Tort of Negligence

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

• Drink bought by friend, contained a dead snail.
• Taken ill
• Law of contract could not be claimed because the friend had bought the drink
• Manufacturers sued owing the woman a duty of care

"Neighbour Test"

• Set out by the House of Lords to show when a duty of care is owed

Caparo 3 part test

• Replaced the neighhbour test
• Under Caparo v Dickman (1990)
• Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
• Is there a suffieciently proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant?
• Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

• Patient suffering from asthma attack, ambulance called
• Ambulance failed to arrive within a reasonable time with no reason
• It was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer from the failure of the ambulance to arrive within a reasonable time

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2000)

• Boy aged 14, paralysed by a boat falling on top of him after attempting to repair
• Boat was abandoned, belonging to the council
• Council knew it was there and caused danger
• House of Lords said the attempting to repair the boat was just as equal to playing on it
• the injury was then reasonably foreseeable

Bourhill v Young (1943)

• Motorcyclist was speeding and crashed into a car
• Mrs Bourhill was pregnant and around 50yrds away from accident and did not see it
• After she saw blood on the road and was in shock
• Her baby was still born and blaimed it on the accident
• She was not owed a duty of care as the motorcyclist could not have reasonably foreseen she would be affected
• He did owe a duty of care to the car driver

Topp v London Country Bus (South West) Ltd (1993)

• Driver left but unattended with keys left in the ignition
• The bus was stolen and then caused an accident
• The claimant was injured but it was not left to be reasonably foreseeable

Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1990)

• Serial Killer had been murdering women
• The claimants daughter was the murderers last victim before being caught
• The police had enough evidence to arrest him before the murder but didnt
• They claimed the police owed them a duty of care to her daughter
• But, relationship was found to be not sufficiently close as the police would have know who the next victim would be

Osman v Ferguson(1993)

• Police knew about a risk of attack on a school boy
• Complaints were made to the police about the attackers behaviour
• The boys father was murdered by the attacker and the boy was left seriously injured
• There was then a sifficiently close relationship between the police and the victim and the victim's family

(Courts reluctant to find that it is 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose a duty of care on authorities)

Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

• imposing a duty on the police may cause policing to be of a lower standard
• Where the police or other authority through there actions have created a new danger or increased the risk of that danger courts are more likely to hold that it is fair, just and reasonable

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire county council (1997)

• fire brigade anttended a fire scene
• Sprinkler system was ordered to be turned off in the building
• More damge was then caused
• it was recognised it was fair, just and reasonable