Cases

• Donoghue v Stephenson (1932)


  D should take reasonable care to avoid injury to their neighbour in law. Your neighbour is anyone closely effected by your actions or omissions.
• Robinson v CC of W Yorks (2018)


  Where a precedent establishes that a duty of care exists in a particular case the court should follow that precedent.
• Blyth v Birmingham Water Works (1856)


  D will be judged by the standards of a 'reasonably competent person in that situation'
• Wells v Cooper (1984)


  If D is an ordinary person doing the task then he wont be expected to act as a professional.
• Roe v Minister of Health (1954)


  D was not liable as the event that occurred had not previously occurred and so was unforeseeable as a result. It was not within reasonable contemplation.
• Bolton v Stone (1951)


  The lower the risk the lower the precautions needed. The risk was so low the owners were not expected to take extra precautions
• Hayley London Electricity Board


  The higher the risk the larger the precaution. The risk was high meaning greater precautions should have been taken by the electricity board.
• Paris v Stepney Council (1951)


  D will be liable for the full extent of harm inc any special characteristics C may have – D must take the C as he finds him
• Latimer


  A reasonable person would take reasonable precautions and the court will balance the risk involved against the cost and effort of taking precautions
• Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988)


  1. No account is taken for the D's actual experience – they are expected to reach the same level of skill expected of their experience.

  2. If there are multiple causes to C's injury/damage then the courts may struggle to accurately determine the cause so the claimant will be left without compensation
• Nettleship v Weston (1971)


  Inexperienced/ learners must be judged to the standards of someone experienced and competent – the standard isn't lowered.
• Chester v Afshar


  Doctors are under a duty to inform patients of the side effects to medical treatments
• Watt v Herefordshire Council (1954)

  If the risk benefits society then there will be no breach – here the benefit of saving the victim outweighed the risks resulting from moving the equipment.
• Mullens v Richards (1998)


  Children are judged to the standards of a reasonable child of similar age.
• Bolam (1957)


  If D is an expert or possesses a skill then they will be judged by the standards of other reasonably competent professionals.
• Bolitho (1997)


  If it can be demonstrated that the professional opinion is not logical then the judge can hold that the body of opinion is not reasonable or responsible therefore negligent.
• Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969)


  Factual Causation 'But for test' - 'But for' D's action would the damage have occurred? D wasn't cause in fact as C's husband would have died anyway
• Wagon Mound 1951


  Legal Causation Remoteness of damage - If the damage is unforeseeable, it may be too remote and therefore D will not be liable. Here D was not liable.
• Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)


  D need not predict the precise way in which the injury/damage was caused so long as injury/damage of the same kind was reasonably foreseeable.
• Smith v Leech Brain

  As long as the injury is foreseeable then D will be liable for all the consequences even if worse than normally expected.
• McKew v Holland


  Intervening Act of Claimant
• Carslogie Steamship


  Intervening Act of Nature
• Knightley v Johns


  Intervening Act of 3rd Party
• Reilly v Merseyside Health Authority


  C must be suffering from a recognised medical illness not simply ordinary human emotions.
• Page v Smith


  1. PV's do not have to show that the psychiatric injury was foreseeable merely that some type of PI was.

  2. PV does not have to be a person of normal fortitude. Egg shell skull rule applies - D must take PV as he finds them.
• Alcock


  1. Close ties of love and affection

  2. Witness the accident or immediate aftermath

  3. Psychiatric injury must be induced by shock
• McGloughlin


  'Immediate aftermath' requires the PV to be in their immediate post accident state and not 'cleaned up'
• Sion


  Psychiatric injury over time is not recoverable. Traumatic event or 'assault on the senses'
• Chadwick v British Transport


  Danger and injury is foreseeable to those who try to help and rescue
• White


  Rescuers must put themselves in danger – Bystanders cannot claim for PI as D not responsible for the 'world at large'
• McFarlane


  To be able to claim bystanders must satisfy the ALCOCK criteria.
• Spartan Steel v Martin


  D could claim for physical damage to goods

  Loss of profit on those damaged goods– consequential economic loss

  Couldn't claim for the pure economic loss on loss profits on future goods
• Weller v Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute 1966

  You cannot claim for pure economic loss under tort law.
• Hedley Byrne v Heller


  1. Statement was made negligently

  2. There has to be a 'special relationship' between the parties
• Caparo v Dickman


  1. Person giving advice must possess a special skill relating to the advice given so that D ought to have realised that C would rely on that advice.

  2. Party receiving advice must have acted to their detriment and it be reasonable for C to have relied on the advice.

  3. Advice must be communicated directly – not through a 3rd party or by 3rd party means

  4. Person giving advice understood that their advice would be relied upon by C and that C would not take any further advice and C does rely & has incurred loss

  5. D will not be liable for statements made informally or in a social situation
• Mutual Life v Evatt


  Person giving advice must be in the business of giving that advice or have professed to have a special skill / knowledge in the field.
• Chadhury v Prabhaker


  General rule will remain that there will be no liability for statements made informally or in a social situation BUT D may be liable in a social situation if he possesses the relevant expertise and where D should have been as careful if it was their own money.
• Jeb Fastners v Marks


  If C does not rely on the advice given, then the claim will not succeed.
• Wheat v Lacon (1966)


  An occupier is someone with a degree of control over the premises in question.
• Darby v National Trust (2001)


  The common duty of care does not extend to warning visitors of obvious risks.