tort cases.doc

7/27/2019 tort cases.doc

1/24

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1992- current law psychological

harm is based for secondary victims

In Hillsborough football stadium disaster, 96 people were crushed to death as a

result of an surge in the crowd.

The House of Lords refused to extend the principle established by McLoughlin to

relatives other than spouses, parents and children or those who saw the accident onTV.

Lord Oliver said that as far as passive witnesses (secondary V) of an event are

concerned, for factors should be taken into acc:

- The relationship between the C and primary V must be of love and affection

- The physical proximity of the C to the accident or its aftermath

- C must see or hear the event of its immediate aftermath with his own senses

- There must be a sudden shock


2/24

Baker v Willoughby 1969 successive cause of harm

The Cs leg was damaged in an accident caused by the Ds negligence. As a result

he could only undertake light work. Three years later he was shot in the same leg

which had to be amputated. The D argued that the second injury obliterated the first

and that he was therefore liable only for 3 years on loss of amenity.

The House of Lords held that after the first accident he Cs earning capacity and

enjoyment of life had deteriorated. This suffering was not obliterated by the second

accident and therefore the c was entitled to be compensated throughout his lifetime

for those losses

Barker v Corus 2006

On facts almost identical to those in Fairchild, the House of Lords held that liability of

the employers is several, not joint and several. This meant that the C could recover

from each D only a proportion of the damages for his disease. If some of the Cs

former employers were no longer trading, he might be able to recover only a fraction

of the damages to which he would have been entitled.

This decision was unpopular and was reversed by the Parliament in the

Compensation Act 2006.

Under S3, if a claim for damages is made for mesothelioma contracted as a result of

contact with asbestos, a person will be held jointly and severally responsible if he

materially increased the risk of such exposure

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital leading case on causation

A nightwatchman died from arsenic poisoning after being send negligently sent away

by the hospital. Because he would have died even if he had been given medical

care, the court decided that the Ds negligent act was not the cause of the Vs death.


3/24

Bhamra v Dubb 2010- breach of duty

A caterer had provided food containing egg for a Sikh wedding. Sikhism forbids the

consumption of eggs, and the caterer knew that the dish in question might contain

eggs. He was therefore liable when a guest, who had an allergy to egg, suffered a

fatal reaction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the caterer had breached his duty to take

reasonable care not to serve food containing egg.

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856- negligence was defined

In this case negligence was defined as a conduct which falls below the

standard that would be expected of the reasonable man

Some water escaped from a mains pipe during a severe winter. The pipe had been

in place for 25 years without incident. A large accumulation of was was visible on the

ground for some time before the escaped water leaked into the Cs house.

On appeal it was held that the company had not been negligent.

The leading judgement of Baron Alderson sets out the principles used to decide

whether the D had acted reasonably

negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or

doing something that a reasonable man would not do, so its an objective test

Bolam v Friern Hospital 1957 responsable person- medical negligence ?

The C was mentally ill and was advised to have electro-convulsive therapy without

drugs or physical restrain. He fractured his pelvis as a result and sued the Ds, the

doctors employer. At the time, medical opinion was divided on how such treatment

should be administered.

The judge said that in the case of a medical man negligence means failure to act in

accordance with the standards of reasonably competent medical men at the time

The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have

that special skill.

The Ds were not liable because the doctor had acted reasonably.


4/24

Bolton v Stone 1951 - risk of likelihood- magnitude of risk test.-affect reasonable foreseeabilityThe greater the chance of an accident arising from what a D is doing, the

greater the care he should take; the smaller the chance, the less obligationthere is to guard against it

The C was hit by a cricket ball. At the time she was standing on a road outside the

ground, which was surrounded by a fence 17 feet high. It was held that the chances

of a ball being hit outside the grounds were so slight that it was not negligent to fail to

guard against them

Bourhill v Young 1942- psychological harm secondary V

C was eight months pregnant, suffered nervous shock and gave birth to a stillborn

child after a a fatal accident occurred about 50 yards away from her. The shock was

caused by hearing the crash and seeing blood on the road.

D was not liable to the C because she was simply a bystander, and so no duty was

owed to her.


5/24

Caparo v Dickman 1990 3 stage test

The Ds made an error in preparing a set of accounts. The Claimants, who already

owned shares in the company, bought more shares on the strength of the accounts,

and suffered loss as a result.

The House of Lords held that the Ds were not liable because their duty was to the

company and its shareholders, not to potential investors.

Because the C were also shareholders meant that it was highly foreseeable that they

would use the information in the way they did, but, because of a lack of proximity

there was no liability

3 stage test

Was loss to the C reasonably foreseeable?

Was there sufficient proximity between parties?

Is it fair, just and reasonable, on public policy grounds, to impose a duty of

care?

Capital & Counties v Hampshire County Council 1997- case where public

authorities had been found to owe a duty of care-

A fire broke out in the space above the roof in the Cs premises. The fire officer incharge mistakenly thought there were no sprinklers in the roof void and ordered the

whole sprinkler system to be turned off. The D fire service was liable when the fire

spread and destroyed the building.

It was foreseeable that the building would be damaged if the sprinkler system

was turned off

there was sufficient proximity between the C and D

there were no public grounds for not imposing a duty of care on the fireservice in these circumstances

Carmichael v National Powder 1999- casual and temporary

workers are regarded by law as employees


6/24

House of Lords held that there must be mutuality of obligation- that is, the employer

must be bound to offer, and the worker bound to accept

Cassidy v Minister of Health 1951 organisation test

It was held that a hospital authority was vicariously liable for the negligence of full-

time medical staff because they were part of the organisation of the hospital

Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority 1998- Ex turpi causa non

oritur action- no legal action ( a claim for damages) can arise from a

blameworthy cause. This means that a person who is involved in a criminal act

at the time he was injured may be denied an action

The C had a long history of mental disorder. He was released from psychiatric care

and stabbed a man to death. He was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds ofdiminished responsibility.

He sued the health authority for failing to provide proper care for him after discharge

from hospital

The Court of Appeal held that the statutory obligation to provide after-hospital care

did not give rise to a duty of care at common law

Cole v Davies-Gilbert and others 2007 the cost of avoiding harm. The court

will determine the reasonabless of possible precautions and responses to

danger in specific circumstances

The C badly fractured her leg when she caught her foot in a hole that had been used

to support a maypole. Evidence suggested that this hole had been filled in and thatthe in-filling material must have been removed, possibly by children.

The C sued the landowner under the Occupiers Liability act 1957 and the Royal

British Legion in negligence

Ds were found liable but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision as there was

evidence that the hole had been filled in by the same method on previous occasions

without any mishaps


7/24

Corr v IBC Vehicles 2008 - case showing that a C who has suffered some harm

must take care not to worsen his own situation. If he negligently does so, he

may receive no, or reduced damages. Even deliberate self-harm, will not

necessarily break the chain of causation.

The House of Lords held that the suicide of the Cs husband should not be regarded

as a novus actus interveniens, and was a foreseeable consequence of the

depression and post-traumatic stress disorder that had followed a serious industrial

injury


8/24

Dalling v R J Heale 2011- causation and contributory negligence

The C, who was a ceiling fixer employed by the D, fell about 8m while at work in

2005

He was held 25 % liable for this accident. In 2008, after drinking excessively, he fell

over backwards in a pub, suffering another head injury.

It was established that the 2005 accident had caused his personality to change

dramatically in a number of way, including reduced ability to control his drinking

The Court of Appeal, following Corr v IBC Vehicles, upheld the High Courts findings

and although the actions of the C had made a substantial contribution to the 2008

accident, the D was two-thirds liable.

Davies v Swan Motor 1949- contributory negligence C puts himself in a

dangerous situation

The Cs husband was standing on the side steps at the off-side of a dustcart. The

dustcart driver turned right without warning and was involved in a collision with a bus

which was overtaking him.

The CoA found that the Cs husband had contributed to his own death: he had made

it harder for the bus to overtake to lorry- which had increased the risk of a collision

and he had shown a lack of reasonable care for his own safety, so the damages

were reduced by 20%


9/24

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 neighbour test

Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend bought ginger beer. Mrs

Donoghue drank some and when she poured the remainder from the bottle she

found remains of a decomposing dead snail. Mrs D suffered from shock and severe

gastro-enteritis. She was unable to sue the cafe owner because her friend bought

the drink, so she sued the manufacturer.

The House of Lords held that the manufacturer was liable to Mrs D

Lord Atkin formulated the neighbour principle or neighbour test and he said:

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can

reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law

is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are closely and

directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in

contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts oromissions which are called in question


10/24

Everett and Another v Comoja 2011- 3stage test from caparo applied

Cs were guests at a night club within a hotel. The Ds managed the nightclub, which

was used only by club members, their guests and hotel residents

The Cs were stabbed during the evening and claimed that the Ds had not taken

reasonable steps to protect them.

The Court of Appeal had to decide whether a duty of care was owed by the Ds to the

Cs.

Proximity was established because the management regulated admission to the

club and guests were entitled to expect that the management would ensure they

would be safe there.

Foreseeability was established because it it well-known that drinking alcohol can

lead to violence

It was fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty of care on the management

because the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 meant that the common duty of care was

owed by the Ds to the Cs

The Ds had not, however, breached the duty of care, so the claim failed

Fairchild and others v Glenhaven Funeral Services 2002

The Cs had worked for a number of different employers that used asbestos and had

contracted mesothelioma. It was clear that there was a breach of duty of the

employer but it was not possible to say during which spell of employment thedisease had started.

The House of Lords held that in mesothelioma cases, it was necessary for the Cs to

prove only that any one employers negligence had materially increased the risk of

contracted the disease or order to be able to recover full damages from the

employer. The employer would then be able to try and recover some of the

damages from other previous employers of the C


11/24

Fardon v Harcourt 1932 reasonable foreseeability

The D left his dog normally a quiet and well-behaved animal- inside his parked car.

The dog was barking and jumping around and it broke the glass in the rear window

of the car. The C who was walking past, was hit by a fragment of glass, resulting in

the loss of one of his eyes.

The House of Lords held that the chance of a passer-by being hurt was so small that

a reasonable man would not guard against it, so the D was not liable

Fitzgerald v Lane 1989- contributory negligence

C stopped into the road without looking and was hit first by one car and then by

another. Although he could not show which car caused his injury, they were jointly

liable. He recovered only half of the damages because of his own contributory

negligence.

Froom and others V Butcher 1976- contributory negligence

The Court of Appeal held that a car driver who had not been wearing a seatbelt that

was fitted to his car should have his damages reduced by 25%.

Although he had not been blamed for the accident, his head and chest injury would

have been avoided or reduced if he had worn a seatbelt


12/24

Gannon v Totherham council 1991- contributory negligence- child

A 14 year old was contributory negligent when he dived into the shallow end of a

swimming pool and broke his neck. A person of his age should have known of the

potential danger

Geary v J D Wetherspoon 2011- volenti non fit injuria(consent)

A woman was enjoying an event out with colleagues in a Weterspoons pub that

contained a large central staircase. The C decided to slide down its banisters. She

fell about f m onto a marble floor, becoming quadriplegic.

The High Court dismissed her claim because she had voluntarily accepted the

obvious and inherent risk of injury involved.

Because the case was decided in the High Court, it is not a binding precedent;

George v Home Office 2008- contributory negligence not applied

C, a known drug addict and heavy drinker, was brain damaged after he fell from the

top bunk in a prison while having a withdrawal seizure.

It was held that the Home Office had been negligent in allocating him a bunk bed as

he had a history of seizure and in not keeping his airway clear until the ambulance

arrived.

The High Court had held that the C was 15 % to blame for his injuries, because his

addictions resulted from his lifestyle choice.

The Court of Appeal reversed the finding on contributory negligence, holding that his

addiction was not a potent cause of his injuries, and was too remote in time, place

and circumstances, and damages should be paid in full


13/24

Glasgow Corporation v Muir 1943 breach of duty of care

The managers of a tea room allowed a private party to use it. Two people from the

party were carrying an urn half full of tea down a narrow passage to the tea room.

One of them let go of the handle and the tea scalded some children who were in the

passage.

The House of Lords dismissed an action for negligence against the managers on the

grounds that a reasonable person could not have foreseen the incident.

Gouldsmith v Mid Staffordshire General Hospital 2007 causation in fact

The C had suffered medical problems with her dominant left hand which eventually

resulted in the amputation of all fingers on that hand. She argued that, if she had

been referred sooner to a specialist hospital, she would have been given appropriatesurgery that could have had saved her fingers.

The Court of Appeal held that, since the breach of duty was a failure to refer to a

specialist hospital, the first Q was: what would have happened upon reference to a

specialist hospital?

The answer was that surgery would have probably been recommended, so

causation was established

Gravil v Carroll and another 2008- vicarious liability established

A semi-professional rugby player punched an opponent just as a scrum was

breaking up.

The Court of Appeal held that his club was vicariously liable for his action, because

there was a very close connection between the act and the employment andbecause, on policy grounds, it was desirable to encourage rugby clubs to persuade

their players not to engage in foul play


14/24

Gray v Thames Trains 2009- ex turpi causa non oritur action no legal action

can be made for claims for damage if C is involved in a criminal act when he

suffered injuries

The C had suffered minor physical injuries in the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in Oct

1999. He had developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of this

experience. This disorder led him to suffer mood swings and cry for no reason, and

his personality significantly changed.

In Aug 2001 he stabbed to death a drunk who had stumbled into the road in front of

his care and then punched the car window. Like Clunis, he was convicted of

manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

The Court of Appeal held that the C should be able to recover damages for the

money he would have earned both before and after the killing, although it left open

the possibility that there might be some reduction for contributory negligence.

The House of Lords reversed the decision and, as a matter of public policy, a person

should not be compensated for the consequences of his own criminal conduct.

Gregg V Scout 2005- material increase risk

The Cs doctor failed to diagnose a lump under his arm as potentially cancerous. As

a consequence, treatment was delayed for 9 months and as consequence the

cancer had spread. This made the treatment required more intensive and reduced

the patients prospect of survival.

Misdiagnosis deprived the C of a 45% chance of avoiding the deterioration of his

condition.

The House of Lords held that the claim should fail: on the balance of probability, the

Cs condition would have deteriorated anyway.


15/24

Hadlow v Petersbourg City Council 2011

The C was a teacher at a secure unit for young women. The council, which managed

the unit, had a policy that every member of staff should always be accompanied by a

colleague when with two or more of the women. The C was due to run a class one

day when it was known that ther teaching assistant would be late for work. Two

members of the caring staff accompanied 3 women to the classroom and then left,

locking the door behind them. Because the C was concentrating on the students, shedid not ralise that he carers had left the room until she herard the door click shut.

She got up quickly in order to go and bang on the door to attract their attention. In

doing so, she fell and seriously injured herself.

The court of appeal held that, although she had not suffered the harm because of the

expected consequence of a breach of duty( a direct attack by a student), the Ds

negligence had created a risk of injury and the C had reacted in an appropriate way

to try to minimise that risk. Her injury was therefore sufficiently connected with a risk

created by the council, to make the council liable for it

Halley v London Electricity 1964- reasonable foreseeability

The Ds had dug a hole in the pavement and put a sledgehammer handle diagonally

across one end to prevent people from falling into it.

The C, who was blind, tripped over the hammer and fell into the hole.

The D argued that it had a duty only to ordinary pedestrians, but the House of Lords

held that, as one in 500 people is blind, it was reasonably foreseeable that a blindperson could suffer injury. The D was therefore liable

Halford v Brookes and another 1991

The Cs daughter was murdered in 1978. In 1985 the C was informed that a civil

action could be brought in the tort of battery and in 1987 proceedings were issued

against the Ds. The Ds appealed, alleging that the claim was statute-barred becausethe cause of action had arisen more than 3 years before the issue of proceedings.

The court of appeal said that knowledge2 means know with sufficient confidence to

justify embarking on the preliminaries to issued proceedings

It was held that the C did not know her legal rights until 1985, and had acted

promptly from that time. This was the first time in English legal history that a civil

court had upheld a claim against an alleged murderer who had not been convicted of

the crime


16/24

Harris v Perry 2008- no reasonable foreseeable

The 11-year old C suffered severe brain damage after being injured in a mid-air

collision with a 15-year old on a bouncy castle at a birthday party.

The court of appeal held that the Ds were not liable for his injuries because it would

be impractical to supervise the activity continuously. What had occurred was a freak

and tragic accident, and it had not been reasonably foreseeable that would involve a

significant risk of serious harm.

Harrison v British Railways 1981 contributory negligent

The C, a guard of a train, was held to have been contributory negligent by failing to

apply the brake when he was attempting to pull a passenger onto a moving train,

and his damages for injuries sustained when he fell from the train were reduced by

20%

Haward and others v Fawcetts 2006- date of knowledge

The house of lords held that, when deciding the date of knowledge of the facts which

would have justified the C bringing a claim of negligence, the relevant date is not

when the C first knew had had a claim but the earlier date when he first knew

enough to begin investigating the possibility that the D might have been negligent

Hilder v Associated Portland Cement 1961- reasonable foreseeability

The owner of a piece of land allowed primary school children to practise football on

it. The children often kicked the ball in the direction of hte road, which was the other

side of a wall about 1 m high, and the ball oftern went over the wall onto the road

The Cs husband was killed when he fell off his motorbike after being hit by a ball

The court held that the risk to users of the road was significant, and should have not

been disregarded by a reasonable landowner.


17/24

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 1988- just and reasonable

The mother of the last v of the Yorkshire Ripper, a serial killer, sued the police for

failing to arrest him before he murdered her daughter. It was agreed that, before the

Cs daughter death, it had been foreseeable that the murderer would kill again.

The House of Lords held that it was not just and reasonable to impose on the

police a duty of care towards the potential Vs of a crime. The conduct of police

investigations could be restricted if they constantly needed to be aware of the

possibility of an action for negligence.

This reflects the basic position the courts are reluctant to constrain the actions of

public authorities by imposing duties towards individuals. Another interpretation of

this general approach is that it is regarded as not just and reasonable to impose

such duties on public authorities.

Hilton v Thomas Burton 1961- frolic of ones own- employer not liable

An employee is in the course of employment when he is doing something authorised

by his employer. If he is doing something outside his normal duties, the employer will

not be liable. Acting outside the course of employment is described as being on a

frolic of ones own

The employer was not liable for an accident which occurred when an employee was

driving back from an unauthorised meal break at a cafe seven miles away when he

was supposed to be working.

The outcome meant that the C was not able to recover damages from the employer

Hinz v Berry 1970damages not recovered for normal sorrow and grief

The pregnant C and one of her children witnessed a car accident involving her

husband and their other children. She saw a number of members of her family lying

bleeding in the road and later she suffered from severe depression.

She was awarded 4000 for the nervous shock.

The court of appeal stressed that the damages were available only for the

phychiatric damage suffered by actually witnessing the event.

Lord Denning MR said: In English law no damages are awarded for grief or

sorrow caused by a persons death. No damages are to be given for the worry

about the children, or for the financial strain or stress. Damages are however

recoverable for nervous shock, or, to put it in medical terms, for any

recognisable psychiatric illness caused by the breach of duty by the D.


18/24

Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963- causation in law- foreseeable risk

An 8 year old boy took a paraffin lamp that had been left by an unattended open

manhole, and went into the tent covering the manhole. There was an explosion in

which he was badly injured.

Expert evidence showed that the escape of paraffin which had caused the explosion

was not foreseeable.

The house of lords held that there was a foreseeable risk that a child would be

burned, which was the same type of injury, so the D was liable.

Imperial Chemical v Shatwell 1965- consent

2 brothers worked as shot-firers; their work included causing controlled explosions.

They both knew that explosions should be conducted only when they were at a safe

distance from the site in a shelter, but agreed to cause an explosion without taking

cover in the required way. They both know that this was dangerous and brached

safety regulations, and that one of their colleagues who had acted similarly had had

his licence withdrawn

Both men were injured, and one sued his employer on the basis hat the employer

had been vicariously liable for the actions of his brother.

The house of lord held that the defence could apply: the employer had not brached

any statutory duty, but the claimant had voluntarily taken part in breaching the

statutory duty that was imposed upon him by the relevant regulations.


19/24

James v London Borough of Greenwich 2008- less likely that ET will find that

an agency worker has an employer

The court of appeal decision was anticipated, as it was expected that it would

resolve the difficulties arising from various cases in which the courts have been

asked to decide whether an agency worker can be an employee of the agencys

client

The court of appeal held that an Employment Tribunal should imply a contractual

relationship between the individual and the end user only when it is necessary to do

so. Because this decision as been characterised as a question of fact, appeals will

not be permitted unless an error of law is alleged.

So, the effect of this case seems likely to be that ETs will be less inclined to find that

an agency worker has an employer

Jobling v Associated Dairies 1982- successive causes of harm not successful

The C suffered a back injury at work owing to the negligence of the Ds, who were his

employers.

3 years later he developed an unrelated disease of the spine which eventually made

him incapable of working.

He was awarded damages for the 3 years between the injury and the development

of the disease. To give him compensation for the years after the disease would put

him in a better position than if he had never suffered the injury, rather than restoring

him to his former position, because he would have developed the disease in any

event

John Munroe v London Fire and Civil Defence 1997- case does not exclude the

possible existence of a duty between the fire service and a v of fire

Several fire-fighters attended a fire which had been extinguished by the time theyarrived. They did not notice that the Cs premises were covered with burning debrisand were still smouldering.They were not liable for the damage to the Cs premises since there was a lack ofproximity between the fire brigade and the C, and because it was not just and

reasonable to impose such duty.

The House of Lords held that there was no evidence that the imposition of such a

duty would encourage a higher level of performance on the part of fire officers and

there was a danger of opening the floodgates to similar cases


20/24

Kay v ITW1967- employer liable for employee

A general warehouse assistant needed to drive a forklift truck through a warehouse

door that was blocked by a lorry being loaded with goods. He got into the cab of the

lorry and, without checking whether anyone was behind, turned the key. The lorry

moved backwards, injuring its driver, who was working behind the lorry

It was held hat the company was liable to the driver for his injuries, because the

employee had been acting within the course of his employment, and his action was

not so gross and extreme as to take his act outside the scope of his employment

Kent v Griffths 2000- ambulance service owes a duty of care

The C suffered a severe asthma attack and a duty arose to attend to her within a

reasonable time. The ambulance arrived 40 min after the call and the C suffered arespiratory arrest leaving her brain-damaged.

It was held that there are circumstances in which an ambulance service can owe a

duty to a member of the public to whose assistance it has been called.

The court of appeal regarded the ambulance as a provider of medical care, rather

than as an emergency service whose primary responsibility is to protect the public

Knightley v Johns 1982- third partys action broke the chain of causation

completely

The D driver negligently overturned his car in a tunnel. The police were called to the

accident scene, and the inspector who was in charge failed to close one end of the

tunnel. The later ordered the C, a police officer to drive the wrong way down the

tunnel(against the traffic) in order to do so.

The motorcyclist was injured in a collision with another motorist.

The court of appeal held that the original D was not liable for this second incident,

because it had been caused by the negligence of the inspector.


21/24

Lagden v OConnor 2004- was held that the thin skull principle extended

even to a Cs impecuniosities

The Cs car was damaged by the Ds negligence, and the C did not have enough

money to hire a car at normal rates. He therefore hired a car under a more

expensive credit hire scheme.

The House of Lords held that these higher costs were fully recoverable, because the

C was innocent and his lack of financial means had meant that he could not obtain

the use of a replacement car except these higher charges.

Latimer v AEC 1953- the cost of avoiding harm

The Ds factory floor was slippery after a flood. It erected warning signs and spread

sawdust on the floor, but there was not enough to cover the whole floor and the C fell

and was injured.

It was held that, although the D could have completely avoided the risk by closing

the factory down for one day, it was not required to take such a costly measure

Limpus v London General Co 1862employer liable- employee in the course

of employment and done something wrong

The driver of a horse-drawn omnibus deliberately steered his horses into the centre

of the road to prevent a rival omnibus from overtaking him. This action caused a

collision with the horses pulling the other omnibus, and one of them was injured.

The drivers action was contrary to his employers instructions not to impede the

progress of other omnibuses, but the company was held to be liable for his act

because it had occurred in the course of his employment.

Lloyd & Co and Others v Hoey 2011 concerns the date on which a C had

knowledge that his injuries might be significant and linked to the Ds actions

The C who was 79, had worked for the five defendant companies between 1947 and

1992. He suffered chest pains during the 1980s and X-Rays indicated pleureal

thickening that was not thought to be the cause of the pain.

In 2008, he was told that further tests had indicated that he had pulmonary fibrosis

related to exposure to asbestos during his employment and this is the cause of his

pain.


22/24

In august 2010 he began an action against the five employers who had caused his

exposure to asbestos.

The court of appeal upheld that the C had not known until 2008 that his injury was

significant, so the claim was not statute-barred


23/24

Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co and another damages worth

compensation

The Cs had previously worked with asbestos and had developed pleural plaques on

their lungs. Although not dangerous in themselves, the plaques indicated the

presence of asbestos fibres in the lungs, which led the Cs to be depressed and

fearful of developing a life-threatening asbestos-related condition in the future

Although it is likely that people will feel sympathy for the Cs, the harm they suffered

was held not to be of a kind that should be compensated.

The House of Lord ruled that neither the plaques not the anxiety were injuries

deserving compensation.

Caparo Industried v Dickman 1990 3 stage test to determine duty of

care exists

Ds made an error in preparing a set of accounts. The Cs, who already owned shares

in the company, bought more shares on the strength of the accounts, and suffered

loss as a result.

The House of Lords held that the Ds were not liable because their duty was to thecompany and its shareholders, not to potential investors. Although the case passed

the foreseeability test, it failed the proximity test.

Topp v London Country Bus 1993- proximity

The D left one of its unattended buses unlocked, with the keys in ignition, at a bus

stop for nine hours. The bus was stolen by a joy-rider and the bus struck and killed

the Cs wife. 2 out of 3 judges in the CoA held that there was not sufficient proximity

between the D and the V for liability to be imposed.

Smith and Others v Littlewoods 1987

Littlewoods purchased a cinema and closed it down, intending to demolish it and

build a supermarket. While it was derelict, some children broke into it and started a

fire which damaged buildings nearby. It was established that Littlewoods had been

unaware that the building was no longer secure and that there had been previously 2

small fires inside it.

The House of Lords held that, given its ignorance of these facts, Littlewoods could

not reasonably have foreseen the damage.


24/24

Osman v UK1999

The Cs husband was shot dead, and her son injured, by a teacher at the sons

school who had been dismissed after developing an unusual level of interest in the

child. The teachers situation was known to the police, and his conduct had become

increasingly erratic. The ECtHR found that the police were several times put on

notice that the lives of the boy and his father were at real risk, but failed to take

appropriate and adequate measures to protect them

In this case, the ECtHR decided that exempting the police from liability on public

grounds could be a breach of Art 6 ECHR, which enshrines the right to a fair trial

Z and others v UK 2001

ECtHR reviewed the decision reached in Osman. In this case which involved very

serious abuse and neglect of children, the ECtHR held that the childrens rights

under Art 3 ECHR (right to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment

or punishment) had been violated.

ECtHR recognised that there had been gap in the domestic law, but said that this

was a breach of Art 13(the right to an effective remedy before a national court),

rather than a breach of Art 6

tort cases.doc

Documents