Negligence (damage) PDF

Preview

Summary

Cases...

Description

Negligence (Damage) Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 F: Mr Barnett went to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains and vomiting. He was seen by a nurse who telephoned the doctor on duty. The doctor told her to send him home and contact his GP in the morning. Mr Barnett died five hours later from arsenic poisoning. Had the doctor examined Mr Barnett at the time there would have been nothing the doctor could have done to save him. H: The hospital was not liable as the doctor's failure to examine the patient did not cause his death. Introduced the 'but for' test ie would the result have occurred but for the act or omission of the defendant? If yes, the defendant is not liable.

Robinson v The Post Office F: Following an injury caused by his employer, an employee was injured at work and suffered from tetanus as a result A doctor was supposed to administer a small dose of the anti-tetanus drug, wait 30 minutes to check for an allergic reaction, then administer the full dosage; however he instead administered the full dose immediately I: Was the doctor’s negligent act an intervening act, therefore negativing liability of the company H: No. Even if the doctor had followed the guidelines, no reaction would have been visible after 30 minutes so the employer was still liable for the the reaction to the treatment

Reasonable foresight test The Wagon Mound No. F: The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour due to the failure to close a valve. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. H: The defendants were in breach of duty. Although the likelihood of harm was low, the seriousness of harm was high and it would have cost nothing to prevent it. Lord Reid: In the present case the evidence shows that the discharge of so much oil on to the water must have taken a considerable time, and a vigilant ship's engineer would have noticed the discharge at an early stage. The findings show that he ought to have known that it is possible to ignite this kind of oil on water. and that the ship's engineer probably ought to have known that this had in fact happened before. The most that can be said to justify inaction is that he would have known that this could only happen in very exceptional circumstances. But that does not mean that a reasonable man would dismiss such a risk from his mind and do nothing when it was so easy to prevent it. If it is clear that the reasonable man would have realised or foreseen and prevented the risk then it must follow that the appellants are liable in damages. The learned Judge found this a difficult case: he says that this matter is "one upon which different minds would come to different conclusions". Taking a rather different view of the law from that of the learned Judge, their Lordships must hold that the respondents are entitled to succeed on this

issue....