Case directory for tort law
Duty of Care
Donoghue v - Mrs Donoghue went to a café; she bought a ginger beer. The
Stevenson bottle of beer had dark glass.
- The drink contained a decomposing dead snail. She suffered
physical and psychological injuries.
- She wanted to claim for her injuries. As she had bought the drink
from the manufacturer, she was in a contractual relationship
with them. She sued them, they owed her a duty if care.
Robinson v Chief - Mrs Robinson suffered injuries when she was knocked over and
Constable of West fallen on by two police officers who were physically
Yorkshire (2018) apprehending a suspect drug dealer whilst she was in close
physical proximity.
- Both the trial court and Court of Appeal held that as negligence
in line with the existing authority on this point, Hill v Chief
Constable of West Yorkshire (1989). Outcome – liable
Caparo v Dickman - Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of
(1990) the accounts which stated that the company had made a pre-tax
profit of £1.3 million.
- In fact, Fidelity had made a loss of over £400,000.
Harm reasonably - An ambulance was called to take the claimant, who suffered an
foreseeable asthma attack, to hospital.
Kent v Griffiths (2000) - Despite the repeated assurance by the call centre an ambulance
never arrived. The claimant suffered respiratory arrest.
- The court though that it was reasonably foreseeable that if the
ambulance did not arrive damage would occur.
Proximity of - A pregnant lady heard an accident as she got off the tram. She
Relationship got closer and saw blood.
Bourhill v Young - She suffered shock and ten later gave birth to a stillborn baby.
(1943) - She sued but they determined she was not owed a duty of care –
she was not close enough.
Proximity of - The claimant’s husband and children were involved in a serious
Relationship road incident. She rushed to the hospital where she saw her
McLoughlin v O’Brien family before, they were treated.
(1982) - She suffered extreme shock. She was considered to be
proximate.
Fair, Just and - In this case a serial killer, the Yorkshire Ripper, has been attacking
Reasonable and murdering women. The claimant’s daughter was the killers
Hill v Chief Constable last victim before he was caught.
of West Yorkshire - The mother claimed that the police owed a duty of care to the
(1990) general public, and this was proximate to her as her daughter
was lost as a result.
, Breach of Duty
Bolam v Frien Barnet - The claimant was suffering from a mental illness, the treatment
Hospital Management for which was ECT.
Committee (1957) - He signed a consent form but was not told the risk of broken
bones. He was not given relaxant drugs which also increased the
risk of this happening. They broke their pelvis during the
treatment.
- Two opinions on the use of the drugs were gathered before the
procedure, one doctor said it was not so important. Because the
hospital listened to one of the specialists, they had not breached
their duty of care.
The principle from this case for deciding if professionals have breached
their duty of care is to ask the following two questions:
1. Does the defendant’s conduct fall below the standard of the
ordinary, competent, member of that profession.
2. Is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that
would support the course of action taken by the defendant.
Reasonable Person – - Mrs Weston was a Learner Driver and had booked lessons with
Learner Driver Mr Nettleship.
Nettleship v Weston - After failing to straighten the wheel after a corner, Mrs Weston
(1971) hit a lamppost, which fell onto the car. Mrs Weston was held to
the standards of an experienced driver.
- This was so Mr Nettleship would be able to claim the full amount
through the insurance policy Mrs Weston had set up.
- The courts thought it would be unfair for Mr Nettleship to not be
paid out for his injuries.
Reasonable Person – - Two girls, aged 15, were play fighting with plastic rulers in class.
Children - One of the rulers snapped and fragments went into the
Mullin v Richards claimant’s eye, she lost all useful sight in that eye.
(1998) - The court decided she should be held to the standard of a 15
year old girl. At this standard, she had breached her duty of care.
In the instance that a child may have breached their duty of care the
defendant is held to the standard of a reasonable person of their age.
Risk Factors – Special - Mr Paris was known to his employers to be blind in one eye. He
Characteristics was given work to do which involved a small risk of injury to his
Paris v Stepney eyes. He was not given any protective goggles.
Borough Council - While doing his work, his good eye was damaged by a small
(1951) piece of metal making him completely blind.
- His employers were held to have breached their duty of care to
him.
Risk Factors – Size of - A cricket ball hit a lady passing by on the street outside of the
Duty of Care
Donoghue v - Mrs Donoghue went to a café; she bought a ginger beer. The
Stevenson bottle of beer had dark glass.
- The drink contained a decomposing dead snail. She suffered
physical and psychological injuries.
- She wanted to claim for her injuries. As she had bought the drink
from the manufacturer, she was in a contractual relationship
with them. She sued them, they owed her a duty if care.
Robinson v Chief - Mrs Robinson suffered injuries when she was knocked over and
Constable of West fallen on by two police officers who were physically
Yorkshire (2018) apprehending a suspect drug dealer whilst she was in close
physical proximity.
- Both the trial court and Court of Appeal held that as negligence
in line with the existing authority on this point, Hill v Chief
Constable of West Yorkshire (1989). Outcome – liable
Caparo v Dickman - Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of
(1990) the accounts which stated that the company had made a pre-tax
profit of £1.3 million.
- In fact, Fidelity had made a loss of over £400,000.
Harm reasonably - An ambulance was called to take the claimant, who suffered an
foreseeable asthma attack, to hospital.
Kent v Griffiths (2000) - Despite the repeated assurance by the call centre an ambulance
never arrived. The claimant suffered respiratory arrest.
- The court though that it was reasonably foreseeable that if the
ambulance did not arrive damage would occur.
Proximity of - A pregnant lady heard an accident as she got off the tram. She
Relationship got closer and saw blood.
Bourhill v Young - She suffered shock and ten later gave birth to a stillborn baby.
(1943) - She sued but they determined she was not owed a duty of care –
she was not close enough.
Proximity of - The claimant’s husband and children were involved in a serious
Relationship road incident. She rushed to the hospital where she saw her
McLoughlin v O’Brien family before, they were treated.
(1982) - She suffered extreme shock. She was considered to be
proximate.
Fair, Just and - In this case a serial killer, the Yorkshire Ripper, has been attacking
Reasonable and murdering women. The claimant’s daughter was the killers
Hill v Chief Constable last victim before he was caught.
of West Yorkshire - The mother claimed that the police owed a duty of care to the
(1990) general public, and this was proximate to her as her daughter
was lost as a result.
, Breach of Duty
Bolam v Frien Barnet - The claimant was suffering from a mental illness, the treatment
Hospital Management for which was ECT.
Committee (1957) - He signed a consent form but was not told the risk of broken
bones. He was not given relaxant drugs which also increased the
risk of this happening. They broke their pelvis during the
treatment.
- Two opinions on the use of the drugs were gathered before the
procedure, one doctor said it was not so important. Because the
hospital listened to one of the specialists, they had not breached
their duty of care.
The principle from this case for deciding if professionals have breached
their duty of care is to ask the following two questions:
1. Does the defendant’s conduct fall below the standard of the
ordinary, competent, member of that profession.
2. Is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that
would support the course of action taken by the defendant.
Reasonable Person – - Mrs Weston was a Learner Driver and had booked lessons with
Learner Driver Mr Nettleship.
Nettleship v Weston - After failing to straighten the wheel after a corner, Mrs Weston
(1971) hit a lamppost, which fell onto the car. Mrs Weston was held to
the standards of an experienced driver.
- This was so Mr Nettleship would be able to claim the full amount
through the insurance policy Mrs Weston had set up.
- The courts thought it would be unfair for Mr Nettleship to not be
paid out for his injuries.
Reasonable Person – - Two girls, aged 15, were play fighting with plastic rulers in class.
Children - One of the rulers snapped and fragments went into the
Mullin v Richards claimant’s eye, she lost all useful sight in that eye.
(1998) - The court decided she should be held to the standard of a 15
year old girl. At this standard, she had breached her duty of care.
In the instance that a child may have breached their duty of care the
defendant is held to the standard of a reasonable person of their age.
Risk Factors – Special - Mr Paris was known to his employers to be blind in one eye. He
Characteristics was given work to do which involved a small risk of injury to his
Paris v Stepney eyes. He was not given any protective goggles.
Borough Council - While doing his work, his good eye was damaged by a small
(1951) piece of metal making him completely blind.
- His employers were held to have breached their duty of care to
him.
Risk Factors – Size of - A cricket ball hit a lady passing by on the street outside of the
