Category: Personal Injury

Cavanagh v London Transport Executive: 23 Oct 1956

The deceased stepped onto the road just behind a taxi cab which was stationary or just drawing up. He neither saw nor heard an approaching number bus and walked directly into its path. He suffered a fractured skull. There was evidence that his mental processes became grossly abnormal. Some sixteen months after the accident he committed suicide.
Held: The court was satisfied that ‘an irrational state of mind arising from his head injuries was a cause, if not the main cause, of his suicide.’ The judge ‘would, if necessary, hold that the plaintiff (the widow of the deceased) had discharged the burden of causation upon her and that the financial worry did not amount to a novus actus. But if, looked at independently of its origins it would amount to a novus actus, he was satisfied that the deceased’s financial position in January, 1955, could be traced back to the accident.’
Devlin J
Times 23-Oct-1956
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
corr_ibcCA2006
The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.240039

McAuley v London Transport Executive: CA 1957

A plaintiff in a claim for personal injuries may be deemed to have failed to mitigate his losses by an unreasonable refusal to undergo free surgical treatment after a bodily injury, and the damages he may recover from the tortfeasor are to be measured by reference to what he would have recovered had he mitigated the loss properly.
Jenkins LJ asked: ‘The question must be one of fact, as I see it, in each particular case: Was the advice, and were the prospects of success of the proposed operation or treatment, clearly put to the Plaintiff, so that he, as a reasonable man, would appreciate that he was being advised that this treatment or operation would put him right. If the evidence shows that, then it seems to me that the plaintiff, as a reasonable person, ought either to accept that advice, or else go to his own doctor and say: ‘Doctor, this is what I have been advised by Mr. So-and-So, the surgeon at Such-and-Such a hospital; what do you think about it?’ Of course, the plaintiff here never did any such thing as that.’
Jenkins LJ
[1957] 2 Lloyds Rep 500
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.188659

A and B v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and Another: SC 9 Jul 2021

The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether excluding A and B, who are victims of human trafficking, from compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme unjustifiably discriminates against A and B, in breach of Article 14 taken with Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens
[2021] UKSC 27
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
England and Wales

Updated: 17 July 2021; Ref: scu.665998

Clover, Clayton, and Co v Hughes: HL 14 Mar 1910

A workman suffered from a severe aneurism of the heart, from which he might at any time have died even in bed. While he was at his work engaged in manual labour the aneurism burst and he died. The County Court Judge found that ‘the death was caused by a strain arising out of the ordinary work of the deceased operating upon a condition of body which was such as to render the strain fatal.’ He therefore awarded compensation.
Held ( diss. Lords Atkinson and Shaw) that there was evidence to support the finding, and that the injury had arisen out of and in the course of the employment.
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Atkinson, Collins, and Shaw
[1910] UKHL 885, 47 SLR 885
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.619779

Various Claimants v G4S Plc: ChD 10 Mar 2021

Questions about the ability of claimants to have themselves added to a claim after a limitation period has expired and about amendments to the descriptions of claimants (to use a neutral term) after service and after the expiry of the limitation period.
Mann J
[2021] EWHC 524 (Ch), [2021] 4 WLR 46, [2021] WLR(D) 151
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.659560

Direct Travel Insurance v McGeown: CA 12 Nov 2003

The contra proferentem interpretation rule is to be invoked only in cases of genuine doubt or ambiguity. Auld LJ said: ‘A court should be wary of starting its analysis by finding an ambiguity by reference to the words in question looked at on their own. And it should not, in any event, on such a finding, move straight to the contra proferentem rule without first looking at the context and, where appropriate, permissible aids to identifying the purpose of the commercial document of which the words form part. Too early recourse to the contra proferentem rule runs the danger of ‘creating’ an ambiguity where there is none’.
Auld, Mummery, Keene LJJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 1606, [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 609
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – AJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner and Others QBD 11-Mar-2013
An insurance company had engaged a main contractor to handle repairs to houses insured under its policies. The contractor had engaged the claimant subcontractor to carry out the works at the defendants’ homes, but then went into insolvent . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.188127

Brumder v Motornet Service and Repairs Ltd and Another: CA 14 Mar 2013

Whether a company director suffering injury at work could claim notwithstanding he had been the cause of the company’s default.
Held: ‘As a general rule the remedy for breach of a director’s duty of care is compensation for the harm caused to the company by the director’s negligence. That would have been the position in this case had the person injured been an employee or another person, for example a visitor who was assisting Mr Lewis. The harm to the company would in principle be the damages payable to the injured person and the company would in principle be able to recover that sum from the defaulting director. Here, the injured person was also the director. Although the company’s duty is absolute, whereas the director’s is to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence, the damages payable by the director to the company will be the sum which the injured director/claimant would in principle be able to recover from the company.’
Ward, Longmore, Beatson LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 195, [2013] WLR(D) 102, [2013] PIQR P13, [2013] 2 BCLC 58, [2013] ICR 1069, [2013] 1 WLR 2783, [2013] BCC 381, [2013] 3 All ER 412,
Bailii, WLRD
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 09 July 2021; Ref: scu.471732

Verlander v Devon Waste Management and Another: CA 27 Jun 2007

Auld LJ commented on the analysis in Stephens of the need for a judge to decide the evidence before him: ‘Perhaps I can, without damage to that analysis, summarise it by reducing it to two main propositions. First, a judge should only resort to the burden of proof where he is unable to resolve an issue of fact or facts after he has unsuccessfully attempted to do so by examination and evaluation of the evidence. Secondly, the Court of Appeal should only intervene where the nature of the case and/or the judge’s reasoning are such that he could reasonably have been able to make a finding one way or the other on the evidence without such resort.
. . When this court in Stephens v Cannon used the word ‘exceptional’ as a seeming qualification for resort by a tribunal to the burden of proof, it meant no more than that such resort is only necessary where on the available evidence, conflicting and/or uncertain and/or falling short of proof, there is nothing left but to conclude that the claimant has not proved his case. The burden of proof remains part of our law and practice — and a respectable and useful part at that — where a tribunal cannot on the state of the evidence before it rationally decide one way or the other.5 In this case the Recorder has shown, in my view, in his general observations on the unsatisfactory nature of the important parts of the evidence on each side going to the central issue, particularly that of Mr Verlander, that he had considered carefully whether there was evidence on which he could rationally decide one way or the other. It is more than plain from what he has said and why, that he concluded he could not. Further, more detailed analysis by him of the evidence and rehearsal of his views on it would, in my view, have been otiose.’
Auld, Rix and Moses LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 835, [2021] 4 WLR 89
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stephens and Another v Cannon and Another CA 14-Mar-2005
The claimants had purchased land from the defendants. The contract was conditional on a development which did not take place. The master had been presented with very different valuations of the property.
Held: The master was not entitled to . .

Cited by:
Cited – ETI Euro Telecom International Nv v Republic of Bolivia and Another CA 28-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in an international investment dispute arbitration. An injunction had been sought to prevent repatriation of assets to Bolivia.
Held: The international system of arbitration was not subject to any national law and did . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2021; Ref: scu.259138

Messier-Dowty Ltd and Another v Sabena Sa and others: ComC 3 Dec 1999

Application by 2 and 3 defendants for an order suspending proceedings in England pending production and consideration of expert report. Whether, pursuant to Supreme Court Act 1981 s. 49(3) and CPR 3.1(2)(f), there were ‘compelling circumstances’ required to justify the Court making an order to stay proceedings.
Langley J
[1999] EWHC 282 (Comm), [2001] WLR 2040
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Messier-Dowty Ltd and Another v Sabena Sa and Others CA 21-Feb-2000
The defendants sought a declaration that they would not be liable in respect of their potential involvement in a pending action. The appellants asserted that such a declaration could not be granted since no proceedings were yet in issue. The court . .
Cited – Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another ChD 16-Dec-2005
It was claimed that the defendant’s computer software infringed the copyright in software owned by the claimant. A declaration was sought beacause of allegations that assertions about infringement had been made to third parties.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2021; Ref: scu.201665

Allsop v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 28 Jul 2005

(Trinidad and Tobago) ‘from the time of his accident, it was known that the appellant would be permanently disabled. So he was going, ultimately, to be paid a lump sum calculated in accordance with section 5(1)(c)(ii) and (2). As at 3 April 1998, however, the degree of his permanent disability had not been finally determined. So the lump sum could not be calculated and he was still receiving weekly payments. Therefore, as of that date, Petroleum had not discharged their obligation to pay the appellant the appropriate lump sum under the statute. In those circumstances he had not received the ‘compensation payable to him under this Act’ and so the one-year time-bar in section 4(3) did not apply to him. The present proceedings were raised in time.’
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Sir Andrew Leggatt
[2005] ukpc 34
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 28 June 2021; Ref: scu.229325

Gawler v Raettig (Leave): CA 3 Dec 2007

Application for leave to appeal.
Sir Anthony Clark MR, Wall, Smith LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 1560
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Froom v Butcher CA 21-Jul-1975
The court asked what reduction if any should be made to a plaintiff’s damages where injuries were caused not only by the defendant’s negligent driving but also by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. It had been submitted that, since . .
Main Appeal – Gawler v Raettig CA 3-Dec-2007
The parties had resolved their claims of negligence, but asked the court to set the level of contributory negligence even though the appeal was academic.
Held: The court refused leave to appeal, but stated that its judgment could be reported. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
rolls_uniteCA2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
Cited – AVS v A NHS Foundation Trust and Another CA 17-Jan-2011
The claimant contracted sporadic Creutzfeldt Jakob’s Disease disease. He executed a Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of his brother, expressing to him that he should do whatever was possible to protract his life. The brother now sought treatment . .
See Also – Farstad Supply As v Enviroco Ltd SC 6-Apr-2011
The court was asked by the parties to a charterparty whether one of them is an ‘Affiliate’ of the charterer for the purposes of provisions in a charterparty by which both the owner and the charterer agreed to indemnify and hold each other harmless . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.341673

Khan v Meadows: CA 15 Feb 2019

Appeal from the judgment of Yip J who determined that the costs related to the autism of Adejuwon, the respondent’s son, following his birth may be properly recovered by her and assessed damages in the agreed sum of pounds 9,000,000. Adejuwon suffers from both haemophilia and autism. The appellant admits that but for her negligence Adejuwon would not have been born because his mother would have discovered during her pregnancy that he was afflicted by haemophilia and so would have undergone a termination of the pregnancy. It is accepted by the appellant that the respondent is entitled to recover the additional costs associated with the condition of haemophilia. The issue at trial and on appeal is whether, as a matter of law, the appellant’s liability is limited to additional losses associated with Adejuwon’s haemophilia or whether she is liable for the additional losses associated with both his haemophilia and autism. Yip J granted permission to appeal.
[2019] EWCA Civ 152, [2019] PIQR Q3, [2019] 4 WLR 26, [2019] 2 All ER 607, (2019) 167 BMLR 62
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Meadows v Khan QBD 23-Nov-2017
Claim for the additional costs of raising the claimant’s son, Adejuwon, who suffers from both haemophilia and autism. It is admitted that, but for the defendant’s negligence, Adejuwon would not have been born because his mother would have discovered . .

Cited by:
At CA – Khan v Meadows SC 18-Jun-2021
‘ A woman approaches a general medical practice for testing to establish whether she is a carrier of a hereditary disease. Tests which are inappropriate to answer that question are arranged. A general medical practitioner when informing her of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 June 2021; Ref: scu.633441

Scales v Motor Insurers’ Bureau: QBD 2 Jul 2020

‘This is a quantum hearing in a personal injury case, in which I have to apply principles of Spanish law in order to assess the damages that are payable to the Claimant ‘
Mr Justice Cavanagh
[2020] EWHC 1747 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Main Judgment – Scales v Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Costs) QBD 2-Jul-2020
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.652415

Homer v Sandwell Castings Ltd: CA 1995

The employee had noticed a slight leak through sand paste, which he had himself introduced to seal a gap, but had carried on working, with the result that an eruption of molten metal through the seal fell onto his foot.
Held: The claim failed because the danger ‘did not arise from any static condition of the place of work, but arose from the operation upon which the plaintiff was engaged.’
Russell LJ
[1995] PIQR P318
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.440376

Henry v Thames Valley Police: CA 14 Jan 2010

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after he had been injured when a police car following him ran over his leg. He had been riding a motorcycle and apparently seeking to escape them. He had stopped and was talking to one officer, and placing the cycle on its stand, when the second officer drove the car forward trapping him.
Held: The judge had failed to assess the evidence correctly. Though the officer was entitled to use his car to impede an escape, he was not entitled to do so in a way which injured the person being stopped. The claimant had not faltered but was injured dismounting the motorcycle in an ordinary fashion. He was not given sufficient room, and the officer was primarily liable, with a contributing liability of 40% from the claimant.
‘What matters in a civil action is whether the defendant’s actions were negligent in that they fell below the expected standard of reasonable skill or care. It may be wise to avoid any argument about whether there has been an error of judgment.’ (Pill LJ dissenting on the result)
Pill, Arden, Smith LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 5
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Marshall v Osmond CA 1983
The plaintiff was passenger in a stolen car seeking to escape the police as they chased. The car was stopped, the plaintiff got out of the car, and was hit by a police car. He sought damages.
Held: His appeal against dismissal of his claim was . .
Cited – Simpson v Peat 1952
As to the offence of driving without due care and attention, Lord Goddard said: ‘The expression ‘error of judgment’ is not a term of art; it is in fact one of the vaguest possible description: it can be used colloquially to describe either a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.392850

Ratcliff v McConnell and others: CA 7 Nov 1997

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 drinking, though he was not drunk.
Held: The Act did not include the duty to safeguard the claimant from the consequences of his own folly.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘It is unfortunate that a number of high-spirited young men will take serious risks with their own safety and do things that they know are forbidden, Often they are disinhibited by drink and the encouragement of friends. It is the danger and the fact that it is forbidden that provides the thrill. But if the risk materialises they cannot blame others for their rashness.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
[1997] EWCA Civ 2679, [1999] 1 WLR 670
Bailii
Occupier’s Liability Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Ratcliff v G R McConnell and E W Jones CA 30-Nov-1998
A trespasser having climbed into grounds at night and dived into a swimming pool without knowing the depth accepted responsibility for his own acts. The dangers of diving into shallow water were known to adults and there was no need for a warning. . .

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, 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 appeal . .
See also – Ratcliff v G R McConnell and E W Jones CA 30-Nov-1998
A trespasser having climbed into grounds at night and dived into a swimming pool without knowing the depth accepted responsibility for his own acts. The dangers of diving into shallow water were known to adults and there was no need for a warning. . .
Cited – Jebson v Ministry of Defence CA 28-Jun-2000
The claimant was a guardsman travelling in the rear of a service lorry. He fell from the tailgate suffering severe injury. He was drunk after a social trip.
Held: Though a person could normally expect to be responsible himself for incidents . .
Cited – Cockbill v Riley QBD 22-Mar-2013
cockbill_rileyQBD2013
The claimant sufferd catastrophic injury diving into a paddling pool at a party held by the defendant for his daughter to celebrate completing her GCSEs.
Held: The claim failed. ‘It was reasonably foreseeable that someone would lose his . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2021; Ref: scu.143078

Davis v Earldene Maintenance Limited First Sos Construction Limited Second Jeavons Scaffolding Limited Third Saunders Access Scaffolding (a Firm) Fourth: CA 23 Feb 1999

[1999] EWCA Civ 840, QBENF 98/0242/1
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd and others QBD 3-Mar-2006
The deceased, a maintenance engineer died after falling through a skylight at work. The court considered the respective liabilities of his employer and the landowner. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 January 2021; Ref: scu.145755

Waghorn v Wimpey (George) and Co: 1969

The plaintiff pleaded that he slipped on a bank, but the evidence was that he slipped on a path.
Held: The variation in the case presented from that pleaded was fatal to the case. The court considered such variations: ‘In the present case Mr Archer contends that the true version of the facts is just a variation, modification or development of what is averred, and is not something new, separate and distinct. The only similarities, however, between the plaintiff’s allegations in his pleadings, the way his case was presented, and what in fact took place were these: first of all, the plaintiff slipped; secondly, he slipped at his place of work; and thirdly, he slipped somewhere near a caravan, when it is alleged that he did slip somewhere near a caravan. But the whole burden of the claim put forward by the plaintiff, and the whole burden of the defence to that claim prepared by the defendants and put forward on their behalf by Mr Machin, has been the safety or otherwise of the bank, and not the safety or otherwise of the path at the right-hand side of the caravan, where it runs alongside the dip. In my judgment, this is not a case which is just a variation, modification or development of what is averred. It is a case which is new, separate and distinct, and not merely a technicality. Let me hasten to add that if matters emerge, particularly matters of technicality which, perhaps, could not be foreseen by those responsible for pleading cases, and those things emerge during a case, then it would be quite wrong to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim because his pleadings have not measured up to the technical facts which have emerged. One often listens sympathetically to applications to amend in those circumstances. Here, however, there is nothing technical at all. A man is said to have slipped. There is nothing technical about that. One must test the plaintiff’s submissions in this way: if these allegations had been made upon the pleadings in the first place, namely allegations based upon the facts as they have now emerged, would the defendant’s preparation of the case, and conduct of the trial, have been any different? The answer to that is undoubtedly ‘Yes.’ Evidence would have been sought as to the safety of the pathway alongside the caravan; as to the frequency with which it was used; as to the position of the valve under the caravan. I say that because there was a dispute as to its precise position. Mr Younger, the charge-hand, said it was on the left-hand side of the caravan. Mr Frost said it was on the right-hand side. If the plaintiff’s case had been pleaded to the effect that it was whilst he was on his way to that valve that he had slipped, then the preparation of the case would have been entirely different and its presentation would have been different. There was no application here for leave to amend. Indeed, Mr Archer may have been very wise not to make any such application, but the upshot of this matter is that this was clearly so radical a departure from the case as pleaded as to disentitle the plaintiff to succeed.’
References: [1969] 1 WLR 1764
Judges: Geoffrey Lane J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – McNamara v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council CA 21-Feb-1997
    The claimant sought damages for personal injuries. The case he presented at trial differed from that pleaded, and he now appealed dismissal of his claim.
    Held: The variation was sufficiently serious to justify the refusal of relief. In fact . .
    (, [1997] EWCA Civ 1072)
  • Cited – Newman v Whitbread Plc CA 26-Feb-2001
    The claimant sought damages after falling down stairs at work. She said that the stairway did not comply with the British Standards in breach of the Regulations. The employer responded that the non-compliance was merely techical, and could not have . .
    (, [2001] EWCA Civ 326)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194070

British Telecommunications Plc v Royal Mail Group Ltd: QBD 7 Jan 2010

The court considered the liability of the claimant for injury claims by former members of the Post Office at the date of the transfer.
Held: The obligations had been transferred: ‘section 10(2) of the Act, if read according to both its natural meaning and with a purposive approach, refers to all liabilities without limitation and does not exclude liabilities in respect of former employees of the Post Office whose employment had ceased prior to 30 September 1981.’
References: [2010] EWHC 8 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Edwards-Stuart J
Statutes: British Telecommunications Act 1981 10(2)
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.392552

A v Ministry of Defence and another: QBD 16 Apr 2003

The claimant’s father a member of the armed forces had been posted to Germany, and his wife, A’s mother had gone with him. A had been born in Germany, but suffered injury at birth through the negligence of the doctor’s appointed by the defendant English hospital.
Held: Declarations that the defendant and the English hospitals with the duty of appointment of the German doctors were responsible were refused, and that action lay in Germany. The duty to make such an appointment was particular to the Armed Forces, but was limited to the exercise of due care in selection, and did not extend to a duty in respect of the treatment itself. The duty was not non-delegable.
References: Times 16-May-2003, Gazette 03-Jul-2003
Judges: Bell J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – A v Ministry of Defence; Re A (A Child) CA 7-May-2004 (Times 17-May-04, Gazette 03-Jun-04, , [2004] EWCA Civ 641, [2005] QB 183)
    The wife of a British Army soldier serving in Germany delivered a premature baby, ‘A’, with a German obstetrician in a German hospital. A suffered brain damage in the birth as a result of the obstetrician’s negligence. The mother claimed against the . .
  • Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
    The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .
  • Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995 (Independent 30-Jun-95, Times 30-Jun-95, [1995] 2 AC 633, , [1995] UKHL 9, [1995] 2 FLR 276, [1995] 3 All ER 353, [1995] 3 WLR 152, [1995] 3 FCR 337, (1995) 7 Admin LR 705, 94 LGR 313, [1995] Fam Law 537, [1995] 3 FCR 337)
    Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
  • Cited – Gold v Essex County Council CA 1942 ([1942] 2 KB 293)
    The hospital was held accountable for an injury caused by negligence of an employee radiographer. The main issue was whether the authority could be vicariously liable even for employees in cases where their employment called for the exercise of . .
  • Cited – Cassidy v Ministry of Health CA 1951 ([1951] 2 KB 343)
    The court considered the liability in negligence of the respondent for the negligence of doctors employed by it.
    Held: The Ministry was liable for the negligence of doctors who were employed by it on contracts of service.
    Denning LJ . .
  • Cited – Green v Fibreglass Ltd 1958 ([1958] 2 QB 245)
    The law might impose a duty of care which was non-delegable. . .
  • Cited – Roe v Ministry of Health CA 1954 ([1954] 2 QB 66, , [1954] 2 All ER 131, [1954] 2 WLR 915, [1954] EWCA Civ 7)
    The plaintiff complained that he had developed a spastic paraplegia following a lumbar puncture.
    Held: An inference of negligence was rebutted. However the hospital authority was held to be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the . .

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – A v Ministry of Defence; Re A (A Child) CA 7-May-2004 (Times 17-May-04, Gazette 03-Jun-04, , [2004] EWCA Civ 641, [2005] QB 183)
    The wife of a British Army soldier serving in Germany delivered a premature baby, ‘A’, with a German obstetrician in a German hospital. A suffered brain damage in the birth as a result of the obstetrician’s negligence. The mother claimed against the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.182364

Healy v James Macgregor and Ferguson: SCS 20 Feb 1900

(Inner House Second Division) A dock labourer in the employment of a firm of stevedores was injured while engaged in stowing cargo on board a ship which was being loaded at a dock in the harbour of Glasgow. For the purpose of loading this vessel the stevedores used the steam winch on board the ship, but did not use the machinery which was on the dock.
The dock labourer claimed compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 from the stevedores as occupiers of a dock which was a factory. Held that they were not liable.
References: [1900] SLR 37 – 454
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.611713

Burns v North British Railway Co: SCS 20 Feb 1900

(Inner House First Division) A railway company employed a firm of signal-makers to erect signals on a new siding which they were in the course of constructing on their own ground and as part of their existing line. A workman in the employment of the signal-maker was knocked down and killed by a passenger train while engaged in fitting the signal wires.
Held that the deceased was employed ‘on’ a railway on work of which the railway company were undertakers, and which was an essential part of their undertaking, and not ‘merely ancillary or incidental’ thereto, and accordingly that the railway company were liable to pay compensation to his relatives under section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897.
References: [1900] SLR 37 – 448
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord President
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.611705

Re Criminal Injuries Compensation: UTAA 7 Jan 2015

Criminal Injuries Compensation : Other – application for judicial review brought with permission in which the Applicant seeks a quashing order in respect of a decision of the First-tier Tribunal whereby it confirmed a decision of the Interested party, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, that the Applicant was entitled to an award of 2,000 pounds under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008 in respect of sexual assaults while he was a child but was not entitled to an award in respect of a disabling mental illness.
References: [2015] UKUT 9 (AAC)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland
Statutes: Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.544790

Stark v Post Office: CA 2 Mar 2000

A component in a postman’s bicycle gave way even though the machine had been sensibly maintained and checked. He sought damages for his injuries.
Held: The duty imposed by the regulations was absolute, and an employee postal worker who was injured when a brake on his bicycle broke, was entitled to damages.
There is no rule to prevent a member state imposing duties over and above those required under European law. The bicycle was not ‘in an efficient working order and in good repair’.
References: Times 29-Mar-2000, Gazette 06-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 64, [2000] PIQR 105, [2000] ICR 1013
Links: Bailii
Judges: Waller LJ
Statutes: Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2932), European Directive 89/655
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Applied – Millar v Galashiels Gas Co Ltd; Galashiels Gas Company Ltd v O’Donnell HL 20-Jan-1949 ([1949] AC 275, [1949] SC (HL) 31, , [1949] UKHL 2, 47 LGR 213, 1949 SLT 223, 65 TLR 76, [1949] LJR 540, [1949] AC 275, [1949] 1 All ER 319)
    A hoist mechanism failed, the employee was injured, and he sought damages from his employer under the Act.
    Held: The section imposes an absolute obligation to maintain work equipment in an efficient state or in efficient working order. The . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hislop v Lynx Express Parcels IHCS 3-Apr-2003 (Times 17-Apr-03, , [2003] ScotCS 98)
    The claimant was injured when, after stopping the vehicle he was driving for his employers, he was scalded when the radiator cap flew off. He appealed against the dismissal of his claim on the basis that he had been unable to show any fault.
  • Cited – Lewis v Avidan Ltd (T/A High Meadow Nursing Home) CA 13-Apr-2005 (, [2005] EWCA Civ 670)
    A nurse claimed damages after slipping on a patch of water in the nursing home where she worked. The defendant argued that the pipe which had broken was not equipment so as to make it liable.
    Held: The nurse’s appeal failed. The mere fact of . .
  • Cited – Smith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009 (, [2009] UKHL 27, Times 21-May-09, [2009] 4 All ER 557, [2009] 1 WLR 2353, [2009] All ER (D) 170)
    The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
    Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
  • Cited – Munro v Aberdeen City Council SCS 17-Sep-2009 (, [2009] ScotCS CSOH – 129)
    The pursuer was injured slipping on ice in her defender employer’s car park. Liability depended on the interpretation of regulation 5, the claimant saying that it imposed an absolute requirement to maintain the workplace in efficient working order . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.147097

Stubbings v Webb and Another: HL 10 Feb 1993

Sexual Assault is not an Act of Negligence
In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A woman suffered child abuse and claimed as an adult. The limitation period for non-accidental personal injuries arising from complaints of rape or of indecent assault is six years (section 2).
Held: The damage arising from injuries deliberately inflicted arose at the time, or if the victim was a child, at the age of attaining majority. The time did not begin to run only when the claimant became aware of a causal connection between her damage and the injuries. An action for damages for deliberate assault or trespass to the person was not an ‘action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty’ in respect of personal injuries within the meaning of section 11(1) of the 1980 Act. Such an assault or trespass was not a breach of duty within the meaning of the section. It followed that, on the one hand, the limitation period was six years and, on the other hand, the court had no discretion under section 33 to extend the six year period.
References: Gazette 10-Feb-1993, [1993] AC 498, [1993] 2 WLR 120, Times 17-Dec-1992, [1993] 1 All ER 322, [1992] 1 QB 197
Judges: Griffiths L
Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 2 33 11(1) 11(2)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Stubbings and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-1996 (Times 24-Oct-96, (1996) 23 EHRR 213, , [1996] ECHR 44, 22083/93, 22095/93, )
    There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: . .
  • Appeal from – Stubbings v Webb CA 1992 ([1992] QB 197)
    The claimant sought damages for having been raped. The defendant said the claim was out of time. . .
  • Cited – Letang v Cooper CA 15-Jun-1964 ([1965] 1 QB 232, , [1964] EWCA Civ 5, [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 339, [1964] 2 All ER 929, [1964] 3 WLR 573)
    The plaintiff, injured in an accident, pleaded trespass to the person, which was not a breach of duty within the proviso to the section, in order to achieve the advantages of a six-year limitation period.
    Held: Trespass is strictly speaking . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003 (, Times 17-Feb-03, [2003] EWCA Civ 85, [2003] QB 1441, [2003] Fam Law 482, [2004] 2 All ER 716, [2003] 1 FLR 1203, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep Med 175, [2003] 3 WLR 107, [2003] 1 FCR 385)
    The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
    Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .
  • Cited – Barry Young (Deceased) v Western Power Distribution (South West) Plc CA 18-Jul-2003 (, [2003] EWCA Civ 1034, Times 18-Jul-03, [2003] 1 WLR 2868, [2003] 1 WLR 2868)
    The deceased had begun an action on becoming ill after exposure to asbestos by the defendant. He withdrew his action after receiving expert evidence that his illness was unrelated. A post-mortem examination showed this evidence to be mistaken. His . .
  • Mentioned – McDonnell v Congregation of Christian Brothers Trustees (Formerly Irish Christian Brothers) and others HL 4-Dec-2003 (, [2003] UKHL 63, , Times 05-Dec-03, [2004] 1 AC 1101)
    In 2000, the claimant sought damages for sexual abuse from before 1951. The issue was as to whether the limitation law which applied was that as at the date of the incidents, or that which applied as at the date when he would be deemed uner the . .
  • Cited – A v Hoare QBD 14-Oct-2005 (, [2005] EWHC 2161 (QB), Times 27-Oct-05, [2006] ACD 12)
    The defendant had been convicted and sentenced for the attempted rape of the claimant. He had subsequently won a substantial sum on the lottery, and she now sought damages. He replied that the action was statute barred being now 16 years old. The . .
  • Criticised – A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006 ([2006] Fam Law 533, [2006] 2 FLR 727, [2006] 1 WLR 2320, [2006] 3 FCR 673, , [2006] EWCA Civ 395, Times 28-Apr-06, [2006] 1 WLR 2320)
    Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
  • Cited – KR and others v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc CA 3-Nov-2006 (, [2006] EWCA Civ 1454, Times 08-Nov-06)
    The insurer appealed findings of liability under the 1930 Act. Claims had been made for damages for child abuse in a residential home, whom they insured. The home had become insolvent, and the claimants had pursued the insurer.
    Held: The . .
  • Overruled – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008 (, [2008] UKHL 6, Times 31-Jan-08, [2008] 2 WLR 311, Gazette 14-Feb-08, [2008] 1 AC 844, (2008) 11 CCL Rep 249, [2008] 1 FCR 507, [2008] Fam Law 402, [2008] 1 FLR 771, (2008) 100 BMLR 1, [2008] 2 All ER 1)
    Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
  • Appeal from – Stubbings and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-1996 (Times 24-Oct-96, (1996) 23 EHRR 213, , [1996] ECHR 44, 22083/93, 22095/93, )
    There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: . .
  • Cited – Stingel v Clark 20-Jul-2006 ((2006) 80 ALJR 1339, , (2006) 228 ALR 229, [2006] HCA 37)
    Asutlii (High Court of Australia) Limitation of Actions – Appellant alleged respondent had raped and assaulted her in 1971 – Appellant alleged that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder of delayed onset in . .
  • Reversed by Hoare – RAR v GGC QBD 10-Aug-2012 (, [2012] EWHC 2338 (QB))
    The claimant alleged that the defendant, her stepfather, had sexually and otherwise assaulted her when she was a child. He had pleaded guilty to one charge in 1978, and now said that the claim was out of time. The claimant sought the extension of . .
  • Cited – Alves v Attorney General of The Virgin Islands (British Virgin Islands) PC 18-Dec-2017 (, [2017] UKPC 42)
    From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (British Virgin Islands) . .
  • Cited – Archbishop Bowen and Another v JL CA 21-Feb-2017 (, [2017] EWCA Civ 82)
    The defendants appealed against finding that they were responsible for the assaults by a priest on the claimant. . .
  • Cited – F and S v TH QBD 1-Jul-2016 (, [2016] EWHC 1605 (QB))
    Claim for damages as victims of sexual abuse alleged against father. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.89598

Stubbings v Webb: CA 1992

The claimant sought damages for having been raped. The defendant said the claim was out of time.
References: [1992] QB 197
Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 2
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003 (, Times 17-Feb-03, [2003] EWCA Civ 85, [2003] QB 1441, [2003] Fam Law 482, [2004] 2 All ER 716, [2003] 1 FLR 1203, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep Med 175, [2003] 3 WLR 107, [2003] 1 FCR 385)
    The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
    Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .
  • Appeal from – Stubbings v Webb and Another HL 10-Feb-1993 (Gazette 10-Feb-93, [1993] AC 498, [1993] 2 WLR 120, Times 17-Dec-92, [1993] 1 All ER 322, [1992] 1 QB 197)
    In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.179308

Millar v Galashiels Gas Co Ltd; Galashiels Gas Company Ltd v O’Donnell: HL 20 Jan 1949

A hoist mechanism failed, the employee was injured, and he sought damages from his employer under the Act.
Held: The section imposes an absolute obligation to maintain work equipment in an efficient state or in efficient working order. The duty imposed was an absolute and continuing obligation, so that proof of any failure in the mechanism of a hoist or lift established a breach of statutory duty, even though it was impossible to anticipate such failure before the event or to explain it afterwards, and even though all reasonable steps had been taken to provide a suitable hoist or lift and to maintain it properly.
References: [1949] AC 275, [1949] SC (HL) 31, [1949] UKHL 2, 47 LGR 213, 1949 SLT 223, 65 TLR 76, [1949] LJR 540, [1949] AC 275, [1949] 1 All ER 319
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Morton of Henryton
Statutes: Factories Act 1937 22(1)
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hislop v Lynx Express Parcels IHCS 3-Apr-2003 (Times 17-Apr-03, , [2003] ScotCS 98)
    The claimant was injured when, after stopping the vehicle he was driving for his employers, he was scalded when the radiator cap flew off. He appealed against the dismissal of his claim on the basis that he had been unable to show any fault.
  • Cited – Lewis v Avidan Ltd (T/A High Meadow Nursing Home) CA 13-Apr-2005 (, [2005] EWCA Civ 670)
    A nurse claimed damages after slipping on a patch of water in the nursing home where she worked. The defendant argued that the pipe which had broken was not equipment so as to make it liable.
    Held: The nurse’s appeal failed. The mere fact of . .
  • Cited – Smith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009 (, [2009] UKHL 27, Times 21-May-09, [2009] 4 All ER 557, [2009] 1 WLR 2353, [2009] All ER (D) 170)
    The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
    Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
  • Cited – Munro v Aberdeen City Council SCS 17-Sep-2009 (, [2009] ScotCS CSOH – 129)
    The pursuer was injured slipping on ice in her defender employer’s car park. Liability depended on the interpretation of regulation 5, the claimant saying that it imposed an absolute requirement to maintain the workplace in efficient working order . .
  • Applied – Stark v Post Office CA 2-Mar-2000 (Times 29-Mar-00, Gazette 06-Apr-00, , [2000] EWCA Civ 64, [2000] PIQR 105, [2000] ICR 1013)
    A component in a postman’s bicycle gave way even though the machine had been sensibly maintained and checked. He sought damages for his injuries.
    Held: The duty imposed by the regulations was absolute, and an employee postal worker who was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.181179

McLoughlin v OBrian: HL 6 May 1982

References: [1983] 1 AC 410, [1982] 2 All ER 298, [1982] UKHL 3, [1982] 2 WLR 982
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Wilberforce, Lord Bridge, Lord Scarman
Ratio: The plaintiff was the mother of a child who died in an horrific accident, in which her husband and two other children were also injured. She was at home at the time of the accident, but went to the hospital immediately when she had heard what had happened. She saw and comforted her injured husband and children, and was told of the death of her youngest child. She brought proceedings for the psychiatric effect of the shock that she sustained as a result.
Held: Her appeal was allowed. The House identified the circumstances in which such a claim could succeed:
1. While damages cannot, at common law, be awarded for grief and sorrow, a claim for damages for ‘nervous shock’ caused by negligence can be made without the necessity of showing direct impact or fear of immediate personal injuries for oneself.
2. A plaintiff may recover damages for ‘nervous shock’ brought on by injury caused not to him — or herself but to a near relative, or by the fear of such injury.
3. Subject to the next paragraph, there is no English case in which a plaintiff has been able to recover nervous shock damages where the injury to the near relative occurred out of sight and earshot of the plaintiff.
4. An exception has been made where the plaintiff does not see or hear the incident but comes upon its immediate aftermath.
5. A remedy on account of nervous shock has been given to a man who came upon a serious accident involving numerous people immediately thereafter and acted as a rescuer of those involved.
Three issues were to be addressed: the class of persons whose claims should be recognised, the proximity of such persons to the accident and the means by which the shock was caused. Foreseeability in any given set of circumstances is ultimately a question of fact.
On the issue of the court’s role in developing the law, Lord Scarman: ‘By concentrating on principle the judges can keep the legal system clear of policy problems which neither they, nor the forensic process which it is their duty to operate, are equipped to resolve. If principle leads to results which are thought to be socially unacceptable, Parliament can legislate to draw a line or map out a new path.’
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘there remains, in my opinion, just because ‘shock’ in its nature is capable of affecting so wide a range of people, a real need for the law to place some limitation upon the extent of admissible claims.’ and
‘As regards proximity to the accident, it is obvious that this must be close in both time and space . . The shock must come through sight or hearing of the event or of its immediate aftermath.’
and ‘Whatever is unknown about the mind body relationship (and the area of ignorance seems to expand with that of knowledge), it is now accepted by medical science that recognisable and severe physical damage to the human body and system may be caused by the impact, through the senses, of external events on the mind. Thus there may be produced what is as identifiable an illness as any that may be caused by direct physical impact.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Hambrook v Stokes Brothers CA ([1925] 1 KB 141)
    The defendant’s employee left a lorry at the top of a steep narrow street unattended, with the engine running and without having taken proper steps to secure it. The lorry ran violently down the hill. The plaintiff’s wife had been walking up the . .
  • Cited – Hinz v Berry CA ([1970] 2 QB 40)
    Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. The question was whether, having regard to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to . .
  • Rejected – Bourhill v Young’s Executor HL ([1943] AC 92, [1943] SC (HL) 78, 1943 SLT 105, Bailii, [1942] UKHL 5)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Applied – Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police QBD (lip, [1991] 2 WLR 814, [1991] CLY 2671)
    Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
  • Cited – Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL (Gazette 22-Jan-92, lip, [1991] 3 WLR 1057, Times 29-Nov-91, [1992] 1 AC 310, Bailii, [1991] UKHL 5)
    The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. The defendant police service had not . .
  • Cited – Keen v Tayside Contracts OHCS (Times 27-Mar-03, Bailii, [2003] ScotCS 55, ScotC)
    The claimant sought damages for post traumatic stress disorder. He was a road worker instructed to attend by the defendant immediately after a terrible accident.
    Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . .
  • Cited – Giullietta Galli-Atkinson v Seghal CA ([2003] Lloyds Rep Med 285, Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 697)
    The claimant’s daughter was fatally injured in car accident, dying shortly after. The mother came upon the scene, witnessed a police cordon at the scene of the accident and was told of her death. She later saw the injuries at the mortuary and . .
  • Cited – Marvin John Pearson v Anthony Lightning CA (Times 30-Apr-98, Gazette 20-May-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 591)
    The parties were golfers playing different holes at the same time. The shot of one hit the other in the eye. The shot was a recovery shot over where he should have known others would be playing. Where a golfer hit a shot which was difficult but . .
  • Cited – Jaensch v Coffey ((1984) 55 CLR 549, [1984] 54 ALR 417, [1985] CLY 2326, Austlii, [1984] HCA 52)
    (High Court of Australia) The claimant’s husband was injured. She saw his injuries at hospital and was affected. She claimed damages for her own shock.
    Held: The driver owed her a duty of care, and was liable for negligence which caused . .
  • Cited – Donachie v The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police CA ([2004] EWCA Civ 405, Bailii)
    The claimant had been asked to work under cover. The surveillance equipment he was asked to use was faulty, requiring him to put himself at risk repeatedly to maintain it resulting in a stress disorder and a stroke.
    Held: There was a direct . .
  • Cited – JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL (Bailii, [2005] UKHL 23, House of Lords, [2005] 2 AC 373, Times 22-Apr-05, [2005] 2 WLR 993)
    Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
  • Cited – Quayle and others v Regina, Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2004) CACD (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Crim 1415, Times 22-Jun-05, [2006] Crim LR 148, (2006) 89 BMLR 169, [2006] 1 All ER 988, [2005] 2 Cr App R 34, [2005] 1 WLR 3642)
    Each defendant appealed against convictions associated variously with the cultivation or possession of cannabis resin. They sought to plead medical necessity. There had been medical recommendations to move cannabis to the list of drugs which might . .
  • Cited – Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 27, [2006] ICR 1458, Times 31-Jan-06)
    Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
    Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
  • Cited – French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 312, Times 05-Apr-06)
    The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force.
    Held: The claim failed: ‘these claimants have no . .
  • Cited – Fook, Regina v CACD (Bailii, [1993] EWCA Crim 1)
    The defendant appealed his conviction for assault. He had suspected a lodger of theft, and was accused of having assaulted him while interrogating him about it. He locked the complainant in his room, but he then fell whilst escaping through a first . .
  • Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 39, Times 24-Oct-07, [2007] ICR 1745, [2007] 4 All ER 104, [2008] LS Law Medical 1, [2007] 3 WLR 877, (2008) 99 BMLR 139, [2008] 1 AC 281, [2008] PIQR P6)
    The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
  • Cited – Hussain v West Mercia Constabulary CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1205, Times)
    The claimant taxi driver complained of misfeasance in public office in the way the defendant had responded to the several calls for assistance made by him to the police.
    Held: His appeal against the striking out failed. The damages pleaded . .
  • Cited – Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 194, [2013] 3 WLR 989, [2013] Med LR 100, [2013] PIQR P15, [2013] WLR(D) 119, [2014] Ch 150, [2014] 1 QB 150, WLRD)
    The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendant’s admitted negligence. She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. The . .
  • Cited – Rhodes v OPO and Another SC ([2015] 2 WLR 137, Bailii, [2015] UKSC 32, [2016] AC 219, [2015] EMLR 20, [2015] HRLR 11, [2015] WLR(D) 227, [2015] 4 All ER 1, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2014/0251, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary)
    The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about his life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to their 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no jurisdiction to . .
  • Cited – OPO v MLA and Another CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1277, [2014] WLR(D) 422, WLRD)
    The claimant child sought to prevent publication by his father of an autobiography which, he said, would be likely to cause him psychological harm. The father was well known classical musician who said that he had himself suffered sexual abuse as a . .
  • Cited – Liverpool Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne CA (Bailii, [2015] EWCA Civ 588, [2015] WLR(D) 263, WLRD)
    The respondent was an experienced ambulance driver. His wife underwent emergency treatment at the appellant’s hospital. He had claimed as a secondary victim for the distress he suffered witnessing her suffering.
    Held: The hospital’s appeal . .
  • Cited – Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD (Bailii, [2016] EWHC 2208 (QB))
    The claimant had cohabited with the deceased: ‘The claimant seeks a declaration in one of two alternative forms:
    i) Pursuant to s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 . . that s.1A(2)(a) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 . . is to be read as including . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24-Nov-16
Ref: 180105

Bunyan v Jordan; 1 Mar 1937

References: (1937) 57 CLR 1, [1937] HCA 5, [1937] ALR 204
Links: Austlii
Coram: Latham C.J., Rich, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ
Ratio:(High Court of Australia) The plaintiff sought damages having been put to severe fright by a short fired by her employer, the defendant.
This case cites:

  • Cited – Wilkinson -v- Downton ([1897] 2 QB 57)
    Thomas Wilkinson, the landlord of a public house, went off by train, leaving his wife Lavinia behind the bar. A customer of the pub, Downton played a practical joke on her. He told her, falsely, that her husband had been involved in an accident and . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Rhodes -v- OPO and Another SC ([2015] 2 WLR 137, Bailii, [2015] UKSC 32, [2016] AC 219, [2015] EMLR 20, [2015] HRLR 11, [2015] WLR(D) 227, [2015] 4 All ER 1, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2014/0251, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary)
    The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about his life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to their 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no jurisdiction to . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 30-Jun-16
Ref: 566202

Jameson and Wyatt (Executors of the Estate of David Allen Jameson) v Central Electricity Generating Board and Babcock Energy Limited; 10 Mar 1995

References: Unreported, 10 March 1995
Coram: Tudor Evans J
The plaintiff claimed damages for mesothelioma. CEGB had provided a contractual indemnity in respect of damage or injury occurring before building works were taken over by a client in 1960. The question was whether a workman who died from mesothelioma well after 1960 but was exposed during the building work before 1960 had suffered damage or injury before 1960.
Held: The evidence did not establish even that minimal microscopic changes had occurred before 1960 and that the damage or injury occurred many years after the deceased had finished working.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 13-Dec-15 Ref: 238333

Jaensch v Coffey; 20 Aug 1984

References: (1984) 55 CLR 549, [1984] 54 ALR 417, [1985] CLY 2326, [1984] HCA 52
Links: Austlii
Coram: Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ
(High Court of Australia) The claimant’s husband was injured. She saw his injuries at hospital and was affected. She claimed damages for her own shock.
Held: The driver owed her a duty of care, and was liable for negligence which caused nervous shock. A finding at first instance that she had normal fortitude, her predisposition to anxiety and depression gave no defence.
Brennan J said: ‘Liability for negligence occasioning nervous shock has not been readily accepted, perhaps because the courts found evidence of psychiatric illness and of its aetiology to be too vague to warrant a finding of a causal relationship between psychiatric illness and careless conduct . . A plaintiff may recover only if the psychiatric illness is the result of physical injury negligently inflicted on him by the defendant or if it is induced by ‘shock’. Psychiatric illness caused in other ways attracts no damages . . I understand ‘shock’ in this context to mean the sudden sensory perception – that is, by seeing, hearing or touching – of a person, thing or event, which is so distressing that the perception of the phenomenon affronts or insults the plaintiff’s mind and causes a recognizable psychiatric illness.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – McLoughlin -v- O’Brian HL ([1983] 1 AC 410, [1982] 2 All ER 298, Bailii, [1982] UKHL 3)
    The plaintiff was the mother of a child who died in an horrific accident, in which her husband and two other children were also injured. She was at home at the time of the accident but went to the hospital immediately when she had heard what had . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Alcock and Others -v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL (Gazette 22-Jan-92, lip, [1991] 3 WLR 1057, Times 29-Nov-91, [1992] 1 AC 310, Bailii, [1991] UKHL 5)
    The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. The defendant police service had not . .
  • Cited – Alcock and Others -v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police QBD (lip, [1991] 2 WLR 814, [1991] CLY 2671)
    Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
  • Cited – Taylor -v- A Novo (UK) Ltd CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 194)
    The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendant’s admitted negligence. She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. The . .

Jones v Metal Box Ltd; 11 Jan 2007

References: Unreported, 11 January 2007
Coram: Judge Hickinbottom
(Cardiff County Court) The court considered a claim for damages from asbestos exposure giving rise to mesothelioma. As to considering medical causation: unless the claimant could show that the risk was doubled by the exposure alleged, then it is more likely than not that the mesothelioma had an idiopathic rather than an occupational cause.
This case is cited by:

Cavanagh v London Transport Executive; 23 Oct 1956

References: Times 23-Oct-1956
Coram: Devlin J
The deceased stepped onto the road just behind a taxi cab which was stationary or just drawing up. He neither saw nor heard an approaching number bus and walked directly into its path. He suffered a fractured skull. There was evidence that his mental processes became grossly abnormal. Some sixteen months after the accident he committed suicide.
Held: The court was satisfied that ‘an irrational state of mind arising from his head injuries was a cause, if not the main cause, of his suicide.’ The judge ‘would, if necessary, hold that the plaintiff (the widow of the deceased) had discharged the burden of causation upon her and that the financial worry did not amount to a novus actus. But if, looked at independently of its origins it would amount to a novus actus, he was satisfied that the deceased’s financial position in January, 1955, could be traced back to the accident.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Corr -v- IBC Vehicles Ltd CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 331, Times 21-Apr-06, [2006] ICR 1138, [2007] QB 46, [2006] 2 All ER 929, [2006] 3 WLR 395)
    The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .

Farrell v Avon Health Authority; 8 Mar 2001

References: [2001] All ER (D) 17
Coram: Judge Bursell QC
The claimant was father to a new-born child. At the birth he was told that his baby son was dead before seeing his son and understanding that an error had been made. He sought damages asserting that he had suffered nervous shock. The Hospital said that he was not able to recover for psychiatric injury where no possibility of a physical injury was forseeable.
Held: He succeeded. As a primary victim a claim for psychiatric injury was possible even where no physical injury was risked. A real risk of suffering a recognised psychiatric disorder was sufficient.

Robertson Or Macey-Lillie v Lanarkshire Health Board andC: OHCS 26 May 2000

References: Times 28-Jun-2000, [2000] ScotCS 136
Links: Bailii, ScotC
Coram: Lord Philip
Economic circumstances have not changed sufficiently yet to alter the rate of three per cent used when calculating damages in personal injury cases. Though the returns on government stocks had fallen the figure of two per cent was not yet appropriate, and lay within the range of returns contemplated when the original figures had been set.
Statutes: Damages Act 1996

El Al Israel Airlines Ltd v Tsui Yuan Tseng; 16 Sep 1997

References: (1999) 525 US 155, 919 FSupp 155, 147 ALRFed 783, 65 USLW 2817, 142 L Ed 2d 576, 119 SCt 662, 122 F3d 99
Links: USSC
(US Supreme Court) The Warsaw Convention should be applied in a consistent manner internationally, without reference to the local laws of the high contracting parties.
Statutes: Warsaw Convention 29
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Barclay -v- British Airways Plc CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1419, Times)
    The claimant sought damages for personal injury. The airline said that the injury was not the result of an accident within article 17.1. She was walking down the aisle and slipped.
    Held: The appeal was dismissed. The meaning of ‘accident’ . .

Elizabeth Ann Jameson and Alan William Wyatt (Executors of the Estate of David Allen Jameson) v Central Electricity Generating Board and Babcock Energy Limited: CA 13 Feb 1997

References: Times 25-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1008
Links: Bailii
Executors may sue for a dependency claim despite a full and final settlement having been made by the deceased.
This case cites:

Keenen v Miller Insulation and Engineering Ltd; 8 Dec 1987

References: Unreported, 8 December 1987
Coram: Piers Ashworth QC
The claimant’s cause of action for lung fibrosis did not arise at the time he was exposed to asbestos between August 1952 and May 1953 because at that stage he had not suffered physical injury by May 1953. Basing himself on the evidence of Dr Rudd the court held that for a long time after exposure the defence mechanisms of the body held their own and only became exhausted after a period of equilibrium which lasted well after 4th June 1954, the relevant date for limitation.
This case is cited by:

  • Approved – McCaul -v- Elias Wild (Unreported, 14 September 1989)
    The plaintiff who had suffered pleural thickening from inhalation of asbestos fibres in 1943 – 1950 suffered no actionable injury until about 1985, when he first experienced breathlessness. . .
  • Cited – Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council -v- Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 50, Times 09-Feb-06, [2006] 1 WLR 1492, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 173)
    The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .