Tort Law:
Duty of care:
Donoghue v Stevenson: Sets out the neighbour principle.
Caparo v Dickman: Sets out the modern three-part test to decide whether a duty of care
exists where there’s no precedent. Caparo test.
Kent v Griffiths: Example of foreseeability – it was foreseeable.
Bourhill v Young: Example of proximity – no physical proximity. Time and space.
McLoughlin v O’Brien: Example of proximity – even though no time and space, big
relationship.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: Police don’t owe duty to potential victims.
Reasonableness – not reasonable.
MPC v Reeves: Example of reasonableness – reasonable. Police owe duty of care to prisoners
taken into custody, man with known suicide risk.
Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: Example of reasonableness – not reasonable. No
known suicide risk, not a greater duty of care.
Breach of duty:
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. 1856: Defined the meaning of the term “negligence”.
Identified the reasonable man test.
Wells v Cooper: No special characteristics of the defendant, standard of care is of the
reasonable competent person doing the job.
Nettleship v Weston: The defendant standard of driving should be that of the reasonably
competent driver, not the standard of a learner driver.
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee: The standard of a professional is
judged by the standard of the profession. Two accepted medical methods, acceptable in
reaching standard of care expected.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. 1856: Defined the meaning of the term “negligence”.
Identified the reasonable man test.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority: Judging standard of care from professionals,
courts can decide the normal acceptable conduct isn’t high enough.
Roe v Minister of Health: Reasonable man can’t take precautions against unknown risks.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council: Special characteristics of claimant. Defendant knows of an
increased risk to the claimant more care must be taken.
Walker v Northumberland County Council: The employer must now take more care to avoid
repeat or more serious injuries – higher duty of care was needed.
Bolton v Stone: The size of risk was too small; the reasonable man takes precautions against
reasonable risk.
Haley v London Electricity Board: Size of risk was too small, the reasonable risk to protect
against is one that is statistically likely to occur.
Latimer v AEC: The defendant acted as a reasonable man taking all practical precautions.
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council: Benefits of saving woman’s life outweighed the risk of
injury to a firefighter.
, Day v High Performance Sports: Standard of care can be lower when making a rescue and
when in an emergency situation.
Damage caused by breach:
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee: No causation issues in
fact they would have died anyway.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd: Multiple causes – modified in special
circumstances.
Barker v Corus: Modifies the “but for” test in asbestos cases only – ensures remedy of the
victim.
Smith v Littlewoods: Intervening act when vandals weren’t common in the area.
Corr v IBC Vehicles: Depression following a serious accident and subsequent suicide is seen
as a result of the original accident and not as a novus actus interveniens.
The Wagon Mound No. 1: Damage by the spilt oil was foreseeable; damage by the fire was
not foreseeable and was therefore too remote.
Bradford v Robinson Rentals: As long as the type of damage is foreseeable, it doesn’t matter
that the form it takes is unusual.
Smith v Leech Brain: Egg shell rule.
Proceeding for injury caused by an extreme type of harm:
Doughty v Turner Asbestos: Scientific knowledge couldn’t predict event, so the event wasn’t
foreseeable.
Smith v Leech Brain: Eggshell rule. Take a person as you find them.
Gabriel v Kirklees Metropolitan Council: Example of how a judge should apply the reasonable
foreseeability test.
The Courts: Procedure and damage for negligence cases:
Scott v London and St Katherine’s Docks: Res ispa loquitus applied to the situation so
negligence didn’t have to be proved.
Mahon v Osborne: This is an example of res ispa loquitus obvious that someone had been
negligent.
Pearson v North Western Gas Board: In this case the defendant was able to show there was
no negligence despite a claim using res ispa loquitus.
Occupier Liability 1957:
Wheat v E. Lacon & Co. Ltd: There can be more than one occupier of a property.
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation: If a property is left vacant, the owner is still in effect then
occupier and therefore the duty of care still applies to them.
Bailey v Armes: Court decided that neither the supermarket nor the defendants were liable –
control over the means of access (the window) was not sufficient to make the defendants
liable.
Duty of care:
Donoghue v Stevenson: Sets out the neighbour principle.
Caparo v Dickman: Sets out the modern three-part test to decide whether a duty of care
exists where there’s no precedent. Caparo test.
Kent v Griffiths: Example of foreseeability – it was foreseeable.
Bourhill v Young: Example of proximity – no physical proximity. Time and space.
McLoughlin v O’Brien: Example of proximity – even though no time and space, big
relationship.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: Police don’t owe duty to potential victims.
Reasonableness – not reasonable.
MPC v Reeves: Example of reasonableness – reasonable. Police owe duty of care to prisoners
taken into custody, man with known suicide risk.
Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: Example of reasonableness – not reasonable. No
known suicide risk, not a greater duty of care.
Breach of duty:
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. 1856: Defined the meaning of the term “negligence”.
Identified the reasonable man test.
Wells v Cooper: No special characteristics of the defendant, standard of care is of the
reasonable competent person doing the job.
Nettleship v Weston: The defendant standard of driving should be that of the reasonably
competent driver, not the standard of a learner driver.
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee: The standard of a professional is
judged by the standard of the profession. Two accepted medical methods, acceptable in
reaching standard of care expected.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. 1856: Defined the meaning of the term “negligence”.
Identified the reasonable man test.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority: Judging standard of care from professionals,
courts can decide the normal acceptable conduct isn’t high enough.
Roe v Minister of Health: Reasonable man can’t take precautions against unknown risks.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council: Special characteristics of claimant. Defendant knows of an
increased risk to the claimant more care must be taken.
Walker v Northumberland County Council: The employer must now take more care to avoid
repeat or more serious injuries – higher duty of care was needed.
Bolton v Stone: The size of risk was too small; the reasonable man takes precautions against
reasonable risk.
Haley v London Electricity Board: Size of risk was too small, the reasonable risk to protect
against is one that is statistically likely to occur.
Latimer v AEC: The defendant acted as a reasonable man taking all practical precautions.
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council: Benefits of saving woman’s life outweighed the risk of
injury to a firefighter.
, Day v High Performance Sports: Standard of care can be lower when making a rescue and
when in an emergency situation.
Damage caused by breach:
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee: No causation issues in
fact they would have died anyway.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd: Multiple causes – modified in special
circumstances.
Barker v Corus: Modifies the “but for” test in asbestos cases only – ensures remedy of the
victim.
Smith v Littlewoods: Intervening act when vandals weren’t common in the area.
Corr v IBC Vehicles: Depression following a serious accident and subsequent suicide is seen
as a result of the original accident and not as a novus actus interveniens.
The Wagon Mound No. 1: Damage by the spilt oil was foreseeable; damage by the fire was
not foreseeable and was therefore too remote.
Bradford v Robinson Rentals: As long as the type of damage is foreseeable, it doesn’t matter
that the form it takes is unusual.
Smith v Leech Brain: Egg shell rule.
Proceeding for injury caused by an extreme type of harm:
Doughty v Turner Asbestos: Scientific knowledge couldn’t predict event, so the event wasn’t
foreseeable.
Smith v Leech Brain: Eggshell rule. Take a person as you find them.
Gabriel v Kirklees Metropolitan Council: Example of how a judge should apply the reasonable
foreseeability test.
The Courts: Procedure and damage for negligence cases:
Scott v London and St Katherine’s Docks: Res ispa loquitus applied to the situation so
negligence didn’t have to be proved.
Mahon v Osborne: This is an example of res ispa loquitus obvious that someone had been
negligent.
Pearson v North Western Gas Board: In this case the defendant was able to show there was
no negligence despite a claim using res ispa loquitus.
Occupier Liability 1957:
Wheat v E. Lacon & Co. Ltd: There can be more than one occupier of a property.
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation: If a property is left vacant, the owner is still in effect then
occupier and therefore the duty of care still applies to them.
Bailey v Armes: Court decided that neither the supermarket nor the defendants were liable –
control over the means of access (the window) was not sufficient to make the defendants
liable.
