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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 43 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Johnson v B J W Property [2002] 3 ALL ER 574
2002

Judge Thornton QC
Negligence
Judge Thornton QC said: "With respect to Mackenna J, however, the narrow meaning given to the Act which so concerned him is one that is particularly appropriate given the Act's historical origins since the fire in question had not escaped 'accidentally' since it escaped following a dangerous or non-natural use of the land. Thus, the escape was one for which custom had long since imposed strict liability on the occupier of the land."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm); CA 2002 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1743; [2002] 2 WLR 1279; [2002] QB 1312; [2002] PNLR 2; [2002] PIQR P20
 
Hendrie v Scottish Ministers [2002] ScotCS 7
10 Jan 2002
SCS
Lord Kingarth
Scotland, Negligence

1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Baxall Securities Limited, Norbain SDC Limited v Sheard Walshaw Partnership, Shaw Whitmore Partnership, Birse Construction Limited, FK Roofing Limited, Fullflow Limited [2002] BLR 100; [2002] EWCA Civ 9
22 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lady Justice Hale, And, Mr Justice David Steel
Construction, Negligence
Claims followed the flooding of a new built building. It was alleged that the gutters were designed without overflows, and so were defective. The judge found that it had been designed to a lower, and wrong capacity. Held: The assessment of the appropriate design rate has to be made without regard to overflow capacity. It was argued that a defect was patent (i.e. not latent) if the dangerous propensity is apparent, even if the actual nature of the flaw is not. That argument failed. A latent defect means a concealed flaw, the actual defect in the workmanship or design, not the danger presented by the defect. There was no distinction in principle between drainage and overflow arrangements. The chain of causation between the architect's error in regard to the provision of overflows and both floods was broken. The links in the chain cannot be re-connected to the second flood merely because there was another error which rendered the provision of overflows the more important.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council Times, 29 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 7
23 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Judge, Lady Justice Hale and Sir Denis Henry
Education, Negligence
The claimant sought damages from the school for failing to prevent injuries arising from bullying, which was taking place on the way to and from school, but not at school. Held: A school has no general obligation to prevent such bullying, but special circumstances might apply which could create a liability where reasonable steps available to the school might have prevented it. The judge had directed himself too restrictively, but would have reached the same result if he had been correct. A day school does not control of its pupils once they left its charge: that was the responsibility of parents. As to the steps the school might take, if a reasonable body of professional opinion would not take them, the school was not liable for failing to do so.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar; CA 5-Feb-2002 - Times, 12 February 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 76; [2002] 2 All ER 1; [2002] ICR 613; [2002] PIQR P221; [2002] Emp LR 288; [2002] IRLR 263; (2002) 68 BMLR 115
 
Thames Water Utilities Limited v Peter Marcic Times, 14 February 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 65; [2002] QB 929; [2002] 2 All ER 55
7 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Aldous, And, Lord Justice Ward
Utilities, Land, Nuisance, Human Rights, Negligence
The claimant owned land over which sewage and other water had spilled from the appellant's sewage works. His claim having been dismissed under Rylands v Fletcher, and there being no statutory means of obtaining compensation, the judge was asked to say that his human rights had been infringed insofar as his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been infringed. Whilst it would be reasonably possible to prevent flooding of the claimant's property, protecting all similarly threatened properties would cost impractically large sums. Held: The test for nuisance and negligence had become similar until the point where a positive act to prevent harm was required rather than acting in such a way as to avoid causing harm. There is a clear common law duty to do whatever is reasonable to prevent hazards on the land, however they might arise, from causing damage to a neighbour. The appellant provided the system of sewers for profit, and had not demonstrated that it was not reasonably practicable for them to abate the nuisance.
Water Industry Act 1991 94(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Papera Traders Co Ltd and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd and Another [2002] EWHC 253 (Comm)
7 Feb 2002
ComC

Negligence

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Papera Traders Co Limited and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Limited, The Keihin Co Limited [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm)
7 Feb 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr. Justice Cresswell
Transport, Negligence
A fire destroyed the 'Eurasian Dream' while in port. It was carrying cars, a fire in which got out of control. It was claimed that the ship managers had been negligent. The bill of lading contracts in the present case incorporated either the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules. Held: The vessel was unseaworthy because of deficiencies in the crew, and the damage flowed from that deficiency.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Amanda Claire Smith (A Patient proceeding by her Mother and Next Friend Jenny May Smith) v The Secretary of State for Health (Sued on behalf of the Committee on Safety of Medicines) Times, 11 March 2002
15 Feb 2002
QBD
Justice Morland
Personal Injury, Health, Negligence
Mrs Smith's daughter was unwell with chicken pox. She gave her aspirin, but she contracted a serious disease. She later learned that the Committee had been previously warned of the complication. The drug was later withdrawn for such cases. Held: The statute avoided any liability for breach of statutory duty. Was the Secretary liable in negligence? No common law duty was owed in respect of the decisions allegedly negligent, even if there was fault in failing to stick to the original timetable. Such decisions are discretionary/policy and not justiciable. It was appropriate to withhold a warning until those who might implement it were ready. The delay of a month was not negligent.
Medicines Act 1968 6(1)

 
Annona Maria James v Stuart Fairley [2002] EWCA Civ 162
21 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic
The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for damages for serious personal injury suffered by her as a child. She had walked out in front of a car. In poor visibility, and with dark clothing, the defendant may not have had opportunity to avoid her. Held: There was no strong evidence as to her behaviour. She was found not to have stopped at the kerb. It was a counsel of perfection, to say the defendant ought to have seen and reacted at the very split second that she stepped off the kerb. Even if he ought to have seen her, he would not have had opportunity to stop. There was no basis for a finding of negligence.
[ Bailii ]
 
Irwin v Stevenson [2002] EWCA Civ 359
22 Feb 2002
CA
Potter LJ, Sir Anthony Evans
Road Traffic, Negligence
The claimant had followed vehicles on his motor cycle for a time until he thought it safe to overtake. As he overtook the line of vehicles, the defendant tractor driver pulled out into him causing an accident. The defendant appealed against an order finding him 50% liable. Held. The judge had glossed over the fact that the defendant behaving correctly could not have avoided the accident, and "it appears that the motorcycle moved swiftly out from behind the Transit van in a double overtaking manoeuvre which the defendant had no reason to anticipate, and that that was the overwhelming cause of the accident. I would allow the appeal and hold that the defendant was not negligent."
[ Bailii ]
 
Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd Times, 05 March 2002; [2002] 3 NZLR 308; [2002] BCL 310; Appeal No 57 of 2000; [2002] UKPC 9
28 Feb 2002
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith
Utilities, Agriculture, Contract, Negligence, Nuisance, Commonwealth
(New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. Held: Dismissing the company's appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to supply water to accepted standards. The water company had done this. The claimant had failed to show that it had brought its particular needs to the attention of the water company, and a claim in contract failed. The Ashington Piggeries case did not apply because in this case there was one supply of one product. Negligence could not be established without accepting a higher duty to some consumers. No such duty was established. The claims in nuisance, of having allowed the escape of materials brought onto their land, failed because there was no forseeability of this damage.
Sale of Goods Act 1893 14
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ (1) G.J. Hamilton and ' target-'_ext'>PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and Another Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 309
14 Mar 2002
CA
Lords Justices Ward, Sedley and Longmore
Negligence, Land
The claimant was injured swimming in a lake in a park. Warning signs clearly indicated that the lake was dangerous for swimming. Held: The authority were liable. They knew that the lake was attractive to swimmers, and that the signs were ineffective, but had not yet carried out landscaping works to deter swimmers. Under the Act they could be liable to trespassers. The court drew a distinction between approaching 1(3) as a duty owed to a claimant as a member of a class, and 1(4) which focussed on the individual claimant. What was reasonably required could not be discovered without first deciding that it was reasonable to offer protection to that person.
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bogle and Others v Mcdonalds Resturants Ltd [2002] EWHC 490 (QB)
25 Mar 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Field
Personal Injury, Negligence
A group of claimants sued for personal injuries caused by the spillage of hot drinks served by the defendant, McDonald's. The issues included: "(5) Whether there was a duty upon the defendant to warn its customers as to the risk of scalding from hot drinks. (6) If there was such a duty, whether the defendant was in breach of it." Held: The court discused these issues and noted the contentions for the claimants that there was a duty to warn for various reasons, including: "(5) Whilst some customers might be aware of the risk, the duty to warn arises because some may not be aware of the risk." He said: "I think it a fair inference that small children very rarely buy or intentionally consume coffee and tea in McDonald's Restaurants. (It is certainly the case that in all the claims that have been brought, the hot drinks were bought by an adult.) In my opinion, McDonald's could therefore expect that the great majority of those who bought hot drinks in their restaurants would be in their teenage years or above. In my judgement, these customers could be taken to know that the coffee and tea they were buying was hot and could cause a nasty scalding injury if it spilled on someone. Most customers would not know precisely how hot the drink was, but they would know that tea and coffee is made with very hot water. Nor would most customers know just how severe the scalding injury could be, but they would know that it could be very painful and serious. They would also know that drinks occasionally get spilled in restaurants such as those run by McDonald's." and "Whether McDonald's were negligent in not warning their customers depends on an objective assessment of all the circumstances, including the risk of injury and the customers' appreciation of those matters that gave rise to the risk. As I have said, I am quite satisfied that those who bought coffee and tea could be taken to know that such drinks sometimes get spilled and are served at temperatures which cause serious and painful injury if they come into contact with someone's skin. I accordingly find that there was no duty on McDonald's to warn their customers about the risk posed by the temperatures at which tea and coffee were served, notwithstanding the warnings they gave to their employees and the fact that from 1995 a warning has been printed on the cups."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others [2002] EWCA Civ 407; [2005] 1 WLR 1495
26 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke
Police, Negligence
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when he was murdered by a gang of white youths. He said that the police treatment of him exacerbated the post traumatic stress he suffered. Held: His claim failed. The allegations against the police might be factually accurate but disclosed no case in law.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Freeguard v Royal Bank of Scotland plc Times, 25 April 2002
26 Mar 2002
ChD
Mr Simon Berry, QC
Land, Negligence
The applicant had an option to purchase land, but neither the option, nor the subsequent charge were registered. The land was sold by the respondent under a power of sale, and the claimant sought damages for the respondent having negligently failed to achieve a proper price. The respondent said that she was not owed a duty of care because she had an insufficient interest in land. Held: Under Downsview, the duty of care of the respondents extended to anyone having an interest in the land, and the claimant was such. The Medforth case suggested that that could include anybody interested in the equity of redemption. The strike out had been granted wrongly, and the claim was re-instated.
1 Cites


 
Bowden and Another v Lancashire County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 569
16 Apr 2002
CA
Peter Gibson LJ, May LJ
Children, Negligence
The claimant had succeeded in her appeal against the cancellation of her registration as a child minder, and now sought damages for negligence in using unnecessarily the emergency procedure leading to damage to the claimant's reputation and business.
Children Act 1989
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Douce and Another v Staffordshire County Council Times, 02 May 2002; Gazette, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 506
19 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter and Sir Denis Henry
Local Government, Negligence
The claimant ran a Nursing Home. He sought damages from the respondent for economic losses suffered after an allegedly negligent interpretation by the authority of the Act led them to require of the claimant to employ more staff than the Act actually required. The authority required the home to staff it 'to capacity' rather than to the number of actual residents. The authority suggested that they had acted within their discretion, and that there was no proper claim against them. Held: Such a claim was justiciable and should be allowed to proceed. This was an area of developing jurisprudence, and was a mixture of fact and law.
Registered Homes Act 1984
[ Bailii ]
 
Bowen-Griffith v London Borough of Barnet [2002] EWCA Civ 626
24 Apr 2002
CA

Negligence

[ Bailii ]

 
 Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others; HL 25-Apr-2002 - [2002] UKHL 17
 
Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Times, 16 May 2002; Gazette, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 595; [2002] RTR 446
2 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice May and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic, Local Government
The claimant sought damages, alleging that an accident occurred as a result of the defendant highway authority's negligence in failing to mark the road properly. A 'Slow' sign had become faded and had not been maintained. Held: The judge had failed to apply the Lavis case, which had held that such omissions were not a duty imposed on the authority under the 1980 Act, and accordingly they were not negligent for having failed to do so. There were not such exceptional circumstances as would be needed to find such a duty. The sign would have been "no more than a warning of the need to do that which should have been obvious to her in any event as she drove up from the dip."
Highways Act 1980 41 - Road Traffic Act 1988 39
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sutherland v Ballard [2002] EWCA Civ 768
15 May 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Henser-Leather v Securicor Cash Services Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 816
16 May 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence
The claimant was a security guard employed to collect cash from various sites. He was robbed and shot. The employer had not provided body armour nor encouraged its use. He appealed dismissal of his claim, which had been on the basis that since he was collecting relatively small sums of money, the risks were not high. Held. The Regulations should not be read as a comfort to the employer. The particular claimant's appeal succeeded.
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 15 - Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992
[ Bailii ]
 
Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801
22 May 2002
CA
Latham LJ, Brooke LJ, Hart J
Road Traffic, Negligence
The claimant pedestrian had been injured when hit by a car driven by the defendant as she stepped into the roadway. Both parties appealed against the assessment of contributory negligence. The claimant had a blood alcohol level three times that which would have been lawful for a driver. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge's apportionment could not be characterised as plainly wrong. Latham LJ said: "But nonetheless, bearing in mind the fact that this court has consistently imposed on the drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that a car is potentially a dangerous weapon, I find it difficult to see how I could properly categorise the judge's apportionment in this case as plainly wrong."
An appeal court should not interfere with the judge's assessment of contributory negligence unless his conclusion is plainly wrong.
Brooke LJ reiterated that it must be borne in mind always that a motor car is a potentially lethal instrument.
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Derbyshire v Slaughter [2002] EWCA Civ 901
28 May 2002
CA
Latham LJ
Road Traffic, Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
K v the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 775
31 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Laws, And Lady Justice Arden
Negligence, Human Rights
The applicant sought damages from the defendant who had released from custody pending deportation a man convicted of violent sexual crimes and who had then raped her. She appealed against a strike out of her claim. She had been refused information about the decision to release the offender because it was anticipated that her claim would in any event be struck out. It was later struck out because the claimant was not so clearly identifiable a victim of the offender as to anticipate a duty to her. Held: Negligence requires more than a want of care and foreseeability of damage. Where the duty of care is imposed on one person for the acts of another, the claimant must show a close connection with the offender so as to have created an awareness of the risk in the person against whom liability is asserted. The general rule is that one man is under no duty of controlling another man to prevent his doing damage to a third. The claimant argued that the Barrett case stated that a claim alleging negligence against a pubic authority should not be struck out but should be allowed to proceed for the facts to be established at trial. A strike out of a negligence claim for lack of proximity is not a denial of the applicant's article 6 right to a fair trial. Appeal dismissed.
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Woodbridge School v Chittock Times, 15 July 2002; Gazette, 22 August 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 915; [2003] PIQR P6
27 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Auld
Personal Injury, Negligence, Education
A child on a school skiing trip, had been injured whilst skiing on-piste, but unsupervised. The school appealed a finding of liability. Held: The teachers and supervisors owed the same duty of care as a reasonably careful parent with some knowledge and understanding of the dangers of skiing. Allowance had to be made for the child's own level of competence and the duties to the rest of the group. There was no duty to ensure his safety against injury from skiing mishaps such as those that might result from his own misjudgment or inadvertence when skiing unsupervised on-piste. The court set out the detailed standard of care owed by a school to its pupils.
Auld LJ said: "Where there are a number of options for the teacher as to the manner in which he might discharge that duty, he is not negligent if he chooses one which, exercising the Bolam test (1957] 1 WLR 582), would be within a reasonable range of options for a reasonable teacher exercising that duty of care in the circumstances."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust v King Times, 25 July 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 953
5 Jul 2002
CA
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President, Lord Justice Buxton and Lady Justice Hale
Negligence, Personal Injury, Health and Safety
The claimant was an ambulance worker. He had been assisting carrying a patient down stairs in a chair. He was injured when his colleague lost his grip, and he suddenly bore the full weight of the patient and chair. He alleged that under the regulations and the directive, the employer should have considered requesting the patient to be moved by the Fire Service. Held: There was nothing to suggest that it would have been practicable to call the Fire Service. Giving greater prominence to that possibility in training would not have made a difference in this particular case. Though this case failed, another case might succeed for failure to provide appropriate equipment for the task to be undertaken.
Manual Handling Directive 1990 (90/269/EEC) - Manual Handling Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2793)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and Others Times, 07 August 2002; Gazette, 03 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1041; [2002] 3 WLR 1425; [2003] QB 443
24 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Sedley
Negligence, Land, Personal Injury, Damages
The claimant sought damages. She had been injured after the negligent erection of a stand which was known to be potentially hazardous. The contractor was uninsured, and the claimant sought damages from the Hospital which had arranged the fair in its grounds to raise funds. Held: The hospital was liable under the Act. A splat wall, where people bounced off a trampoline to be stuck to a wall by Velcro. The hospital should have known this was dangerous. They could avoid liability by employing a reputable and competent contractor. They had requested sight of his insurance but did not know it had expired before the day. The hospital had a duty to the claimant, but had not fulfilled it. The actual claim was the difference between what had been recovered and what would have been recoverable if the contractor had been insured. The claim was therefore one of economic loss.
Lord Woolf categorised the claim not as one for economic loss but as a claim for damages for personal injury. The hospital owed the claimant a duty of care under s 2 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 to take reasonable care for her safety in using the premises to which she had been invited. That included a duty to take reasonable care to satisfy itself as to the competence of the supplier of the splat-wall. In order to discharge that duty the hospital ought to have asked him about his insurance position as evidence which was relevant to whether or not he was likely to be competent. Having asked the question, it was reasonable for the hospital to accept the supplier's answer.
Waller LJ considered that on the particular facts of the case the occupier's duty of care to its visitors required it to take reasonable steps to satisfy itself as to the supplier's financial viability to meet any claim against it, whether by insurance or otherwise. He agreed with Lord Woolf that the hospital was under no duty to verify the supplier's statement about his insurance position by requiring to see a copy of the policy.
Sedley LJ said that there was a difference in principle between harm to a person or property and insurance against inability to recover damages for such harm. The occupier owed a duty to take reasonable care to use only competent contractors, but he did not consider that the occupier owed any duty of care to its visitors to take steps to ensure that its independent contractors would be insured or otherwise able to meet any claim for damages for negligence. He expressed concern about the ramifications if the court were to impose such a duty on a public institution which invited people into its grounds. He asked rhetorically: "What is there, in a legal system which offers equality before the law by seeking to treat like cases alike, to contain this case in a category peculiar to its own facts? If the ambit of a public institution's duty to its visitors embraces an obligation to check on contractors' insurance, why will a private person whose garden is used for a local fete not equally be liable to pay a sum representing full personal injury damages to a visitor injured, perhaps badly, by the negligent supervision of a coconut shy or a greasy pole by an uninsured stall holder? Or why will a householder who fails to check that his or her builder is insured not have to pay heavy damages to a neighbour who has been unable to make a worthwhile claim against the builder when a nail through a water pipe brings the neighbour's ceiling down or a carelessly handled blow torch burns their house down?"
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 2(4)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jackson v Qureshi [2002] EWCA Civ 1286
29 Aug 2002
CA
Tuckey LJ
Personal Injury, Negligence
Application by claimant for permission to appeal from a judgment apportioning liability 50/50 for a road traffic accident in which the applicant was struck and seriously injured by a taxi whilst she was crossing the road.
[ Bailii ]
 
Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited [2002] HCA 35; [2002] 211 CLR 317; [2002] 191 ALR 449; [2002] 76 ALJR 1348
5 Sep 2002

Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ
Commonwealth, Negligence
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Tame v New South Wales
Negligence - Duty of care - Psychiatric injury - Motor accident - Clerical error by police constable in recording driver's blood alcohol content - Psychotic depressive illness caused by driver learning of mistake - Whether duty of care owed by police constable to driver - Whether psychiatric injury reasonably foreseeable - Whether sole determinant of duty - Other control mechanisms for imposition of duty - Normal fortitude - Sudden shock - Direct perception - Immediate aftermath.
Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited
Negligence - Duty of care - Psychiatric injury - Death of child - Assurances of constant supervision of child made by employer to parents - Whether duty of care owed by employer of child to parents - Whether psychiatric injury reasonably foreseeable - Whether sole determinant of duty - Other control mechanisms for imposition of duty - Normal fortitude - Sudden shock - Direct perception - Immediate aftermath.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Purdue v Devon Fire and Rescue Service [2002] EWCA Civ 1538
9 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice May And Mr Justice Bodey
Road Traffic, Negligence, Personal Injury
The claimant was severely injured when, as he emerged through traffic lights as they turned green. He was in a collision with a fire engine driving in response to an emergency call-out. The driver of the fire engine said the claimant should have seen the lights. The officers were not sounding the wailing alarm. The Regulations allowed a specific but limited exemption for emergency vehicles from compliance with traffic lights. Held: The evidence from the fire officers to suggest that the claimant should have seen them coming was not convincing. The decision reached by the recorder was capable of being reached from the evidence before him. Both the regulations and the services own code of conduct required an emergency vehicle in this situation to give way. The driver had not done so. However: "With some hesitation, I am driven to conclude that a properly observant driver would and should have so noticed the fire engine and that Mr Purdue failed to do so. I think that this failure amounts to a want of observation and thus a want of due care. Accordingly, in my judgment there was a degree of contributory negligence but, for the reasons advanced by Mr Hillier, I do not think that that degree was great." The claimant was found to be 20% liable.
Traffic Signs And General Directions Order 1994 (1994 No 1519)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Papera Traders Co Ltd and Others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd and Another [2002] EWHC 2130 (Comm)
18 Oct 2002
ComC

Negligence

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Cook v Bradford Community Health NHS [2002] EWCA Civ 1616
23 Oct 2002
CA

Negligence
Claim for damages by nurse from employer trust after assault by patient.
[ Bailii ]
 
Kearn-Price v Kent County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1539
30 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lady Justice Arden
Negligence, Personal Injury, Education
The claimant was injured, being hit in the face by a football in a school playground. It was before school started. There had been accidents, and there were rules which had not been enforced. The school appealed a finding of negligence. Held: 'a school owes to all pupils who are lawfully on its premises the general duty to take such measures to care for their health and safety as are reasonable in all the circumstances. It is neither just nor reasonable to say that a school owes no duty of care at all to pupils who are at school before or after school hours.' The governing principle is that the school is required to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances. There was a finding by the judge that if the teachers had sought to enforce the ban, the pupils would have taken note. That inference was properly drawn.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Beaton v Devon County Council Gazette, 09 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1675
31 Oct 2002
CA
Judge, May LJJ
Personal Injury, Local Government, Negligence
The respondent provided a cycle way. As it passed through a tunnel, there were drainage gullies at the side. The claimant stepped off her cycle, and hurt her foot in the gully. The tunnel was well lit, and no previous complaints had been made. The authority appealed a finding of negligence. Held: The finding that the accident was foreseeable when there had been no previous complaint amounted to creating an equivalence between its duties in negligence and its duties under the 1957 Act. There was no such equivalence, or duty to prevent accidents. The appeal succeeded.
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
[ Bailii ]

 
 LE Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council; CA 7-Nov-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1723; [2003] BLR 67; (2002) 87 Con LR 169; [2003] 15 EG 139; [2003] 1 EGLR 99; [2002] 47 EG 146; [2003] 1 WLR 427
 
L E Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council Times, 21 November 2002; Gazette, 16 January 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 427; [2002] EWCA Civ 1723
7 Nov 2002
CA
Aldous, Dyson LJJ
Land, Negligence, Torts - Other
The claimant sought compensation for damage caused to his property by the roots of trees on the verge outside his premises. Held: The respondent did exercise lawful control over the trees, even though it did not own the land on which they grew, and therefore could be liable in negligence, and in nuisance for the damage they might cause. The highway might also be responsible, but that did not exclude the responsibility of the respondent, who had a right and a duty to maintain the roads. The basis of liability of an occupier for a nuisance on his land is not his occupation but that, by virtue of his occupation, he has it in his power to take the necessary measures to prevent the nuisance. The tree owner should be given a reasonmable opportunity to remedy the nuisance: "…What is a reasonable opportunity to abate the nuisance is a question of fact. "
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hannington v Mitie Cleaning (South East) Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1847
26 Nov 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Clenshaw v Tanner and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1848
27 Nov 2002
CA
Kennedy, Chadwick, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Personal Injury, Negligence, Damages
The claimant was a cyclist. He passed along inside a line of traffic, and collided with a lorry turning left into a petrol station ahead of him, suffering serious injuries. He appealed against a finding that the lorry driver had signalled and that he had not been watching where he was going. Held: The claimant was lucky to have had found against him only the degree of contribution applied. The cyclist was in a racing position with his head down, and : "any cyclist who is taking reasonable care for his own safety knows that any vehicle turning left ahead of him will endanger him and he should therefore keep a particularly careful look-out." His appeal as to apportionment of liability was dismissed.
As to the disregard of housing benefits in calculating damages: "Parliament has not expressly provided that housing benefit shall be disregarded. The benefit was payable because the claimant's qualifying need arose in consequence of the tort of which he was the victim. In my judgment, it must therefore follow as the judge found that the payments of housing benefit should be taken into account in reduction of the claim for loss of earnings to date."
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 8
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Sparks v HSBC Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1942
6 Dec 2002
CA

Employment, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Sam Business Systems Ltd v Hedley and Company [2002] EWHC 2733 (TCC)
19 Dec 2002
TCC
Bowsher QC J
Negligence, Contract

1 Cites

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