land mark cases of nelgigence

6/21/2015 Cases - tort - negligence - breach of duty of care

http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/aqa/_cases_tort_2breach.htm 1/11

Bournemouth andPoole College Sixth Form Law Bournemouthand Poole College

Text Only Privacy & cookies Change TextSize

Cases - tort - negligence - breach ofduty of care

Home | Dictionary | Past papers | Cases | Modules | Exam dates | NationalExam Results | What's new? Search

Blake v Galloway [2004] CA

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)

Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957)

QBD

Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [1997] HL

Bolton v Stone [1951] HL

Carroll v Fearon (1999) CA

Djemal v Bexley Health Authority 1995 QBD

Gates v McKenna (1998) QBD

Hall v Simons (2000) HL

Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970] HL

Jolley v Sutton LBC (1998) HL

Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] HL

Mahon v Osborne [1939] CA

Mansfield v Weetabix (1997) CA

Marshall v Osmond [1983] CA

Mullin v Richards (1998) CA

Nettleship v Weston [1971] CA

Newman & others v United Kingdom Medical Research Council

(1996) CA

Paris v Stepney BC [1951] HL

Phillips v William Whiteley Ltd [1938] KBD

Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] QBD

Roe v Minister of Health [1954] CA

Simonds v Isle of Wight Council (2003) QBD

Thompson v Smith Shiprepairers (North Shields) (1984) QBD

Vaughan v Menlove (1837) Ct CP

Vowles v Evans and Welsh Rugby Union Ltd [2003] CA

Watt v Hertfordshire PP [1954] CA

Wells v Cooper [1958] CA



Wilson v Governors of Sacred Heart RC Primary School, Carlton

(1997) CA

Wiszniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority (1998) CA

Blake vGalloway[2004] CA

[Negligence - duty of care horseplay dutyonly breached by recklessness or high degree ofcarelessness] D threw a piece of wood bark at C hitting him in theeye causing serious injury. They were throwing barkand twigs at each other during their lunch break. Cand D were members of a jazz quintet (all about 15years of age). D relied on Cs consent and volenti nonfit injuria as defences (to battery and negligence).

Held: Only recklessness or a very high degree ofcarelessness is sufficient to breach the duty of careowed during horseplay. There is a close analogybetween organised sport and horseplay. The absenceof formal rules in horseplay is not sufficient distinction,both are consensual, involve physical contact, decisionare made quickly or instinctively. C had consented tothe risk.

C lostBlyth vBirminghamWaterworks(1856) Exch

[Tort - negligence breach -negligence what itis factors to consider - standard ofreasonableness]D water company was not negligent in allowing water toescape from its pipes.Baron Alderson:

Negligence is the omission to dosomething, which a reasonable man, guidedupon those considerations, which ordinarilyregulate the conduct of human affairs,would do, or doing something, which aprudent and reasonable man would not do.The standard demanded is thus not ofperfection but of reasonableness. It is anobjective standard taking no account of thedefendant's incompetence - he may do thebest he can and still be found negligent

Bolam v FriernBarnet HospitalManagementCommittee(1957) QBD

[Tort negligence - breach factors to consider test of reasonableness - standard of care and skillexpected of D]D hospital gave electro-convulsive therapy that brokeDs bones. Some doctors would give relaxant drugsothers would not.

Held: A doctor is not guilty of negligence is he hasacted in accordance with a practice accepted as properby a responsible body of medical men skilled in thatparticular art. C lost

Bolitho v City & [Tort negligence - breach factors to consider



Hackney HealthAuthority[1997] HL Whole case here

test of reasonableness - standard of care and skillexpected of D - causation]C aged 2 suffered serious brain damage followingrespiratory failure. Several expert witnesses supportedthe doctor, and on that basis, the judge found that thedoctor had not been negligent.

Held: A doctor may be negligent even if there is a bodyof medical opinion in his favour: he must also be able toshow that this opinion has a logical basis. Only veryrarely would a judge decide that the opinions of anumber of otherwise competent doctors were notreasonably held, and this was not such a case.

C lostBolton v Stone[1951] HL

[Tort negligence - breach - factors to consider degree of risk - practicality and cost ofprecautions]D a cricket club from where a cricket ball was struckover a 17-feet fence. It hit C who was standing on thepavement outside her house. The ball must havetravelled about 100 yards, and such a thing hadhappened only about six times in thirty years.

Held: the risk was so slight and the expense ofreducing it so great that a reasonable cricket club wouldnot have taken any further precautions.

C lostCarroll v Fearon(1999) CA

^[Tort - negligence - damage causation andremoteness - type of damage - duty of judge toidentify negligent act - consumer protection]D negligently manufactured a tyre that disintegrated ona motorway causing a serious accident. No specificnegligent act or omission on the part of themanufacturer had been identified.Held: There was no requirement to specify either theparticular persons responsible for the defect or theparticular negligent act or omission. the tyredisintegrated because of an identified fault in themanufacturing process. The manufacturer could notexplain how the defect could have been caused otherthan by its negligence,D lost

Djemal v BexleyHealth Authority1995 QBD

[Tort - negligence breach factors to consider -standard of care - level of skill required]Standard of skill and care expected in A&E departments.

Gates vMcKenna (1998)QBD

[Tort - negligence breach factors to consider -standard of care - level of skill required]D a stage hypnotist caused psychiatric damage tovolunteer from audience.

Held: level of precautions expected should be that of areasonably careful exponent of stage hypnotism.

Hall v Simons(2000) HL

^[Tort - negligence duty no duty situations -breach - professionals immunity advocates nota special case]One of several cases (conjoined cases) on similar



issues, where claimants had done less well than theywould but for negligence of their legal advisers.

Held: It was no longer in the public interest thatadvocates should enjoy immunity from being sued fornegligent acts concerned with the conduct of litigationwhether in civil or criminal proceedings.

Change of rule on lawyers immunityHome Office vDorset Yacht[1970] HL

[Tort negligence - breach - no policy reason toallow Crown special immunity]Ds, borstal officers allowed seven boys to escape froma training camp in Poole Harbour while they wereasleep. They stole Cs boat and caused damage to otherboats in the harbour.

Held: the Borstal authorities owed a duty of care to theowners of property near the camp. There were no goodreasons of public policy for allowing the Crown anyspecial immunity in this respect.Liability restricted to the property-owners in theimmediate vicinity their loss was foreseeable, and wouldnot have extended to others further a field.

C won.Jolley v SuttonLBC (1998) HL Whole case here

^[Tort negligence - breach - occupiers liability foreseeability of type of accident]D the owners of land where an old boat had beenabandoned for about 2 years. C a 14-year-old boy wasseriously injured when he and a friend tried to repair it;they had propped it up on a car jack the boat that fellon him as a result of which he was a paraplegic. C suedunder the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. The Court of Appeal wrongly found that the claimanthad been engaged in was an activity very differentfrom normal play, and that the accident was not,therefore, reasonably foreseeable.

Held: An accident of the type which had actuallyoccurred was reasonably foreseeable on the particularcircumstances of this case.

C wonLatimer v AECLtd [1953] HL

[Tort negligence - breach - factors to consider degree of risk - practicality and cost ofprecautions]D, a factory owner. C slipped on an oily film and injuredhis ankle. The sawdust put down to soak up liquid didnot cover the entire floor. The oily film was due towater from an exceptionally heavy storm.

Held: D had done all that a reasonable person would doin the circumstances; they could not have eliminatedthe risk completely without closing the factory.

C lostMahon vOsborne [1939]CA

[Tort negligence breach - limits of res ipsaloquitur]A patient died shortly after an abdominal operation andpost-mortem examination found a swab in his body.



Held: Negligence had been established.Res ipsa loquitur applied only to things within commonexperience, and that was not the case with complexsurgical procedures.

Mansfield vWeetabix(1997) CA

^[Tort - negligence breach -negligence factorsto consider - special characteristics of D -standard of care expected of drivers]D owners of lorry. Their driver suffered from lack ofglucose to the brain. He was unaware of effect on hisdriving, C suffered damage to their shop when lorry leftroad on a bend. Held: The standard of care that driver was obliged toshow was that which is expected of a reasonablycompetent driver. The driver did not know and could notreasonably have known of his illness that was the causeof the accident. Therefore, he was not at fault. Hisactions did not fall below the standard of care required.

C lost

Marshall vOsmond [1983]CA

[Tort negligence - duty of care factors riskinvolved balance of risk and value of activity -police drivers same as public error of judgmentnot negligence]D following C, an escaping criminal crashed the policecar into his, injuring him.

Held; The duty owed by a police driver was the sameas that owed by any other, namely, to exercise suchcare and skill as was reasonable in all thecircumstances.

But where those circumstances were that he was drivingalongside another car in order to make an arrest, theerror of judgement he made in the instant case did notamount to negligence. C lost

Mullin vRichards (1998)CA

^[Tort - negligence breach -negligence what itis factors to consider - standard ofreasonableness - foreseeability standardsexpected special characteristics of D]D a 15-year-old schoolgirl had a "sword fight" with Cwith plastic rulers in their classroom. One of the rulerssnapped and a piece of plastic entered Cs eye, causingpermanent damage.

Held: The neither teacher nor D had been negligent. There was insufficient evidence that the accident hadbeen foreseeable in what had been no more than achildish game.

C lostNettleship vWeston [1971]CA

[Tort - negligence breach -negligence what itis factors to consider - standard ofreasonableness - duty owed to others learnerdrivers]D a learner driver went out for her first lesson,



supervised by a friend C. D crashed the car into alamppost, and C was injured.

Held: Even learner drivers are to be judged against thestandard of the reasonably competent driver. The factthat a particular driver is inexperienced andincompetent does not excuse his falling short of thisstandard.

C won damages subject to a deduction forcontributory negligence.Also here

Newman &others v UnitedKingdomMedicalResearchCouncil (1996)CA

[Tort negligence factors to consider specialcharacteristics of D - negligence established whenmedical risk recognised]Between 1959 and 1985, nearly two thousand childrenwhose growth was stunted were treated with doses ofHuman Growth Hormone (HGH) extracted from thepituitaries of human cadavers. Many of them died ofCJD.

Held: Research Council should have stopped trials andestablished whether drug was safe before continuing.

Paris v StepneyBC [1951] HL

[Tort negligence - breach - factors to consider degree of risk potential seriousness of injury special characteristics of V]D a Local Authority employed C as a garage mechanic.C had lost the sight of one eye during the war. In orderto loosen a stiff bolt he struck it with a hammer; a pieceof metal flew off and (because he was not wearinggoggles) struck him in his good eye, causing him tobecome totally blind.

Held: The probability of such an event was very small,but its consequences were very serious, his employers,knowing of his disability, should have taken extra careto provide goggles for him. The more serious thepossible damage, the greater the precautions thatshould be taken.

C wonPhillips vWilliamWhiteley Ltd[1938] KBD

^[Tort negligence - breach - standards ofprofessionals]D (a jeweller), employed a man to pierce Cs ears, twoweeks later she developed an infection that caused anabscess on her neck that required surgical draining. Held: A jeweller is not bound to take the sameprecautions as a surgeon would take, and D had takenall reasonable precautions. C was unable to prove thatthe operation was negligently performed, and that theabscess which formed in her neck was due to thenegligence. C lost

Roberts vRamsbottom[1980] QBD

^[Tort - negligence breach -negligence what itis factors to consider - standard ofreasonableness - foreseeability standardsexpected special characteristics of D - drivers]D suffered a partial stroke while driving, and drove on



with impaired consciousness and collided with twoparked vehicles.

Held: Since he retained some limited control he wasstill liable. Only total unconsciousness or total lack ofcontrol would excuse him. Alternatively, D knew he hadbeen taken ill and was therefore negligent in notstopping, even if he did not fully realise he was nolonger fit to drive. D lost

Roe v Ministerof Health[1954] CA

^[Tort negligence - breach - specialcharacteristics of D - foreseeability of harm]A spinal anaesthetic had become contaminated throughinvisible cracks in the glass vial. When used, paralysedtwo patients.

Held: The cracks were not foreseeable given thescientific knowledge of the time, The foreseeability ofharm is clearly a major factor in determining how areasonable person would act, and although actualforesight by D is generally irrelevant, a reasonableperson would not have taken precautions against a riskof which reasonable people in that profession were notaware.

D not liable.Simonds v Isleof WightCouncil (2003)QBD

[Tort negligence - breach - not applicable whenchild still in care of his mother]Playing fields could not be made free of all hazardsand because a school had diagnosed a hazard did notmean it was duty bound to take further steps to makeaccess or use impossible.The issue in this case was causation.

A five year old was told him to return to his teachersafter lunch with his mum during a sports day. He wentto play on swings and broke his arm. Held: The school had been responsible for him all dayand that the mothers acts or omissions had notbroken the chain of causation. However, this was simply an accident which had notdisclosed any causative fault. The school had had agood plan for dealing with the swings; no one otherthan the claimant had played on them. Balancing the element of risk, it was not reasonable toimpose a legal duty on a school to immobilise theswings any more than it would be to rope off a tree onthe field. Playing fields could not be made free of allhazard. Furthermore, since the boys mother had notredelivered him back to the care of the school, therewas no breach of any duty by the school. School won

Thompson v [Tort negligence - the standard of



SmithShiprepairers(North Shields)(1984) QBD

reasonableness - level of precautions factors toconsider - common practice]D shipyard owners. C worker who suffered deafness.

Held: Although conditions were common across theindustry they fell below the required standard of care. D could not evade liability just by proving that all theother employers were just as bad.

There were some circumstances in which an employerhad a duty to take the initiative to look at the risks andseek out precautions to protect workers.

However, this approach must still be balanced againstthe practicalities. Employers were not expected to havestandards way above the rest of their industry, thoughthey were expected to keep their knowledge andpractices in the field of safety up to date.

C wonVaughan vMenlove (1837)Ct CP

[Tort negligence - breach of duty of care testof reasonableness]D built a haystack. C neighbour occupied cottage nearhaystack. D was advised that the haystack was poorlyventilated and could catch fire, which it did. D who wasinsured said he would chance it.

Held: Although D had acted honestly and in accordancewith his best judgment, this was not enough, areasonable person would have taken precautions.

C won.

Vowles v Evansand WelshRugby Union Ltd[2003] CA Whole case, here

[Tort negligence duty of care proximity -foreseeability - just fair and reasonable - refereeowes duty to players - breach failing to enforcerules constitutes breach amateur game refereesexpected to reach equivalent standard]DD the referee of a rugby match and the sportsgoverning body. C injured and confined to a wheelchair when a scrum (where players bend over and pusheach other) collapsed. Cs position was hooker (right inthe middle of the scrum).

Held: A referee and player have sufficient proximity, itwas foreseeable that if the referee did not enforce therules there would be injury (that is what the rules arethere to prevent). It was just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty ofcare. There was a structured relationship, the refereesacts or omissions were manifestly capable of causingphysical harm to others, and in such circumstances thelaw will normally impose a duty of care.A referee of a game of rugby football owes a duty ofcare to the players. The court did not consider it logicalto draw a distinction between amateur and professionalrugby.The referee had breached that duty of care, the refereehad been in a position no more than basic skill andcompetence at that level of the game (see Bolam).



Lord Phillips, MR:

Rugby football is an inherently dangeroussport. Some of the rules are specificallydesigned to minimise the inherent dangers.Players are dependant for their safety onthe due enforcement of the rules. The roleof the referee is to enforce the rules. Wherea referee undertakes to perform that role, itseems to us manifestly fair, just andreasonable that the players should beentitled to rely upon the referee to exercisereasonable care in so doing. Rarely if everdoes the law absolve from any obligation ofcare a person whose acts or omissions aremanifestly capable of causing physical harmto others in a structured relationship intowhich they have entered. Mr LeightonWilliams has failed to persuade us thatthere are good reasons for treating rugbyfootball as an exceptional case. A referee ofa game of rugby football owes a duty ofcare to the players.

[Comment] This is the first case involving an amateurgame. The court applied Caparo Plc. v Dickman [1990]HL and a line of cases where the sport's governing bodyhas been held responsible for the safety of the playersor participants. For example, the brain damage sufferedby the boxer Michael Watson and his claim fornegligence against the British Board of Boxing Controlhad forced the governing body into bankruptcy. C wonAlso here

Watt vHertfordshire PP[1954] CA

[Tort negligence - duty of care factors toconsider risk involved balance of risk andvalue of activity]D, local authority that ran the fire brigade. C a firefighter was injured by equipment that slipped on theback of a lorry. The lorry was used to carry heavylifting equipment needed at a serious road accidentwhere a person was trapped. The lorry, which usuallycarried the equipment, was engaged in other work atthe time, and the fire officer ordered the equipment beloaded into the back of an ordinary lorry.

Held: Denning, LJ:

" ... in measuring due care one mustbalance the risk against the measuresnecessary to eliminate the risk. [...] Thesaving of life or limb justifies takingconsiderable risk ...".

C lostWells v Cooper[1958] CA

^[Tort negligence - breach standard of care factors to consider special characteristics of D]D fitted a door handle in his home. C a visitor pulled onthe handle and it came away in his hand, causing the



visitor to fall down several steps.

Held: D was to be judged against the standards of areasonably competent carpenter, but not necessarilyagainst the standards that would be expected of aprofessional carpenter working for reward. This was thesort of job that a reasonable householder might do forhimself, and that was the appropriate standard.

C lost.Wilsher v EssexArea HealthAuthority[1988] HL

[Tort negligence breach professionals -junior doctor to reach standard of his post]D the hospital where C was born prematurely. Dnegligently gave C excess oxygen. The catheter wastwice inserted into his vein instead of his artery. Hedeveloped an incurable eye condition.Held: The CofA held - and not disputed in the HofL -that here is no concept of team negligence, eachmember is required to observe the standarddemanded. Junior doctor does not owe a lowerstandard, he should be of the standard of someoneholding his post [comment] this may be logically impossible.

C lost, a retrial ordered.Wilson vGovernors ofSacred Heart RCPrimary School,Carlton (1997)CA

[Tort negligence breach factors to consider -common practice]D a school, C a nine-year-old boy who was hit in the eyeby a coat belonging to another boy. Attendants wereprovided to supervise the children during lunch breakbut not a going home time.

Held: Most primary schools do not supervise children atthis time and the incident could as easily happenedoutside the school gates. The school had not fallenbelow the standard of care.

C lostWiszniewski vCentralManchesterHealth Authority(1998) CA

^[Tort negligence - breach factors to consider test of reasonableness - standard of care andskill expected of D - causation]D heath authority employed midwife who negligentlyfailed to show cardiograph indicating there wereproblems to the doctor. C child who had cerebral palsycaused by complications at birth.

Held: Adverse inference drawn about Drs conduct hedid not attend trial and did not remember the birth. Inference was that Dr had no answer to Cs complaint,which was supported by expert evidence that noreasonable doctor would have delayed examining thepatient. Bolitho followed.

C won.

2000-2008 M Souper Copyright reserved | disclaimer Law Weblog | Contact us | Please visit the FREE Hunger Site

land mark cases of nelgigence

Documents