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.  














Personal Injury - From: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 129 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
M (a child) v Leeds Health Authority [2002] PIQR Q46
2002
QBD
Sullivan J
Damages, Personal Injury
The claimant, her brother and her parents had lived in a detached house before the relevant negligence occurred, but thereafter had moved into a bungalow purchased and adapted to meet her needs. The defendant sought to deduct, during the period (to the age of 25 years) for which the claimant was expected to share the house with her family, the value to the claimant's parents of having a house provided free of charge for the whole family. Held: The argument was rejected: "I come back to the basic proposition, which is that this is a compensation claim made on behalf of M. It is intended to compensate her for the effects of her disability. While she, for the purposes of this calculation, notionally lives at home with her parents until the age of 25, it seems to me that she is in no different position from any child who could not reasonably be expected to go out into the market place and buy accommodation."
The defendant argued also for a deduction of the value of the property that, if the claimant had not been injured, she would have been likely to have purchased herself when she left home. Sullivan J accepted that such a deduction was appropriate from the time when the claimant could have been expected to leave the family home and acquire her own accommodation.

 
Kerr v North Ayrshire Council [2002] ScotCS 13
16 Jan 2002
SCS
Lady Smith
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
The claimant sought damages for personal injuries after injuring her back at work as a caretaker. She alleged a failure to provide a safe system of work. She was asked to move folding tables weighing up to 30lbs. They were to be stored vertically. She hurt her back lifting one from the vertical to a horizontal axis. No training had been given in how the tables were to be moved. Held: A breach of the duty to make an assessment does not in itself gives rise to liability in damages. The steps proposed to reduce the risk were not practicable in the circumstances, and the claim failed.
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2793)
[ Bailii ]
 
Laidler v New College Durham [2002] EWCA Civ 38
17 Jan 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Employment

[ Bailii ]

 
 Holt v Holroyd Meek Ltd; CA 17-Jan-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 37

 
 McGhee v Strathclyde Fire Brigade; SCS 18-Jan-2002 - [2002] ScotCS 16; [2002] ScotCS 16

 
 Betts v Tokley; CA 18-Jan-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 52

 
 Matthews v The Ministry of Defence; QBD 22-Jan-2002 - Times, 30 January 2002; [2002] EWHC 13 (QB)
 
England v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 77
22 Jan 2002
CA

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Sweet v Owners of Blyth Lifeboat; The Edward Duke of Windsor Times, 22 February 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002
22 Jan 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Tomlinson
Limitation, Personal Injury, Transport
A claim which was covered by the Act for damages for psychiatric injury arose not at the date of the accident, but from when the claimant first developed a recognised psychiatric injury. The two year period of limitation under the Act ran accordingly from the later date. Had parliament wished another result, it could easily have been provided for. Instead it made a clear distinction between the date of the accident, and the date of the injury resulting from it.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 190(3)(b)

 
Warriner v Warriner Times, 28 March 2002
24 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Dyson
Damages, Personal Injury
Where it was proposed to the court to apply a different discount rate when determining investment return on a sum awarded in a personal injury action as damages for future pecuniary loss, as against the rate set under the Lord Chancellor's guidelines, the court must look at the Lord Chancellor's reasons for fixing the rate, and depart only where for example the case was in some category, or which had different and special reasons, in either case not considered when setting the rate.
Damages Act 1996 1(2) - Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No 2301)

 
Konig and Motor Insurers Bureau v Hay [2002] EWCA Civ 19
24 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Dyson, And, Mr. Justice Harrison
Damages, Personal Injury
The claimant had been awarded substantial damages for injuries received in a road traffic accident. He had been able to work in a reduced capacity, but claimed he would need assistance. The appeal alleged that the judge had wrongly allowed for the fact that the claimant would be living in the US, that the claim for support was unsustained on the evidence, and the wrong multiplier had been used, not allowing for a medium term rehabilitations. The first appeal ground was not made out from the judgment. The assessment that the claimant would need longer term care was reasoned and based upon the evidence. Though these matters remain one of impression, the judge's assessment of the multiplier needed adjustment, from 22 to 17.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 234; [2002] EWCA Civ 21; [2002] 1 WLR 2304
28 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal Civil Division, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Sedley
Damages, Personal Injury, International
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was 'in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?' The claimant's position under Dutch law was different, with all benefits deducted from any compensation awarded. Held: The accident occurred on an English registered trawler, and the applicable law was English as to liability but possibly Dutch as to damages. If the 1976 Act was procedural rather than substantive, the law applicable would be English, and the Dutch law as to deduction of all benefits would not apply. Traditionally, issues as to the quantification of damages have been seen as procedural rather than substantive. The general structure of the Act also suggested that it was intended to offer English remedies, and those should be applied: "the general rule is not to be dislodged easily".
After referring to the case of Boys v Chaplin, Waller LJ said: "The passages referred to support the view that so far as damages are concerned it is a question for the substantive law whether a head of damage is recoverable, but quantification of the actual head is procedural. If one poses the question whether the issue in this case is about the right to recover certain benefits or whether it is about the quantification of the damages for loss of dependency the answer seems to me to be that it is about the quantification of the damages. The concern of the court in considering a tortious claim should be as to liability, including liability for particular heads of damage without the existence of which liability might not be complete. The question whether deductions should be made for benefits is not a question which goes to liability: it is a question going to assessment" and "Procedurally an action on behalf of a person killed in an accident is only available in the English courts by virtue of what is now sections 1 and 2 of the 1976 Act . . As I have already said, we are concerned with an action which can only be brought in this country by virtue of the 1976 Act."
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 4 - Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 11 - Merchant Shipping Act 1995 25
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Henderson v Jaouen and Another Times, 07 March 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002
1 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Mantell and Mr Justice Wall
International, Personal Injury, Damages, European
The plaintiff had been injured in an accident and had sued and recovered damages for his injuries in France. Later, his condition deteriorated. In France he would have been able to revive his action to claim further damages, but he sought a similar right from an English Court, claiming a right to do so under the Act because the deterioration had occurred exclusively whilst he was in England. The defendant and his insurers appealed a refusal to strike out the claimant's claim. Held: The claim should be struck out. The harmful even required by the Convention had occurred in France. The Bier case was not on all fours and was to be interpreted restrictively.
Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 (Cmnd 7395) - Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Henderson v Jaouen and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 75
1 Feb 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Road Traffic

[ 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
 
Ace Insurance Sa-Nv v Surendranath Seechurn [2002] EWCA Civ 67; [2002] 2 Lloyds LR 390
6 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Thorpe And Lord Justice Keene
Limitation, Personal Injury, Insurance, Estoppel
The claimant sought payment under an insurance policy for his permanent disability. The judge had found that the defendant insurers had indicated a readiness to continue negotiations beyond the limitation period, and that they would apply for a stay if proceedings were issued whilst negotiations were under way. The insurers later claimed that his claim was out of time. He asserted that they were estopped from making that assertion. The insurance company appealed a finding against them. Held: An estoppel would require a clear promise with specific regard to the limitation period. It was unnecessary to explore the several different forms of estoppel. Hughes was to apply. There was to be shown a clear representation. It must be precise and unambiguous. The claimants interpretation of what was happening did not affect the objective view of the words used. The offer made was conditional upon the claimant submitting to further examination in any event, which he had not done. No estoppel was established.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pearson and Another v Ahmed [2002] EWCA Civ 152
8 Feb 2002
CA
Brooke LJ
Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Rowbottom v Royal Masonic Hospital [2002] EWCA Civ 87
12 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Mantell, And, Mr. Justice Wall
Limitation, Personal Injury
The claimant sought damages for the negligent failure to administer antibiotics. Earlier proceedings had been discontinued, and the hospital resisted subsequent proceedings, claiming them to be time-barred. The claimant asserted that he knew of the negligence not when advised by counsel, but rather at a later date when he received a medical report. Held: Time runs from when the claimant knows that the personal injury can be attributed to the defendant whom he wishes to sue. Counsel's opinion did not suggest finally that the cause of the injury was the failure to provide antibiotics, since it was not then known whether they had been administered. (By a majority) The case should proceed.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust Times, 20 February 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 88; [2003] QB 20
14 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Lady Justice Hale
Damages, Personal Injury
A disabled mother sought damages for the birth of a child after a negligently performed sterilisation. Held: The rule in McFarlane against recovery of damages for the birth of a healthy child, did not prevent an award which was intended to reflect the particular damages attributable to the difficulties of providing care with her disabilities.
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)

 
Wardlaw v Fife Health Board [2002] ScotCS 47
19 Feb 2002
SCS
Lord Marnoch
Scotland, Personal Injury

1 Cites

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Roshdi v Thames Trains Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 284
20 Feb 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
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 ]
 
McGarvey v Eve NCI Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 374
26 Feb 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Falling from ladder at work
[ Bailii ]
 
Lowe v Guise Times, 25 March 2002; Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 197
26 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Morland
Damages, Benefits, Personal Injury
The claimant had care of his severely disabled brother. Following the accident he was unable to give the same level of care, though he continued to receive the care allowance. Held: An injured claimant who worked, albeit gratuitously, for his family suffered the loss of being able to contribute the value of his service to the needs of his family. That loss was genuine and sounded in damages. To allow otherwise would be to make the loss of an ability to garden measurable in damages but not the ability to care for a family member.
[ Bailii ]
 
Volex Group Plc v Jane Wilson Evans [2002] EWCA Civ 225
27 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann Lord Justice Chadwick And Sir Christopher Staughton
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
The claimant sought damages after she breathed noxious fumes at her place of work. It was said that she had been told that she could leave her machine to get fresh air as she wished, but the judge had found that she had not appreciated that this was intended to mean that she need not face the fumes at all. Held: The nature of the fumes had not been established, and the cause of the illness had not been established. Accordingly the liability of the employers could not be established. The employer's appeal was allowed.
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994
[ Bailii ]
 
Green v Argyll and Bute Council [2002] ScotCS 56
28 Feb 2002
SCS
Lord Bonomy
Scotland, Personal Injury

1 Cites

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Times, 01 March 2002; Gazette, 28 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 7; [2002] 2 AC 628; [2002] 2 WLR 578
28 Feb 2002
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Personal Injury, Damages
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft. Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for 'bodily injury'. That term did not include mental injury, and the awards for such were overturned. The brain as a part of the body was perfectly capable of being injured, and where the injury had a physical manifestation, damages were claimable. There was respectable medical support for the view that, for example, a major depressive disorder was the expression of physical changes in the brain and its hormonal chemistry. Such physical changes were capable of amounting to an injury and, if they did, they were bodily injuries. Also cases of post-traumatic stress disorder which had been shown to have a physical element in changes of the brain had been successful. The rights of a claimant are exclusively defined in the Convention; if the Convention gives no remedy then the alleged wrong will not be satisfied at law. Lord Hope: statutes of the ‘always speaking’ type: should be interpreted in the light of the current scientific evidence … The proper approach is to make use of the best current medical and scientific knowledge that is available.”
Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air 1929 17 - Carriage by Air Act 1961
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Alsop v Sheffield City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 429
5 Mar 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Murray v Cassidy [2002] EWCA Civ 411
6 Mar 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Fox v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWCA Civ 435
6 Mar 2002
CA
Kennedy, Mantell, Neuberger LJJ
Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]

 
 Liennard v Slough Borough Council; QBD 15-Mar-2002 - [2002] EWHC 398 (QB); HQ 9902793
 
In re Claims Direct Test Cases Times, 04 April 2002; Gazette, 03 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 333
19 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Potter and Lady Justice Arden
Costs, Insurance, Personal Injury
The applicants sought to appeal on two matters where they had questions of practice in the conduct of personal injury claims. These were as to whether after-the-event cover purchased under section 29 amounted to insurance premiums, and the setting of how much was a reasonable sum to be recovered in such cases. Held: The Court of Appeal could only answer appeals from judgements. Its jurisdiction is appellate, and it was not appropriate to seek to deal with matters which had not yet been decided at first instance.
Access to Justice Act 1999 29
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Armstrong v Secretary of State for Home Office [2002] EWCA Civ 447
20 Mar 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ 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 ]

 
 Anderson v Newham College of Further Education; CA 25-Mar-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 505; [2003] ICR 212
 
Abrahams v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2002] EWCA Civ 572
11 Apr 2002
CA
Hale LJ
Personal Injury, Health and Safety

[ Bailii ]
 
Thatcher v Telewest Communications London South Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 618
18 Apr 2002
CA
Potter LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
Claimant's application for leave to appeal against level of damages awarded on personal injury claim.
[ Bailii ]
 
Thakerar v Northwich Park Hospital NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 617
24 Apr 2002
CA

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
DB, Regina (on the Application Of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel [2002] EWHC 698 (Admin)
24 Apr 2002
Admn

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Oxley Plumbers Merchants v Ian Kerry Davies - SBG Felt Roofing [2002] EWCA Civ 540
24 Apr 2002
CA
Mr Justice Carnwath
Personal Injury, Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Young v Post Office [2002] IRLR 660; [2002] EWCA Civ 661; [2002] Emp LR 1136
30 Apr 2002
CA
Simon Brown, Arden, May LJJ
Personal Injury
The claimant had been absent from work with a psychiatric illness. When he returned, the employers intended that he should work at his own pace and continue to do so for as long as he wished. In practice this arrangement was ignored and he worked more intensely and for longer hours than was good for his health. Held: Whilst the initial breakdown was not reasonably foreseeable, an employer could not simply devise a system for easing an employee back into work; it also had to take reasonable care to ensure that it was adopted.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Linda Anne Soper) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel [2002] EWHC 815 (Admin)
2 May 2002
Admn
Miunby J
Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
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 ]
 
Newman v Folkes [2002] EWCA Civ 591
3 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Sedley And Mr Justice Sumner
Personal Injury, Damages
The claimant suffered head injuries in a car accident. The defendant appealed the award of damages, on the basis that the claimant had made exaggerated loss of earnings claims, and should have received only reduced, 'Manchester' damages. The claimant had never paid tax or national insurance, but lived a lifestyle suggesting income. Held: The judge had eventually found evidence to support part of the claim, and had made an award supported by that evidence. He had been awarded a sum for care. He was now violent and potentially aggressive. The judge's award was not so wrong as to be capable of being set aside on appeal. The judge had correctly reduced the multiplier to allow for the uncertainties of the evidence.
[ Bailii ]
 
Sutherland v Ballard [2002] EWCA Civ 768
15 May 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
H W (Ap) v the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel for Judicial Review of A Decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel
15 May 2002
SCS
Lord Macfadyen
Scotland, Personal Injury

[ ScotC ]
 
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 ]
 
Carole Patricia Jones Or Smith and Co v J Smart (Contractors) Public Limited Company
17 May 2002
SCS
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Hamilton and Lord President
Scotland, Personal Injury
The pursuers sought damages for the estate of the deceased, a former employee of the responders, and who had died from mesothelioma. The particular issues were the judges exclusion of certain heads of damages for lost support. The defenders had complained of the lack of information to support the claim. Held: It was common to aggregate the earnings of a couple where both worked, and to deduct 25% in respect of loss of support. The pursuers claim was now made sufficiently clear.
1 Cites

[ ScotC ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Davis and Another v Balfour Kilpatrick Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 736
23 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr Justice Jackson
Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Human Rights
The claimants sought damages for sickness they claimed arose from exposure to radiation when erecting radio transmitter masts. The risk had been recognised, and a safety assessment undertaken and adjustments made to the transmitter power before work began, to reduce the levels below those recommended by the NRPB. The judge did not find evidence of exposure to excess levels, but failed to make a finding as to causation. He dismissed the claim. Held: There was no obligation on a judge to make a finding on every averment. Some common sense must be applied. There were no grounds for challenging the judge's assessment of the evidence. Riggers on transmission masts work in an environment where they are exposed to unknown dangers, because scientific knowledge is incomplete. Human rights issues were raised because one of the operators of the mast was a public body, the BBC. Nevertheless this point had arisen only on appeal, and the judge could not be criticised for failing to develop creative points.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
JE, R (on the Application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel [2002] EWHC 1050 (Admin)
23 May 2002
Admn

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Williams v Devon County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 827
23 May 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Mohammed Ali Shaher and others v British Aerospace Flying College Limited [2002] ScotCS 151
28 May 2002
OHCS
Lord Wheatley
Scotland, Personal Injury, Damages

1 Cites

1 Citers

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

[ Bailii ]
 
Matthews v Ministry of Defence Times, 31 May 2002; Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 773
29 May 2002
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Hale
Personal Injury, Armed Forces, Human Rights
The Ministry appealed against a finding that the Act, which deprived the right of a Crown employee to sue for personal injuries, was an infringement of his human rights. Held: The restriction imposed by the section was not a procedural section, but a substantive one which delimited the rights and liabilities arising under civil law. Accordingly, human right slaw did not apply. The Commission on human rights was wrong to suggest that such rights might be affected.
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 10 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Stenning v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2002] EWCA Civ 793
31 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke
Personal Injury
The Home Office appealed a finding of liability in damages to the claimant. He was a prisoner injured by another prisoner after being taken captive within a cell. The attacker had been involved in incidents of violence but not for many years. He had made many threats of violence, and was still seen as a risk to be mixed with other prisoners. Held: The management of such prisoners was exceptionally difficult. No negligence had been shown and the appeal allowed. The person directly responsible was the fellow prisoner.
[ Bailii ]
 
ATH and another (Executors of the Estate of M, decd) v MS Times, 03 July 2002; Gazette, 08 August 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 792; [2002] 3 WLR 1179; [2003] QB 965
11 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Tuckey and Mr Justice Jackson
Personal Injury, Damages
The claimants were the children of the deceased, seeking damages following the death of their mother. At the time of the death they were not living with their father but moved to live with him after the death. They claimed damages for the services provided by the father and his new wife. Held: The new support accrued as a result of the accident and was to be disregarded under the section. However the trust under which any damages were paid would be unlikely to be enforced, that is the father would not ask for payment for the services, and following Hunt, if the terms of the trust seemed unlikely to be fulfilled then the court awarding damages should take steps to avoid the outcome.
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 4
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Green v Vickers Defence Systems and Others Times, 01 July 2002; Gazette, 01 August 2002
12 Jun 2002
CA
Ward, Clarke, Collins LJJ
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Damages
The deceased died after commencing a claim for personal injuries for mesothelioma. The action had been compromised with an agreement for a provisional consent order. After his death, his widow sought to claim on the basis as settled. Held. Having settled the action on the basis that if the deceased developed the disease, he would be compensated on a full liability basis, it was not now open to the company to go back on that agreement. The parties could have formed an agreement which left open such questions, but they had not done so.
1 Cites


 
Edwards v Williamson and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1020
18 Jun 2002
CA

Personal Injury
Teacher suffering stress
[ Bailii ]

 
 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others; HL 20-Jun-2002 - Times, 21 June 2002; [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 AC 32; [2002] Lloyds Rep Med 361; [2002] 3 All ER 305; [2002] PIQR P28; (2002) 67 BMLR 90; [2002] 3 WLR 89; [2002] ICR 798
 
Lyon v Maidment [2002] EWHC 1227 (QB)
25 Jun 2002
QBD
Bowsher QC J
Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Peskett v Portsmouth City Council Gazette, 04 July 2002
25 Jun 2002
CA
Lords Justice Pill and Potter
Personal Injury, Land
The defendant had land across which a path ran. It had a right angled turn, and users cutting across wore away the land causing a dip, where the claimant tripped and fell. She claimed damages. The council accepted that the short cut was regularly taken, but said there had been no previous incidents or complaints, and appealed a finding of 50% liability for contributory negligence. Held: The judge had been entitled to apportion liability as he had. The council had not been free to assume users would always succeed in avoiding the dangers. All such cases fall to be determined on their own facts.

 
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 ]

 
 Callery v Gray (1) and (2); HL 27-Jun-2002 - Times, 02 July 2002; [2002] UKHL 28; [2002] 1 WLR 2000; [2002] PIQR P32; [2002] 3 All ER 417; [2003] RTR 4; [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 203; [2002] 2 Costs LR 205
 
Holt v Holroyd Meek Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1004
1 Jul 2002
CA

Personal Injury

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation, Re [2003] EWCA Civ 1005
3 Jul 2002
CA

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Damages

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 ]
 
Miller v C and G Coach Services Ltd [2002] EWHC 1361 (QB)
9 Jul 2002
QBD

Personal Injury

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jones and others v Stenventon and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1120
11 Jul 2002
CA
Kay LJ, Ferris J
Personal Injury
Claim for damages after explosion in dry cleaning shop.
[ Bailii ]
 
Stratton v Brown [2002] EWCA Civ 1063
11 Jul 2002
CA
Pill LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Damages, Personal Injury
Renewed application for permission to appeal. Granted
[ Bailii ]

 
 Gulliksen v Pembrokeshire County Council; CA 11-Jul-2002 - Times, 22 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 968

 
 Coxall v Goodyear Great Britain Limited; CA 22-Jul-2002 - Times, 05 August 2002; Gazette, 03 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1010
 
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 ]
 
Robinson v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council Gazette, 10 October 2002; [2003] PIQR P128; [2002] EWCA Civ 1099
25 Jul 2002
CA
Lords Justice Peter Gibson and Brooke and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Limitation, Personal Injury
The claimant sought an extension of the limitation period to allow him to pursue an action. He sought damages for negligence against his former school which had failed to diagnose and treat his dyslexia. Held: His appeal was denied. The claim was one for personal injury, but the question of whether to extend the time period is one for a judge's discretion. The prejudice to the claimant in being denied the right to bring an action must not be over-emphasised. Here, the long delay meant also that the defendant would have great difficulty in unearthing its records to defend its action. There were no grounds for interfering with the judge's discretion. As to whether a failue to ameliorate dyslexia could constitute a personal injury: "Dyslexia…may itself be an 'impairment of a person's mental condition'. It is not of course caused by the defendant; but negligent failure to ameliorate the consequences of dyslexia by appropriate teaching may be said to continue the injury, in the same way that the negligent failure to cure or ameliorate a congenital physical condition so that it continues, could give rise to an action for personal injuries. Although as I understand it dyslexia cannot be cured, a dyslexic person can be trained to overcome the difficulties in reading and writing which he experiences."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
XYZ and others v Schering Health [2002] EWHC 1420 (QB); (2002) 70 BMLR 88
29 Jul 2002
QBD
Mackay J
Consumer, Consumer, Personal Injury
The court heard seven lead claims in group litigation against three drug companies in respect of their combined oral contraceptive products.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hopley, Regina (on the Application of) v Liverpool Health Authority and others [2002] EWHC 1723 (Admin)
30 Jul 2002
Admn
Pitchford J
Damages, Personal Injury, Judicial Review
The respondent Health Authority had refused to consent to payment to the claimant of damages for personal injury by periodical payments under a with profits structured settlement made under Section 2 of the 1996 Act. Held: The decision was not amenable to judicial review because the function being performed by the Health Authority, as it affected the claimant, was a private one.
Pitchford J set out three elements to be identified when considering whether a public body with statutory powers was exercising a public function amenable to judicial review or a private function that was not. These were:
i) Whether the defendant was a public body exercising statutory powers;
ii) Whether the function being performed in the exercise of those powers was a public or a private one; and
iii) Whether the defendant was performing a public duty owed to the claimant in the particular circumstances under consideration.
Damages Act 1996 2
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 O'Neill v DSG Retail Ltd; CA 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 09 September 2002; Gazette, 17 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1139; [2003] ICR 222

 
 Pratley v Surrey County Council; QBD 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWHC 1608 (QB)
 
Verdon v B Y Hotels (Bournemouth) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1270
28 Aug 2002
CA
Tuckey LJ
Personal Injury
Claimant's application for permission to appeal from a judgment dismissing the applicant's claim for damages for personal injuries against her former employers.
[ 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 ]

 
 Halloran v Delaney; CA 6-Sep-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1258; [2003] 1 WLR 28; [2002] 3 Costs LR 503; [2003] PIQR P5; [2003] RTR 147; [2003] RTR 9; [2003] 1 All ER 775
 
Gough and Another v Mummery and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1573
4 Oct 2002
CA
Kennedy, Buxton LJJ
Damages, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Cowgill v Lowestoft College [2002] EWCA Civ 1486
4 Oct 2002
CA

Employment, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Geest plc v Monica Lansiquot Times, 16 October 2002; [2002] UKPC 48
7 Oct 2002
PC
Bingham, Steyn, Hobhouse, Millett, Scott LL
Personal Injury, Damages
(St. Lucia) The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries. The defendant wished to allege that she had failed to mitigate her damages by accepting medical treatment. Held: If the plaintiff refused treatment, it was for the defendant to show that the refusal was unreasonable. A defendant wishing to make such an assertion must give proper notice of that intention either in the pleadings, or in correspondence.
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
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 ]
 
Dingley v The Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police [2002] ScotCS 270
9 Oct 2002
OHCS
Lord Eassie
Scotland, Personal Injury

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
La Rocca, Regina (on the Application of) v Social Security Commissioner and Another [2002] EWHC 2021 (Admin)
11 Oct 2002
Admn

Personal Injury, Damages, Benefits
Recovery of benefits paid from damages award.
[ Bailii ]
 
Howard v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWCA Civ 1546
14 Oct 2002
CA
Mantell, Rix LJJ
Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after alleged inappropriate medical treatment whilst serving in the RAF.
[ Bailii ]
 
Withers v Delaney and Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland C-158/01; [2002] EUECJ C-158/01
14 Oct 2002
ECJ

Transport, Personal Injury, Insurance
Order - reference for a preliminary ruling: Circuit Court, County of Cork - Ireland.
[ Bailii ]
 
Knott v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] EWHC 2091 (QB)
16 Oct 2002
QBD

Personal Injury

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Willett (Now Whitling) v Marks and Spencer [2002] EWCA Civ 1427
18 Oct 2002
CA
Sir Martin Nourse, Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Mance
Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Miller v C and G Coach Services Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1629
18 Oct 2002
CA
Sedley LJ
Personal Injury
Application for leave to appeal - stood over.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Goddard and Another v Greenwood [2002] EWCA Civ 1590
21 Oct 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
E, Regina (on the Application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel [2002] EWCA Civ 1665
21 Oct 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Henderson v Cooke [2002] EWCA Civ 1557
21 Oct 2002
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury
Apportionment of blame in road traffic accident.
[ Bailii ]
 
Mattis v Pollock (T/A Flamingo's Nightclub) [2002] EWHC 2177 (QB); [2003] 1 WLR 2158; [2004] 4 All ER 85; [2003] All ER (D) 10; [2004] PIQR P3; [2003] IRLR 603; [2003] ICR 1335
24 Oct 2002
QBD
Richard Seymour QC J
Personal Injury, Vicarious Liability
The claimant sought damages after being assaulted by a doorman employed by the defendant. Held: The responsibility of the nightclub owner for the actions of his aggressive doorman was not extinguished by the separation in time and place from what had happened in the nightclub, and that vicarious liability was therefore established. The owner had chosen to employ the doorman, knowing and approving of his aggressive tendencies, which he had encouraged rather than curbed. The court considered closely the effect of the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall. However, 'even if it were not necessary to be able to point to some duty owed by Mr. Pollock to Mr. Mattis which was current at the time of Mr. Cranston's attack, there was not a sufficiently close connection between the employment of Mr. Cranston by Mr. Pollock and the assault on Mr. Mattis for it to be fair and just for Mr. Pollock to be vicariously liable to Mr. Mattis for the consequences of that attack. '
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Gregg v Scott Times, 04 November 2002; Gazette, 12 December 2002; Gazette, 19 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1471
29 Oct 2002
CA
Simon Brown, Mance, Latham LLJ
Damages, Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
The claimant sought damages. He had a lymphoma, but despite his seeking medical assistance, it was not diagnosed early, and his life expectancy was diminished. Held: In order to claim damages for a reduced life expectancy, the claimant had to show that the negligence contributed to the loss. Here, the claimant's disease had a poor prognosis in any event, and he had not been able to show that any actual damage had been caused. The case fell squarely within Hotson, and the claim failed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Flaviis v Pauley [2002] EWHC 2886 (QB)
29 Oct 2002
QBD

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Christopher Simmons v British Steel Plc [2002] ScotCS 286
29 Oct 2002
IHCS
Lord Caplan and Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Kingarth
Scotland, Personal Injury
The pursuer was injured in his head at work. That injury made worse a pre-existing skin condition, which in trun led to severe depression. He appealed a finding that the damage was too remote. Held: The House was in a position itself to judge the facts and overturned the decision of the Outer House.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ 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 ]
 
Kanu v Kashif [2002] EWCA Civ 1620
30 Oct 2002
CA

Damages, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Neal v Jones (T/A Jones Motors) [2002] EWCA Civ 1731
31 Oct 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Damages

[ 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 ]
 
Spencer v Boots the Chemist Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1691
31 Oct 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Horton v Taplin Contracts Limited Times, 25 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1604; [2003] ICR 179
8 Nov 2002
CA
Mr Justice Bodey, Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Mantell
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
The employee claimed damages after injury at work using scaffolding equipment supplied by his employers which was upset by the violent act of a fellow employee. Held: The equipment when used properly was safe. It only became dangerous if deliberately misused. The employer could not be vicariously liable for the deliberate wrongful act of a co-employee. That mischief was not foreseeable under the 1992 Regulations. A step is only realistically "necessary" when the mischief to be guarded against can be reasonably foreseen.
Provision and Use of Work Eqipment Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2932) 20 - Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) regulations 1996 (1996 No 1592) 5
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Adlington v Metropolitan Police Authority [2002] EWCA Civ 1712
8 Nov 2002
CA

Police, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke v Taylor [2002] EWCA Civ 1874
11 Nov 2002
CA
Kay LJ, Dyson LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
Application for permission to appeal against the decision determining the quantum of damages awarded to the claimant in an action brought against the defendant arising out of a road traffic accident.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gardner v R P Winder (Wholesale Meats) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1777
14 Nov 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Charles v Cardiff County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1753
18 Nov 2002
CA

Personal Injury, health and Safety
The claimant was assaulted whilst at work at a residential care home. She answered the door to visitors who were drunk. She appealed a refusal of her claim against her employers. Held: The judge had sufficient evidence before him to establish that the absence of a chain on the door was not a breach of statutory duty. The appeal failed.
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 - Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
[ Bailii ]
 
Laverton v Kiapasha (T/A Takeaway Supreme) [2002] EWCA Civ 1656
19 Nov 2002
CA

Personal Injury
Slipping on wet floor of takeaway - claimant had too much to drink - wearing high heels. Held: "There is a distinction between particular dangers such as greasy spillages, which it is reasonable to expect a shopkeeper to deal with straightaway, and the general problem posed by walked in water on a wet night, which can never be completely avoided. " and "it was not reasonable to expect the shopkeeper to ensure that the mat was in place and mop the floor often enough and efficiently enough to prevent its being wet, even significantly or considerably so. To suggest otherwise is a counsel of perfection imposing a near strict liability which the law does not at present do. I would therefore allow the appeal and dismiss the claim in its entirety."
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 2
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Mccook v Lobo and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1760; [2003] ICR 89
19 Nov 2002
CA
Judge LJ, Hale LJ
Personal Injury, Construction, Health and Safety
The defendant was the occupier of premises. He did not direct how the work should be done and was not present at the time the work was being performed. Held. He had not been in control of the relevant work. Judge LJ referred to Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations and said: "The requisite level of control before the duty does arise, however, is linked to the way in which construction work is carried out and it is confined to construction work within the individual's control. For this purpose the obvious person who controls the way in which construction work on site is carried out is an employer. The employer owes express duties under regulation 4(1). That, therefore, identifies the starting point. But someone who is not an employer may also be bound by the statutory obligation under regulation 4(2). Whether the appropriate level of control over the work is or should be exercised by an individual other than an employer so as to create the duty to comply with the obligations under regulation 4(2) is, in my judgment, a question of fact. It is not answered affirmatively by demonstrating that an individual has control over the site in a general sense as an occupier, or that as the occupier of the site he was entitled to ask or require a contractor to remove obvious hazards from the site. The required control is related to control over the work of construction"
Hale LJ underlined that the issue of control was an issue of fact, saying: "Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations to my mind depends entirely on the question of factual control."
Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Herbert George Snell and others v Robert Young and Co Limited and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1644
21 Nov 2002
CA
Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Carnwath
Personal Injury
The claimants had sought damages for poisoning from organophosphates used in sheep dipping. Evidence linking the injuries to the use of the chemicals had not been found, and the actions struck out as an abuse of process. The group litigation had been struck out but it was not agreed what had happened to the individual claims. Held: In disposing of the group litigation proceedings and order, it did not make sense to allow the individual claims to proceed. That had not been contended for, and should not now be allowed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Dugmore v Swansea NHS Trust and Another Times, 09 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1689
21 Nov 2002
CA
Tuckey, Hale, LJJ, Sir Denis Hale
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
The claimant had become sensitive to latex dust while working for the first employer, then suffered an anaphylactic shock when coming into contact with the dust while employed by the second. Held: The regulations required that 'every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employee to a substance hazardous to health is either prevented, or where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.' The words were clear. The duty was absolute except for reasonable practicality, when the duty was simply to ensure adequate protection. There was no limitation on the second limb to allow for relative risk, or reasonable practicality.
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1657) - Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (1994 No 3246) - Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 (1999 No 437) 7
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
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 ]
 
Stratton v Brown [2002] EWCA Civ 1811
28 Nov 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Mcmylor v Firth Rixson Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1863
28 Nov 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Stevenson v East Dunbartonshire Council [2002] ScotCS 306; 2003 SLT 97
29 Nov 2002
OHCS
Lord Bonomy
Scotland, Personal Injury

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters [2002] EWCA 1792; [2003] PIQR 232
6 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Ward, Sir Anthony Evans
Damages, Personal Injury
A new mother woke in hospital to see her baby (E) fitting. E suffered a major epileptic seizure leading to coma and irreparable brain damage. E was transferred to a London hospital and the following day the claimant was told by a consultant that E's brain damage was so severe that he would have no quality of life. The claimant and her husband then decided that E's life support should be terminated and E died in her arms approximately 36 hours after the seizure. Negligence in the Hospital was admitted, and the issue was the award of damages for nervous shock. Held: The Trust's appeal failed. The circumstances witnessed by her were distressing in the extreme and capable of producing an effect going well beyond that of grief and sorrow. Without the sudden and direct visual impression on the claimant’s mind of actually witnessing the event or its immediate aftermath there is no liability. The elements of proximity and causation are closely linked together. The case involved no new step in the award of such damages.
Ward LJ said: "In my judgment the law as presently formulated does permit a realistic view being taken from case to case of what constitutes the necessary "event". Our task is not to construe the word as if it had appeared in legislation but to gather the sense of the word in order to inform the principle to be drawn from the various authorities. As a word, it has a wide meaning as shown by its definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as: "An item in a sports programme, or the programme as a whole". It is a useful metaphor or at least a convenient description for the "fact and consequence of the defendant's negligence", per Lord Wilberforce [in McLoughlin], or the series of events which make up the entire event beginning with the negligent infliction of damage through to the conclusion of the immediate aftermath whenever that may be. It is a matter of judgment from case to case depending on the facts and circumstance of each case. In my judgment on the facts of this case there was an inexorable progression from the moment when the fit occurred as a result of the failure of the hospital properly to diagnose and then to treat the baby, the fit causing the brain damage which shortly thereafter made termination of this child's life inevitable and the dreadful climax when the child died in her arms. It is a seamless tale with an obvious beginning and an equally obvious end. It was played out over a period of 36 hours, which for her both at the time and as subsequently recollected was undoubtedly one drawn-out experience."
When considering whether the event was "horrifying", Ward LJ said: "For my part the facts only have to be stated for the test to be satisfied. This mother awakens to find her baby rigid after a convulsion. Blood is coming from his mouth. He is choking. Is that not as much an assault upon her senses as if her child had been involved in a road accident, suffered grievous head injuries as yet undetected and was found bleeding in the car seat? Her fear and anxiety was undoubtedly calmed not only afterwards when given an incorrect medical opinion that it was very unlikely and would be very unlucky if Elliot had suffered serious damage. Every mother would seize upon the good news for her comfort to reduce the impact of the horror. Consequently, all the more likely it is that she should have felt numb, panic stricken and terrified by the sudden turn in events when she arrived at King's College Hospital. That left her stunned. As the consultant observed she "responded as if half in a dream . . in a state of emotional shock". Her hopes were lifted then they were dashed and finally destroyed when shortly thereafter she was advised to terminate treatment on the life support machine. That she should have felt that "this was a complete shock" seems to me to be inevitable. That her immediate reaction should have been one of anger is understandable. Anger is part of the grieving process. But the agreed medical evidence made it plain that the combination of events "witnessed and experienced" caused her pathological grief reaction and was different from a normal grief reaction. They must have been chilling moments, truly shocking events, as the experts agreed in answer to the seventh question put to them, and thus amply justifying the conclusion that this was a horrifying event."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hewison v Meridian Shipping Pte, Coflexip Stena Offshore Ltd, Flex Installer Offshore Ltd; CA 11-Dec-2002 - Times, 28 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1821; [2003] PIQR 252; [2003] ICR 766; [2002] All ER (D) 146
 
Grocutt v Khan [2002] EWCA Civ 1945
11 Dec 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Costs
The common law is a maze and not a motorway.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Soper) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel [2002] EWCA Civ 1803
12 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Simon Brown <
Damages, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Charles v NTL Group Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 2004
13 Dec 2002
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Vowles v Evans, the Welsh Rugby Union Limited, Davey, Taylor Times, 31 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2612 (QB)
13 Dec 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Morland
Personal Injury
The claimant sought damages (inter alia) against the amateur referee of the amateur rugby game in which he had received substantial injuries. Held: It was consistent with the laws and spirit of the game that an amateur referee should accept a duty of care for the safety of players. The rapport between players and referee would not be reduced for such a responsibility. The duty would be breached if the referee failed to take reasonable care, by the sensible and appropriate application of the laws of rugby in the particular context of the game being played.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Taplin v Fife Council [2002] ScotCS 319; 2003 SLT 653
17 Dec 2002
OHCS
Lord Philip
Scotland, Personal Injury

1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Slaven v Greenwood Nursery (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1970
19 Dec 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Limitation

Limitation Act 1980 33(3)
[ Bailii ]
 
Babcock International Ltd v Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd [2002] EWHC 2728 (Comm)
19 Dec 2002
ComC

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
In re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation Times, 17 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2825 (QB)
20 Dec 2002
QBD
Nelson J
Personal Injury, Transport, European, Human Rights, Litigation Practice
The claimants claimed to have suffered deep vein thrombosis having been sat in cramped conditions for long periods whilst travelling by air. They sought compensation, saying that the failure by the airlines to warn them and take steps to minimise the dangers was culpable. Under the Convention they had to establish that the injuries constituted accidents. Held: The injuries were not accidents. The test was set out in Morris, namely 'a simple criterion of causation by an accident'. An accident is 'an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger' (Saks). There was nothing in the respective flights which satisfied these tests. Article 17 was not fault based, nor was any theory of risk allocation to be applied, and the Convention was the exclusive remedy. Neither Human Rights law nor European regulations provided alternative remedies.
Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air 1929 17 - Carriage by Air Act 1961 - EC Regulation 2027/97/EC on air carrier liability in the event of accidents - European Convention on Human Rights 6 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Giambrone and others v JMC Holidays Ltd (Formerly Sunworld Holidays Ltd) [2002] EWHC 2932 (QB); [2003] 2 Costs LR 189
20 Dec 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Morland
Personal Injury, Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

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