• The starting point – the test (Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks)
• ‘The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they
omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a
person taking reasonable precautions would not have done.’ – objective standard
• Foreseeability of harm
• Barrett v English LBC Lord Hutton ‘court must be satisfied that the conduct went
beyond mere errors of judgement in the exercise of a discretion and constituted
conduct which can be regarded as negligent.
• Means a “real risk, and not just a mere possibility”: Khan v Harrow Council [2013]
• merely possible risks may be foreseeable, but they are not reasonably foreseeable.
risk must be likely enough that a reasonable D, careful of the safety of his neighbour,
wouldn’t think it right to neglect or ignore the risk Wagon Mound (No 2)
PRELIMINARY MATTERS:
I. proving the requisite foreseeability
narrower foreseeability test:
at beach stage, the court is required to assess whether the event or accident was so unlikely
(i.e. unforeseeable) as not to require any precautionary steps or alternative course of action
to be taken by D.
o sometimes DoC can be owed to C, but no breach may be found because the event
was unforeseeable;
Bolton v Stone hit by cricket ball. Only happened 6 times in 38 years, the risk
of injury was too small. Ordinarily careful man doesn’t take risks against
every little thing.
Whippey v Jones dog accosted C who fell into a river. CA- no breach as the
dog did not have a tendency to do things like that. More than remote.
Previous occurrences- never happened previously, does not render the risk unforeseeable.
o Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) ltd- Chair’s elasticised strap slipped his grip and the
buckle hit him in the eye, causing retina injury. No breach.
o Bunker v Charles Brand Son Ltd- the mere fact that no accident had happened in the
past did not absolve from taking further precautions
o Bolton v Stone- just because it did occur before does not mean that = liability.
o Holton v Jackson- only hit someone 2 times before in the 16 years of the golf
course’s existence.
Stompson v Wolverhampton- where there has been previous complaints to
D about similar events.
o Cornish Glenroy Blair-Ford v CRS Adventures Ltd- lack of previous occurrences of the
accident can sometimes be because C’s behaviour was so unusual, makes it difficult
to prove breach.
Known Susceptibilities
o D knows of C’s susceptibilities to injury- D has foreseen the risk
D’s knowledge may relate to its systems or employers vulnerabilities
Paris v Stepney BC- worked in garage had one functioning eye, was
not given goggles. And D was also aware of C’s vulnerabilities
• ‘The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they
omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a
person taking reasonable precautions would not have done.’ – objective standard
• Foreseeability of harm
• Barrett v English LBC Lord Hutton ‘court must be satisfied that the conduct went
beyond mere errors of judgement in the exercise of a discretion and constituted
conduct which can be regarded as negligent.
• Means a “real risk, and not just a mere possibility”: Khan v Harrow Council [2013]
• merely possible risks may be foreseeable, but they are not reasonably foreseeable.
risk must be likely enough that a reasonable D, careful of the safety of his neighbour,
wouldn’t think it right to neglect or ignore the risk Wagon Mound (No 2)
PRELIMINARY MATTERS:
I. proving the requisite foreseeability
narrower foreseeability test:
at beach stage, the court is required to assess whether the event or accident was so unlikely
(i.e. unforeseeable) as not to require any precautionary steps or alternative course of action
to be taken by D.
o sometimes DoC can be owed to C, but no breach may be found because the event
was unforeseeable;
Bolton v Stone hit by cricket ball. Only happened 6 times in 38 years, the risk
of injury was too small. Ordinarily careful man doesn’t take risks against
every little thing.
Whippey v Jones dog accosted C who fell into a river. CA- no breach as the
dog did not have a tendency to do things like that. More than remote.
Previous occurrences- never happened previously, does not render the risk unforeseeable.
o Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) ltd- Chair’s elasticised strap slipped his grip and the
buckle hit him in the eye, causing retina injury. No breach.
o Bunker v Charles Brand Son Ltd- the mere fact that no accident had happened in the
past did not absolve from taking further precautions
o Bolton v Stone- just because it did occur before does not mean that = liability.
o Holton v Jackson- only hit someone 2 times before in the 16 years of the golf
course’s existence.
Stompson v Wolverhampton- where there has been previous complaints to
D about similar events.
o Cornish Glenroy Blair-Ford v CRS Adventures Ltd- lack of previous occurrences of the
accident can sometimes be because C’s behaviour was so unusual, makes it difficult
to prove breach.
Known Susceptibilities
o D knows of C’s susceptibilities to injury- D has foreseen the risk
D’s knowledge may relate to its systems or employers vulnerabilities
Paris v Stepney BC- worked in garage had one functioning eye, was
not given goggles. And D was also aware of C’s vulnerabilities
