Tag: Personal Injury

Societe Moteurs Leroy Somer v Societe Dalkia France: ECJ 4 Jun 2009

ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Liability for defective products Directive 85/374/EEC Scope Damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that purpose National system permitting the injured person to seek compensation for such damage, where he simply proves the damage, the defect and the causal link – Compatibility

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2009:351, [2009] EUECJ C-285/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Personal Injury

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347044

Webster and Others v The Governors of the Ridgeway Foundation School: QBD 21 May 2009

The first claimant had been severely beaten as he left school. He and his parents also claimed post traumatic stress. They alleged that the school had been negligent in having allowed racial tensions to develop. The claimant was white, and his attackers Asian. The claimants sought disclosure of the school’s disciplinary records unredacted so that the racial origins could be identified. The school, reacted saying that beyond disclosing the names of the attackers, the remaining names were protected by confidence.
Held: Some requests were too wide to satisfy the need for certainty. Others would require specific justification to support the interference with the particular privacy of children.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1140 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kenny, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds Magistrates Court, Leeds City Council Admn 5-Dec-2003
In cases involving children, Article 3 provides that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration, not the primary consideration.
The court looked at the test for making an interim ASBO: ‘Consideration of whether it is just to . .
Cited – Todd v Crown Prosecution Service; T v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another; Todd v DPP QBD 6-Oct-2003
The defendant had been under 18 at the commencement of proceedings but attained 18 during them. The newspaper was granted leave to refer to him by name upon his becoming 18.
Held: Denying the appeal. The balance between the freedom of the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Webster and Others v Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 5-Feb-2010
The claimant had been severely injured when attacked at school. He was a white youth, and his attackers all Asian. The school had a history of inter-racial tension, and he claimed in negligence, and that they had failed to protect his human right . .
See Also – Webster and Others v The Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 2-Mar-2010
The court considered whether costs should be payable on a standard or indemnity basis. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Human Rights, Education, Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346752

Palmer v Cornwall County Council: CA 21 May 2009

The claimant sought damages in negligence against his school when he was hit in the eye by a stone thrown by another pupil at a seagull. The pupil now appealed. The judge had been criticised for providing inadequate supervision.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘First, to have one dinner lady supervisor who would be stretched to supervise over 150 pupils in years 7 and 8, only glancing occasionally at years 9 and 10, was in my view clearly negligent. Second, since the purpose of appropriate supervision is to deter children taking part in dangerous activities, as well as to stop dangerous activities if they do occur, a court should not be too ready to accept that the dangerous activity would have happened anyway. Third, where as here the recorder found witnesses called by the appellant were telling the truth, there was no reason not to accept their evidence that if a supervisor had been near they would not have thrown stones because they knew that stone throwing was prohibited.’

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 456

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence, Education

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346226

Hall v Holker Estate Co Ltd: CA 17 Dec 2008

The claimant was injured playing football with his son while playing football at a caravan park owned by the defendant. He appealed dismissal of his claim. They had been using goal posts which collapsed on him injuring his face. It had not been anchored as required by the manufacturer.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judge was in error; he: ‘should have approached the case upon the broad basis that assuming the pegs had at some time earlier been properly in place along the frame, in accordance with the manufacturers directions, (as to which there was no direct evidence), but that they had been removed by campers for their own purposes, the probabilities were that the situation had existed at least throughout the day and that, if the daily system of inspection to ensure the pegs were in place (which the safety inspector regarded as necessary and the defendants purported to carry out), had actually been carried out, then the absence of pegging would have been detected and the pegs replaced .’

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter P

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1422

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd CA 1976
The claimant slipped on the contents of a yoghurt pot which had spilled onto the floor of the supermarket. The defendants gave evidence of frequent inspection and sweeping of the supermarket floor with instructions to the staff to clear up spillages . .
Cited – Richards v W F White and Co 1957
The plaintiff slipped on oil and fell suffering injury, and claimed damages.
Held: There had to be some evidence to show how long the oil had been present and some evidence from which it could be inferred that a prudent occupier of the . .
Cited – Richards v W F White and Co 1957
The plaintiff slipped on oil and fell suffering injury, and claimed damages.
Held: There had to be some evidence to show how long the oil had been present and some evidence from which it could be inferred that a prudent occupier of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278819

X v Kuoni Travel Ltd: QBD 30 Nov 2016

The Claimant, Mrs X, sought damages for personal injury and other losses arising out of a sexual assault (including rape), on 17th July 2010 during a 14 day all-inclusive package holiday which the Claimant had purchased from the Defendant, Kuoni Travel Ltd, which included accommodation at the [A] Hotel in Sri Lanka.
Held: ‘holiday arrangements’ in clause 5.10(b) of the regulations did not include a member of the maintenance staff conducting a guest to reception. Obiter, Kuoni would in any event have been able to rely on the statutory defence under regulation 15(2)(c)(ii) because the assault was an event which could not have been foreseen or forestalled (by inference by the hotel) even with all due care, and the hotel would not have been vicariously liable for the rape and assault as a matter of Sri Lankan law, which it was agreed was the same as English law for these purposes.

Judges:

McKenna HHJ

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3090 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – X v Kuoni Travel Ltd CA 26-Apr-2018
The claimant sought damages after being sexually assaulted by a hotel worker on her holiday in Sri Lanka. She said that the incident was an improper performance of the contract and in breach of the 1992 Regulations. She appealed from rejection of . .
At first instance – X v Kuoni Travel Ltd SC 24-Jul-2019
The claimant had been raped by a member of staff at the hotel in Sri Lanka booked through the respondent travel company. She now appealed from dismissal of the claim.
Held: Questions were referred to the ECJ, namely: ‘(1) Where there has been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Torts – Other, Consumer

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.572341

Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd (T/A Thoresby Hall Hotel and Spa): CA 7 May 2008

A leisure centre appealed a finding of liability under the 1957 Act after a customer slipped on water by a jacuzzi and injured herself, saying that the judge imposed too high a duty of care.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘If the claimant can prove facts which support the inference that the defendant was at fault, an evidential burden, that is, a burden to call evidence which would tend to rebut that inference, passes to the defendant. In this case, however, the facts proved by the claimant were not in my view sufficient to support the inference that the defendant was at fault. There was no evidence that the defendant knew that a significant pool of water was likely to appear in the area in which the claimant fell, or indeed anywhere else in the general area, other than at the foot of the steps leading out of the Jacuzzi, and accordingly the evidence called by the claimant did not point to the conclusion that prima facie there was a breach of duty on the part of the defendant. ‘

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 654

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd CA 1976
The claimant slipped on the contents of a yoghurt pot which had spilled onto the floor of the supermarket. The defendants gave evidence of frequent inspection and sweeping of the supermarket floor with instructions to the staff to clear up spillages . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Land

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270529

Bollito v Arriva London: CA 20 May 2008

The defendant renewed its application for leave to appeal against a finding that its driver was 100% to blame when a passenger was trapped in the door as he got on a bus, and then fell as the driver accelerated away causing serious head injuries.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 621

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal INjury

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.269712

Mason and Another v Satelcom Ltd and East Potential Ltd: CA 14 May 2008

The claimant was replacing a computer memory card. He fell from a ladder suffering injury. He was employed by the defendant contracting for another defendant, and used a ladder on loan from another neighbour.
Held: The contribution sought from the owner of the ladder failed. It had not been proved that East owned the ladder, and therefore their duty went no further in this case than to make sure whilst it was under their control it did not get in anyone’s way.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 494, Times 04-Jun-2008, [2008] ICR 971

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (1992 No 2932)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mason v Satelcom Ltd and others QBD 24-Jul-2007
The claimant IT engineer was injured replacing a computer card. He was employed by other defendants contracting for the now only continuing defendant. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267654

Ferryways Nv v Associated British Ports: ComC 14 Feb 2008

The court considered the effect of an exclusion from liability reading: ‘Exclusion and Limitations of Liability . . (c) Where the Company is in breach of its obligations in respect of the Services or under any Contract or any duties it may have as bailee of the Goods it shall have no liability to the Customer in contract, tort, negligence, breach of statutory duty or otherwise for any loss, damage, costs or expenses of any nature whatsoever incurred or suffered by the Customer which is of an indirect or consequential nature including without limitation the following:
(i) loss or deferment of profit;
(ii) loss or deferment of revenue;
(iii) loss of goodwill;
(iv) loss of business;
(v) loss or deferment of production or increased costs of production;
(vi) the liabilities of the Customer to any other party.’
Held: Where a party seeks to protect himself from liability for losses otherwise recoverable by law for breach of contract he must do so by clear and unambiguous language. Clause 9(c) provides that liability for such losses as are ‘of an indirect or consequential nature’ is excluded. In the light of the well-recognised meaning which has been accorded to such words in a variety of exemption clauses by the courts from 1934 to 1999 it would require very clear words indeed to indicate that the parties’ intentions when using such words was to exclude losses which fall outside that well-recognised meaning. This is particularly so when ‘indirect’ is used as well as ‘consequential’. The use of ‘indirect’ draws an implicit distinction with direct losses. The meaning which has been given to direct losses in the cases which I have mentioned is ‘loss which flows naturally from the breach without other intervening cause and independently of special circumstances’ (per Atkinson J in Saint Line[3] at page 103). By contrast, indirect or consequential losses are losses which are not the direct and natural result of the breach (per Atkinson J in Saint Line at page 104).
The important question therefore is whether the words in clause 9 ‘including without limitation the following’ indicate clearly that the parties were giving their own definition of indirect or consequential losses so as to include the specified losses even if they are the direct and natural result of the breach in question. In my judgment those words do not provide the sort of clear indication which is necessary for the defendant’s argument. The parties are merely identifying the type of losses (without limitation) which can fall within the exemption clause so long as the losses meet the prior requirement that they are ‘of an indirect or consequential nature’. Had the parties intended that liability for losses which were the direct and natural result of the breach could be excluded they would have hardly have described such losses as ‘indirect or consequential’.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 225 (Comm), [2008] 1 Lloyds Rep 639

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Markerstudy Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Endsleigh Insurance Services Ltd ComC 18-Feb-2010
The claimant insurers alleged the mishandling of insurance claims by the defendant of many claims leading to substantial losses. The parties asked the court to determine a basis for calculation of damages under the contract.
Held: A similar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264525

Cotton v Derbyshire Dales District Council: CA 10 Jun 1994

The claimant had been injured falling on land owned by the defendant. The had gone down what he must have known was not a path and fallen over a cliff. He appealed dismissal of his claim.
Held: Any notice would only have warned of the obvious difficulty and danger. The land owners were not in breach of their duty.

Citations:

[1994] EWCA Civ 17

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupiers Liability Act 1957 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Glasgow Corporation v Taylor HL 18-Nov-1921
A father brought an action for damages for the death of his son who had eaten poisonous berries growing in one of the defenders’ public parks. The plants were easily accessible from a children’s play area and it was said that the defender had a duty . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263234

Baker v TE Hopkins and Son Ltd: CA 24 Jul 1959

The defendant had employed to clean a well. In error a petrol pump was sued, which discharged carbon monoxide into the well. On two workers getting into difficulties, a doctor sought to rescue them. All three died in the well. The employer denied negligence as regards the death of the Doctor.
Held: ‘ Bearing in mind that danger invites rescue, the court should not be astute to accept criticism of the rescuer’s conduct from the wrongdoer who created the danger. Moreover, I think it should be remembered that it is fatally easy to be wise after the event. It is not enough that, when all the evidence has been sifted and all the facts ascertained in the calm and deliberate atmosphere of a court of law, the rescuer’s conduct can be shown ex post facto to have been misguided or foolhardy. He is entitled to be judged in the light of the situation as it appeared to him at the time, i.e., in a context of immediate and pressing emergency. Here Dr. Baker was faced with a situation in which two men were in danger of speedy death at the bottom of the well, unless something were done very quickly. He was a doctor, and he had been specially summoned to help. Any man of courage in his position would have felt impelled to act, even at the risk of his own safety. Time was pressing; immediate action was necessary if the men in danger were to be helped; there was virtually no opportunity for reflection, or for estimating the risks involved in an act of rescue. If Dr. Baker in such circumstances had instinctively gone straight down the well, without stopping to take any precautions at all, it would, I think, have been difficult enough to criticise him. But in point of fact he did take the very wise precaution of securing himself with a rope, whereby those on the surface could pull him up if he himself were overcome. The immediate cause of his death was the sheer mischance of the rope becoming caught on some obstruction, so as to make it impossible for those on the surface to pull him to safety. I do not think that, having regard to the emergency in which he was acting, he is to be blamed for not foreseeing and guarding against the possibility of such a mischance. On the contrary, I entirely agree with the view expressed by the judge that the defendants, whose negligence brought about the danger, must accept the risk of mischances of this kind. In all the circumstances, I find it impossible to accept the contention that Dr. Baker was guilty of any negligence either causing or contributing to his death.’

Judges:

Morris, Ormerod, Willmer LJJ

Citations:

[1959] EWCA Civ 4, [1959] 1 WLR 966, [1959] 3 All ER 225

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262820

Ellis v Bristol City Council: CA 5 Jul 2007

The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for personal injuries. She worked at a nursing home, and had slipped on urine on the floor. Slip mats had been placed on the floor, but had been insufficient. There had been previous accidents, and a risk assessment had identified the dangers, and steps taken. The claim was based on the construction of the floor.
Held: The judge had wrongly not considered the associated Code of Practice as an aid to construction of the Regulations. The appeal was allowed. The judge had been wrong to have excluded all but permanent features of the floor: ‘Regulation 12(1) and (2) do require the court to consider suitability in the context of the circumstances of use, including circumstances which are temporary in nature, providing they arise with a sufficient degree of frequency and regularity. The paragraphs read together require that the surface of a floor or traffic route must not be slippery.’

Judges:

Smith LJ, Lloyd LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 685, Times 21-Aug-2007, [2007] ICR 1614

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12, Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rogers v George Blair 1971
The court considered the suitability of some goggles as a means of protecting a workman’s eyes.
Held: To be suitable, the protection need not make it impossible for an accident to occur but it must make it highly unlikely. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254461

Byrne (A Minor) v The Motor Insurers Bureau, Secretary of State for Transport: QBD 5 Jun 2007

The court was asked whether the UK provisions for the Motor Insurers bureau met the requirements of the European Directive.
Held: The UK had failed to implement the directive properly by imposing a three year limit on claims when no such limitation was allowed by the directive. That failure arose not from any policy, but mere and inexcusable inadvertence. The breach was sufficiently serious to leave the Secretary of State liable for damages.

Judges:

Flaux J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1268 (QB), Times 15-Jun-2007, [2008] 2 WLR 234

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Byrne (A Minor) v The Motor Insurers Bureau and Another CA 22-May-2008
The claimant said that the rejection of his claim against the MIB was out ouf time under the MIB scheme, where, had the claim been against the driver, the claim would have succeeded.
Held: The Bureau’s appeal failed. European law imposed a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Personal Injury, European

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253212

EH Humphries (Norton) Ltd. Thistle Hotels Plc v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd: CA 10 Nov 2006

The sub-contractor’s workman fell through a skylight and died. His employers having settled, obtained contribution orders from the main contractors and building owners who each now appealed.
Held: Whether main contractors were also liable to an injured workman was a mixed question of fact and law. The main contractors were in this case not liable. As to the owners, they did not breach any duty of care to notify the deceased or his employers of any warning received by themselves. The judge in this case had made findings of fact which were not open to him, and the appeals succeeded.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1496, Times 22-Nov-2006, [2007] ICR 247

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McArdle v Andmac Roofing Co and Others 1967
Non-employers can owe a duty of care analogous to those owed by an employer particularly where the non-employer is engaged in operations which may affect the sub-contractor or his employee . .
Cited – Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club CA 7-Nov-2003
The claimant was very badly injured at a bonfire organised by the defendants. He had been asked to help with a part of the display, organised by sub-contractors, which exploded as he was filling it.
Held: The nature of the activity to be . .
Cited – Makepeace v Evans Brothers (Reading) (A Firm) and Another CA 23-May-2000
Scaffolding is an ordinary piece of equipment on a building site. As a general rule an occupier of a building did not owe a duty of care for the safety of employees of its independent contractor. However, there may be occasions when such a duty of . .
Cited – Ferguson v Welsh HL 29-Oct-1987
The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury. A council had engaged a competent contractor to carry out demolition works. Unknown to the council, the contractor sub-contracted the works to two brothers who worked in a highly dangerous manner. . .
Cited – S v Gloucestershire County Council CA 2001
The court considered the structure of a claim in negligence: ‘A negligence claim is habitually analysed compartmentally by asking whether there was (a) a duty of care; (b) breach of that duty and (c) damage caused by the breach of duty. But damage . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246368

PRP Architects v Reid: CA 28 Jul 2006

A lift was held to be work equipment within the Regulations.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1119, [2007] ICR 78

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others HL 2-Jul-2008
The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was . .
Cited – Smith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244102

Toth v Jarman: CA 19 Jul 2006

The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages for nervous shock, associated with the alleged negligence of the defendant doctor in treating his son. It was said that the medical expert had not disclosed a conflict of interest.
Held: The presence of a conflict of interest in an expert need not necessarily disqualify an expert, though ‘where an expert has a material or significant conflict of interest, the court is likely to decline to act on his evidence or indeed to give permission for his evidence to be adduced.’ The test was as to the independence of his opinion. The court made suggestions for the Rules committee as to possible amendments to the expert’s standard declaration.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter President, Arden LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1028, Times 17-Aug-2006, [2006] 4 All ER 1276

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Whitehouse v Jordan HL 17-Dec-1980
The plaintiff sued for brain damage suffered at birth by use of forceps at the alleged professional negligence of his doctor. The Court of Appeal had reversed the judge’s finding in his favour.
Held: In this case most of the evidence at issue . .
Cited – North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters CA 6-Dec-2002
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 . .
Cited – Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdeacon Trustees Inc v Goldberg (No 2) 2001
The claimant brought proceedings for professional negligence against a barrister specialising in tax. The Defendant wished to rely upon the expert evidence of another tax barrister in the same set of chambers as him, who was a friend of many years’ . .
Cited – Pollivitte Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Company Plc 1987
An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise. . .
Cited – Field and Another v Leeds City Council CA 8-Dec-1999
The parties were involved in a dispute as to repairs on a tenanted property. The court had ordered an independent surveyor’s report. The claimant objected to the use by the defendant of an employee for this purpose, and was involved in their claims . .
Cited – National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’) 1993
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the . .
Cited – Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991
The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. The defendant police service had not . .

Cited by:

See Also – Toth v Jarman CA 21-Nov-2006
. .
Cited – Chester City Council and Another v Arriva Plc and others ChD 15-Jun-2007
The claimant council alleged that the defendant had acted to abuse its dominant market position in the provision of bus services in the city.
Held: It was for the claimant to show that the defendant had a dominant position. It had not done so, . .
Cited – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Evidence

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243326

McMminn v McMinn and Another: QBD 11 Apr 2006

The claimant had been severely injured in a car crash when his younger brother was driving. The driver did not have the owner’s permission to drive, and the insurer sought to avoid laibility.
Held: ‘insurers do not have to prove that the injured passenger actually believed that the vehicle had been stolen or unlawfully taken. What has to be proved is that the injured passenger had the information . . . which would have afforded him good reasons for believing that the vehicle had been stolen or unlawfully taken had he applied his mind to the topic. Shutting one’s eyes to the obvious is therefore enough, provided that it would indeed have been obvious to the injured passenger if he had thought about it. ‘ because of the knowledge found as a fact in the claimant of the circumstances, the insurer could properly refuse its indemnity.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 827 (QB), Times 02-May-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 151 145, Second EEC Motor Insurance Directive 84/5/EEC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Phipps CACD 1970
Where a person has been given permission by the owner of a motor vehicle to take and use it for a particular purpose, but on completion of that purpose fails to return it and thereafter uses it without any reasonable belief that the owner would . .
Cited – White v White and The Motor Insurers Bureau HL 1-Mar-2001
The requirements as to the extent of knowledge in the mind of a passenger sufficient to defeat a claim against the Motor Insurers Bureau, of the driver’s lack of insurance, was actual knowledge. The rules implemented a European Directive which . .
Cited – McNight v Davies 1974
The court considered whether a driver had teken a vehicle without the owners consent, and having had that consent for one purpose, continued to use the car beyond that purpose: ‘[n]ot every brief, unauthorised diversion from his proper route by an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Personal injury

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240426

Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd and others: QBD 3 Mar 2006

The deceased, a maintenance engineer died after falling through a skylight at work. The court considered the respective liabilities of his employer and the landowner.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 849 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Clay v AJ Crump and Sons Ltd CA 1964
An architect, a demolition contractor and a building contractor were each held liable to an employee of building contractors for the collapse of a wall which, with the architect’s approval, demolition contractors had left standing.
Held: As . .
Cited – Mccook v Lobo and others CA 19-Nov-2002
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) . .
Cited – Ferguson v Welsh HL 29-Oct-1987
The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury. A council had engaged a competent contractor to carry out demolition works. Unknown to the council, the contractor sub-contracted the works to two brothers who worked in a highly dangerous manner. . .
Cited – McArdle v Andmac Roofing Co 1967
. .
Cited – Smith v UMB Chrysler (Scotland) Ltd HL 9-Nov-1977
The principles set out in Canada Steamship apply to ‘clauses which purport to exempt one party to a contract from liability’. The principles should be applied without ‘mechanistic construction’.
Lord Keith of Kinkel said: The tests were . .
Cited – Mccook v Lobo and others CA 19-Nov-2002
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) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240441

Denton Hall Legal Services and others v Fifield: CA 8 Mar 2006

The court gave guidance on the procedures to be adopted to avoid difficulties arising from factual differences between medical experts.
Buxton LJ discussed the status of quotations recorded by the doctor examining a claimant, saying: ‘What the doctor writes down as having been told him by the patient, as opposed to the opinion that he expresses on the basis of those statements, is not at that stage evidence of the making of the statement that he records.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Charnock and Others v Rowan and Others CA 20-Jan-2012
14 passengers in a bus hit from behind at a slow speed had all claimed whiplash injury. The expert had said that the accepted speed required to produce such an injury was a change of 3mph, which would require an impact at 30mph, whereas the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238897

Jacqueline Adam v Rasal Ali: CA 21 Feb 2006

The defendant sought damages against the defendant for personal injury from his alleged negligence. Her action was struck out and she recommenced the action. The defendant pleaded that she was out of time. The claimant said that the first action having been struck out, the judge retained his discretion to disapply the limitation period, following Walkley.
Held: ‘I simply do not understand how it can be argued that because the first action brought out of time would not have been prejudiced by section 11 if the defendants did not or would not successfully have taken the limitation point, therefore the second action is not prejudiced by section 11. The second action is under direct threat of being defeated by a time-bar defence. ‘ Walkley was anomalous and should be confined to its facts. ‘Because the judge misdirected himself in material respects, we must exercise our own discretion. The question is whether it is equitable to allow the action to proceed. The answer is given by balancing the prejudice to the plaintiff against the prejudice to the defendant having regard to the specific factors and all the circumstances of the case. In summary this is a long delay, some of it unexplained. That delay is, however, mitigated by the fact that the defendant had very early notice of the claim, admitted liability and was well on the road to preparing to meet the damages claim when the guillotine fell. ‘

Judges:

Lady Justice Arden DBE Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2006] 1 WLR 1330, [2006] EWCA Civ 91, Times 06-Mar-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Confined to its facts – Walkley v Precision Forgings Ltd HL 1979
The plaintiff tried to bring a second action in respect of an industrial injury claim outside the limitation period so as to overcome the likelihood that his first action, although timeous, would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Held: He . .
Cited – Chappell v Cooper CA 1980
The plaintiff’s writ had not been served within the required time, and it had become too late to extend its validity. The plaintiff isued a second writ. The defendant argued limitation. Counsel for the plaintiffs sought to distinguish Walkley on the . .
Cited – Thompson v Brown Construction (Ebbw Vale) Ltd HL 1981
The plaintiff’s solicitors, out of negligence, failed to issue a writ until one month after the limitation period had expired. The application to extend the period was rejected at first instance since he had an unanswerable claim against his . .
Cited – Re Workvale Ltd (In Liquidation) CA 8-Apr-1992
A limited company was correctly restored to the register from dissolution so that its insurers could face an arguable claim. Where a first writ issued within the primary limitation period was ineffective (although not a nullity) through having been . .
Cited – White v Glass CA 17-Feb-1989
The plaintiff had sued his club under its name, but it was an unincorporated association, and the action was stricken out as improperly constituted. The first writ issued within the primary limitation period but was ineffective. The defendant . .
Cited – Deerness v John R Keeble and Son (Brantham) Ltd HL 1983
The plaintiff suffered very serious injuries as a passenger in a car, and a writ was issued within the three-year period against the driver and the owner of the car whose insurers made a substantial interim payment. The writ was not served, nor . .
Cited – Shapland v Palmer CA 23-Mar-1999
The plaintiff’s car was struck by a company car driven by the defendant in the course of her employment and she sought damages. Her action, against the employer, was struck out as late under the 1980 Act. She then commenced an action against the . .
Cited – Barry Young (Deceased) v Western Power Distribution (South West) Plc CA 18-Jul-2003
The deceased had begun an action on becoming ill after exposure to asbestos by the defendant. He withdrew his action after receiving expert evidence that his illness was unrelated. A post-mortem examination showed this evidence to be mistaken. His . .
Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003
The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .
Cited – Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd HL 1990
The plaintiff, then a 16 year old girl slipped and fell whilst employed at the defendant’s factory. The limitation period expired on her 21st birthday. She commenced proceedings five and a half months after that date. The judge extended time under . .

Cited by:

Cited – Horton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238659

McDonnell v Holwerda: QBD 27 May 2005

The claimant sought damages alleging that the defendant doctor had failed to diagnose his child meningitis.
Held: The examination conducted by the doctor had been inadequate in the circumstances, and her approach inflexible: ‘although the defendant’s assessment on the first occasion did not fall below the standard required of her, it was marked by a measure of inattention to the vomiting and a significant measure of certainty. In my judgment, her overall assessment on the second occasion was reached in haste.’

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1081 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226998

Wright v Sullivan: CA 27 May 2005

The claimant had appointed a clinical case manager. She appealed an order requiring the case manager to report also to the court.
Held: The case manager’s duties were purely to the claimant, and an order requiring that manager to report also to any other party would be inimical to his task. Nevertheless any communication between the case manager and the claimant’s experts would not be protected by litigation privilege.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Dyson LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 656, Times 24-Jun-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Waugh v British Railways Board HL 12-Jul-1979
No Litigation Privilege without Dominant Purpose
An internal report had been prepared by two of the Board’s officers two days after a collision involving the death of a locomotive driver, whose widow brought the action and now sought its production.
Held: The court considered litigation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225328

Davies v Stockwell (T/A R and R Stockwell Builiding Contractors): CA 15 Apr 2005

The defendant sought leave to appeal against a finding of laibility after the claimant was injured tripping over a paving stone left by the defendant demolishing a property. Orange bunting strung between posts had been left around the site overnight, but had been removed by vandals.
Held: Leave was granted, but the court encouraged the defendant to settle the matter. Smith v Littlewood had not been wrongly applied. ‘the defendant left property for which he is responsible in a situation in which vandals which he knows or should know would be likely to use that property in a way that will create a danger. ‘

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 444

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224780

Harding v The Pub Estate Company Ltd: CA 6 May 2005

Damages for stress at work – public house manager.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 553

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224792

Armstrong and Another v First York: CA 17 Jan 2005

The claimant sought damages after a road traffic accident. The judge heard evidence from the claimant’s in person and from a conflicting expert’s report. He preferred the evidence of the claimants which he found to be blameless and honest. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no rule requiring the court to accept an expert’s evidence over that of a lay witness. Our system is one of trial by judge, not by expert witness. The judge had been open and clear as to why he made his findings.

Judges:

Brooke VP CA, Arden, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 277, [2005] 1 WLR 2751

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Road Traffic

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223680

Raggett, The Executors of The Estate of v Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Others: QBD 1 Jul 2016

Claim for personal injuries loss and damage brought on behalf of the estate of the late John Raggett deceased, pursuant to the provisions of the 1934 Act.

Judges:

Sir Alistair MacDuff

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1604 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.567068

Bailey and Others v Glaxosmithkline (UK) Ltd: QBD 29 Jul 2016

Several claimants sought damages saying that they had suffered side effects from taking a drug Seroxat manufactured by the defendant. The defendant now continued its application to have the claims struck out as disproportionate in the ratio of expense to any possible benefit to the claimants.
Held: The claim should continue to a limited extent.

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1975 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.567817

LAT v East Somerset NHS Trust (Now Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust): QBD 8 Jul 2016

Application on behalf of the claimant under CPR 25.7 for an interim payment in respect of his claim for damages against the defendant arising out of the defendant’s negligent failure properly to treat him during the neonatal period and in particular in failing to treat his hypoglycaemia appropriately.

Judges:

Reddihough HHJ

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1610 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.567067

KLM v EUI Ltd: QBD 24 Jun 2016

Application on behalf of the claimant under CPR 25.7 for an interim payment in respect of her claim for damages for personal injuries, loss and damage arising out of a road traffic accident. She was a passenger in a car driven by her boyfriend, who was insured by the defendant.

Judges:

Reddihough HHJ

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1497 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.566258

Jacobs v Motor Insurers Bureau: QBD 16 Feb 2010

The UK claimant was seriously injured in Spain. The negligent car driver was not insured. The parties now disputed which law would apply in assessing the damages payable by the defendant.

Judges:

Owen J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 231 (QB), [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 1128, [2010] RTR 35, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep IR 244

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation body) Regulations 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Jacobs v Motor Insurers Bureau CA 27-Oct-2010
The claimant was injured when struck by a car in Spain, driven by an uninsured driver. He claimed here against the MIB. The 2003 Regulations under which he claimed had not been updated for the 2007 EU Regulations. The parties disputed which law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.401005

Spence v Wilson and Others (No 2): OHCS 18 May 1998

When calculating interest on the loss of a primary family wage, the court was not to deduct benefits from such payments, and interest can be included in the total to be offset against his own liability to repay benefits.

Citations:

Times 18-May-1998

Statutes:

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.89452