
(High Court of Australia) Damages – Personal Injuries – Loss of earning capacity – Loss of expectation of life – Loss of amenities during reduced life span – Pain and suffering – Plaintiff rendered permanently unconscious by injuries – Basis of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.199759

Cunningham v Harrison: CA 17 May 1973

The plaintiff had been severely injured, and would need nursing care for the rest of his life. His wife nursed him until her death, but had given a statement that if not for her two full time nurses would be required. His employer continued to pay his full salary for a long time, and then paid an annual grant ex gratia and promised to do so for life.
Held: The plaintiff could recover the costs of private medical care despite the availability of free assistance on the NHS. The employer’s ex gratia payments were not to be taken to reduce the damages.

Lord Denning MR, Orr, Lawton LJJ
[1973] QB 942
Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 2(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Bradburn v Great Western Rail Co CEC 1874
The plaintiff had received a sum of money from a private insurer to compensate him for lost income as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Held: He was entitled to full damages as well as the payment from the . .
Cited – Harris v Brights Asphalt Contractors Ltd QBD 1953
The plaintiff was not to be prevented from recovering the costs of private medical treatment.
It was argued and decided that (a) damages for the loss of earnings for the ‘lost years’ is nil, and (b) ‘the only relevance of earnings which would . .
Considered – George v Pinnock CA 1973
The court awarded pounds 19,000 for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenity for severe disablement. . .
Cited – Haggar v de Placido 1972
andpound;13,500.00 was awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities for a case involving severe disablement. . .
Cited – Mitchell v Mulholland (No. 2) CA 1972
The plaintiff was severely injured, and recovered substantial damages. andpound;20,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, and andpound;21,350 for nursing care. The court declined to adjust the award for anticipated inflation: ‘an award of . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited – Browning v War Office CA 1962
The plaintiff had been a technical sergeant in the United States Air Force; his pay had been $450 per month and after his injuries caused by the negligence of the defendants’ driver he received only a ‘veteran’s benefit’ of $217 per month
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.200632

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 brokers for the advice given to the Court of Protection which would be administering the investment of her award.
Held: section 17 forbade deduction of the mobility benefit the claimant might receive. The court had taken a severe view of the delay of the prosecution of the case and had properly imposed a penalty.

Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Scott Baker
[2004] EWCA Civ 1033, Times 30-Aug-2004
Bailii
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 17, Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Eagle v Chambers CA 24-Jul-2003
The claimant was severely injured when run down by the defendant driving his car. She was in Blackpool, and drunk and wandering in the highway. The defendant was himself at or near the drink driving limit. She appealed against a finding that she was . .
Cited – Wisely v John Fulton Plumbers Ltd (Scotland) and Wadey v Surrey County Council HL 6-Apr-2000
A plaintiff in a personal injury action, was entitled to claim, and be paid, interest on his award for compensation for lost earnings, even though some part of it was to be paid direct to the Department of Social Security by way of recovery of . .
Cited – Dews v National Coal Board HL 1988
The plaintiff miner sought damages for an injury suffered at work.
Held: An employee who had been injured at work could not recover unpaid pension contributions, which had no effect on his pension entitlement, as part of his loss of pay while . .
Cited – Sowden v Lodge QBD 25-Mar-2003
. .
Cited – Harris v Brights Asphalt Contractors Ltd QBD 1953
The plaintiff was not to be prevented from recovering the costs of private medical treatment.
It was argued and decided that (a) damages for the loss of earnings for the ‘lost years’ is nil, and (b) ‘the only relevance of earnings which would . .
Cited – Cunningham v Harrison CA 17-May-1973
The plaintiff had been severely injured, and would need nursing care for the rest of his life. His wife nursed him until her death, but had given a statement that if not for her two full time nurses would be required. His employer continued to pay . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 – Page v Plymouth Hospital NHS Trust QBD 2004
The court heard as a preliminary point the question whether a claimant who was not a patient and subject to the Court of Protection should be entitled to claim the fees that he or she would incur on investment advice on receipt of the damages, and . .
Cited – Wells v Wells; Thomas v Brighton Health Authority; etc HL 16-Jul-1998
In each of three cases, the plaintiffs had suffered serious injury. They complained that the court had made a substantial reduction of their damages award for loss of future earnings and the costs of future care.
Held: The appeals succeeded. . .
Cited – Jefford v Gee CA 4-Mar-1970
The courts of Scotland followed the civil law in the award of interest on damages. The court gave examples of the way in which they apply the ex mora rule when calculating the interest payable in a judgment. If money was wrongfully withheld, then . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Barry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd QBD 22-Mar-2000
After a delay of delay 5 years, the judge deducted two years interest from the award to reflect the plaintiff’s delay. . .
Cited – Barry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd CA 30-Mar-2001
It was appropriate to reduce the interest discount rate used to calculate damages awards in personal injury cases for future losses, from 3 per cent to 2 per cent. This reflected the general reduction in such interest rates since the Act came into . .
Cited – Corbett v Barking Havering and Brentwood Health Authority CA 1991
The Claimant was a child who would have been dependant on his deceased young mother only until adulthood. When the trial took place the infant Plaintiff was 11.5 with a dependency until the age of 18. As the multiplier calculated as at the date of . .
Cited – Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine and Sons Ltd CA 1968
The court described the peculiarly difficult position of a solicitor sued for the negligence of losing litigation for his client by reason of having his client’s claim struck out: ‘It is true that if the action for professional negligence were . .

Cited by:
See also – Eagle v Chambers CA 24-Jul-2003
The claimant was severely injured when run down by the defendant driving his car. She was in Blackpool, and drunk and wandering in the highway. The defendant was himself at or near the drink driving limit. She appealed against a finding that she was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.199739

Cox v Ministry of Justice: CA 19 Feb 2014

Appeal against rejection of claim for personal injury. While working as the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the Claimant was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner carrying out paid work under her supervision. The prisoner had dropped a large bag of rice on her whilst she was kneeling. The prisoner was found negligent, but the curt had held that the Prison authorities were not responsible.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had been wrong to hold that the Respondent was not vicariously liable for the negligence of the prisoner: ‘the prison authorities have to feed the prisoners and for that purpose they have to have food supplies delivered to the prison. When delivered the supplies have to be taken from the delivery area to the stores. Someone has to do that job. In many institutions, schools or hospitals perhaps, the task would be performed by employees of the institution. Here, it was performed by prisoners for whom the authorities were obliged to provide useful work. However, the work performed by these prisoners was one essential to the functioning of the prison. The activity had to be performed by someone on behalf of the prison service and the activity was part of the Respondent’s activity of providing secure and humane accommodation and maintenance for the prisoners. The activity was different in nature from the activity of a prisoner engaged in education, training or on an offending behaviour programme. Such activity, while no doubt part of the Respondent’s task of rehabilitating prisoners (and, as such, part of the ‘business’ of the prison), is largely for the prisoner’s benefit and certainly is not an activity which (absent the prisoners’ work) would have to be performed by an employee. Quite the opposite, no employee would be engaged on such rehabilitative activity. Those activities are prisoners’ activities, far from any kinship with employment.
The work carried out by the prisoners in the present case relieved the Respondent from engaging employees at market rates of pay and with all the concomitants of an employment relationship. The work was clearly done on the Respondent’s behalf and for its benefit or as the judge put it to ‘defray . . the expense to the state caused by prisons’. Departing from the judge, however, I think that the feeding of the prisoners and the procurement of supplies for that purpose was clearly part of the venture, enterprise or ‘business’ (if you will) of the Respondent in running the prison.’

McCombe, Beatson, Sharp LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 132, [2014] ICR 713, [2014] PIQR P17, [2015] 1 QB 107, [2014] 3 WLR 1036
Bailii
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 5(1), Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5(1), Prison Rules 1999 31
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Wiesniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority CA 1998
Brooke LJ stated the following principles: ‘From this line of authority I derive the following principles in the context of the present case: (1) In certain circumstances a court may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the absence or silence . .
Cited – O’Neill v DSG Retail Ltd CA 31-Jul-2002
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages after he was injured at work. He claimed he had been asked to work in breach of the Regulations.
Held: It was easy but wrong to conflate the issues of causation and forseeability. The . .
Cited – Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others CA 10-Oct-2005
The defendants had subcontracted work installing air conditioning to the second defendants, who in turn bought in fitters from the third defendants. A fitter caused a flood acting irresponsibly.
Held: The court reviewed the law of vicarious . .
Cited – JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust CA 12-Jul-2012
The claimant suffered physical and serious sexual abuse whilst a child at a children’s home run by the defendant. A parish priest committed some of the abuse, and she claimed that the defendants were vicariously liable. They denied such liability. . .
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
Appeal from – Cox v Ministry of Justice Misc 3-May-2013
(Swansea County Court) While working as a catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the claimant suffered injury in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner who was carrying out paid work under her supervision. She now sought damages from the . .

Cited by:
At CA – Cox v Ministry of Justice SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Prisons, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521494

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 trespasser, the creation by him of particular risks which may be unknown to sections of the public, including children, might create such a liability. The test may be subjective, as to whether a land-owner of this character might reasonably be expected to do or refrain from doing something on his land to avoid the risk. A duty might arise where the owner had, or ought to have had, actual knowledge of trespassers using the land, and of the risk they might face, and the risk was such as might cause a person with ordinary humane feelings to seek to avoid it. The duty does not extend beyond taking reasonable steps to enable a trespasser to avoid the danger.
Lord Diplock said that the court may draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s decision not to give or call evidence as to matters within the knowledge of himself or his employees: ‘This is a legitimate tactical move under our adversarial system of litigation. But a defendant who adopts it cannot complain if the court draws from the facts which have been disclosed all reasonable inferences as to what are the facts which the defendant has chosen to withhold.’
As to the liability of a railway undertaking for injury suffered by trespassers on the line, Lord Diplock said: ‘The appellants, who are a public corporation, elected to call no witnesses, thus depriving the court of any positive evidence as to whether the condition of the fence and the adjacent terrain had been noticed by any particular servant of theirs or as to what he or any other of their servants either thought or did about it. This is a legitimate tactical move under our adversarial system of litigation. But a defendant who adopts it cannot complain if the court draws from the facts which have been disclosed all reasonable inferences as to what are the facts which the defendant has chosen to withhold. A court may take judicial notice that railway lines are regularly patrolled by linesmen and Bangers. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is entitled to infer that one or more of them in the course of several weeks noticed what was plain for all to see. Anyone of common sense would realise the danger that the state of the fence so close to the live rail created for little children coming to the meadow to play. As the appellants elected to call none of the persons who patrolled the line there is nothing to rebut the inference that they did not lack the common sense to realise the danger. A court is accordingly entitled to infer from the inaction of the appellants that one or more of their employees decided to allow the risk to continue of some child crossing the boundary and being injured or killed by the live rail rather than to incur the trivial trouble and expense of repairing the gap in the fence.’

Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Pearson and Lord Diplock
[1972] AC 877, [1972] 2 WLR 537, [1971] 1 All ER 749, [1972] UKHL 1
lip, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Limited – Addie (Robert) and Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck HL 25-Feb-1929
No occupier is under any duty to potential trespassers, whether adults or children, to do anything to protect them from danger on his land, however likely it may be that they will come and run into danger and however lethal the danger may be. . .
Cited – Adams v Naylor HL 1946
The House disapproved of the practice of appointing a nominee defendant in tort actions against whom damages could be awarded as opposed to a party with crown immunity. The House refused to entertain a claim against a nominated army officer arising . .
Cited – Baker v Bethnal Green Corporation CA 1945
The plaintiff sought damages after a relative died in the stairwell of an underground tube station taken over by the defendant for use as an air raid shelter. The steps down to the station were known to be unsafe, being wide without protective . .
Cited – Billings (AC) and Sons Ltd v Riden HL 1957
A building contractor may assume a duty of care to a visitor, though the contractor was not viewed as the occupier, the occupier being separately liable to the injured plaintiff. However, ‘if the Plaintiff knew the danger, either because he was . .
Cited – Bird v Holbrook CCP 9-May-1828
Whether a trespasser who was injured could recover or not depends at common law upon whether notice had been given him of the presence of those dangers on the defendant’s land. Burrough J said: ‘The Plaintiff was only a trespasser: if the Defendant . .
Cited – Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co 1856
. .
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 – Buckland v Guildford Gas Light and Coke Co 1948
Whether someone is a trespasser vis-a-vis the occupier is relevant only to the foreseeability of his presence. . .
Cited – Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis HL 17-Feb-1955
The House considered the unexplained fact that in the temporary absence of the teacher (who, on the evidence, was not negligent) it was possible for a child of four to wander from the school premises onto the highway, through a gate which was either . .
Cited – Commissioner for Railways v McDermott PC 1966
. .
Cited – Commissioner for Railways v Quinlan PC 9-Mar-1964
(New South Wales) The plaintiff trespasser was hit by the occupier’s train. He succeeded at trial and on first appeal.
Held: A mere failure to exercise reasonable care was not a basis for claim by a trespasser, there must: ‘be injury due to . .
Cited – Commissioner for Railways (NSW ) v Cardy 1960
. .
Cited – Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland HL 1909
Lord Atkinson said: ‘The duty the owner of premises owes to the persons to whom he gives permission to enter upon them must . . be measured, by his knowledge, actual or imputed, of the habits, capacities and propensities of those persons.’ and ‘The . .
Cited – Creed v McGeoch and Sons Ltd 1955
The question of who is an occupier will depend on the particular facts of each case and especially upon the nature and extent of the occupation or control in fact enjoyed or exercised by the defendant over the premises. The defendant contractor was . .
Cited – Davis v St Mary’s Demolition and Excavation Co Ltd 1954
The defendants were demolishing some houses, behind which was an open space on which children were known to play. A child wandered onto the site and a wall fell causing injury.
Held: Although the plaintiff was a trespasser, the presence of . .
Cited – Deane v Clayton 1817
. .
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 – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
Cited – Dunster v Abbott CA 1953
The court discussed the distinction between the liability of an occupier for the dangerous condition of his premises and the liability of an occupier in relation to dangerous activities carried out on his premises. Denning LJ said: ‘In this case . . . .
Cited – Edwards v Railway Executive HL 1952
A boy aged 9 was injured on a railway line. He had been warned not to go onto the land and had found his way through a defective fence. He claimed in negligence. The fence had been breached by children with some frequency for many years before the . .
Cited – Excelsior Wire Rope Co Ltd v Callan HL 1930
The House dismissed an appeal by an occupier of land against a finding that he was liable for an injury occasioned to a child trespassing on his land. . .
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 – Glasgow Corporation v Taylor HL 18-Nov-1921
A father brought an action for damages for the death of his son who had eaten poisonous berries growing in one of the defenders’ public parks. The plants were easily accessible from a children’s play area and it was said that the defender had a duty . .
Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
Cited – Grand Trunk Railway Co of Canada v Barnett PC 28-Mar-1911
In an action against the appellant railroad company for damages for personal injuries resulting from collision caused by the negligence of the appellants’ servants it appeared that the collision took place on the property of the appellants to which . .
Cited – Haley v London Electricity Board HL 28-Jul-1964
Electricity undertakers owed a duty of care to blind persons as a class when they excavated a trench along a pavement in a London suburb because blind people foreseeably walk along pavements. . .
Cited – Hardy v Central London Railway Co CA 1920
. .
Cited – Hawkins v Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council CA 1954
Denning LJ suggested that there was a confluence between the laws applying to invitees and the laws applying to licensees.
Somervell LJ said: ‘reasonable foresight could not depend on ‘attributes which properly belong to a person of . .
Cited – Heaven v Pender, Trading As West India Graving Dock Company CA 30-Jul-1883
Duty Arising to Use Ordinary Care and Skill
The plaintiff was a painter. His employer engaged to repaint a ship, and the defendant erected staging to support the work. The staging collapsed because one of the ropes was singed and weakened, injuring the plaintiff.
Held: The defendant had . .
Cited – Hillen and Pettigrew v ICI (Alkali) Ltd HL 1936
Stevedores who were lawfully on a barge for the purpose of discharging it, nevertheless became trespassers when they went onto an inadequately supported hatch cover in order to unload some of the cargo. They knew that they ought not to use the . .
Cited – Holland v Lanarkshire Middle Ward District Committee 1909
Duty to fence a quarry. On a failure the land owner may be liable in damages. It was doubtful that a child would be liable in contributory negligence. . .
Cited – Ilott v Wilkes 1820
. .
Cited – Indermaur v Dames 1866
The court described as an occupier’s duty towards his invitees: ‘And, with respect to such a visitor at least, we consider it settled law, that he, using reasonable care on his part for his own safety, is entitled to expect that the occupier shall . .
Cited – Jay v Whitfield (Note) 1817
Liability for injury in trap. . .
Cited – Kingzett v British Railways Board 1968
. .
Cited – Latham v R Johnson and Nephew Ltd CA 12-Dec-1912
The defendants were owners of a plot of unfenced waste land from which old houses had been cleared. It did not adjoin any public highway, but was accessible by a path leading from the back of the house in which the plaintiff, a child between two and . .
Cited – Lowery v Walker HL 9-Nov-1910
A trespasser was injured by the land owner’s savage horse.
Held: If a land-owner knows of but does nothing to stop acts of trespass by the public on his land, there may be an implied license. Decision reversed. In Scottish courts the . .
Cited – Lynch v Nurdin 1841
The defendant’s servant left his cart and horse on a street where children were playing. A child climbed on the wheel of the cart, other children disturbed the horse, and the child was injured.
Held: The judge had correctly left it to the jury . .
Cited – McCarthy v Wellington City 1966
A person storing dangerous explosives on his premises owed a duty of care to keep them secure to all persons foreseeably likely to be injured as a result of a breach of that duty. . .
Cited – M’Glone v British Railways Board HL 27-Oct-1965
The appellant sought damages in respect of injuries suffered by his son who received a severe electrical shock, climbing on a booster transformer on premises occupied by the respondents. The First Division had held that the respondents were not . .
Cited – Miller v South of Scotland Electricity Board HL 1958
An employer should recognise that it is not possible to predict all the ways in which dangers may arise, especially where the risk is created by carelessness. The employer is liable even if he did not foresee the precise accident that happened. In . .
Cited – Mooney v Lanarkshire County Council 1954
. .
Cited – Morran v Waddell SCS 24-Oct-1883
Inner House First Division. – Reparation – Culpa – Railway – Private Line of Railway – Obligation to Fence – Contributory Negligence. . .
Cited – Moulton v Poulter CA 1930
The defendant land owner and occupier knew of the presence of the trespassing children.
Held: He was liable for injury to the trespassing child by a tree was felled negligently. The defendant had: ‘cut the last root by which the tree was . .
Cited – Munnings v Hydro-Electric Commission 1971
. .
Cited – Perry v Thomas Wrigley Ltd 1955
A trench dug in a road for its repair did not count as an allurement for passing children. . .
Cited – Prentice v Assets Co Ltd 1889
. .
Cited – Rich v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) 1959
The Board considered a claim arising from an accident occurring at a railway level crossing . .
Cited – Ross v Keith 1888
. .
Cited – Thompson v Bankstown Municipal Corporation 1953
(Australia) Occupier’s duty of care to a person to whom he already has a neighbour relationship. . .
Cited – United Zinc and Chemical Co v Britt 1922
There was no evidence of children being in the habit of going near the poisoned pool at issue. Speaking of trespassers, Holmes J said ‘the owner of the land would have owed no duty to remove even hidden danger; it would have been entitled to assume . .
Cited – Videan -v British Transport Commission CA 1963
The court was asked as to the duty of a land owner to a trespasser.
Held: At least in respect of his own activities an occupier owed the trespasser duty to take care not to injure a trespasser whose presence was foreseeable or reasonably to be . .
Cited – Munnings v Hydro-Electric Commission 1971
. .
Appeal from – British Railways Board v Herrington CA 1971
A duty to protect against obvious risks or self-inflicted harm exists only in cases in which there is no genuine and informed choice, such as the inability of children to recognise danger. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
Cited – Regina v Stephenson CACD 1979
The defendant sought to sleep in a hollow in a haystack. He lit a fire, to keep warm, which set fire to the stack. He appealed against his conviction under the 1971 Act. He had a long history of schizophrenia and may not have had the same ability to . .
Cited – Regina v City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford HL 13-Nov-2003
Land had been used as a park for many years. The council land owner refused to register it as a common, saying that by maintaining the park it had indicated that the use was by consent and licence, and that prescription did not apply.
Held: . .
Cited – Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority CA 1997
The court considered the effect of a party failing to bring evidence in support of its case, as regards the court drawing inferences: ‘(1) In certain circumstances a court may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the absence or silence of a . .
Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Cited – Crawford v Financial Institutions Services Ltd PC 2-Nov-2005
(Jamaica) The government had intervened in banking institutions under the control of the appellant. Subsequently orders had been made against him for compensation in respect of loans made negligently or otherwise than in accordance with good banking . .
Cited – Hardy v Washington Green Fine Art Publishing Company Ltd CA 9-Mar-2010
The claimant’s husband had bought a Rolf Harris picture from an art gallery, but left it with them for safe keeping. The gallery was said to have been taken over by the defendants. The painting was noticed to be missing but the claimant was not . .
Cited – Earles v Barclays Bank plc Merc 8-Oct-2009
earles_barclaysQBD2009
The claimant had lost his claim against the bank, but resisted the amount of costs claimed.
Held: The trial had been of a simple factual dispute, and the bank had failed adequately to disclose electronically held material in its possession. . .
Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Cited – Harris v Birkenhead Corporation CA 12-Nov-1975
A four year old child had fallen from a second-story window in a derelict house owned by the defendant, and suffered serious injury. The house and others had been purchased by compulsion for intended clearance. The Corporation appealed against a . .
Cited – Ovu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Personal Injury, Nuisance, Children, Negligence, Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.174315

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, snagged by a car, caught and then threw him some distance. He later died from his injuries. The rope had been set up negligently. The organisers relied on the exclusion clause.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. ‘The Courts are very reluctant to hold a person bound by any exemption or condition unless it forms part of the contract between them. If there is a contractual document (as here the programme) the organisers must incorporate it into the document. If there is no contractual document, they must draw the condition specifically to the attention of the plaintiff and get his assent to it’

Lord Denning MR, Buckley, Roskill LJJ
[1972] EWCA Civ 11, [1972] 2 QB 651, [1972] 3 All ER 158, [1972] 3 WLR 296
Bailii
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 2(1)(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd HL 21-Jan-1964
The appellant had asked his brother-in-law to have a car shipped from Islay to the mainland. The appellant had personally consigned goods on four previous occasions. On three of them he was acting on behalf of his employer; on the other occasion he . .
Cited – Henderson v Stevenson HL 1875
Proper Notice of Exemption Clause Required
A ticket, having on its face only the words ‘Dublin and Whitehaven’, was given to a passenger who, without looking at it, paid for it and went on board. Having lost all his luggage he brought an action against the company. The company pleaded that, . .
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 – Hornsell v Smyth 1860
When a person took a short cut across a piece of land: ‘He must take the permission with its concomitant conditions, and, it may be, perils’ . .
Cited – Latham v R Johnson and Nephew Ltd CA 12-Dec-1912
The defendants were owners of a plot of unfenced waste land from which old houses had been cleared. It did not adjoin any public highway, but was accessible by a path leading from the back of the house in which the plaintiff, a child between two and . .
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 . .
Cited – Slater v Clay Cross Co Ltd 1956
The plaintiff was injured walking down a narrow railway tunnel. The tunnel had been regularly used by locals as a short cut.
Held: Though there was a risk in doing so, that did not mean that she had accepted also the risk that the train driver . .
Crticised – 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 . .
Cited – Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd CA 19-Nov-1971
The plaintiff left his car with the defendant garage for repair. Whilst there it was substantially damaged by fire. The defendant sought to rely upon their terms which would negative liability, saying that the terms had been incorporated 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 . .
Cited – Nettleship v Weston CA 30-Jun-1971
The plaintiff gave a friend’s wife driving lessons. An experienced driver himself, he checked her insurance first. The learner crashed into a lamp-post, and he was injured. She was convicted of careless driving, and he sought damages. The judge held . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 – 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 – Winter Garden Theatre (London) Ltd v Millennium Productions Ltd HL 1947
The appellant owner had granted licences to the respondent to use the theatre for productions. After the initial six month’s period, the respondent was to have an option for further licences. The contract made no mention of a termination of that . .
Cited – Ashdown v Samuel Williams and Sons Ltd CA 1957
Employees used a short cut to reach premises occupied by their employer, the second defendants. The short cut crossed various railway lines, on premises belonging to the first defendants. While she was using the short cut, the plaintiff was struck . .
Cited – The Canadian Pacific Railway Company v The King PC 19-Feb-1931
(Canada) ‘Whether any and what restrictions exist on the power of a licensor to determine a revocable licence must, there Lordships think, depend upon the circumstances of each case.’
A licencee whose licence is revocable is entitled to . .
Cited – Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell HL 6-Jul-1964
The respondent was employed as a shot firer in a quarry, and was to test the electric wiring connecting explosive charges. Contrary to instructions that testing must be done from a shelter, the respondent and another shot firer carried out a test in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Contract

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.262753

JXMX (A Child) v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust: QBD 17 Dec 2013

The court asked whether it should make an order that the claimant be identified by letters of the alphabet, and that there be other derogations from open justice (an anonymity order), in a claim for personal injuries by a child or protected party which comes before the court for the approval of a settlement pursuant to CPR r21.10.

Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 3956 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 21.10
Cited by:
Appeal from – MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust and Others CA 17-Feb-2015
Application was made for approval of a compromise of a claim for damages for personal injury for the child. The court now considered whether an order should be made to protect the identity of the six year old claimant.
Held: An order should . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.519047

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust: CA 2 Feb 2006

The claimant a young boy fell from a fire escape on the defendant’s building. He suffered brain damage and in later life was convicted of sexual offences.
Held: His claim failed: ‘there was no suggestion that the fire escape was fragile or had anything wrong with it as a fire escape and I do not think it can be said that the claimant here suffered his injury by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises. ‘ Justice Lewison said: ‘The threshold question is not whether there is a risk of suffering injury by reason of the state of the premises. It is whether there is a risk of injury by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises. Thus in order for the threshold question to be answered in the affirmative it must be shown that the premises were inherently dangerous. ‘

Mummery LJ, Longmore LJ, Lewison J
[2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1 WLR 653
Bailii
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The Carlgarth 1927
Scrutton LJ said: ‘When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used.’ and ‘Another distinction is that in a . .
Cited – Young v Kent County Council QBD 14-Mar-2005
The claimant a child had climbed the wall of a school building and on to the roof to collect a ball. He then fell through a skylight.
Held: Asking whether the state of the premises posed a danger: ‘yes, they did. The roof was an inherently . .
Cited – Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited CA 27-Feb-2003
The claimant had decided to go for a midnight swim, but was injured diving and hitting a submerged bed. The landowner appealed a finding that it was 25% liable. The claimant asserted that the defendant knew that swimmers were common.
Held: The . .
Cited – Lewis v Six Continents Plc CA 2006
The claimant was injured after falling from a sash window in the defendant’s hotel. He appeal against refusal of his claim.
Held: The appeal failed. The claimant’s argument, if followed to its conclusion, would result in every window having to . .
Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .

Cited by:
Cited – Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .
Cited – Ovu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.238247