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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 40 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
S v Gloucestershire County Council [2001] Fam 313
2001
CA
May LJ
Negligence
The court considered the structure of a claim in negligence: "A negligence claim is habitually analysed compartmentally by asking whether there was (a) a duty of care; (b) breach of that duty and (c) damage caused by the breach of duty. But damage is the essence of a cause of action in negligence and the critical question in a particular case is the composite one, that is whether the scope of the duty of care in the circumstances of the case is such as to embrace damage of the kind which the plaintiff claims to have suffered. As Lord Bridge of Harwich said in the Caparo case [1990] 2AC 605, 627: "It is never sufficient to ask simply whether A owes B a duty of care. It is always necessary to determine the scope of the duty by reference to the kind of damage from which A must take care to save B harmless." Lord Oliver of Aylmerton emphasised the same point in Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398, 486 when he said:
"The essential question which has to be asked in every case, given that damage which is the essential ingredient of the action has occurred, is whether the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is such . . that it imposes upon the latter a duty to take care to avoid or prevent that loss which has in fact been sustained."
This question necessarily subsumes the question whether the acts or omissions of the defendant caused the damage relied on."
1 Citers


 
Brown v Sussex Chief Constable [2001] EWCA Civ 15
12 Jan 2001
CA
Schiemann LJ
Police, Negligence
The claimant's action alleging damages flowing from police negligence had been struck out as disclosing no cause of action. He now sought leave to appeal. Held: The court could see no fault in the first refusal of leave, and the request was refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Roberts and Another v Bettany and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 109; [2001] NPC 45
22 Jan 2001
CA
Buxton LJ, Laws LJ
Negligence
Buxton LJ considered the nature of the argument as to novus actus interveniens: "Although the doctrine of novus actus and the defence of novus actus are sometimes talked of as and presented as simply a question of causation, which at first sight might appear to be an issue of fact, it is well recognized that the matter is more complex than that. The issue is one of law, whereby the court has to be satisfied that the acts of the third party were sufficient as a matter of law to exculpate the defendants from liability for the particular result, proximate or distant though it might have been, of his negligent act".
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Evans v Souls Garages Ltd; QBD 23-Jan-2001 - Times, 23 January 2001
 
Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) [2001] 1 Ll Rep 437; [2001] CLC 696; [2001] 1 LLR 437; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 455
23 Jan 2001
CA
Rix LJ
Negligence
Cargo had been negligently stowed on a ship so that condensation caused damage during the subsequent voyage. The claimant only acquired a title to the cargo after the voyage had commenced. The defendants contended that no duty of care could be owed to one who was not the owner of the cargo at the time of the negligent act. It was not submitted that the negligent act of stowage constituted a continuing breach only that the fresh damage occurring after the claimants had acquired title to the cargo created new causes of action on which they could sue to recover that damage. Held: The cause of action was completed once and for all when, following the negligent stowage, more than insignificant consequential damage was caused to the cargo.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cook v Thorne and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 81
23 Jan 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Lee v Williams [2001] EWCA Civ 82
23 Jan 2001
CA
Dyson LJ, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Personal Injury, Negligence
The claimant cyclist had been injured. He had been riding along the pavement, but was hit by the defendant as he crossed an access road. Sight lines were restricted. The driver had concentrated on traffic from his right with which he was to merge, and though he checked to his left did not see the claimant, but said the cyclist must have come straight out across the entrance. He now appealed a afinding that he was 100% responsible. Held: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the claimant was found to be 40% responsibe.
Smith J discussed the factors arising because the claimant had been a cyclist on the footpath: "It seems to me that the fact that the Claimant was cycling had a bearing on this accident, firstly, because the front wheel of the bicycle, which is the first object which is liable to be hit in a collision of this sort, projects some two or three feet in front of somebody who is standing, as the Claimant was, astride the bicycle and if the bicycle is hit then, as happened here, the Claimant is liable to be knocked over and injured. So it makes him more vulnerable than a pedestrian.
Secondly, it seems to me that it had a bearing in this case because when the Claimant saw that the accident was likely to happen he tried to dismount from his bicycle by getting his other leg over the crossbar to get out of the way, but not surprisingly he was not able to do that. Standing astride his cycle he inhibited himself from getting out of the way, he also inhibited himself from moving the cycle back out of the path of the collision. Therefore in my view, although it was not the primary cause of this accident, it seems to me that the Claimant was himself at fault in two respects: in putting himself further into the road than was necessary from the point of view of ensuring that it was safe to cross, and in making himself more vulnerable in the two respects that I have described.
I think the Recorder was wrong to acquit him of all blame in this accident, nevertheless I think that the greater proportion of the blame should attach to the Defendant. After all a pedestrian or a cyclist is more vulnerable than somebody in a motorcar. If the Defendant had, as he ought to have done, anticipated that pedestrians might have been crossing here and might have been taking less care of themselves than they should have been, he would have looked sufficiently carefully, in my judgment, to see that it was safe to proceed.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Darby v National Trust Times, 23 February 2001; [2001] PIQR 372; [2001] EWCA Civ 189
29 Jan 2001
CA

Torts - Other, Negligence
The claimant's husband drowned swimming in a pond on the National Trust estate at Hardwick Hall. Miss Rebecca Kirkwood, the Water and Leisure Safety Consultant to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, gave uncontradicted evidence, which the judge accepted, that the pond was unsuitable for swimming because it was deep in the middle and the edges were uneven. She said The National Trust should have made it clear that swimming in the pond was not allowed and taken steps to enforce the prohibition. Held: It was for the court to set the standard, not the witness. The risk from drowning in a small pond is obvious, and no warning should be required. Where there is a special risk, of catching Weill's disease from swimming in a stretch of water, and a notice would have prevented the deceased swimming, the owner's negligence in not erecting a warning sign is irrelevant where this was not in fact a cause of the death.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Tracy Foster Nee Bellington v John Maguire and Irwell Construction Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 273
9 Feb 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury, Negligence
Cyclist riding into rear of vehicle parked across cycle lane.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cooper v Reed and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 224
15 Feb 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Damages, Negligence

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hamilton and Stebbings Inc v Allied Domecq Plc; OHCS 30-Mar-2001 - 2001 SC 829; [2001] ScotCS 80
 
James Macgregor Fairlie v Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust and Another [2001] ScotCS 93
20 Apr 2001
OHCS
T.G. Coutts QC
Scotland, Negligence

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]

 
 Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police; CA 1-May-2001 - Times, 05 June 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 611; [2001] 3 WLR 736; [2002] QB 347; [2001] All ER (D) 07
 
Grant v Brown, the Chief Constable of Grampian Police [2001] ScotCS 101
1 May 2001
SCS

Scotland, Negligence

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police; CA 15-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 700; Times, 09 July 2001
 
Citibank NA v Ercole Ltd and Others
24 May 2001
QBD
Bell J
Banking, Negligence
courtcommentary.com Claim for sums due under loan agreements in an Art Advisory Service - counterclaims of breach of duty and negligence in advice on purchase of art and breach of duty and contract in the sale of art held as collateral for loans.
[ courtcommentary.com ]
 
North v TNt Express (UK) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 853
25 May 2001
CA
Schiemann, Tucker, Hale LJJ
Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic
The claimant, who was drunk and a member of a group of people in a similar condition, asked the defendant, a lorry driver, for a lift. When the defendant refused, the claimant climbed onto the front bumper of the defendant's lorry, holding on by the windscreen wipers, rather than by an adjacent handle. The defendant twice asked the claimant to move and, when the claimant did not, the defendant drove off very slowly, intending to find a quiet spot away from the claimant's companions where he could persuade the claimant to get off the lorry. After the lorry had travelled about 100 metres, one of the windscreen wipers became detached, the claimant fell off and, although the defendant braked immediately, the lorry struck the claimant, causing serious internal injuries.
The trial judge had found that there had been "no pressing need" for the defendant to take such a potentially dangerous step as to drive off with the claimant standing on the front bumper of the lorry. He concluded that, in doing so, the defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care. He found that the defendant was liable to the extent of 25%, the claimant's contributory negligence being assessed at 75%. The defendant appealed. Held: The appeal succeeded. There had been no breach of duty on the part of the defendant.
Hale LJ said: "It is interesting that in this case, when discussing contributory negligence, the judge remarked that it was extraordinary that the claimant did not get off the lorry the moment it started to move, when it was going very slowly indeed, and as indeed one of his own witnesses had also wondered. The judge also commented that the driver, although in breach of duty, was put in a difficult situation and his was an error of judgment.
It seems to me that the judge in this case applied too rigorous a standard of care when asking himself whether what the driver had done was reasonable in all the circumstances. He referred, as I have indicated, to the fact that there was "not such a pressing need." Later on he referred to the fact that "the exigencies of the situation did not . . require" the driver to drive the lorry down the road. That is putting it too high. It seems to me that had the driver indeed done what the claimant said he had done, that is driven in such a violent and erratic way as to indicate that he was trying to dislodge the claimant from the front of the lorry, there could indeed have been a breach of the duty of care because he would have been going well beyond what could be considered a reasonable reaction to the difficult situation in which he was placed. But one has to take all the circumstances of that situation into account when deciding whether what he did do was such a reasonable reaction. These include the fact that he was put into the dilemma by the claimant himself who was behaving in an offensive and thoroughly irresponsible fashion, displaying a complete lack of regard for his own safety, let alone for the difficult position in which he had put the driver and his mate. One also has to take into account the surrounding circumstances. It is was late at night (just after the closing time for this particular establishment), there was a reasonably large group of people on the pavement, some of whom at least were friends of the claimant, some of whom had obviously been drinking, and even if the others were not actually aggressive, the claimant was. The claimant's intention may only have been to hold up the lorry for five minutes but the driver and his mate had no means of knowing that and were put in a very difficult situation. In those circumstances I would not consider it unreasonable to drive off very slowly with a view to stopping at some quieter spot away from the group to persuade the claimant to get off.
Furthermore, the judge could have taken more account of the fact that the claimant only fell off when he was engaged in an even more stupid and dangerous act of pulling at the windscreen wiper on to which he was holding. I would agree with Mr Kilcoyne on behalf of the respondent claimant that that does not necessarily rob the driving of all causative effect, but it does indicate something about the reasonableness of the driver's conduct up until that point.
For my part I would say that there was in the particular circumstances of this case, in the very difficult situation in which the driver found himself, no breach of the duty to take reasonable care. For that reason I would allow the appeal."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kane v New Forest District Council [2002] 1 WLR 312; [2001] EWCA Civ 878; [2002] LTL 12 April 2002
13 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Mr Justice Dyson, Lord Justice May
Personal Injury, Negligence
A pedestrian walked from a footpath into the road and was hit by a car. She sought damages from the highway authority, saying that they had allowed vegetation to grow to an extent to make it impossible to be seen. As a second tier appeal, the claimant had to demonstrate a real as opposed to a merely fanciful prospect of success. Held: The authority had foreseen the dangers when granting permission for the development, but had failed to ensure that the sight lines were improved before the development was completed. "the starting point must surely be that the defendants did create the source of danger. They it was who required this footpath to be constructed. I cannot accept that in these circumstances they were entitled to wash their hands of that danger and simply leave it to others to cure it by improving the sightlines. It is one thing to say that at the time when the defendants required the construction of this footpath they had every reason to suppose that the improvements along The White Cottage frontage would ultimately allow it to be safely opened and used: quite another to say that they were later entitled to stand idly by whilst, as they must have known, the footpath lay open to the public in a recognisably dangerous state." The appellant's case did not merely have a realistic prospect of success, she had a good case. The authority had also failed ti use its Highways Act powers to have the sight line improved.
Highways Act 1980 154(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Eagling and Another v T D G Linkman Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 930
15 Jun 2001
CA

Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Caldwell v Maguire and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1054; [2002] PIQR P6
27 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Judge, Tuckey LJJ
Personal Injury, Negligence
The claimant jockey appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries suffered during a race. The claim was against two other jockeys.
[ Bailii ]
 
Caldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald [2001] EWCA Civ 1054
27 Jun 2001
CA
Tuckey LJ
Negligence
The claimant, a professional jockey, had been injured when he was unseated as a result of manoeuvres by two fellow jockeys. At trial the judge identified five principles: "[1] Each contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) owes a duty of care to each and all other contestants. [2] That duty is to exercise in the course of the contest all care that is objectively reasonable in the prevailing circumstances for the avoidance of infliction of injury to such fellow contestants. [3] The prevailing circumstances are all such properly attendant upon the contest and include its object, the demands inevitably made upon its contestants, its inherent dangers (if any), its rules, conventions and customs, and the standards, skills and judgment reasonably to be expected of a contestant. Thus in the particular case of a horse race the prevailing circumstances will include the contestant’s obligation to ride a horse over a given course competing with the remaining contestants for the best possible placing, if not for a win. Such must further include the Rules of Racing and the standards, skills and judgment of a professional jockey, all as expected by fellow contestants. [4] Given the nature of such prevailing circumstances the threshold for liability is in practice inevitably high; the proof of a breach of duty will not flow from proof of no more than an error of judgment or from mere proof of a momentary lapse in skill (and thus care) respectively when subject to the stresses of a race. Such are no more than incidents inherent in the nature of sport. [5] In practice it may therefore be difficult to prove any such breach of duty absent proof of conduct that in point of fact amounts to reckless disregard for the fellow contestant’s safety. I emphasise the distinction between the expression of legal principle and the practicalities of the evidential burden." Held: The formulation was correct. The threshold for liability was high: "there will be no liability for errors of judgment, oversights or lapses of which any participant might be guilty in the context of a fast-moving contest. Something more serious is required. I do not think it is helpful to say any more than this in setting the standard of care to be expected in cases of this kind."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Pride Valley Foods Limited v Hall and Partners and Hall and Partners (Contract Management) Limited (2001) 76 CLR 1; [2001] EWCA Civ 1001; [2001] NPC 103
28 Jun 2001
CA
Brooke, Sedley, Dyson LJJ
Negligence, Contract
The defendants had advised on the construction of a plant. It later burned down, and the fire would have been less damaging but for materials used. The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract and negligence. The judge at first instance held that the plaintiff would not have accepted advice to spend more than was required by regulations. On appeal, the court held that he had not allowed for certain evidence which suggested that he may have listened, and that advice had not been given. The finding, and consequent assessment of contributory negligence was remitted for reconsideration. Contribution starts from a point at which two or more defendants have been held to have contributed by their own fault to the claimant's injury. Their contributions are asssessed by gauging the relative causative potency of their respective faults and their comparative blameworthiness. Contributory negligence starts from where the defendant alone has been held to have caused the claimant's injury by his fault. Three questions arise. Whether the claimant too was materially at fault. Second, if so, was his fault lay within the very risk which it was the defendant's duty to guard him against. It is only if his fault was not within the causative reach of the defendant's own neglect that the question of relative culpability arises.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 394; [2002] QB 929; [2001] 4 All ER 326
10 Jul 2001
TCC
His Honour Judge Richard Havery QC
Land, Human Rights, Negligence, Nuisance, Utilities

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
King and Another v Technology Piling Ltd and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1369
25 Jul 2001
CA
Dyson LJ, Astill J
Construction, Negligence
Claimant's renewed application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
DJ and C Withers (Farms) Ltd v Ambic Equipment Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1362
31 Jul 2001
CA

Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Perrin v Ministry of Defence [2001] EWCA Civ 1310
31 Jul 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence, Armed Forces

[ Bailii ]
 
Popek v National Westminster Bank Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1368
31 Jul 2001
CA
Sir Martin Nourse
Banking, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Times, 09 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1249; [2002] 1 WLR 218; [2002] PIQR P10; [2002] 3 All ER 78
31 Jul 2001
CA
Schiemann LJ, Sedley LJ, Stewart-Smith Sir
Police, Negligence
The police were not under any duty to protect someone who had been arrested from injuring himself in an attempt to escape. The claimant had a history of seeking to avoid capture by jumping from his flat window. On this occasion he injured himself in the fall. The doctrine of ex turpi no oritur actio applied. In order to establish a claim he would have to rely upon the illegality of his own act. No duty would arise before his arrest, and the arrest acted to increase his duty not to seek to escape. Some duties would arise to an arrested person, but not this.
Sir Murray Stuart-Smith Set out the following principles: "1. The operation of the principle arises where the claimant's claim is founded upon his own criminal or immoral act. The facts which give rise to the claim must be inextricably linked with the criminal activity. It is not sufficient if the criminal activity merely gives occasion for tortious conduct of the Defendant.
2. The principle is one of public policy; it is not for the benefit of the Defendant. Since if the principle applies, the cause of action does not arise, the Defendant's conduct is irrelevant. There is no question of proportionality between the conduct of the Claimant and Defendant.
3. In the case of criminal conduct this has to be sufficiently serious to merit the application of the principle. Generally speaking a crime punishable with imprisonment could be expected to qualify. If the offence is criminal, but relatively trivial, it is in any event difficult to see how it could be integral to the claim.
4. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 is not applicable where the Claimant's action amounts to a common law crime which does not give rise to liability in tort."
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security (2001) 12 BHRC 60; [2001] ZACC 22; 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC); 2001 (10) BCLR 995 (CC)
16 Aug 2001

Ackermann, Goldstone JJ
Police, Negligence
Constitutional Court of South Africa - The applicant had been assaulted by a man awaiting trial for attempted rape. Both police and prosecutor had recommended bail despite a history of sexual violence. She applicant sued the ministers responsible for the police and prosecution service, saying that they had failed to ensure that the magistrate was properly informed about the risk he posed to women in the vicinity of his home, including the applicant. Her claim was dismissed by the High Court and its decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal, but she succeeded on appeal to the Constitutional Court, relying on a provision in section 39(2) of the constitution which required the courts when developing the common law to "promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights". The Constitutional Court decided that it would not be appropriate for itself to determine whether the law of delict required to be developed so as to afford a right to the applicant to claim damages if the police or prosecutor were negligent. It said that it was by no means clear how the constitutional obligations on the state should translate into private law duties towards individuals, and that the court would be at a grave disadvantage in deciding the issue without a fully reasoned judgment of the High Court or Court of Appeal. It set aside the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the matter to the High Court.
1 Citers

[ Saflii ]
 
Ferns v Rev Hendron and others
28 Sep 2001
SCS
Lord Bonomy
Scotland, Torts - Other, Negligence

[ ScotC ]
 
McCunn v Treasury Solicitor and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1502
3 Oct 2001
CA
Potter LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Jan De Nul (Uk) Limited v N V Royale Belge [2002] EWCA Civ 209; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 583; [2002] Lloyd's Rep IR 589; [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 767
10 Oct 2001
CA
Schiemann LJ, Hale LJ, Rix LJ
Insurance, Nuisance, Negligence, Damages
The contractor undertook to dredge a stretch of river. Due to his failure to investigate properly, the result was the release of substantial volumes of silt into the estuary, to the damage of other river users. His act amounted to a nuisance and a public nuisance. Could damages be recovered where the claimants had been unable to quantify their losses? However difficult that question, it was reasonable for the contractor to have taken steps to mitigate the potential loss. Held: The deposit of silt was a form of physical interference with the third parties' land.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ledger v Spurgeon [2001] EWCA Civ 1527
11 Oct 2001
CA
Ward, Potter, May LJJ
Negligence, Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson and Another v Northumbria Police Authority and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1556
12 Oct 2001
CA

Police, Health and Safety, Negligence
Two police officers sought damages after their patrol car was trapped and attacked by youths. Senior officers were aware of such attacks, and considered arrangements for different windscreens. Held: The risk was forseeable, and given the additional known risks faced by police officers, it was reasonable for the authority to have acted.
[ Bailii ]
 
McTear v Imperial Tobacco Limited [2001] ScotCS 239
23 Oct 2001
SCS
Lord McCluskey
Scotland, Negligence, Personal Injury
The pursuer sought damages from the defenders after her husband had died, she said, after suffering injury smoking their cigarettes.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster; HL 25-Oct-2001 - Times, 26 October 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001; [2002] 1 AC 321; [2001] UKHL 55; [2001] 4 All ER 737; 79 Con LR 39; [2001] 3 WLR 1007; [2002] TCLR 8; [2001] 44 EGCS 150; [2002] BLGR 1; [2002] BLR 25; [2001] NPC 151
 
Saunders v Gwent Community Health NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1707
31 Oct 2001
CA
Rix LJ
Negligence
Second tier Application for leave to appeal - No point of principle at issue - leave denied.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Cowan and Another v The Chief Constable for Avon and Somerset Constabulary; CA 14-Nov-2001 - Times, 11 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1699; (2002) HLR 830
 
Griffiths v Newport County Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1860
30 Nov 2001
CA
Rix LJ
Negligence
Claimant's application for permission to appeal. Claim as to negligent or misleading employment reference.
[ Bailii ]
 
Clark Fixing Ltd and Another v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1898
12 Dec 2001
CA

Negligence

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