Tort of negligence

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

• Start of tort of negligence
• Drink bought by a friend, contained a dead snail, made the claimant ill.
• Could not claim under law of contract
• Sued manufactures claiming they owed her a duty of care

"Neighbour test"

• Set out by House of Lords, showing who can owe a duty of care

Caparo 3 part test

• Replaced the neighbour test
• Under Caparo v Dickman 1990
• Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
• Is there sufficiently proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant?
• Fair just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Kent v Griffiths 2000

• Reasonably foreseeable, that claimant would suffer from the failure of an abulance to arrive within a reasonable time, with no satisfactory reason

Jolly v Sutton London Borough Council 2000

• Reasonably foreseeable that the 14 year old boy repairing a boat, that was in a dangerous condition would cause him harm.

Bourhill v Young 1943

• Pregnant lady, heard an accident but did not see it
• Saw blood on the road, suffered shock, lost baby
• Defendant not owe duty of care, not reasonably foreseeable that this could happen

Topp v London Country Bus South West Ltd 1993

• Bus left unattended with keys in ignition
• Stolen and caused an accident
• Held not reasonably foreseeable

Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1990

• Serial killer had been murdering women
• Claimants daughter was last victim
• Thought that police should owe a duty of care, already had enough information to arrest killer
• Held by Lods that relationship was not sufficiently proximate.
• Police did not know who the next victim would be

Osman v Ferguson

• Police knew there was risk of an attack on a schoolboy, took no action
• Boy was injured
• Court held there was sufficient proximity
• BUT unfair to impose a duty on the police

Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

• Imposing a duty on police, lead to lower standards of policing, defensive.

Capital v Countries plc v Hampshire County Council 1997

• If public services increase a risk that already exists, then courts more likely to hold it fair just and reasonable
• Fire officer ordered sprinkler system to be turned off. Fire spread and caused even more damage
• Fire brigade held a duty of care

Roe v Minister of Health 1954

• If there is no risk, no breach
• not known that anaesthetic was contaminated
• Claimant became paralysed as a result, could not claim compensation

Bolten v Stone 1951

• Cricket ball hit a passer by in the street
• Small risk, only 6 times in 30 years had a ball gone over the fence
• risk small, no breach of duty

Haley v London Electricity Board 1965

• Road used by blind people