Negligence leading cases:
(Note: d= defendant, c= claimant)
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] L.R. 3 H.L. 330= where D is liable even
though harm to C was caused without D’s intention or negligence-
strict liability
Spartan Steel v Martin & Co [1973] QB 27= “Whenever the
courts draw a line to mark out the bounds of duty, they do it as a
matter of policy so as to limit the responsibility of the defendant”
per Lord Denning
Osman v UK [1999] FLR 193= Article 8, right to privacy. But… look
to decision in 2000 case
Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 350= the court held that the
standard of care expected of the reasonable man would not be
lowered because the defendant was a learner driver
Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205= a person
or organization that stages a public event has a duty of care to
ensure the safety of those in attendance, and that this duty includes
taking reasonable steps to protect them from injury
Heaven v Pender [1883] 11 QB 503= made duty of care clear with
proximity, employers need to make sure employees have safe
working conditions even if there is no contract for this duty
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562= manufacturer of product
owes duty of care to ultimate consumer- negligence confirmed as a
separate tort. Lord Atkin formulated the “neighbour principle” which
is used in many other cases with many other situations.
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928] 59 ALR 1253= shows
if the C is not a foreseeable victim of D’s negligence, D cannot be
liable. Case: Someone waiting for a train, carrying rockets in a box.
He was pushed onto the train so he drops the box and a spark gets
into firework, the rocket takes off and injures Mrs Palsgraf as
weighing scales collapses on her. She sues railway company for
negligence. But her case failed.
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92= Motorcyclist crashes and dies
nearby. Mrs Bourhill is pregnant and suffers a miscarriage. She sues
the dead defendant for compensation. Case fails as she was not
within area of shock at the time of the accident, she walks into it.
“The duty is not to the world at large”, per Lord Porter. C in no
danger from D of direct physical injury: not foreseeable to D.
, Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] AC 1004= defendant was
liable for damage caused by escaped young offenders, even though
allowing them to escape was an omission rather than a positive act.
But liability only for harm caused at time of escape and in vicinity-
overlap here between existence of duty, causation and remoteness
of damage.
Anns v Merton [1978] AC 728= created the 2-stage test but
problems with the link of foreseeability and proximity
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605= 3 stage test
which drew differences between foreseeability and proximity. Also
added fair, just and reasonable. Dismisses 2 stage test.
The case: Caparo wanted to purchase another company- they were
entitled to shareholder reports from Dickman and the reports said they
were doing better than they were. Caparo bought the other company and
found out they were worse than they seemed than in their reports. There
was no relationship between Dickman and Caparo (no proximity= no duty
of care).
Murphy v Brentwood [1991] 1 AC 398= overruled Anns v Merton.
According to Lord Keith, Anns “did not proceed on any basis of
established principle”, 471
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015] UKSC 2=
Police do not owe duty to individuals of public to protect them from
injury by a third party. Claim failed as police didn’t owe a duty to
her. Lord Toulson reaffirmed the principles that negligence develops
incrementally and by analogy, and that policy considerations would
often be relevant. Shows In the case of public bodies, the 3stage
test will be used more carefully.
Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire CC [1997] QB 1004= fire
brigade switched off sprinkler system in burning building. D liable
because of duty to take reasonable care not to make condition
worse (I think). But more importantly, no common law duty to
answer emergency calls, nor to fight fire with reasonable skill merely
by responding to an emergency call- lack of proximity between
emergency services and maker of call. “Floodgates” argument:
number of emergency callers too great.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53= no
proximity between victim and police- one of the thousands of
women in west Yorkshire- no duty of police to prevent harm by third
party, like Michael case. Lord Keith said that C was “one of a vast
number of the female general public who might be at risk...there is
(Note: d= defendant, c= claimant)
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] L.R. 3 H.L. 330= where D is liable even
though harm to C was caused without D’s intention or negligence-
strict liability
Spartan Steel v Martin & Co [1973] QB 27= “Whenever the
courts draw a line to mark out the bounds of duty, they do it as a
matter of policy so as to limit the responsibility of the defendant”
per Lord Denning
Osman v UK [1999] FLR 193= Article 8, right to privacy. But… look
to decision in 2000 case
Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 350= the court held that the
standard of care expected of the reasonable man would not be
lowered because the defendant was a learner driver
Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205= a person
or organization that stages a public event has a duty of care to
ensure the safety of those in attendance, and that this duty includes
taking reasonable steps to protect them from injury
Heaven v Pender [1883] 11 QB 503= made duty of care clear with
proximity, employers need to make sure employees have safe
working conditions even if there is no contract for this duty
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562= manufacturer of product
owes duty of care to ultimate consumer- negligence confirmed as a
separate tort. Lord Atkin formulated the “neighbour principle” which
is used in many other cases with many other situations.
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928] 59 ALR 1253= shows
if the C is not a foreseeable victim of D’s negligence, D cannot be
liable. Case: Someone waiting for a train, carrying rockets in a box.
He was pushed onto the train so he drops the box and a spark gets
into firework, the rocket takes off and injures Mrs Palsgraf as
weighing scales collapses on her. She sues railway company for
negligence. But her case failed.
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92= Motorcyclist crashes and dies
nearby. Mrs Bourhill is pregnant and suffers a miscarriage. She sues
the dead defendant for compensation. Case fails as she was not
within area of shock at the time of the accident, she walks into it.
“The duty is not to the world at large”, per Lord Porter. C in no
danger from D of direct physical injury: not foreseeable to D.
, Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] AC 1004= defendant was
liable for damage caused by escaped young offenders, even though
allowing them to escape was an omission rather than a positive act.
But liability only for harm caused at time of escape and in vicinity-
overlap here between existence of duty, causation and remoteness
of damage.
Anns v Merton [1978] AC 728= created the 2-stage test but
problems with the link of foreseeability and proximity
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605= 3 stage test
which drew differences between foreseeability and proximity. Also
added fair, just and reasonable. Dismisses 2 stage test.
The case: Caparo wanted to purchase another company- they were
entitled to shareholder reports from Dickman and the reports said they
were doing better than they were. Caparo bought the other company and
found out they were worse than they seemed than in their reports. There
was no relationship between Dickman and Caparo (no proximity= no duty
of care).
Murphy v Brentwood [1991] 1 AC 398= overruled Anns v Merton.
According to Lord Keith, Anns “did not proceed on any basis of
established principle”, 471
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015] UKSC 2=
Police do not owe duty to individuals of public to protect them from
injury by a third party. Claim failed as police didn’t owe a duty to
her. Lord Toulson reaffirmed the principles that negligence develops
incrementally and by analogy, and that policy considerations would
often be relevant. Shows In the case of public bodies, the 3stage
test will be used more carefully.
Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire CC [1997] QB 1004= fire
brigade switched off sprinkler system in burning building. D liable
because of duty to take reasonable care not to make condition
worse (I think). But more importantly, no common law duty to
answer emergency calls, nor to fight fire with reasonable skill merely
by responding to an emergency call- lack of proximity between
emergency services and maker of call. “Floodgates” argument:
number of emergency callers too great.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53= no
proximity between victim and police- one of the thousands of
women in west Yorkshire- no duty of police to prevent harm by third
party, like Michael case. Lord Keith said that C was “one of a vast
number of the female general public who might be at risk...there is
