WEEK 1
DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON => served ginger beer contained a decomposed snail. Established the
principle of duty of care (neighbour principle, neighbour test) = avoiding acts of omission which are
reasonably foreseeable.
This case established liability of manufacturers to consumers without having a direct contractual
relationship with them.
1. Foreseeability.
2. Proximity.
3. Fair, just, and reasonable.
SMITH V. LITTLEWOODS ORGANIZATION LTD. => Defendant bought an old supermarket to demolish it
and build a supermarket. Vandals attempted to start a fire, the fire was set and damaged adjacent
property.
Plaintiff's claim was rejected due to the absence of the duty of care to prevent a third party from
wrongdoing, however foreseeable that harm may be. It was established that the owner of property
does not have the duty of care to protect the neighbouring property by acting as a “watchdog”.
Common law does not impose liability for events of pure omission. You may be liable if you had
knowledge of the third party’s intentions of wrongdoing. In this case the owner could not have taken
precautions against vandals whereas if they were thieves he could have.
CAPARO INDUSTRIES PLC V. DICKMAN => 100,000 shares of Fidelity plc purchased by plaintiff,
following the reports of the audit and the accountant the plaintiff bought 50,000 more shares. Fidelity
lost 400,000 pounds. Caparo sued the auditors for negligence. The auditors had no duty of care over
Caparo. Reasons: potential investors could amount to too many people to provide a duty of care to, he
would go bankrupt. 2. This would undermine the contract between Dickman and Fidelity. A breaches
contract with B; C suffers a loss as a result.
WHITE V. JOHNS => man wanted to alter his will to deprive his daughters of inheritance, he then made
up with his daughters and requested the solicitor to alter the will again to provide the daughters with
inheritance. Although the defendant (solicitor) has shown his intention to do so through the letter
, though he missed appointments with the testator. The testator (man) died before the appointment was
scheduled. The daughters sued the defendant alleging negligence in the preparation of the new will
and asked for compensation.
A solicitor acting on behalf of a client owes a duty of care only to his client. The relationship between a
solicitor and his client is nearly always contractual. A further reason is given which is said to reinforce
the conclusion that no duty of care is owed by the solicitor to the beneficiary in tort. Since the Hedley
Byrne principle is founded upon an assumption of responsibility, the solicitor may be liable for
negligent omissions as well as negligent acts of commission.
Hedley Byrne Principle => a duty of care arises when a person with a special skill takes it upon
themselves to give information or advice to someone, knowing that they will rely on it. Duty of care
provided the profession.
HOOLIGANS HARMING SPECTATORS => flare thrown by spectator ended up killing Setge Fuster.
Football clubs infringed their duty of diligence, each parent was held liable to pay damages =
commission in respect of deliberate wrongdoing. Organisers have the duty to assess the risks and have
the duty to implement measures to avoid those risks. (Obligation de moyens et obligation de résultat).
SNOW COVERED STEPS => The owner of land which is dedicated for public use must comply with the
requirements as there is a standard of care they must abide by.
LETTUCE LEAF => a shopkeeper's failure to keep the floor clean and safe amounts to a violation.
Contributory negligence when you should pay more attention.
HOLD-UP BY CONVICTS => The state does these things for common good- it is in the interest of society
to keep order. If in the process there is damage, the cost should be borne by society ~ nobody bears an
unreasonable amount of burden. If the cost of the measure for the benefit of public health should be
borne by the public, the measures can be in place, but the people have to be compensated.
DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON => served ginger beer contained a decomposed snail. Established the
principle of duty of care (neighbour principle, neighbour test) = avoiding acts of omission which are
reasonably foreseeable.
This case established liability of manufacturers to consumers without having a direct contractual
relationship with them.
1. Foreseeability.
2. Proximity.
3. Fair, just, and reasonable.
SMITH V. LITTLEWOODS ORGANIZATION LTD. => Defendant bought an old supermarket to demolish it
and build a supermarket. Vandals attempted to start a fire, the fire was set and damaged adjacent
property.
Plaintiff's claim was rejected due to the absence of the duty of care to prevent a third party from
wrongdoing, however foreseeable that harm may be. It was established that the owner of property
does not have the duty of care to protect the neighbouring property by acting as a “watchdog”.
Common law does not impose liability for events of pure omission. You may be liable if you had
knowledge of the third party’s intentions of wrongdoing. In this case the owner could not have taken
precautions against vandals whereas if they were thieves he could have.
CAPARO INDUSTRIES PLC V. DICKMAN => 100,000 shares of Fidelity plc purchased by plaintiff,
following the reports of the audit and the accountant the plaintiff bought 50,000 more shares. Fidelity
lost 400,000 pounds. Caparo sued the auditors for negligence. The auditors had no duty of care over
Caparo. Reasons: potential investors could amount to too many people to provide a duty of care to, he
would go bankrupt. 2. This would undermine the contract between Dickman and Fidelity. A breaches
contract with B; C suffers a loss as a result.
WHITE V. JOHNS => man wanted to alter his will to deprive his daughters of inheritance, he then made
up with his daughters and requested the solicitor to alter the will again to provide the daughters with
inheritance. Although the defendant (solicitor) has shown his intention to do so through the letter
, though he missed appointments with the testator. The testator (man) died before the appointment was
scheduled. The daughters sued the defendant alleging negligence in the preparation of the new will
and asked for compensation.
A solicitor acting on behalf of a client owes a duty of care only to his client. The relationship between a
solicitor and his client is nearly always contractual. A further reason is given which is said to reinforce
the conclusion that no duty of care is owed by the solicitor to the beneficiary in tort. Since the Hedley
Byrne principle is founded upon an assumption of responsibility, the solicitor may be liable for
negligent omissions as well as negligent acts of commission.
Hedley Byrne Principle => a duty of care arises when a person with a special skill takes it upon
themselves to give information or advice to someone, knowing that they will rely on it. Duty of care
provided the profession.
HOOLIGANS HARMING SPECTATORS => flare thrown by spectator ended up killing Setge Fuster.
Football clubs infringed their duty of diligence, each parent was held liable to pay damages =
commission in respect of deliberate wrongdoing. Organisers have the duty to assess the risks and have
the duty to implement measures to avoid those risks. (Obligation de moyens et obligation de résultat).
SNOW COVERED STEPS => The owner of land which is dedicated for public use must comply with the
requirements as there is a standard of care they must abide by.
LETTUCE LEAF => a shopkeeper's failure to keep the floor clean and safe amounts to a violation.
Contributory negligence when you should pay more attention.
HOLD-UP BY CONVICTS => The state does these things for common good- it is in the interest of society
to keep order. If in the process there is damage, the cost should be borne by society ~ nobody bears an
unreasonable amount of burden. If the cost of the measure for the benefit of public health should be
borne by the public, the measures can be in place, but the people have to be compensated.
