Tort Cases (UK Academic List)

Category
Caparo test
Duty of care

Story
A company called Fidelity plc, manufacturers of electrical equipments, was the target of a takeover by Caparo Industries plc. Fidelity was not doing well. In March 1984 Fidelity had issued a profit warning, which had halved its share price. In May 1984 Fidelity’s directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March confirming the negative outlook. The share price fell again. At this point Caparo had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 1984 the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dickman, were issued to the shareholders, which now included Caparo. Caparo reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code’s rules on takeovers required. Once it had control, Caparo found that Fidelity’s accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dickman for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
No duty of care was owed. There was not sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors since the auditors were not aware of the existence of Caparo nor the purpose for which the accounts were being used by them.

Significance
What test should be employed in determining negligence?

Caparo test:

1. harm must be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s conduct (as established in Donoghue v Stevenson),

2. the parties must be in a relationship of proximity, and

3. it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability

Category
Reasonableness

Story
The case concerned a 36 year old woman who however had the mental age of a minor. The woman in question lived permanently at a mental hospital under medical care. Her mother sought a declaration from the court to the effect that it would be lawful to sterilize her daughter even though she is unable to consent to the operation due to her mental age. The need for the application was grounded in the fact that hospital staff (as well as the mother) suspected that the daughter may become pregnant as she had entered into a relationship with a patient in the hospital where she was staying. It was feared that going through pregnancy and the birth would have serious negative consequences for the daughter.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The court held that the operation was lawful as it was in the best interests of the daughter. It was held that this could be determined by reference to what is accepted at the time of the operation as the appropriate treatment, by a reasonable body of medical opinion skilled in the proposed treatment. Further, the court held that it is not necessary for a doctor to seek a declaration of legality before carrying out a sterilization in similar circumstances, but that a doctor should in practice seek such a declaration.

Significance
1. Whether it was lawful for a doctor to perform such an operation on a patient who is mentally incapable of giving consent;

2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to make such a declaration of legality;

3. Whether such a declaration must be sought before such an operation can be performed.

Category
Causation

Story
Mr. Wardlaw, the claimant, contracted pneumoconiosis from inhaling silica dust at his workplace while being employed at Bonnington Castings Ltd. Most of the dust, the claimant inhaled was from the pneumatic hammers and was without negligence on the defendants’ part. However, some of the dust, the claimant inhaled came from the swing grinders. The defendants owed the statutory duty under to the claimant to protect him from the swing grinder dust.

On the balance of probabilities, the claimant could not prove that, with the application of the ‘but for’ test, the swing grinder dust was the sole reason why the defendant contracted the disease.

Held for
Wardlaw

Ratio decidendi
The House of Lords held that the defendants were liable for the whole of Mr. Wardlaw’s disease. The court found that the breach of duty by the defendants ‘materially contributed to injury’. Furthermore, the House found that any contribution to the disease that was more than de minimis, would be considered ‘material’. Since, the breach by the defendant ‘did help to produce the disease’, they were liable in negligence.

Significance
In personal injury claims for breach of an employer’s statutory duty, the onus of proof lay on the injured employee to show that the the breach caused or materially contributed to the injury. This overturned previous authorities that placed the onus on the employer to show that they did not cause the injury.

Category
Causation
Reasonableness

Story
The claimant was exposed to asbestos during his working life and suffered asbestosis. He worked for the defendant for 12 years but worked for other employers who each exposed him to asbestos for periods of upto five years. The trial judge assessed his damages and then reduced the damages to reflect the number of years the claimant had worked for the defendant. The claimant appealed contending under the principles in McGhee and Wardlaw he was entitled to full compensation.

Decision
The defendant was only liable in proportion to the exposure they had actually caused.

Ratio decidendi
The defendants did cause the claimant’s loss, although were only liable for their extent of the contribution to the damage.

it was sifficient that the defendant materially contributed to the damage. However, unlike in Bonnington Castings only held the defendant liable to the extent of their contribution.

Significance
Unlike in Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw, only held the defendant liable to the extent of their contribution.

Category
Remoteness

Story
Jacqueline Hill was the final victim of Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper). He had committed 13 murders and 8 attempted murders over a five year period. Jacqueline’ Mother made a claim against the Chief Constable on the grounds that the police had been negligent in their detection and detention of Sutcliffe. The defendant applied to have the claim struck out on the grounds that there was no cause of action since no duty of care was owed by the police in the detection of crime.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The police could be liable in tort to persons who are injured as a direct result of their acts and omissions. However, the police do not owe a general duty of care to apprehend an unknown criminal. The police also do not owe a duty of care to individual members of the public who suffer as a result of the criminal’s activity.

Significance
Hill Principle:

The police should not owe a duty to the public at large in tort to apprehend criminals expeditiously.

Category
Causation

Story
Watt, a fireman, was sent out on a truck to help a woman who was trapped under a heavy vehicle. The regular truck which carried a heavy jack was not available and there was nothing on the truck to lash it to. The truck stopped suddenly at a red light and Watt was injured.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
Lord Denning: one must balance the risk against the end to be achieved. He states that the saving of “life or limb”, which the firemen were doing, justifies taking a considerable risk and here the risk outweighs the risk that was taken by the fire department.

Significance
There is more to the cost of prevention than simply the monetary cost; the utility of the conduct must be considered.

Category
Duty of care
Damage

Story
The claimant only had sight in one eye due to in injury sustained in the war. During the course of his employment as a garage hand, a splinter of metal went into his sighted eye causing him to become completely blind. The employer did not provide safety goggles to workers engaged in the type of work the claimant was undertaking. The defendant argued there was no breach of duty as they did not provide goggles to workers with vision in both eyes and it was not standard practice to do so. There was therefore no obligation to provide the claimant with goggles.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
There was a breach of duty. The employer should have provided goggles to the claimant because the seriousness of harm to him would have been greater than that experienced by workers with sight in both eyes.

Significance
The duty is owed to the particular claimant not to a class of persons of reasonable workers.

Category
Duty of care
Reasonableness

Story
Latimer was employed by A.E.C.. On the afternoon of the day of the accident, an exceptionally heavy rainstorm had flooded the whole of A.E.C.’s premises. Oil, which normally ran in covered channels in the floor of the building, rose to the surface and when the water drained away, left an oily film on the floor. A.E.C. took measures to clean away the oil, using all the sawdust available to them. Latimer came on duty with the night shift, unaware of the condition of the floor. While endeavouring to place a heavy barrel on a trolley, his foot slipped on the still oily surface, he fell on his back, and the barrel crushed his left ankle. The trial judge found a breach of common law duty which was reversed by the Court of Appeal.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
There was no duty to close the factory. The defendant only had to take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk which they had done. There was no need to go to great expense to eliminate any possible risk and thus no obligation to close the factory.

Significance
A defendant does not have to totally eliminate the risk but must do as much as the reasonable person would do in the circumstances.

Category
Reasonableness
Standard of care
Duty of care

Story
Mr. Nettleship, the plaintiff (claimant), agreed to teach Mrs Weston, the defendant, to drive in her husband’s car, after he had inquired the insurance policy.[1] During one of the lessons, the defendant lost control of the car and caused an accident in which the plaintiff was injured. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was well aware of her lack of skill and that the court should make allowance for her since she could not be expected to drive like an experienced motorist.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
A learner driver is expected to meet the same standard as a reasonable qualified competent driver. Volenti did not apply as he had checked the insurance cover which demonstrated he did not waive any rights to compensation. His damages were reduced by 50% under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 to reflect the degree to which he was also at fault.

Significance
A learner driver must be judged according to the same standard as all drivers. Weston was therefore not entitled to argue that a lower standard should be expected of her because she was learning to drive.

Category
Reasonableness

Story
Stone was walking down a road past the fence of a cricket pitch. She was hit with a ball that was hit over the fence and seriously injured. Balls have only flown over the fence approximately six times in the last 30 years.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
Lord Reid says that there is a tendency to base duty on the likelihood of damage rather than its foreseeability alone and further that reasonable people take into account the degree of risk, and do not act merely on bare possibilities. He goes on to say that what a reasonable person must not do is “create a risk that is substantial”, and therefore the test that is applied is whether the risk of damage to a person on the road was so small that a reasonable person would have thought it right to refrain from taking steps to prevent the danger. He states that he would have found differently if the risk had been “anything but extremely small”.

Significance
When a risk is sufficiently small, a reasonable man can disregard it.

Category
Negligence (Medical)

Story
Nadine Montgomery, a woman with diabetes and of small stature, delivered her son vaginally; he experienced complications owing to shoulder dystocia, resulting in hypoxic insult with consequent cerebral palsy. Her obstetrician had not disclosed the increased risk of this complication in vaginal delivery, despite Montgomery asking if the baby’s size was a potential problem. Montgomery sued for negligence, arguing that, if she had known of the increased risk, she would have requested a caesarean section.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
It held that patients have a right to make their own decisions and to be given sufficient information to do so. Doctors, therefore, have a corresponding duty to take reasonable care to ensure that a patient is aware of material risks inherent in treatment, and of any alternatives. An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken.

Significance
Bolam is outruled.

It established that, rather than being a matter for clinical judgment to be assessed by professional medical opinion, a patient should be told whatever they want to know, not what the doctor thinks they should be told.

Category
Negligence (Medical)

Story
The claimant was undergoing electro convulsive therapy as treatment for his mental illness. The doctor did not give any relaxant drugs and the claimant suffered a serious fracture. There was divided opinion amongst professionals as to whether relaxant drugs should be given. If they are given there is a very small risk of death, if they are not given there is a small risk of fractures. The claimant argued that the doctor was in breach of duty by not using the relaxant drug.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The High Court held that the doctor had not breached his duty to the patient, and so the defendant was not liable.

Given the general medical opinions about what was acceptable electro-shock practice, they had not been negligent in the way they carried out the treatment.

Significance
Bolam Test:

A medical professional is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art . . . Putting it the other way round, a man is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with such a practice, merely because there is a body of opinion who would take a contrary view.”

Category
Negligence

Story
Mr & Mrs Swinney were managers of a pub. They came across information relating to the identity of a person responsible for the unlawful killing of a police officer. They passed this information on to DC Dew who recorded the information. The document containing this information was later stolen from an unattended police car. Subsequently, Mr & Mrs Swinney received violent threats and suffered psychiatric injury as a consequence. They brought a negligence claim against the police for the psychiatric injury suffered. The claim was struck out by the district judge. The Swinneys’ appeal was allowed by Laws J. The police appealed to the Court of Appeal contending the facts did not give rise to a duty of care.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
Police may exceptionally be liable in negligence in criminal investigations. There is a special relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, which is sufficiently proximate. Proximity is shown by the police assuming responsibility, and the plaintiffs relying upon that assumption of responsibility, for preserving the confidentiality of the information which, if it fell into the wrong hands, was likely to expose the first plaintiff and members of her family to a special risk of damage from the criminal acts of others, greater than the general risk which ordinary members of the public must endure with phlegmatic fortitude.

Significance
Reconsidered the validity of the Hill principles.

Knowing of its confidential and sensitive nature, the police had assumed a responsibility to deal with the information in an appropriate manner. There were no policy reasons for denying the existence of a duty of care.

Category
Negligence

Story
Defendants had installed water mains along the street with hydrants located at various points. One of the hydrants across from Plaintiff’s house developed a leak as a result of exceedingly cold temperatures and caused water damage to the house. Plaintiff sued for negligence.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
No evidence was entered showing any acts or failures to act on the part of Defendants such as could comprise negligence. The evidence showed that Defendants routinely took precautions against cold weather, and that only due to a particularly and unforeseeably cold winter did any damage occur. This was properly characterized as an accident, not as negligence.

Significance
The case is famous for its classic statement of what negligence is and the standard of care to be met.

Category
Negligence
Reasonableness

Story
Some children entered a tearoom. One tea urn was accidentally dropped on the ground and one of the children (Muir), the claimant, was scalded by the upturning of an urn of tea. The action was brought on behalf of the injured children (Muir) for the negligence of the defendant’s organization Glasgow Corp.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
Legal liability is limited to those consequences of our acts which a reasonable man of ordinary intelligence and experience so acting would have in contemplation.

Category
But-for test
Causation

Story
Mr. Barnett and two other colleagues who were on a night shift began vomiting after drinking some tea. They attended the hospital, but were sent home by the nurse (having spoken to the doctor) and told to call out their own doctors.

The claimant, Barnett, died of arsenical poisoning.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
Whilst the hospital were negligent, this did not cause the deceased’s death so no action in the tort of negligence was made out.

Significance
But-for test:

After applied the “but-for” test, the judge could not say that the defendant caused Barnett’s death. Therefore, Barnett’s claim was dismissed.

Category
Causation
Chain of causation

Story
The first defendant, Mr Johns, was driving negligently and crashed their car, blocking one lane of traffic. A police officer (D2) took charge of the scene but forgot to close one direction of traffic. The claimant was therefore sent on the wrong side of the road down the tunnel to block traffic. D3 was driving negligently and too quickly down the road, and collided with the claimant’s car.

Decision
The 1st defendant’s appeal allowed

Ratio decidendi
The Court of Appeal concluded the police officer (D2) failed to take reasonable care. They held that the subsequence negligent acts broke the chain of causation between the initial crash and the claimant’s accident.

Category
Damage

Story
The defendants ship, the Wagon Mound was re-fuelling another ship and negligently spilt oil into the water, no effort was made to clear up the oil and it quickly spread to the claimant’s wharf. Welding was taking place on the wharf and sparks caused debris underneath the wharf to ignite which then caused the oil to ignite, causing significant damage by largely destroying the wharf and the equipment on it.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The court finds that it was not reasonable that Overseas Tankship would expect their spilling of oil to result in the large fire that happened, and therefore they are not liable for the damages sustained by Morts.

Significance
Damage will only be compensable where that damage could have been reasonably foreseen by the reasonable man, however in this case, it’s too remote.

Category
Damage

Story
The plaintiff was employed by a railway company to drill holes in a rock, near a crane, operated by men employed by the railway company. The crane lifted stones and at times swung them over the plaintiff’s head without warning. The plaintiff was fully aware of the danger he was exposed to by working near the crane. One time, a stone fell off the crane and injured the plaintiff. He sued his employers for negligence under the now repealed Employers’ Liability Act 1880. The jury in the county court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal which reversed the decision of the county court. The plaintiff appealed to the House of Lords.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
(1) The mere fact that the plaintiff undertook or continued employment with the full knowledge that there is danger arising out of another activity in the workplace, is not enough to show that maxim volenti non fit injuria is applicable.

(2) The question of whether the plaintiff has undertaken such a risk is a one of fact, not of law. The evidence in the present case shows that the plaintiff did not voluntarily undertook the risk of injury. This is so in common law and in cases arising under the Employers’ Liability Act 1880.

Significance
The Claimant may have been aware of the danger of the job, but had not consented to the lack of care. He was therefore entitled to recover damages.

Category
Defence

Story
The Claimant and Defendant had been drinking all day. The Defendant, who had a pilot licence and a light aircraft, suggested that they took the aircraft for a flight. The Claimant agreed and drove them both to the airfield. They started the engine and the Defendant took off but crashed shortly after. The Defendant was killed and the Claimant was seriously injured. An autopsy revealed that the Defendant had consumed the equivalent of 17 Whiskeys. In an action for negligence, the Defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The defence was allowed. The actions of the Claimant in accepting a ride in an aircraft from an obviously heavily intoxicated pilot was so glaringly dangerous that he could be taken to have voluntarily accepted the risk of injury and waived the right to compensation.

Significance
The maxim volenti non fit injuria applies as a defence to the plaintiff’s claim.

Category
Chain of causation

Story
The claimant sustained an injury at work due to his employer’s breach of duty. He strained his back and hips and his leg was prone to giving way. Whilst in this state he attempted to climb down a steep concrete staircase without a handrail unaided. He got part way down and felt his leg give way so he jumped 10 steps to the bottom. He suffered a fractured right ankle and was also left with a permanent disability. The defendant accepted liability for the injury sustained during his employment but disputed liability for the second injuries resulting from the claimant’s action in jumping down the stairs.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The claimant’s action amounted to a novus actus interveniens because his action in attempting to climb the steps unaided knowing that his leg might give way was unreasonable. The defendant was therefore not liable for the injuries resulting from the incident on the stairs.

Category
[Reasonableness]

Story
The complainant was employed as a galvaniser of steel for the defendants, Leech Brain & Co Ltd. He had been working and operating a machine in the workplace, when a piece of molten metal burnt his lip, after he stepped out from behind the protective shield. Although the burn was treated, he developed cancer and died three years later.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
Lord Parker CJ concluded that a defendant is liable in full for the damage irrespective whether the extent of the damage was reasonably foreseeable. This was based on the orthodox principle that the defendant takes his victim as he finds him.

Significance
1, The defendant takes his victim as he finds him.

2. Not affected by the ruling in the Wagon Mound case.

Category
Remoteness
Foreseeability

Story
Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. The boys took a lamp down the hole. One of them dropped the lamp and an unforeseeable explosion occurred resulting in extensive burns.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
Whilst it was indeed reasonably unforeseeable that a dropped lamp in the manhole would have resulted in an explosion of the size that occurred, this did not alter the fact that it was reasonably foreseeable that a person may have burnt themselves on the unattended paraffin lamps. The emphasis here was placed on the foreseeability of the kind of damage rather than the specific actual damage as this was considered too high a standard.

Significance
The damage was not too remote it was foreseeable that the boys may suffer a burn from the lamp. The fact that the burn resulted from an unforeseeable explosion did not prevent the type of damage being foreseeable.

Category
Causation

Story
A premature baby was given too much oxygen by a junior doctor. The baby suffered from a condition affecting his retina which left him totally blind in one eye and partially sighted in the other. The condition could have been caused by the excess oxygen he had been exposed to or it could have been caused by four other factors unrelated to the oxygen, but related to the premature birth.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
On the “balance of probabilities” test, the hospital would not be liable, since it was more likely that one of the alternate risks had caused the injury. The Court of Appeal applied the “material increase of risk” test, first espoused in McGhee v National Coal Board.

Significance
“Material increase of risk” test for causation.

Category
Causation
Foreseeability

Story
Two claimants had been given an anaesthetic for minor operations. The anaesthetic had been contaminated with a sterilising fluid. This resulted in both claimants becoming permanently paralysed. The anaesthetic had become contaminated during storage. The anaesthetic was stored in glass ampoules which were emerged in the sterilising fluid. It transpired the ampoules had minute cracks which were not detectable with human eye. At the time it was not known that the anaesthetic could be contaminated in this way and the hospital followed a normal procedure in storing them this way.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The Court held that the doctor had taken reasonable care, being the standard of care expected from the reasonable person.

Significance
The risk was not foreseeable as it was an unknown risk at the time.

Category
Duty of care

Story
The local authority approved building plans for a block of flats and the flats were built later that year. However, by 1970 structural movement had begun to occur in the properties causing cracking to the walls and other damage, causing the properties to become dangerous. The claimant tenants in the flat began proceedings in 1972 in negligence against the council on the basis that the council had failed to properly inspect the building walls properly in order to ensure that the foundations were laid to the correct depth shown in the plans.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
It was held that the council may be liable in negligence, but in limited circumstances. The relevant legislative provisions with regard to inspection did not place a duty on the council to inspect the walls, but did allow it the power to, if it considered inspection necessary. Therefore, failing to inspect would not render the council liable unless it was considered that it had failed to properly exercise its discretion to inspect and that they had failed to ensure proper compliance with building regulations.  If inspections were carried out, the council retained discretion as to the manner of the inspections. If this discretion was not genuinely exercised, the council may be liable in negligence.

Significance
This case was overruled by Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991]

Category
Duty of care

Story
Faulty foundations damaged the building, causing the owner a substantial loss. The defendants were a local council who had approved the foundation’s design. The council had relied on the advice of a competent engineering firm, whose advice was negligence.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
Overturning Anns v Merton, the House of Lords unanimously held that a local council does not owe the owners of a building a duty to take reasonable care to void an inherent defect to the property itself (pure economic loss).

Lord Keith highlighted that Lord Wilberforce in Anns did not consider the scope of the duty, and in particular whether the duty extends to all types of damage

Significance
This case overruled Anns v Merton LBC [1978]

Category
Economic loss

Story
Workmen employed by the defendant were digging up the road outside of a factory and negligently damaged an electric cable supplying electricity to the claimant’s factory. The lack of electricity meant that the claimant’s lost profits on the items that they could have produced during the time the factory was not functional.

Held for
Defendant (partially)

Ratio decidendi
The judgment has outlined in very clear terms that there are two types of economic loss: economic loss consequential on physical damage and “pure” economic loss. Only the first is in principle recoverable. This has led to much litigation concerning the precise distinction between economic and physical damage as well as to disagreements when the economic loss could be seen as consequential upon physical loss.

Significance
Whilst the claimants were compensated for the physical damage to equipment and materials and subsequent loss of profits for those materials that were in use at the time. However, in respect of the loss of profit for the time the factory was closed, it was held that as a matter of policy it should be the law that there is no actionable claim for purely economic loss, to extend the duty to this extent could prove disastrous for defendants.

Category
Reasonableness
Negligence

Story
In the first case, the claimant applied to a building society for a mortgage to purchase a house. The building society instructed the defendant surveyors to carry out an inspection and valuation of the property. The defendant’s employee noticed that the chimney breasts were removed. However, he failed to check whether this left the chimney with adequate support. Their report stated that the property did not need any essential repairs.

The chimney later collapsed.The valuation was negligent, so the borrower, having relied on the report, sued for damages. The firm relied on a disclaimer of responsibility which had been signed by the borrower

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
1. The valuers had owed duties of care;

2. The disclaimers had been subject to the requirement of reasonableness imposed by the 1977 Act; and

3. Having regard in particular to the parties’ bargaining power, to whether it was practicable to obtain the advice from an alternative source, to the difficulty of the task being undertaken and to the practical consequences of the decision on the question of reasonableness, the disclaimers had not satisfied the requirement of reasonableness, and had accordingly been ineffective.

Significance
The House of Lords held that this disclaimer failed the test of reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Category
Remoteness

Story
Mr Page was driving along when Mr Smith negligently collided with him. Neither Mr Page or any of his passengers suffered any bodily injuries.

At the time, Mr Page had been suffering from ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’. He had been off work, but evidence suggested his condition was improving and he hoped to return to work shortly. However, as a result of the accident, his condition became chronic and permanent, meaning he would be unable to work again.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
The House concluded there is not a separate test for the duty of care for physical and psychiatric illnesses. They said a defendant will owe a duty of care whenever it is foreseeable a person would suffer any personal harm, including both physical and psychiatric harm.

They confirmed it did not matter that the exact type of psychiatric harm was not reasonably foreseeable. Instead, the claimant only needs to show it was reasonably foreseeable they would suffer some form of personal harm.

The defendant was liable in full for the claimant’s injuries.

Significance
On the remoteness of damage, the House applied its previous approach, based on the principle a defendant must take his victim as he finds him, to psychiatric harm.

Category
Remoteness

Story
Hedley Byrne, an advertising company, were interested in working with Easipower, a company they had not previously worked with, so they sought a financial reference from their bank. Heller and Partners provided a satisfactory reference for Easipower, which turned out to be incorrect and inappropriate. When Hedley Byrne suffered losses following non-payment from Easipower, they sought a claim against Heller and Partners.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The relationship between Hedley Byrne and Heller was sufficiently “proximate” so as to create a duty of care.

It was reasonable for Heller to have known that the financial information which they would give Hedley Byrne would be relied upon to enter into a contract of some description with Easipower.

However, the disclaimer discharged the duty created by Heller’s actions – Heller had made clear that it was only responding on the basis of assuming no responsibility.

Significance
This case established that it may be possible to make a claim in negligence for pure economic loss where there is a special relationship assuming responsibility between two parties, despite them not being in a contract.

Category
Remoteness
Psychiatric harm

Story
The claimants were all people who suffered psychological harm as a result of witnessing the Hillsborough disaster. They were friends, relatives and spouses of people who had died in the stampede when Hillsborough football stadium became dangerously overcrowded. The overcrowding was due to police negligence. Some of the claimants witnessed events from other parts of the stadium. Some witnessed the events on television. Others did not witness the event, but suffered harm when they were told their relatives had been injured or saw their bodies in the morgue or hospital. The claimants sued the defendant (the employer of the police officers attending the event) in negligence.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
There was no evidence of a close tie of affection; the claimants had not witnessed the events with unaided senses; and the claimants had not viewed the immediate aftermath because too much time had passed before they saw the victim’s bodies.

Significance
This is the case to define secondary victim for “duty of care” only.

the decision made by the Law Lords was heavily influenced by the greater social concern of allowing a flood of claims with which the judicial system would not be able to cope (the “floodgates argument”).

Category
Reasonableness
Psychiatric harm

Story
The claimant was a pregnant fishwife. She got off a tram and as she reached to get her basket off the tram, the defendant drove his motorcycle past the tram at excessive speed and collided with a car 50 feet away from where the claimant was standing. The defendant was killed by the impact. The claimant heard the collusion but did not see it. A short time later, the claimant walked past where the incident occurred. The body had been removed but there was a lot of blood on the road. The claimant went into shock and her baby was still born. She brought a negligence claim against the defendant’s estate.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
D was not liable for any psychiatric harm that C might have suffered as a result of the accident. It was not foreseeable that C would suffer psychiatric harm as a result of D negligently causing a loud traffic accident, nor was C sufficiently proximate to the scene of the crash itself. D, therefore, could owe no duty of care to C.

Significance
No duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant. There was not sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant when the incident occurred.

Category
Damage

Story
The claimant was a passenger on a train which crashed due to the defendant’s negligence. He suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder due to his experiences, which caused his personality to change radically. The claimant went on to kill a person because of their disorder. As a result, he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after establishing the defence of diminished responsibility. The judge sentenced him to a hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983. The claimant sued the defendant in negligence.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
A person could not recover damages that resulted from of a sentence imposed on him for a criminal act. Taking a wider approach, their Lordships also held that Gray was not entitled to compensation for loss of earnings as this resulted from his own criminal act. The claim for general emotional suffering and an indemnity were also results of having killed his victim. Therefore, ex turpi causa still applied and the court would not assist him to recover.

Significance
Can a claimant recover damages for the consequences of their own criminal offence or its sentence? No.

Category
Privacy

Story
British model Naomi Campbell was photographed leaving a rehabilitation clinic, following public denials that she was a recovering drug addict. The photographs were published in The Mirror a publication owned by MGN.

Held for
Claimant (partially)

Ratio decidendi
The details of C’s therapy therefore constituted private information which gave rise to a duty of confidentiality. Whilst the free press had a journalistic margin of appreciation in the public interest this had been exceeded. In relation to the photographs taken outside the group meeting, the Court recognized that an individual may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place and that this expectation was unjustly infringed in this case.

Significance
Media law, human rights and privacy in English law.

Category
Privacy

Story
The claimants were strip-searched for drugs on a prison visit. At trial, the judge found trespass against the person in relation to both claimants consisting of wilfully causing a person to do something to himself which infringed his privacy. The defendant appealed against the finding of trespass and was successful in the Court of Appeal.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed. Lord Hoffmann recognized that the concept of privacy underpins the common law of breach of confidence which was significantly developed in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2003] but did not recognize a tort of invasion of privacy. The Court did not consider that there was anything in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights which required some high-level principle of privacy.

Significance
Tort of privacy.

Category
Psychiatric harm

Story
The claimant, Henry Chadwick (C) was described as a cheerful man who was active in his local community and ran a well-known window cleaning company. Although he had previously suffered with psycho-neurotic symptoms in 1941 there had been no subsequent recurrence.

C and his wife lived 200 yards from the scene of the Lewisham rail crash, a serious train collision that left 90 people dead and others with severe injuries. Having been informed of the crash C immediately made his way to the scene to provide assistance. C remained at the scene throughout the night.

C suffered serious psychiatric damage as a result of his experiences and was no longer able to work. C later died of an unrelated condition and his personal representatives brought an action against British Railways Board (D), whose negligence in relation to the crash was not in dispute.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
The claim was disputed by D, who argued that no duty of care was owed to rescuers who might volunteer to assist at the scene of a disaster, regardless of whether the disaster itself was the product of negligence. It thus fell to be determined whether it was reasonably foreseeable both that C would attend to the scene and that he might suffer psychiatric harm as a consequence.

The Court held that it was reasonably foreseeable that people, other than D’s employees, might try to render assistance and might suffer personal injury, physical or psychiatric, as a result. A duty of care was therefore owed to D. Moreover, there was nothing on the circumstances to suggest that the damage suffered by D was so remote as to be outside the contemplation of D.

Category
Psychiatric harm

Story
The husband of the claimant (C) and their children were involved in a road traffic accident at around 4 p.m. with a lorry driven by the first defendant and owned by the second defendant. C, who was home at the time, was informed of the accident at around 6 p.m. by a neighbour, who drove her to hospital to see her family. Upon arrival, she learned that her youngest daughter had been killed and witnessed the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by her husband and other children. C alleged that the impact of what she heard and saw caused her severe shock resulting in psychiatric illness and brought an action in negligence against the defendants.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
In finding for C the House of Lords emphasized that recovery in such cases was not limited to those who were participants in the event, and who feared that they or a close relative would suffer some sort of personal injuries. Citing Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] the duty of D was confirmed to extend to those who came upon the ‘immediate aftermath’ of an incident, even if they do not see or hear the incident with their unaided senses.

Category
Psychiatric harm

Story
The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured. C brought an action in negligence (and/or breach of statutory duty) against their employer, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (D), for the psychiatric harm they had suffered as a result of witnessing the tragedy first-hand. It was not disputed that D was negligent or, indeed, that this had caused nervous shock to C. The Court of Appeal had previously found in favour of C and D appealed to the House of Lords.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
D was under a duty to take reasonable steps to protect his employees from the risk of physical harm, but there was no extension of this duty to protect C from psychiatric harm when they were not exposed to any risk of physical injury. Thus, there could be no duty of care owed to C for purely psychiatric harm, as they were not at any point in any physical danger. Moreover, a rescuer in relation to whom physical injury was not reasonably foreseeable could not recover damages for psychiatric injury sustained by witnessing, or participating in the aftermath of, an accident which had caused death or injury to others; such rescuers were to be categorized as secondary victims, and so would have to meet the conditions specified by Lord Oliver in Alcock.

Category
Product liability
Causation

Story
In June 1931 Dr Grant purchased two pairs of woollen underwear from John Martin & Co. There was nothing to say the underwear should be washed before wearing and Dr Grant did not do so. He suffered a skin irritation within nine hours of first wearing them. The skin irritation got worse and developed into a severe case of dermatitis. Dr Grant blamed the underwear and sued John Martin & Co. for breach of contract and the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills alleging that they had been negligent in failing to take reasonable care in the preparation of the garments. The garments in question were alleged to contain an excess of sulphur compounds.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
Thus the Privy Council upheld the appeal, finding that the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia was correct in finding that both the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills, and the retailer, James Martin & Co, were liable to the plaintiff.

Significance
A manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care.

Category
Damage

Story
The claimant wanted to obtain a second hand car. Defendant, a car dealer showed him one and said, “it’s a good little bus. I would stake my life on it”. Claimant agreed to take it on hire purchase terms. Claimant paid £50 deposit to defendant.

Defendant then sold the car to F, a finance company, who entered into a hire purchase contract with claimant. Claimant had not so far examined the car.

A week later, the car was involved in an accident as a result of which the car was wrecked and claimant was seriously injured. It was found the steering mechanism of the car was badly at fault. Claimant sued defendant for the damage he suffered.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
Claimant could recover damages from defendant for breach of undertaking given by him before the hire purchase contract was made. Here, defendant had given an undertaking to claimant which had induced claimant to make the hire purchase agreement.

The Court was able to construe a “collateral contract”, the consideration for which was the making an independent contract with another (legal) person F, the finance company.

Category
Product liability

Story
The product was a baby sleeping bag, to be attached to a pushchair by an elastic strap fastened with a buckle. The elastic in the strap caused the buckle to hit the claimant in the eye when it slipped from his fingers. He lost the sight in that eye.

Decision
Dismissed the claim in negligence but held that defendants were liable under CPA 1987

Ratio decidendi
Defendants were not negligent as it was not foreseeable that someone would be injured using the sleeping bag.

Category
Product liability
Duty of care

Story
On the 26 August, 1928, May Donoghue and a friend were at a café in Glasgow (Scotland). Donoghue’s companion ordered and paid for her drink. The cafe purchased the product from a distributor that purchased it from Stevenson. The ginger beer came in a Dark bottle, and the contents were not visible from the outside. Donoghue drank some of the contents and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the tumbler. The remains of a snail in a state of decomposition dropped out of the bottle into the tumbler. She was unsuccessful at trial and appealed the decision to the House of Lords. Finally, her claim was successful.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
Prior to Donoghue v Stevenson, liability for personal injury in tort usually depended upon showing physical damage inflicted directly (trespass to the person) or indirectly (trespass on the case). Being made ill by consuming a noxious substance did not qualify as either, so the orthodox view was that Mrs May Donoghue had no sustainable claim in law. However, the decision fundamentally created a new type of liability in law which did not depend upon any previously recognized category of tortious claims. This was an evolutionary step in the common law for tort and delict, moving from strict liability based upon direct physical contact to a fault-based system which only required injury.

Significance
“Of Injuries arising from Negligence or Folly. Every man ought to take reasonable care that he does not injure his neighbour; therefore, wherever a man receives any hurt through the default of another, though the same were not wilful, yet if it be occasioned by negligence or folly, the law gives him an action to recover damages for the injury so sustained.”

Category
Product liability

Story
Coffee was served from a take-away restaurant at a temperature hot enough to scald the
claimant when it was spilled

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
Couse found that people are aware that coffee can cause scalding injuries. There was therefore no need to warn them (and in any case, there was a warning on the cup). Meanwhile, customers would not find the product acceptable if it were brewed at a temperature low enough to avoid injury. For this reason, there was no negligence in serving the drinks as hot as they were. There was no negligence in the design of the cups. The drinks were not defective.

Significance
A manufacturer or seller is not under a duty to warn customers of matters which should be obvious to them.

Risks which are an inherent part of how the product works (such as coffee being hot or a knife being sharp) are not ‘defects’ under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Category
Product liability
Reasonableness

Story
A repairer was liable to a pedestrian who was injured when the wheel came off a vehicle repaired by the defendant.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
The court held that the accident was due to the negligence of the defendant in the repair of the vehicle.

Service providers generally owe a duty to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable injury in
providing a service.

Category
Product liability
Reasonableness

Story
The claimants were patients who were infected with hepatitis C during blood transfusions performed in the late 1980s. It was not broadly known by the public at the time that there was any risk of infection by blood transfusions. The claimants sought damages against the National Blood Authority under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Council Directive 85/374.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
It was legitimate for consumers to expect that the blood they were provided was safe. The tainted blood was therefore defective. The section 4(1)(e) defence was inapplicable to the facts.

Significance
When determining whether a product is defective, the following factors are irrelevant:

1. the avoidability of the risk

2. the cost and difficulty of avoiding the risk.

Category
Product liability

Story
Manufacturer of chemical powder sold some chemical powder to the distributor. Invoice stated that the powder must be “examined and tested by the user before use”. Distributor failed to examine or test the powder or tell a science teacher to do this when it sold the powder to the teacher for use in school experiments. The powder caused an explosion when used in a school experiment, injuring a girl and her father.

Held for
Not the manufacturer

Ratio decidendi
The court held the retailer was liable for the injury. The manufacturer and the teacher are okay.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
126 claimants brought a group litigation action against the defendant bank in respect of alleged sexual assaults committed by Dr Gordon Bates. At the relevant time, the majority of the claimants were prospective employees of the bank (some were existing employees) and were required to undergo medical examinations as part of this recruitment process; it is during these examinations that the assaults allegedly took place. Dr Bates was not an employee of the bank.

The question put to the courts as a preliminary issue was whether the bank could be held vicariously liable for the actions of Dr Bates.

Held for
Barclays Bank (Not vicariously liable)

Ratio decidendi
Before one person can be made vicariously liable for the torts of another, two elements must be shown.
First, there must be a relationship between the two persons which makes it proper for the law to make one pay for the fault of the other. Second, there must be a sufficient connection between that relationship and the wrongdoing of the person who committed the tort. This case concerns the first element where Lady Hale states that: Dr. Bates was an independent contractor and not a Barclays employee so the bank cannot be held liable for his wrongdoing.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
The driver of a petrol lorry, hired by defendant, while transferring petrol from the lorry to an underground tank in claimant’s garage, struck a match to light a cigarette and caused an explosion. The employer argued that the driver was not permitted to smoke while delivering petrol.

Held for
Claimant (The employer was liable)

Ratio decidendi
The employee was negligent in the discharging of his duties by smoking as he did, yet was nevertheless in the course of discharging his duties to his employer and, thus, the employer was liable. Accordingly, the transport undertaking was held vicariously liable for the damage caused by their employee’s negligence.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
David Hawley was involved in an incident outside the Chicago Rock Cafe in Southend on Sea. He was punched by a doorman and fell to the ground. His injuries left him permanently brain-damaged. The doorman was found guilty of assault causing grievous bodily harm.

Mr Hawley took proceedings against the club owner, Luminar Leisure Ltd, and against the employer of the doorman, ASE Security Services Limited.

The security firm had a contract to supply doormen to the club and was responsible for paying their wages. However, on duty, the doormen were responsible to the club’s manager and were required to wear the club’s uniform and abide by the club’s code of conduct for doormen.

Held for
Claimant (The employer was liable)

Ratio decidendi
It was held that it was vicariously liable as the “temporary deemed employer”.

The court had been entitled to find that the club exercised detailed control, not only over what the doormen did but over how they did it. Although the club was not the general employer in law, it acted as if it was.

The outcome of this case is similar to recent cases concerning whether an end user acquires employment law liabilities in respect of agency workers. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the club was well able to employ and train its own door staff but chose not do to so, partly as a device to get around employment laws. The case demonstrates that the perceived advantages of using workers supplied by another firm are diminishing.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
A warden was employed of a boarding school for taking care of boys. He had sexually abused a number of the boys, yet unbeknownst to his employers. The question is that, whether the employers of the warden may be held vicariously liable for their employee’s intentional sexual abuse of school boys placed under his care.

Decision
The employer was vicariously liable

Ratio decidendi
It was held that vicarious liability can arise for unauthorized, intentional wrongdoings committed by an employee acting for his own benefit, in so far as there exists a connection between the wrongdoings and the work for which he was employed to render it within the scope of employment. In another word, the relation was close.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
The claimant, a self-employed Carpenter aged 40, was stabbed by a doorman employed by a nightclub called Flamingos. The doorman was charged with grievous bodily harm and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. The Claimant subsequently brought a claim for personal injuries against the employer Flamingos, owned by Mr Pollock. He alleged that the employer was vicariously liable for the doorman’s actions.

Held for
Claimant (Employer is vicariously liable)

Ratio decidendi
Taking note of the recent decisions in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd and Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam, Judge LJ did not look to establish that the stabbing had occurred in the course of doorman’s employment, but whether the stabbing was closely connected to his work, and instruction It was of particular importance that the doorman had been instructed by Mr Pollock, and was known to be, violent and intimidating toward customers.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
Harbour Authority (D1) provided crane drivers to a stevedores company (D2), with the contract stipulating that the crane drivers are servants (employees) to D2, although the crane drivers were paid and liable to be dismissed by D1. One of the crane drivers injured Claimant by negligently driving the crane. The claimant sued both D1 and D2 for damages in negligence.

The question is: who was vicariously liable for the negligent act of the crane drivers?

Held for
D1 remained the employer and was vicariously liable.

Ratio decidendi
When is there a change in employer, Lord Porter laid down 2 tests of control:

1. whoever is entitled to tell the employee the way in which he is to do the work upon which he is engaged. => (a) It is not enough that the task is under his control, he must also control the method of performance. => (b) Entitled: no actual orders had to be given

2. Other factors to take into account?
Who is paymaster?
Who can dismiss?
How long the service lasts?
What machinery is employed?

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
Mohamud had used a petrol station kiosk and approached a member of staff with a question. The employee responded in an aggressive manner and demanded that Mohamud leave immediately. As he left the employee assaulted him. Mohamud bought an action against the supermarket, claiming that it was vicariously liable for the assault committed by one of its employees. The trial judge rejected the claim on the basis that there was not a sufficient link between the employee’s role and the assault. A subsequent appeal of the decision was rejected the Court of Appeal. Mahmoud subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held for
Mohamud (the supermarket was vicariously liable)

Ratio decidendi
The appeal was allowed. The court held that the current ‘close connection’ test had been used in a number of cases at House of Lords/Supreme Court level and as a result of this; they did not wish to deviate dramatically from precedent. However, the court felt that a simplification of the test was more desirable. This required the consideration of the employee’s functions and whether there was a sufficient connection between the wrongful conduct and the employer. On this basis the court held that whilst it was a gross abuse of his position, it was in connection with the business by which he was employed.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
A driver contracted with a mixed concrete company for the delivery of concrete. The contract declared him an “independent contractor” and set out wages and expenses. The driver was to purchase his own vehicle, yet with a requirement that the vehicle be painted in company colours. He was to drive the vehicle himself but under compliance with certain company’s rules including, for example, the manner of vehicle repairs and payments.

Held for
Contractor (Not employee)

Ratio decidendi
The question arose as to whether the driver was an “employed person” under a contract of service with the company for the purposes of the National Insurance Act 1965.

The driver had sufficient freedom in the performance of his contractual obligations as he was free to decide the vehicle, his own labour, fuel, and other requirements in the performance of the task. In lieu of these freedoms, he was an independent contractor and not an employee of the company.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
Plenty delivered milk for his employer, who specifically notified Plenty and alike, that they were strictly not to use children to help them with their deliveries, despite this, plenty did so. Plenty drove negligently whilst the child was on the back of the truck and he suffered injuries to his foot as a result. A claim was sought against Plenty as an individual, and his employers via vicarious liability.

Held for
Claimant (Employer is vicariously liable)

Ratio decidendi
Where an employee undertakes an act strictly prohibited by their employer, this does not prevent liability being imposed on the employer vicariously where the act is clearly still during the execution of contractual duties.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
The employee, a driver, was forbidden from giving anyone a lift in his employer’s vehicle. Whilst driving on his employer’s business he gave a lift to an unauthorized passenger. He drove negligently and the passenger was killed. Was the driver acting inside the course of his employment?

Decision
Employer not vicariously liable

Ratio decidendi
As it is prohibited to lift of unauthorized passenger and the driver did not any right to lift the passenger and that’s why the muster was not liable.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
Claimant: Viasystems Ltd
D1: Thermal Transfer Ltd
D2: Darwell
D3: CAT

The C contracted with D1 to install AC in C’s factory. D1 subcontracted the work to D2, D2 engaged labourers from D3. Mr. Darren Strang From D3, under the supervision of D2, took shortcut in crawling (negligence) and the fire protection sprinkler was activated, causing extensive damage.

C sued D1 for damage. D1 claimed indemnity against D2 and D3. The matter came before the judge is whether it was D2 and/or D3 who were vicariously liable for Darren Strang’s foolishness.

Held for
D2 and D3 are both liable.

Ratio decidendi
When a worker has more than one employer at the same time, who will be vicariously liable for the worker?

Court of Appeal found that both supervisor from D3 and supervisor from D2 were entitled to give Mr Strang instructions about what he did and how he did it. Weighing their respective “shares” of responsibility, the Court found that each should contribute equally, i.e. 50%.

Category
Employers’ Liability
Vicarious Liability

Story
Mr. English was employed by the Coal mining company. He was working on a repair to an airway on the Mine Jigger Brae and when he was going to the bottom of the mine pit when the haulage was started. Although he had tried to evade the danger through a manhole, he was trapped by machinery and it crushed him to death. The defendants and employers, Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd, tried to claim that it was Mr. English’s own negligence that had resulted in his death; he could have taken an alternative route or alerted the employee in charge of the machinery for it to be stopped.

At the beginning, it was held that the defendants had delegated the organisation of a safe working system to one of their employees on the site and they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure they entrusted this duty to an experienced employee. Thus, they were held not to be liable for damages. The complainant appealed on the issue of whether employers had a non-delegable duty of care towards the safety of workers.

Held for
Mr. English

Ratio decidendi
The House of Lords decided that Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd, as an employer, had a duty of care to ensure a safe system of work and this duty could not be fully delegated to another employee. Thus, the defendants always remain responsible for a safe workplace for their employees and are vicariously liable for any negligence of another. This duty includes three aspects; providing proper materials, employing competent workers and providing valuable supervision. The defendants were liable for damages.

Category
Trespass to person

Story
As a schoolboy prank, the defendant pulled another 13-year old pupils bag, causing the claimant to fall over and suffer hip injuries.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
Battery must be an intentional touching or contact in one form or another of the C by the D. That touching must be proved to be a hostile touching. The element of hostility must be a question of fact.

Significance
The court held that hostility was a necessary element of an actionable battery.

Category
Trespass to person

Story
During a set of strikes organized by the National Union of Miners (NUM – the Defendant), the Claimant, who was a miner, wanted to continue working in the mines instead of going on strike. He, along with other miners who also wanted to continue working, had to be bussed to the mines so that they could get to work through the pickets. Every day this involved being driven through an aggressive crowd of striking miners (organized by the Defendant) who shouted threats towards the Claimant and others who were on the bus, in addition to making violent gestures in their direction. However, there was always police at the scene who stood between the pickets and the bus and in addition, the Claimant and the other miners were protected by the bus itself.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The court held that the actions of the Defendant could not constitute an assault as the crowd lacked the capacity to immediately carry out its threats. Capability to put a threat imminently was a necessary aspect of the tort of assault. However, the actions of the Defendant were actionable under the tort of nuisance, since they interfered with the Claimant’s right to use the highway and to attend work without harassment.

Significance
Capability to put a threat imminently was a necessary aspect of the tort of assault.

Category
Trespass to person
Remoteness

Story
Downton (D) made a joke to Mrs Wilkinson (W) that her husband, Thomas Wilkinson (T) had had an accident in which both his legs were broken and that W should go to The Elms pub where T was lying to bring him home. These statements were false but D intended them to be believed as true by W, who suffered a shock to her nervous system as a result. W had no predisposition to nervous shock and the shock which caused her weeks of suffering and incapacity was not a result of previous ill-health. W raised an action against D for compensation for her illness and suffering due to the false representation made by D.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
D had wilfully made a false representation to W intending to cause some physical harm to W, by infringing her right to personal safety, with no justification for doing so. Although D did not intend the harm which was caused, this ‘wilful injuria’ is malicious in law. The injury caused to W was not too remote and could have been foreseen, and therefore taken to have been intended.

Significance
The principle that where a defendant has wilfully committed an act or made a statement calculated to cause physical harm, and which does cause physical harm (including psychiatric injury), it is actionable.

Category
Trespass to the person

Story
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims on human rights law.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The appeal failed. Whether there is a deprivation of liberty, as opposed to a restriction of movement, is a matter of degree and intensity. Account must be taken of a whole range of factors, including the specific situation of the individual and the context in which the restriction of liberty occurs.

Significance
Measures of crowd control undertaken in the interests of the community will fall outside of Article 5 right to liberty as long as they are not arbitrary, are resorted to in good faith, and are proportionate and enforced for no longer than necessary.

Category
Occupiers’ liability

Story
Haseldine (claimant) is a visitor to visited a tenant in an upper floor flats of an apartment. The defendant is the occupier (landlord). The list (elevator) fell to the bottom of shaft with the claimant still inside of it. There was an agreement made between the landlord and an engineering company to maintain the lift each month and report issues. The engineers told the landlord the rams were badly worn but not that it was dangerous to use.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the only obligation on the landlord was to ensure that the lift was reasonably safe and that he had employed competent engineers to inspect the machinery. It was held on this basis that the landlord was not liable for the incident. The owner was not aware of the danger caused by the fact that the mechanic had not repacked the machine satisfactorily.

Category
Occupiers’ liability

Story
The claimant and her family stayed at a public house, The Golfer’s Arms in Great Yarmouth, for a holiday. Unfortunately her husband died when he fell down the stairs and hit his head. The stairs were steep and narrow. The handrail stopped two steps from the bottom of the stairs and there was no bulb in the light. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 against the Brewery company, Lacon, which owned the freehold of The Golfer’s Arms and against the Managers of the Pub, Mr & Mrs Richardson, who occupied the pub as a licensee.

Decision
Both Richardsons (landlord) and Lacon (brewery  company) are liable.

Ratio decidendi
Both the Richardsons and Lacon were occupiers for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and therefore both owed the common duty of care. It is possible to have more than one occupier. The question of whether a particular person is an occupier under the Act is whether they have occupational control. Lacon had only granted a license to the Richardsons and had retained the right to repair which gave them a sufficient degree of control. There is no requirement of physical occupation.

Category
Occupiers’ liability

Story
A 5 year old boy was walking across some open ground with his 7 year old sister. He was not accompanied by an adult. He was injured when he fell into a trench. The Corporation were not held liable as an occupier is entitled to assume that prudent parents would not allow their children to go unaccompanied to places where it is unsafe.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The Corporation were not held liable as an occupier is entitled to assume that prudent parents would not allow their children to go unaccompanied to places where it is unsafe.

Category
Occupiers’ liability

Story
During the war, a grammar school had to be relocated. The children were accommodated in a church school, and began using the church school’s staff. Due to the negligence of a cleaner employed by the church, a student slipped on an icy step and sustained injuries. He sued the defendants, the grammar school’s board of governors, in negligence.

Held for
Claimant (the occupier is liable)

Ratio decidendi
The court held that the school governors were liable for the cleaner’s negligence in this instance. It was deemed that the cleaner was acting as an agent of the school and ought to have been aware of the danger her action had caused. The court also supplemented this with the belief that if the school could prove the cleaner was not under their control, they would still be liable on the basis that they had delegated their duty to the cleaner and she had not discharged this.

Category
Occupiers’ liability

Story
The defendant owned a Country Park and had created a lake on the park which was surrounded by sandy banks. Swimming was not permitted in the lake and notices were posted at the entrance saying “Dangerous water. No swimming”. However despite this, many people did use the lake for swimming. Rangers were employed and on occasions sought to prevent swimming but some of the visitors would be rude to the rangers’ attempts to prevent them and many continued to swim. The claimant was injured when he dived into shallow water and broke his neck.

Held for
Defendant (the occupier is not liable)

Ratio decidendi
No risk arose from the state of the premises as required under s.1(1)(a) Occupiers Liability Act 1984. The risk arose from the claimant’s own action. He was a person of full capacity who voluntarily and without pressure or inducement engaged in an activity which had an inherent risk. Even if there was a risk form the state of the premises, the risk was not one against which the council would reasonably be expected to offer the claimant some protection under s.1(3)(C).

Category
Nuisance

Story
In Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, the defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly. They filled the reservoir with water. As a result, water flooded through the mineshafts into the plaintiff’s mines on the adjoining property. The plaintiff secured a verdict at Liverpool Assizes. The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords affirmed their decision.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non-natural use of land.

Category
Nuisance

Story
A pipe was laid on the defendant’s land without their knowledge or consent, by a trespasser. However, when the occupiers saw the pipe, they placed a grating on it but because of its position it did not adequately prevent the pipe from becoming blocked.

During a heavy rainstorm, the pipe became blocked. Consequently, the water overflowed on to the claimant’s neighbouring land. As a result, the neighbour sued the defendant for nuisance.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
The defendants had a sufficient connection with the nuisance to be treated as both adopting it and continuing it. Moreover, either ground was sufficient for the defendants to be held liable in nuisance.

Furthermore, Lord Atkin specifies here that the action in nuisance does NOT require any degree of negligence. However, it does require some degree of ‘personal responsibility’.

Category
Nuisance

Story
The occupier (defendant) rented out his property to a professor of singing (claimant) for the purposes of carrying on his profession on the demised premises. Moreover, the occupier allowed another tenant, under the terms of his lease, to carry out various works in the building. However, this made it impossible for the claimant to carry on with his profession for a few months.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
The occupier could be held liable for an independent contractor if the nuisance was foreseeable.

There is vicarious liability for independent contractors in cases of nuisance, particularly where no steps are taken to avoid the nuisance.

Category
Nuisance

Story
The claimant was the owner of a large country house with over a thousand acres of land. This land was close to a copper smelting factory which had long been in operation. The smelting factory discharged noxious gases as a result of its operation, which were considered to be a normal part of the smelting operation. As a result, trees on the claimant’s land were damaged by the fumes and noxious gases. The claimant sued in nuisance.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
User of land which caused property damage is automatically unreasonable, no matter the character of the neighbourhood or any other factors.

“If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.”

Category
Nuisance

Story
The defendants operated a factory which made paper boxes. This required the factory to be continually warm and dry to ensure that the paper boxes were in good condition. The claimant rented the ground floor and used this area to store special brown paper. The heat from the defendant’s factory damaged this brown paper, which was unusually sensitive to heat, and the claimant sued in nuisance.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The claim was dismissed as there was no nuisance. The conditions in the factory were not particularly unusual, and the claimant’s operation of the factory in these conditions was not unlawful. The defendants had acted as reasonable tenants of their property. It had been shown that the heat from the factory would not have damaged ordinary paper. Instead the defendant’s brown paper happened to be unusually sensitive to the heat, and it was this which caused the damage rather than anything that the defendants had done wrong.

Category
Nuisance

Story
The defendant operated a fish and chip shop near to the claimant’s home. The claimant sued him in nuisance after complaining of an intolerable smell and vapor cloud emanating from the shop. The smell and vapour spread onto the claimant’s land from late morning to around 10:30 at night. The defendant argued that he should not be liable. He argued that he took great care in his work, using the best appliances and fish, and tried his best to minimize the smell.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
The High Court held that the smell was a nuisance. The court granted the claimant an injunction restraining the defendant from operating his business on that street.

The fact that a defendant exercises reasonable care to avoid interfering with his neighbour’s land is not relevant to nuisance. Whether something is a nuisance is to be assessed by reference to factors such as the level of inconvenience caused and the nature of the neighbourhood in which it occurs.

Category
Nuisance

Story
The defendant owned a leather tanning business. Spillages of small quantities of solvents occurred over a long period of time which seeped through the floor of the building into the soil below. These solvents made their way to the borehole owned by the Claimant water company. The borehole was used for supplying water to local residents. The water was contaminated at a level beyond that which was considered safe and Cambridge Water had to cease using the borehole. Cambridge Water brought actions based on negligence, nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
Eastern Counties Leather were not liable as the damage was too remote. It was not reasonably foreseeable that the spillages would result in the closing of the borehole. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance and claims based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in the same way as it applies to claims based in negligence. The Wagon Mound No 1 case applies to determine remoteness of damage.

Category
Nuisance
Wheeldon rule

Story
A seller sold a piece of land to C, a month later he sold the workshop adjacent to the land to D

C erected boardings on his land to block light to the windows of the workshop, D knocked the boardings down

C brought action for trespass against D. D pleaded that that he had an easement for access to light over C’s land that had been impliedly reserved by the seller he sold the piece of land to C.

Decision
Claimant (D did not have an easement for access to light)

Ratio decidendi
It was usual for implied grants and easements over tenements to be passed down or to continue over the land. Usually, they were granted as part of the enjoyment of the land and there are no corresponding implications in favour of the grantor. However, when Wheeldon conveyed the land, he had not reserved a right of access of light to the windows, no such right passed to Burrows (the purchaser of the workshop). It did not prohibit or stipulate that any purchaser of the land could build and obstruct the windows to the workshop as he pleased. It was determined that there was no implied right that was granted before or on the sale of the land and nothing specified in the conveyance.

Significance
Established the Wheeldon rule, under which an easement may be implied by grant from a quasi-easement if it was:

1. continuous and apparent;

2. necessary for the enjoyment of the property conveyed and;

3. enjoyed by the vendor when he owned both the dominant and servient land.

Category
Nuisance

Story
Wheeler bought properties adjacent to a farm. There were two access points to the properties, one via an access strip of land. There was no express grant of an easement for the access strip but there was a covenant to build a stock proof boundary fence along the boundary between the property and the pig farm. Saunders refused access to the property to build a stock proof fence. The smell of the pig farm also caused nuisance to Wheeler.

Decision
The appeal was granted to Wheeler in part.

Ratio decidendi
It was held that the grant of the easement over the access strip could not have been implied in the covenant because there were two entrances. As such, the reasoning of Wheeldon v Burrows was applied in determining whether the implied easement was necessary for the enjoyment of the land, and it was found that it was not.

Category
Nuisance

Story
The Lintz Cricket Club was a public cricket pitch that has been in use for over 70 years. The Millers purchased a new house on the boundary of the pitch in an area that used to be farmland. When the cricket players hit a six the ball often goes over the fence and lands in the respondent’s property. The cricket players politely come and ask for the balls back, but Mrs. Miller is very annoyed by the frequency and potential harm. The club has paid for any damaged property, and has raised the fence surrounding the pitch to its maximum height. They have made every effort possible to be accommodating including instructing the players to hit fours at ground level rather than trying for sixes.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
Denning finds that this is not a nuisance, and states that the Millers should have understood this would happen before they purchased the house. He finds that this is not a case of nuisance or negligence and thus dismisses the desired injunction. He holds that the public interest here overrides the interests of the respondents.

Category
Nuisance

Story
The claimant was a taxi driver who had been driving on a road near the St Augstine’s Links course when he was hit in the eye by a golf ball. The ball had been hit out of the golf course onto the road. This was a frequent occurrence because one of the holes was sited so close to the road and evidence was given that the balls were consistently leaving the course in this area, making it dangerous to road users. The claimant sued in nuisance.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
The fact that the balls were regularly and repeatedly struck onto the road meant that there was a consistent interference with the amenities of others using the road, and these users could be regarded as an identifiable class of individuals, meaning that the ingredients of a public nuisance were fulfilled. It was also likely in the circumstances that a court would have been willing to impose a duty of care in tort on the golf club if the claimant had decided to sue in tort. The golf club had committed a public nuisance as a result and were liable to the claimant.

Category
Nuisance

Story
The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. The water caused the embankment to collapse and left the gas main exposed and unsupported. This was a serious and immediate risk and the claimant took action to avoid the potential danger. They then sought to recover the cost of the remedial works under the principle established in Rylands v Fletcher.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The council’s use of land was not a non-natural use.

Category
Nuisance

Story
An electrical fault on the defendant’s land caused a fire to break out. The defendant had been storing a large number of tyres on the land. The fire spread to these tyres. This fed the fire, which spread onto the claimant’s land and caused damage. The claimant sued in negligence and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The trial judge rejected the negligence claim but held the defendant liable under the Rylands v Fletcher rule. The defendant appealed this ruling.

Held for
Defendant

Ratio decidendi
The Court of Appeal held in favour of the defendant. Storing tyres on land is not a dangerous activity, was not non-natural in the circumstances, and there was no relevant escape. Therefore, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher did not apply to these facts.

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher only applies where the dangerous object or substance brought onto the land is the very thing that escapes. The rule is not triggered when a combustible substance catches fire and the fire is the thing which escapes, not the substance. Only where the occupier deliberately started the fire on his land would there be a relevant escape if it got out of hand.

Category
Nuisance

Story
Christie was a music teacher who used to take classes at her home. The defendant, living in the adjoining house, became irritated by the sounds. In response, he therefore maliciously caused interrupted and disturbed the claimant by beating trays, whistling, and shouting during lessons.

The claimant filed a case claiming that the noise created by the defendant disturbed the comfort of her family. The defendant counter-claimed, arguing the noise Christie’s music created constituted nuisance.

Held for
Claimant

Ratio decidendi
The court granted an injunction ordering that the defendant stops making unreasonable and deliberate noises to interrupt the claimant.