Negligence
Facts of Donoghue v Stevenson
On August 26 1928, Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger-beer from Wellmeadow Café [1] in Paisley. She consumed about half of the bottle, which was made of dark opaque glass, when the remainder of the contents was poured into a tumbler. At this point, the decomposed remains of a snail floated out causing her alleged shock and severe gastro-enteritis.
Facts of Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd
The plaintiff sued for libel in relation to suggestions in the film, Rasputin, the Mad Monk, that she (called Princess Natasha in the film) had been seduced and raped by the eponymous figure of Rasputin. She was awarded 25000 by the jury for damages.
Facts of Robinson v Kilvert
The defendants operated a factory which made paper boxes. This required the factory to be continually warm and dry to ensure that the paper boxes were in good condition. The claimant rented the ground floor and used this area to store special brown paper. The heat from the defendant’s factory damaged this brown paper, which was unusually sensitive to heat, and the claimant sued in nuisance.
Facts of Stephens v Myers
The defendant made a violent gesture at the plaintiff by waiving a clenched fist, but was prevented from reaching him by the intervention of third parties.
Where cattle belonging to the defendant strayed onto the plaintiff’s land and damaged ‘pangola grass’ which the plaintiffs were cultivating. The defendant alleged that, as he was driving his cattle along the road, rain began to fall and he was forced to drive them into a nearby common whence, through no fault on his part, they strayed onto the plaintiff’s land. It was held that liability in trespass is strict, and the defendant was liable irrespective of any intention or negligence on his part.
What was held in Caparo Industries v Dickman
A firm of accountants appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal in which it was decided that the accountants owed a duty of care to the appellant shareholders when producing an audit report required by statute. The claim was for negligent misstatement. Caparo had bought shares in the company of which the report was about as part of a takeover. The appellant had relied upon the results of the report. However, it was later found that the results of the report had misrepresented the profits of the firm, in turn causing a loss for Caparo[9].
Decision in Caparo
The House of Lords reversed the decision of the COA and held that no duty of care had arisen in relation to existing or potential shareholders. The only duty of care the auditor`s owed was to the governance of the firm. It was found that three factors had to exist for there to be a duty of care which where: Proximity, Knowledge of who the report would have been communicated to and for what purposes it would have been used.
Principle in Thorley v Kelly
“for mere general abuse spoken no action lies”.
What was held in Leakey v National Trust
where the defendants occupied land on which there was a large, naturally occurring mound known as Barrow Mump. After one very hot summer, they were aware that the area could be affected by landslides, because of the earth drying out, but they took no precautions against this. A landslide did occur, casting earth and trees onto neighboring land and the defendants refused to remove the debris. The court held that they were liable for the nuisance, even though they had not actually done anything to cause it, but had merely failed to prevent it.
What is the principle in Cole v Turner
‘the least touching of another in anger is a battery’
the employee of a company believed that some children were stealing a company’s property and he struck one of them, who was seriously injured. It was held that although his act was unreasonable it was still within the course of his employment.
What are the Facts of Paris v Stepney
The plaintiff was blind in one eye. While he was working for the defendants, a metal chip entered his good eye and rendered him totally blind. The defendants were found to be negligent in failing to supply him with goggles as, even though there had only been a small risk, the consequences were serious.
Facts and Held in Huth v Huth
A letter was sent in an unsealed envelope by the defendant to the claimant. The butler secretly read the letter without the claimant’s permission. This was not treated as publication as the defendant could not have foreseen the butler’s behavior, so he was not liable for defamation
Facts and what was held in Adams v Ursell
the activities of a business owner of a fried-fish shop was a nuisance in the residential part of a street because of the constant odour from the frying and an injunction was granted for him to stop the operation. The argument is that no hardship would have been caused to the Defendant and to the poor people who were his customers.
Facts and what was held in Heard v Weardale Steel, Coal & Coke Co
A miner descended a coal mine at 9.30 am for the purpose of working therein for his employers, the owners of the colliery. In the ordinary course he would be entitled to be raised to the surface at the conclusion of his shift, which expired at 4 pm. On arriving at the bottom of the mine the miner was ordered to do certain work which he wrongfully refused to do, and at 11 am he requested to be taken to the surface in a lift, which was the only means of egress from the mine. His employers refused to permit him to use the lift until 1.30 pm although it had been available for the carriage of men to the surface from 1.10 pm, and in consequence he was detained in the mine against his will for twenty minutes. In respect of this detention the miner sued his employers for damages for false imprisonment. It was held, on the principle of volenti non fit injuria, that the action could not be maintained.
What are the facts and what was held in Wheat v Lacon
The defendants, in this case, were brewers who owned a public house, which they entrusted to a licensee to manage. This individual was employed by the defendants under a service agreement to this effect. This required the licensee to sell drinks in the ground floor of the premises, as this was the licenced area. The plaintiff was staying in the ‘private’ section of the premises with her husband, and they were staying as paying guests. One night during their stay, the plaintiff fell down a dimly-lit staircase, fractured his skull and died as a result of his injuries.
The court held that the defendants retained occupation and control of the inn and that the plaintiff and her husband had been visitors to the public house and were therefore owed a duty of care by the defendants. However, Denning M.R. held that despite the fact the staircase was unlit; it was not dangerous to those using it whilst taking the appropriate care. As a result of this, the appeal was dismissed.
State facts and what was held in Baker v Hopkins and Sons Ltd
A doctor went to the rescue of workmen endangered by their employer’s negligence. The men were working at the bottom of an open shaft, and had been overcome by carbon monoxide fumes leading from a faulty compressor unit. Unknown to anyone at the time, the men were dead, but the doctor insisted on being lowered down the fume filled shaft, secured only by a rope tied round his waist. No breathing apparatus was available, in fact firemen were waiting for it to arrive. The doctor, like the men, succumbed to the fumes and his widow was rewarded damages against the men’s employer, the defendant, for breach of its duty to the doctor as a rescuer.
The facts are that the defendants published a humorous newspaper story of the discreditable behavior in Dieppe of a fictitious character called Artemus Jones. He was said to be a churchwarden in Peckham. Unknown to the author or the editor, the claimant was also known as Artemus Jones, although he had actually been baptized Thomas Jones. He was a barrister not a churchwarden, did not live in Peckham and had never visited Dieppe. But he had contributed articles to the newspaper in the past and some of his friends thought that the article referred to him. He sued the owner of the newspaper for libel and was awarded 1750 pounds, and the House of Lords agreed. It did not matter that the defendants did not intend to defame him; all that mattered was what a reasonable person would understand the words to mean.
Facts and what was held in Sturges v Bridgman
A Doctor built a consulting room next to a confectioner’s workshop which had been operating for over 20 years. The doctor successfully sued for nuisance created by way of the noise and the court held that the prescriptive right began when the doctor started using the property. This did not amount to 20 years.
Facts and held in Robinson v Balmain New Ferry
the plaintiff had contracted with the defendants to enter their wharf and stay there till the boat should start and then be taken by the boat to the other side. No breach of the defendants’ undertaking was alleged, but the plaintiff after entry changed his mind and desired to effect an exit from their wharf without payment of the prescribed toll for exit, and was for a time forcibly prevented from leaving. It was held . . . that the toll imposed was reasonable and the defendants were entitled to resist a forcible evasion of it.
State the facts and what was held in Mersy Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd
In that case a harbour authority (the appellants) hired out to X (the respondents), a firm of stevedores, a mobile crane with its operator.
The contract expressly provided that the operator was to work for the time being as the employee of X, although the harbour authority retained the power of dismissal. Whilst loading the cargo, the operator of the crane was under the immediate control of X (the Respondents) in the sense that they could tell him which boxes to load, and where to place them, but they had no power to tell them how to manipulate the controls of the crane. In the course of loading a ship a third party (the plaintiff) was injured through the operator’s negligent handling of the crane.
It was held that the harbour authority was liable as it still controlled the manner in which the crane was worked. The Harbour Authority /Appellants were alone vicariously responsible.
But for test was highlighted in which case, state facts and what was held.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital where the plaintiff’s husband, after drinking some tea, experienced persisting vomiting for a three hour period. Along with two other men who had also drunk the tea and who were in a similar condition, he went to the casualty department of a hospital. A nurse contacted the doctor by telephone, telling him that the three men were complaining of vomiting after drinking tea. The doctor, who was himself tired and unwell, sent a message to them through the nurse to the effect that they should go home to bed and call their own doctors. Some time later, the plaintiff’s husband died from arsenical poisoning, and the coroner’s verdict was one of murder by a person or persons unknown.
The doctor owed the plaintiff’s husband a duty of care. The doctor had breached his duty of care in failing to examine the plaintiff’s husband, but the hospital was held not to be liable as the breach had not caused the death. The plaintiff’s husband would have died even if the doctor had examined him
The claimant had severely criticized an army general. These criticisms were protected by absolute privilege because they were made within Parliament, but after the army investigated his allegations and announced that they were totally unfounded, the claimant wrote to a newspaper defending his position, and again criticizing the general. The House of Lords held that the letter was covered by qualified privilege as the claimant was protecting his own reputation
Name case where damage escapes from your neighbour's land. Provide facts and what was in held.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, are that the defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly. They filled the reservoir with water. As a result, water flooded through the mineshafts into the plaintiff’s mines on the adjoining property. The plaintiff secured a verdict at Liverpool Assizes. The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords affirmed their decision
What is the rule in Wilkinson v Downtown, facts and held?
Wilkinson v Downton relates to the intentional infliction of harm. This is not actually a trespass to the person but a separate analogous tort. In a case of the same name, the defendant, by way of a practical joke, falsely represented to the plaintiff, a married woman, that her husband had met with a serious accident whereby both his legs were broken. The defendant made the statement with intent that it should be believed to be true. The plaintiff believed it to be true, and in consequence suffered a violent nervous shock which rendered her ill. It was held, that these facts constituted a good cause of action.
Which case establishes the principle of "common humanity" state facts and what was held
British Railways Board v Herrington
A six year old boy was electrocuted and suffered severe burns when he wondered from a play park onto a live railway line. The railway line was surrounded by a fence however, part of the fence had been pushed down and the gap created had been used frequently as a short cut to the park. The defendant was aware of the gap in the fence which had been present for several months, but had failed to do anything about it. Under existing authority of Addie v Dumbreck no duty of care was owed to trespassers. However, the House of Lords departed from their previous decision using the 1966 Practice Statement and held that the defendant railway company did owe a duty of common humanity to trespassers.