Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Negligence - From: 1994 To: 1994

This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Property Ltd [1994] 120 ALR 42; (1994) 179 CLR 520
1994
HCA
Mason CJ
Commonwealth, Nuisance, Negligence
(High Court of Australia) The court treated the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence. The majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the rule had given rise, the progressive weakening of the rule by judicial decision, by recognition that the law of negligence had been very greatly developed and expanded since Rylands v Fletcher was decided and by a belief that most claimants entitled to succeed under the rule would succeed in a claim for negligence anyway: "Where a duty of care arises under the ordinary law of negligence, the standard of care exacted is that which is reasonable in the circumstances. It has been emphasised in many cases that the degree of care under that standard necessarily varies with the risk involved and that the risk involved includes both the magnitude of the risk of an accident happening and the seriousness of the potential damage if an accident should occur … even where a dangerous substance or dangerous activity of a kind which might attract the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is involved, the standard of care remains "that which is reasonable in the circumstances, that which a reasonably prudent man would exercise in the circumstances": Adelaide Chemical & Fertiliser Co Ltd v Carlyle [1940] 64CLR514 at page 523. In the case of such substances or activities, however, a reasonably prudent person would exercise a higher degree of care. Indeed, depending upon the magnitude of the danger, the standard of 'reasonable care' may involve 'a degree of diligence so stringent as to amount practically to a guarantee of safety'"
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
T v Surrey County Council and Others Independent, 21 January 1994; [1994] 4 All ER 577
21 Jan 1994
QBD
Scott Baker J
Negligence
The mother of T, an injured baby who was under a year old, sued the council for failing to cancel the registration of a child minder who had previously cared for S, a four-month old child who suffered serious injury probably through shaking, and for negligent misstatement in stating that it knew of no reason why the baby could not safely be left with that child minder. The council had been unable to resolve whether the child minder had caused the injury to S and had not cancelled her registration, but advised her that she should consider minding children between the ages of two and five in future. Held: The Authority were liable in negligence after giving a satisfactory reference for a child minder who was under suspicion of abuse. Whilst no duty of care was owed in relation to the discharge of statutory duties concerning the registration and de-registration of child minders, but that a duty did arise and was breached in respect of the statement that the council knew of no reason why T could not safely be left with the child minder. It was a voluntary statement relating to matters only known to the council through the performance of its statutory duty, and it was held to be a negligent misstatement.
Obiter, Scott Baker J said there would have been no liability if the council had simply told T's mother that the child-minder was a registered child-minder.
1 Citers


 
McCullagh v Lane Fox and Partners Ltd Gazette, 30 March 1994; Times, 25 January 1994
25 Jan 1994
QBD

Professional Negligence, Negligence, Agency
A vendor's estate agent was liable for a negligent misrepresentation to a party proceeding with a purchase relying upon what had been said, and without his own survey.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Marc Rich and Co Ag and Others v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd and Others; The Nicholas H Times, 23 February 1994; Independent, 02 March 1994; Ind Summary, 14 February 1994
3 Feb 1994
CA
Saville LJ
Negligence, Damages
The duty of care does not vary with the nature of damage, as to whether it is physical or financial. The relationship of the parties is to be taken into account in assessing the extent of damage.
Saville LJ said: "the three so-called requirements for a duty of care are not to be treated as wholly separate and distinct requirements but rather as convenient and helpful approaches to the pragmatic question whether a duty should be imposed in any given case. In the end whether the law does impose a duty in any particular circumstances depends upon those circumstances ..."
1 Citers



 
 Carrick District Council v Taunton Vale Meat Traders Ltd; QBD 15-Feb-1994 - Times, 15 February 1994
 
Stovin v Wise (Norfolk City Council, 3rd party) Times, 08 March 1994; Gazette, 13 April 1994; [1994] 3 All ER 467; [1994] 1 WLR 1124
16 Feb 1994
CA
Nourse, Kennedy and Roch L.JJ
Negligence, Road Traffic
A road user was injured on a corner which was known to the highway authority to be dangerous. The authority had sought to make arrangements with the owner of land adjoining the highway to remove a bank which obstructed the view. Held: The Highway Authority could be liable in negligence for failing to achieve a remedy to a situation which it knew to be dangerous, but that no additional duty was owed, under its statutory duty to maintain the highway, to execute works on private land. Kennedy LJ "I agree with the judge that the statutory duty to maintain the highway does not extend to work on land not forming part of the highway. There is no definition of highway in the Act of 1980 beyond that in section 328(1), where it is defined as meaning 'the whole or a part of a highway, other than a ferry or waterway,' but the common law definition is that a highway is a way over which there exists a public right of passage. It seems to me that despite what is contained in the other statutory provisions to which we have been referred it would be stretching the meaning of both 'highway' and 'maintain' if this court were to say that in order to comply with its duty to maintain the highway authority had to remove an obstruction to visibility situated on adjoining land. In my judgment sections 79 and 154 are merely sections which enable the highway authority to carry out functions which go beyond the scope of section 41. Accordingly I conclude that the judge was right not to find any relevant breach of statutory duty."
Highways Act 1980 41(1) 328(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ lip ]

 
 M and Another v Newham London Borough Council and Others; X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; CA 24-Feb-1994 - Independent, 24 February 1994; Times, 03 March 1994; [1995] 2 AC 633
 
Banque Bruxelles Lambert Sa v Eagle Star Ins Co Ltd and Others Ind Summary, 04 April 1994; Times, 07 March 1994; [1995] 2 All ER 769
7 Mar 1994
QBD
Phillips J
Negligence, Damages
A negligent valuer was liable for the loss arising from an overvaluation, but not from losses attributable to a general fall in the market.
1 Citers


 
Caudle and Others v Sharp; Grove v Sharp Times, 08 March 1994
8 Mar 1994
QBD

Negligence, Insurance
A continuing failure to investigate the risks of re-insurance was properly to be consideerd one event.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Gaskill v Rentokil Ltd Ind Summary, 18 April 1994
18 Apr 1994
QBD

Negligence
Plaintiff didn't establish that his exposure to lindane in wood preservative had caused his aplastic anaemia.

 
Brown v KMR Services Ltd; Sword-Daniels v Pitel and Others Independent, 19 April 1994
19 Apr 1994
QBD

Negligence
A Lloyds agent who was asked to find a low risk syndicate has a duty to do so.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Dobbie v Medway Health Authority; CA 11-May-1994 - Ind Summary, 06 June 1994; Times, 18 May 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1234; 1994 5 MEDLR 160; [1994] EWCA Civ 13; [1994] 4 All ER 450; [1994] PIQR 353

 
 Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd; CA 11-May-1994 - Gazette, 29 June 1994; Times, 11 May 1994; [1994] EWCA Civ 3
 
Brignall v Kelly Court of Appeal Transcript, 17 May 1994
17 May 1994
CA
McCowan LJ
Negligence
There had been an accident in which the driver had lost control of his car. A blood sample taken two-and-a-half hours later showed that his blood alcohol limit was slightly more than twice the permitted maximum for driving. A professor of forensic pathology estimated that at the start of the journey the driver would have been well into the "obviously drunk" state, although he conceded that there could be a great personal variation in the effect of alcohol on different people. The plaintiff called five witnesses who all said that the defendant was behaving normally. The plaintiff, who was sober, saw the defendant drink one pint of lager and had a sensible conversation with him. As they walked to the car, he saw no overt signs to suggest to him that he was drunk. The defendant himself said he had drunk a maximum of four pints of lager in a two hour period, was used to drinking much greater amounts on a regular basis and felt perfectly capable of driving safely. Held: The court upheld the first instance judge's finding that the defendant had not established that the plaintiff was in any way guilty of a want of proper care for his safety. In response to a contention that the plaintiff should have taken some steps to enquire of the defendant how much he had consumed, McCowan LJ: "... I refuse to accept the proposition that if a man in a public house observes another man drink one pint of lager and give no sign of intoxication, he cannot accept a lift from him without interrogating him as to exactly how much he has had to drink."
1 Citers



 
 Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others; HL 7-Jul-1994 - Independent, 12 July 1994; Times, 08 July 1994; Gazette, 02 November 1994; [1995] 2 AC 296; [1994] IRLR 460; [1994] ICR 596; [1994] UKHL 7; [1994] 3 All ER 129; [1994] CLC 766; [1994] 3 WLR 354
 
Arbuthnot and Others v Fagan and Feltring Underwriting Agencies Ltd and Others Times, 26 July 1994; Independent, 03 August 1994
26 Jul 1994
HL
Lord Diplock
Negligence, Limitation
A relationship in contract does not negative a duty of care between the parties. A plaintiff with a choice of action either in contract or in negligence can choose his remedy, and the limitation period with which it is associated.
1 Cites



 
 Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another; CA 16-Nov-1994 - Times, 23 November 1994; [1995] QB 335; [1995] 1 All ER 833; [1994] EWCA Civ 4; [1995] 2 WLR 173

 
 Walker v Northumberland County Council; QBD 16-Nov-1994 - Times, 24 November 1994; Independent, 18 November 1994; [1995] 1 All ER 737; [1995] IRLR 35; [1995] ICR 702; [1994] EWHC QB 2; [1995] PIQR P521
 
Misell v Essex County Council Times, 16 December 1994; Independent, 07 December 1994
7 Dec 1994
QBD

Road Traffic, Negligence
A Local Authority was liable as the Highway Authority for its breach of statutory duty having left mud on a road, left there by wagons with complaints that there was no sign.
Highways Act 1980 58(1)

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.