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: 1995 To: 1995
This page lists 23 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Noakes v City of Seattle (1995) 895 P2d 842; (1995) 77 Wash App 694; 641 FSupp 2d 168
1995
Negligence
1 Citers
Skinner v Secretary of State for Transport Times, 03 January 1995
3 Jan 1995
QBD
Negligence
A coastguard owes no general duty of care to seafarers even in a case of emergency.
Barrett v Ministry of Defence; CA 3-Jan-1995 - Times, 13 January 1995; Independent, 03 January 1995; [1995] 1 WLR 1217; [1994] EWCA Civ 7; [1995] 3 All ER 87
Hallam-Eames and Others v Merrett Syndicates Ltd and Others; CA 25-Jan-1995 - Independent, 25 January 1995; Times, 25 January 1995; [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 178; [1995] 7 Med LR 122
Bristol and West Building Society v A Kramer and Co Independent, 26 January 1995; Times, 06 February 1995
26 Jan 1995
ChD
Negligence, Legal Professions
Solicitors who acted in breach of the Building Society's express instructions in failing to report an adverse change in circumstances were liable to repay mortgage advance.
First National Comercial Bank plc v Humberts; CA 27-Jan-1995 - Times, 27 January 1995; Independent, 14 February 1995; [1995] 2 All ER 673
Kumar v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Unreported, 31 January 1995
31 Jan 1995
CA
Sir Ralph Gibson
Police, Negligence
The claimant complained that in instituting and continuing a patently hopeless prosecution for rape, based only on the evidence of a woman who had made repeated false allegations of rape, the police had acted in breach of a duty of care to him. Held: The claimant's appeal against the striking out of his claim failed. Sir Ralph Gibson: "In my judgment, for similar reasons [to those given in Elguzouli-Daf], the interests of the whole community are better served by not imposing a duty of care upon the police officers in their decisions whether or not to place sufficient reliance upon the account of a complainant to justify the making of a charge against an accused."
1 Citers
Wood v Law Society; CA 1-Mar-1995 - Times, 02 March 1995; Independent, 01 March 1995
Staples v West Dorset District Council Gazette, 11 May 1995; Times, 28 April 1995; [1995] PIQR 439; [1995] EWCA Civ 30
5 Apr 1995
CA
Negligence, Personal Injury
There was no duty of care on a landowner to warn of obvious danger on Lyme Regis Cobb. The quay clearly dangerous for anyone to see.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Paterson and Another v Humberside County Council; QBD 19-Apr-1995 - Times, 19 April 1995; [1995] CLY 3661; [1996] Const LJ 64
Vasey v Surrey Free Inns Plc [1996] PIQR 373
5 May 1995
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Vicarious Liability, Negligence
The claimant had been refused entry to the nightclub and in a temper he had kicked the door and damaged glass in it. Employees of the defendants' nightclub, two employed as doormen, pursued the group of whom the claimant was one, to a public car park nearby and seriously assaulted the claimant. Held: ". . the conduct of the assailants was a reaction to the damage to the door. There is no evidence that it related to some private quarrel or incident which occurred subsequently to and unrelated to the performance of the employee's duty . . The evidence of the plaintiff to which I have referred, makes it plain that they wished to teach a lesson to the person who had caused that damage. That was the sole purpose of the attack. It was, of course, an unlawful and unauthorised manner of carrying out the duty to which I have referred, but I have no doubt that such is what it was. They were not pursuing their own purpose." and, as to responsibility in negligence for the doormen,". . it is part of the duty of a manager of such an establishment to exercise proper control over such men to prevent, so far as he reasonably can, unwarranted assaults on customers. Moreover, as Mr. Coleman was inclined to accept, it is reasonably foreseeable that, if he fails in that duty, a person who was offered some provocation may be assaulted and injured."
1 Citers
Wright v The Jockey Club; QBD 15-May-1995 - Times, 16 June 1995
Grace v Leslie and Godwin Financial Services Ltd Ind Summary, 12 June 1995; Times, 16 May 1995; [1995] LRLR 472
16 May 1995
ComC
Clarke J
Insurance, Negligence, Contract
Lloyds' brokers are to keep contract slips as evidence of the policy whilst ever a possibility of a claim exists. A failure to do so can hamper the conduct of the litigation to the detriment of syndicate members, and the broker can be liable to them in contract and in negligence.
1 Citers
Fowles v Bedfordshire County Council Times, 22 May 1995; [1996] ELR 51; [1995] PIQR P380.
22 May 1995
CA
Millett LJ
Negligence
The claimant had received some instruction as to the use of gymnastic mats, but the instruction from the defendants was inadequate and had not made him aware of the dangers. Subsequently, when the claimant used the mats with a friend on a subsequent occasion, without supervision, he suffered a serious injury. A Local Authority allowing facilities for unsupervised gymnastics may be liable in negligence for injury. Where the only connection between the acts of the claimant and the defendant is the fact that the defendant made it possible for the claimant to harm himself, the claimant's acts are taken to be the sole cause of the harm.
Millett LJ upheld the original decision for the defendant's assumption of responsibility in respect of the inadequate teaching and advice given to the claimant: "Having assumed the task of teaching Mr Fowles how to perform the forward somersault, the defendants voluntarily assumed a responsibility to teach him properly and to make him aware of the dangers. They failed to do either; and then compounded their failure by providing unrestricted access to the crash mat, thereby encouraging him to use it to practice what he had been taught, without warning him that he must on no account do so without supervision.
This appears to me to be a sound basis for ascribing some degree of responsibility to the defendants. It is true that it is not how the case was primarily pleaded or presented, but it is supported by the evidence and it would cause no injustice to the defendants if liability was put on this basis."
1 Citers
Sutcliffe v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Times, 05 June 1995
5 Jun 1995
CA
Negligence
Police were not responsible for damage to a car held in a compound when proper steps had been taken.
Philcox v Civil Aviation Authority; CA 8-Jun-1995 - Times, 08 June 1995
X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc; HL 29-Jun-1995 - Independent, 30 June 1995; Times, 30 June 1995; [1995] 2 AC 633; [1995] UKHL 9; [1995] 2 FLR 276; [1995] 3 All ER 353; [1995] 3 WLR 152; [1995] 3 FCR 337
Marc Rich and Co Ag and Others v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd and Others Gazette, 06 September 1995; Independent, 18 August 1995; Times, 07 July 1995; [1995] 3 All ER 307; [1995] UKHL 4; [1996] 1 AC 211; [1995] CLC 934; [1995] 2 LLR 299; [1996] ECC 120; [1995] 3 WLR 227; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 299
6 Jul 1995
HL
Lord Steyn, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Transport, Professional Negligence, Negligence
A surveyor acting on behalf of the classification society had recommended that after repairs specified by him had been carried out a vessel, the Nicholas H, should be allowed to proceed. It was lost at sea. Held: The marine classification society was not liable in negligence to the owner of a cargo, where it was alleged that damage flowed from a negligent ship survey. A duty of care is imposed only where it was just and reasonable to do so. It was indirect damage, and economic loss. There was no contact between the cargo owners and the classification society. It was not even suggested that the cargo owners knew of the survey, they simply relied on the owners to keep the vessel seaworthy and to look after the cargo.
In relation to a novel category of negligence, the imposition of liability must satisfy a three stage test of foreseeability, proximity and fairness. Lord Steyn said that in the field of negligence, the common law: "develops incrementally on the basis of a consideration of analogous cases where a duty has been recognised or desired."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Liddell v Middleton; CA 17-Jul-1995 - Times, 17 July 1995; (1996) PIQR 36
Bedfordshire County Council v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 14 August 1995
14 Aug 1995
QBD
Negligence
A Local Authority was liable for the acts of children in care only if their failure to control the children was an operative cause of the loss.
Gilmour's Curator Bonis v Wynn Times, 28 September 1995
28 Sep 1995
OHCS
Negligence
An attacker hit by his victim's escaping car was the author of his own misfortune, and had no claim.
Ter Neuzen v Korn [1995] 3 SCR 674
19 Oct 1995
La Forest, L'Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ
Commonwealth, Contract, Negligence, Damages
CANLII (Supreme Court of Canada) The plaintiff underwent AI treatment by the defendant, during the course of which she contracted HIV-AIDS. She claimed in negligence and contract. Held. A court must consider whether a common law warranty of fitness and merchantability should be implied into the contract which includes services as well as the provision of materials. However, such a warranty will not be implied in all circumstances. The court must examine the specific nature of the contract and the relationship between the parties in order to assess whether it was the intention of the parties that such a warranty be implied. Courts must be very cautious in their approach to implying contractual terms. A rationale for implying warranties in contracts of goods and services is that a supplier of goods generally has recourse against the manufacturer under the Sale of Goods Act as a result of the statutory conditions imposed. While it is true that the primary purpose of the implied warranty is to hold the supplier of goods liable notwithstanding the absence of negligence, different considerations apply in the context of the medical profession than in the ordinary commercial context. The doctor cannot trace the liability back to the initial manufacturer. Moreover, it must be recognized that biological products such as blood and semen, unlike manufactured products, carry certain inherent risks. It would be inappropriate to imply a warranty of fitness and merchantability in the circumstances of this case. Moreover, any warranty would simply be to take reasonable care.
[ Canlii ]
Duff v Highland and Islands Fire Board Times, 03 November 1995; 1995 SLT 1362
3 Nov 1995
SCS
Lord Macfadyen
Negligence, Scotland
(Scots) Firemen were not immune from suit for negligence as are police; no discretion. Lord Macfadyen observed obiter that he would have rejected a submission that the defenders did not owe to the owners of property affected by a fire which they fought any common law duty to take reasonable care in the course of their firefighting operations.
1 Citers
