Case Analysis Cases

Created by

Paige Humm

Cards (33)

The 8 Negligence cases covered are:
Donoghue v Stevenson
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
Herschtal v Stewart and Adern
Bourhill v Young
Bolton v Stone
Miller v Jackson
Russel v McCabe
Home office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
Donoghue v Stevenson
Plaintiff: Donoghue
Defendant: Stevenson (drink manufacterer)
Facts:
2 friends out to get afternoon tea at a cafe
Donoghue's friend shouts - this was the material fact because it meant there was no contract between donoghue and the owner
Donoghue drinks a ginger beer and pours the last of it over her ice cream and a snail comes out - another major fact is that the bottle was opaque which means she could't see in it
Said it caused her damages of extreme shock and gastroenteritis
The question for the Court in Donoghue v Stevenson was:
Does the manufacterer of drink in an opaque bottle owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer to take reasonable care the drink is free from defect
The court ruled for Donoghue (the plaintiff)
The ratio (decision/reasoning) behind this was:
There was no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination of the drink before consumption - due to the dark bottle
Stevenson knew it was going to reach his utimate consumrs like this and he knew that if there was an error in producing the ginger beer, it would cause damage
Because of this he owed a duty of care and breached it causing damage
Donoghue v Stevenson gave rise to the neighbour principle
= Your neighbours (people in proximity) must not be ignored.
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts which you can reasonably foresee to likely harm your neighbour
Neighbour should be in consideration
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
Appellant = Grant
Respondent = Australian Knitting Mills
The facts:
Grant bought underpants from JM and Co - the retailer
He wore them and got dermatitis
He continued wearing them for a week and the dermatits got worse - so bad he had to quit his medical practice and was close to death
Different to donoghue because: he paid for the underpants so there was a contract
In Grant v Autralian Knitting Mills
The court ruled for: Grant
The ratio behind this decision was:
It was exactly like Donoghue
Grant could not see the chemicals on the underwear - there was no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination
So the neighbour principle was owed and broken
Herschtal v Stewart and Adern
Plaintiff: Herschtal
Defendant: Stewart and Adern Ltd
The facts:
The defendant supplied the plaintiff with a car for use
Delivered it to their house
The plaintiff drove it the next day
While driving, the rear wheel came off as he was taking a corner
He suffered nervous shock
In this case, Res ipsa loquitur applied because negligence had clearly occoured but the court just needed to determine who form
In Herschtal v Stewart, the court found a prime difference between this case and donoghue and grant cases = they could not inspect their products but Herschtal could.
The court had to decide if this oppornity to get under the car and check was enough to break the proximate relationship/ duty of care
In Herschtal v Stewart, the court found for the plaintiff
The ratio behind this was:
The plaintiff and defendant had a neighbour relationship
The defendant knew the plaintiff was going to drive the car and they could not have reasonably anticipated the plaintiff to examine under the car before driving - it is more the defendants job.
It would also create absurdities in the future if car dealers could get away with expecting examination and therefor not providing customers with safe cars.
Grant v Australian gave rise to the eggshell skull rule
= If you are negligent, you are responsible for the full extent of damage, even if the person already has some suceptibility.
In Bourhill v Young
Plaintiff: Bourhill
Defendant: Young - the estate
The facts:
Motorcyclist was driving dangeriously, crashed and died
The noise of the accident was very loud
The plaintiff heard it and followed the noise around the corner
Saw the motorcyclist dead
Was so shocked she suffered a still birth
She sued the estate because the motorcylist wad dead
In Bourhill v Young, the court was for the defendant
The ratio behind this decision was:
The deceased motorcyclist could not have reasonably anticipated that a person such as the plaintiff would be affected by his driving
Was an unforeseeable plaintiff
There was no duty of care present between the two - the plaintiff didn't get through the first plank/ gate
In Bolton v Stone
Plaintiff: Stone
Defendant: Stone/Cricket Club
The facts
Plaintiff was standing on the highway outside of her house - also near the cricket club
A cricket ball hit and injured her
In Bolton v Stone the court sided with the defendant
The ratio for this was:
There was a duty of care BUT the duty of care was not breached.
Because the ball rarely landed out of the cricket grounds and, if so, rarely ever caused damage - it was possible BUT not probable.
The courts also had their finger on the pulse of the needs of the community - they looked at the social utility of the cricket activity and removing the game of cricket from the community would be bad
In Miller v Jackson
Plaintiff = Millers
Defendant = Jackson/ cricket club
The facts:
The plaintiffs house was adjoining to the cricket ground
The cricket balls kept going into their garden and causing damage
They sued the cricket grounds for money and an injunction
This case was different to Bolton v Stone because in this case the balls were going over more and more often, but in bolton v stone it was very rare
In Miller v Jackson the court sided with the plaintiffs BUT there were debates around the remedy
The ratio behind this decision:
The cricket balls causing damage were becoming more probable and not just possible.
Keeping in mind the importance of the cricket club, the court gave the plaintiffs a monentary remedy but no injunction
In Russel v McCabe
Plaintiff: Russel
Defendant: Land owner
The facts were...
The defendant lit a fire on their land
The wind whipped up and the fire got out of control and spread
The firefighters had to come help
A volenteer firefighter (Russel) came along to help put it out and he got burnt doing so.
In Russel v McCabe, the courts sided with the defendant
The ratio behind this was:
No harm is done to one who consents
He chose to put himself in danger
He also wasn't rescuing anyone from imminent danger - just trying to put out the fire
In Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co
Plaintiff = Dorset
Defendant = Home office (department of corrections)
The facts were...
A yacht wad sitting at a mooring at pearl harbour with nobody on it
7 boys in correction went aboard it to try and escape
They cast the boat adrift and caused damage
The key issue in the case was:
Is there a duty of care owed. Could they sue the home office for a start?
In the Home office v Dorset case, the court sided with the plaintiffs
The ratio behind this was:
Novus Actus did not intervene
Gaurds should have seen it as likely they would try to utilise the only means of escape from the island - it was probable
They went to sleep
In Bradley v Wingnut Films
Plaintiff = Bradley
Defendant = Wingnut Films
The facts...
The bradley family had a plot at the cemetry
This plot and a particullar tomstone featured in the Wignut film called Braindead.
The family didn't like this and sued for an injunction
In Bradley v Wingnut films, the court sided with the defendant
The ratio behind this was...
The tombstone barely featured - not obvious to the ordinary person
It would be extending the boundaries of the emerging privacy tort way to far - would impose the freedom of expression
In Hosking v Runting
The plaintiff = Hosking
Defendant = Runting
The facts...
Photographer took photos of the Hoskings twin infants without consent while they were out in public with their mother.
They wanted to publish this in a magizine
Hosking sued for breach of privacy
In the Hosking v Runting case the court sided with the defendants
The ratio behind this was:
They were in public
Needed to balance privacy with the freedom of expression
Photographs did not reach the threshold of being highly offensive
There was also a legitimate public interest in the activities of the public figures - freedom of expression, publishing for the good of the public
In Andrews v TVNZ
Plaintiff = Andrews
Defendant = TVNZ
The facts...
The andrews couple were in a car crash after they drove home from a party intoxicated
The rescue services arrived with the camera crew for a tv show
Filmed them in intimate moments
The footage of the rescue was aired on tv a year later
The Andrews weren't aware it was going to be published and they sued for a breach of privacy
In the Andrews v TVNZ case, the court sided with the plaintiffs
The ratio behind this was
It was private facts
It was considered as highly offensive
No public interest/ need to delve into the private lives of the couple - went beyond informing the viewers about dangerious driving
In C v Holland
The plaintiff: C
The defendant: Holland
The facts...
Holland secretly filmed the plaintiff in the bathroom through a roof cavity
Boyfriend of plaintiff found the footage saved on the defendants computer
Sued for money as well as criminally
In C v Holland, the court sided with the plaintiff
The ratio behind this was...
Clear intrusion into seclusion - intentional and unauthorised
In a private area
Very private footage - infringed the reasonable expectation of privacy
Highly offensive to a reasonable person
In Faesenknloet v Jenkin
Appellant: Jenkin
Respondent: Mr F
The facts....
Neighbours from hell
Jenkin put up a camera on his garage which filmed the driveway leading up to Mr F's house.
Mr F initially obtained an injunction against Jenkin, to remove the camera
Jenkin is appealing against this decision
The key issue is: Whether or not the installation of the camera was an unauthorised, intentional intrusion into seclusion
In Faesenkloet v Jenkin, the court sided with the appalent
The ratio behind this was:
No expectation of privacy - the driveway is not in the house, not secluded, many people walking past can see it
Not offensive - unlikely to be doing anything bad in the driveway
In Henderson v Walker...
Plaintiff = Henderson
Defendant = Walker
The facts...
Neighbors gone bad
2 men with a very bad history together
Henderson was a businessman
Walker was the liquidator - tidied up the affairs after one of Henderson's companies went bust
He wanted 100,000 general damages compensation
Liquidator gets a lot of information - while doing his job he came across hundreds of private emails of Mr Henderson's
He passed those on to other people - didn't publish them but emailed his group of friends etc
Went above and beyond what any liquidator would do
In Henderson v Walker the court sided with the plaintiff
The ratio behind this was:
Doesn't have to be a widespread publication - emailing to friends was enough
Private messages with wife
Motive also taken into account - Mr Walker was out to get Henderson