Tort Law Cases - Summary The Law of Tort PDF

Preview

Summary

Tort Law CasesDamage and Duty of careDonoghue v Stevenson (1932): Snail in beer At this time, companies did not owe consumers a duty of care. The C was drinking an opaque glass of ginger beer when the remains of a snail came out. The C suffered shock and Gastro-enteritis. Case decided that a duty of...

Description

Tort Law Cases Damage and Duty of care Donoghue v Stevenson (1932): Snail in beer At this time, companies did not owe consumers a duty of care. The C was drinking an opaque glass of ginger beer when the remains of a snail came out. The C suffered shock and Gastro-enteritis. Case decided that a duty of care is owed to consumers by manufacturers even though there may not be a contract between them. Anns v Merton (1978): City council Houses/flats were sold to C. Cracks began to appear. This was due to a poor foundation. Council was accused of failing to inspect that flat and owed the C a duty of care. It was held that failure to inspect did not make the council liable unless it could be proven that the council had failed to comply with by-laws = failed to take reasonable care. Murphy v Brentwood (1991) In this case, the court took the opposite view to Anns and ruled in favour of the council. The legal principle from this case is that the council is not liable for not applying building regulations that did not cause physical injury. Also, the C suffered Pure Economic Loss.

Duty of care owed by the police and other emergency services Caparo v Dickman (1990): current test for duty in ordinary negligence cases This case established that for there to be a duty of care established, there must be a relevant precedent. If no relevant precedent exists, the courts apply the Tripartite: Foreseeability, Proximity and Fairness, justice and reasonableness. Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales (2015) Established the principle that the police do not owe a duty of care to prevent a 3rd party from harming a victim. More specifically, there’s no liability when the police do not act (omission) as seen in this case. This case started the debate on whether police have some kind of “immunity”. Smith v Littlewoods (1987) Defenders bought a cinema that later caught fire and damaged the property of its neighbours. C’s claimed that the D’s had failed to take reasonable care. It was held by the COA that since the D did not know about any fire starting or vandalism, they could not have known that the fire was going to take place. Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2000): Control This case is an example of where there’s an exception to the rule of no liability or omissions. Man, in custody. Commits suicide. Held that the police did owe him a duty of care as they were able to control the situation to stop him from harming himself. For example, they could have taken steps to check on him.

Barret v Ministry of Défense (1995): Assumption of responsibility This is another exception to the rule of no liability for omissions. AOR is where the D assumes responsibility to the C. Man drinking too much. Passes out. Put to bed and left alone. Man chokes on his vomit and dies. Held that the Navy failed to enforce existing disciplinary regulations ex. Stay with him and care for him. Once the officer said, “Take him home”, he had taken responsibility of the man. A duty of care was owed to the man. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989) This was a case brought by the mother of the last victim of the Yorkshire ripper. H’s claim was the police was negligent in catching the killer and if not, her daughter would have survived. This failed on the reasons of public policy in that the police do not owe a duty to the public at large for unknown criminals. Police, according to this case are immune from negligence cases against them during investigations and suppressing crime. Risk. Proximity. Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2009) Two males living together in a relationship. They break up. S then starts receiving threats from ex. S gets assaulted. Ample evidence that S takes to the police including text messages. S kept going to the police but was ignored. Initially, court said that the police did not owe a duty of care due to policy reasons and just the bare fact that the police cannot attend to every single call to the police. ECHR Art2 was used. Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (1985): Creation of danger This is an example of a case where the police did owe a duty of care. The C owned a gun shop. A siege took place and the police was called. CS gas was thrown into the shop which created a danger because the substance is highly flammable. No firefighting equipment was available. Court held that a duty of care was owed, and C was entitled to damages. Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (1997): Witness/informant C was being threatened by a dangerous individual. C was a police informant. Policeman was careless and negligent which lead to the 3rd party finding out her identity. C suffered personal injuries. Sufficient proximity and police had assumed responsibility of her once she became an informant. A duty of care owed. Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria (1999): Employees C was attacked by a prisoner and the D, her colleague, failed to assist when she was attacked. Court held this to be a breach of legal duty of care. Police officers are meant to have each other’s’ backs. There is an assumption of responsibility and a duty of care was found. Court also believed that this would also be in public interest. Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2005) This case emphasises that the police do not owe a duty of care even though the interaction they may have with victims isn’t the best. Principles of the Hill case were used. Police racially stereotyped C who was a witness to his friends’ murder. C suffered PTSD due to the manner he was treated which caused him to claim negligence for damages.

Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire (2011): CRB checks Police negligent in getting correct information about a man who was wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a woman. High court agreed partly with the claim that the police owed C a duty of care on the basis that they assumed responsibility when taking the test information and giving it to the board that could allow him to get a job as a teacher. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018) Focus was on precedent rather than the Caparo test. In this case, the C (elderly lady) got injured during a police arrest of a drug dealer. Actions of the police were seen to be carless as they should’ve made sure there was no one around. SC unanimously agreed that the police actions positively caused a negative action as they have created danger. A duty of care was owed. Cases alternative to negligence: Article 2 ECHR “right to life” claims Osman v UK (1999) The public body was aware or should have been aware that the information available showed that there was a real or imminent threat to the individual which breached their “right to life.” Capital v Hampshire CC (1997): Fire brigade Brigade was called to the scene. Turned off the sprinklers to deal with the fire. Fire did not stop but spread instead. The situation was made worse and caused personal injury. Court held that by its own negligence, the fire brigade crated a danger by its positive action and so the C’s could recover damages for negligence. OLL V Secretary of State for the Home Department (1997): Coastguard This case explained that the coast guard is not responsible for omissions in respect to misdirection during a rescue or when other rescue organisations are rescuing. There is no duty of care owed. The only public service that does owe a duty of care is the ambulance services because they are part of the health service and so they are presumed to take responsibility for patients. Kent v Griffiths (2000): Ambulance services C was a woman who was pregnant and had asthma. Suffered an attack and her GP called the ambulance. Took 38 minutes to arrive. As a result, she suffered personal injury including a miscarriage. Sued the ambulance services for negligence in damages. Ambulances services was found liable. C was on individual patient. There was no reasonable explanation was to why the ambulance was late. It was reasonable to conclude she would not have suffered her injuries if not for the delay. Once C’s information was taken and accepted, the service became liable for C.

Exceptional duty scenarios: Psychiatric harm Legal principle: Hinz v Berry (1970) In this case, the C was a woman who witnessed her husband being killed in an accident when the D crashed into their car and also injured their children. Question on whether the damages were recoverable. C suffered grief, depression and anxiety after accident. Anxiety and worry are termed “normal” which means they cannot be compensated; also, courts only

consider medically recognised illnesses such as PTSD. C was compensated but only on the factor of suffering shock as a result of seeing the accident. Page v Smith (1996): primary or secondary victim? This case helps distinguish between primary and secondary victims. In this case, the C filed a claim against damages for personal injury after an accident where C’s already existing illness became worse. It was foreseeable that if the D was negligent, then C would suffer some sort of harm and so a duty of care was owed, and compensation must be made in full amount. McFarlane v EE Caledonia (1994) A bystander failed to make a claim for damages due to psychiatric harm due to lack of proximity between the C (bystander) and those that suffered in the accident after the oil ring exploded. The courts so no close relationship. It was also not foreseeable that the bystander would’ve suffered psychiatric damage especially when compared to whether a reasonable bystander would suffer the same type of harm if in the same situation. Corr v IBC Vehicles (2008) C’s husband committed suicide after having suffered psychological after suffering an accident from work. C’s husband had become depressed following the accident (causation) and shows that the breach of duty to care for C’s husband induced the suicide making D liable for the full extent of the loss (financial earning) Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co. (2007) The C was a worker for a company. His work involved him being exposed to a chemical (Asbestos) which if over exposed to can in the long-term lead to getting sick ex. Cancer. The claimant was not in an immediate state to getting ill but was anxious due to the fear of getting sick. The claim failed due to the fact that fear/anxiety does not amount enough to be actionable damage against the D. Bourhill v Young (1943): foreseeability requirement for sec. victims A woman, the C, was going about her business when on a near street, a motor cyclist collided with a car and died. C heard but did not witness the accident. C was also in no immediate physical danger. Due to hearing the accident, the woman suffered severe shock. She was 8 months pregnant. C lost the baby. C claimed that the motorist owed her a duty of care and claimed damages. This failed on the grounds of foreseeability. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1992): criteria for sec. victims This case came after the Hillsborough disaster where people made claims against the police after watching their relatives die at the stadium. This case helped establish that to make a psychiatric claim for sec. victims, there must be a close relationship of love and affection (parents and spouses), foreseeable, must witness the accident/ immediate aftermath and sudden shock. Galli-Atkinson v Seghal (2003): immediate aftermath Mother is the C in the case. 16-year-old dies in an accident that leaves her severely disfigured. C is called to mortuary to confirm its her daughter. C saw body 2 hours after the accident which counted as immediate aftermath in the COA. Series of uninterrupted events.

C suffered shock and it was shown that it was the sight of her daughter that caused the psychiatric illness and she would not have suffered this if that had not happened. Claim passed. Palmer v Tees (2000): immediate aftermath This case established that the C needed to have actually be present or seen the immediate aftermath of the events or actual body and seeing what took place rather than what might have happened. The claim also failed on the grounds of lack of proximity. Taylor v A Novo (2013): immediate aftermath The C’s mother suffered an accident at work. Mother died 2 weeks after unexpectedly. The claim for damages that led to psychiatric harm failed due to the fact that C did not witness or did not witness the immediate aftermath of the accident. The relevance in such cases should be the accident rather than the death. Wild v Southend University Hospital (2014): immediate aftermath The C was a father who suffered some anxiety after going to the hospital with his pregnant wife and the midwives telling him that the baby was dead. C’s claim failed on the grounds that he did not suffer any horrific events that led to his wife’s or personal injury. However, the hospital may have been negligent to the mother as they told her to return the next day to give birth to a dead baby. Sion v Hampstead (1994): sudden shock requirement C was a father who claimed against the hospital that they owed him a duty of care after he watched his son’s health deteriorate due to breathing problems. However, because the C’s son’s health faulted over a period of time and not suddenly which would represent the shock element of it. North Glamorgan v Walters (2002): sudden shock requirement C was a mother who due to hospital negligence held her baby for 36 hours held her baby that moved from a state of stiff to turning off the life support due to the baby’s severe brain damage. Judge saw the 36 hours as a single horrific state rather than a gradual one. C suffered a nervous shock due to this discovery which was what led to the shock and a series of uninterrupted events. Claim upheld. Liverpool Women’s hospital v Ronayne (2015): sudden shock requirement In this case, the C was the husband to a woman who underwent a surgery. C claimed he suffered PTSD after seeing his wife go through two episodes. Nurses had warned him about what to expect, so this should have reduced the sudden shock element. Also, C’s wife did not look particularly different after the operation.

Problems with the prim/sec. victim distinction White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1999) The C’s were relatives of victims and the officers who had been involved in the Hillsborough tragedy. Although the court agreed that the D (Constable) owes a duty of care to his employees to protect them from physical injury but not psychiatric harm. Not liable because the reasons did not fit easily with the Alcok criteria. They were also not primary victims.

Dooley v Cammell (1951): Involuntary participants C was a crane operator who was working. Crane rope fell due to negligence by superior. C believed that the crane’s ball had harmed someone. The negligence to the crane rope was a breach of statutory duty by the D. The accident caused the C to suffer from shock. The damage was not remote. D owed a duty of care if C’s psychiatric harm was foreseeable. Hatton v Sutherland (2002) and Barber v Somerset: Occupational stress In Hatton, the C was suffering from stress due to work. C was a teacher. Changes at work took place and C started working more hours (20-70 hours a week). C talked to Headteacher about struggles. Took a 3 week break for stress and depression. No sympathy. Left the school. “Contractual relationship” Lady Hale, is closer than most. Cases held that the employer needs to take some reasonable care for their employee especially when they’ve been told that the work place is having negative effects on their health. Here, it becomes foreseeable that psychiatric harm may take place. Hartman v South Essex Mental Health (2005) This case was to do with occupational stress, the C was a health officer that worked in a prison. Job included removing the bodies of those inmates that had committed. One of the bodies that C triggered a stress related illness. Even though C had not brought any concerns to D, it was foreseeable that an illness may come about due to this job. Butchart v Home Office (2006) C was a prisoner. Told the D that he was suicidal. First cell C put in, cellmate commits. Second cell that C is put in, that cellmate attempts to take their life too. C was definitely a sec. victim however courts decided that the D had the duty to take steps to protect the prisoner from the possibility of psychiatric harm especially since they were aware that he was suicidal.

Exceptional duty scenarios: Pure economic loss There is no duty for pure economic loss Derry v Peek (1889): established that when a contract is made but there is an innocent but negligent misrepresentation, this will not be justified grounds for action “To find an action for damages there must be a contract and breach, or fraud”. (per Lord Bramwell) Candler v Crane Christmas & Co. (1951): general duty of no duty The C invested into a company based on the balance sheets given by D who was the accountants for that company. The balance sheets were dealt with negligently. The accounts were found to have defects. Company failed, and money lost. Held that the D’s did not owe a duty of care. In the absence of a contract, fraud, or fiduciary duty, no duty of care exists. Why are courts reluctant to impose a duty for Pure Economic Loss? “The object of a great economic activity is to succeed while others fail. Much economic loss is intentionally, let alone negligently caused”. per Hale LJ Spartan Steel v Martin & Co. (1973): what exactly is PEL?

Spartan (the C) is a company. Need to have a constant supply of power to make metals in a furnace. Martin (the D) cut power for 14 hours. Oxygen was added to remove the metal from furnace. Lower quality metal and was worth £368, profit loss of £400 due to lower quality. C unable to do more melts so a total of £1767. Held: the metal damaged amounted to property damages which would be compensated. The loss of metal was a consequence of damage which was consequential economic loss and would be compensated too. However, the financial loss due to the inability to work due to the power cut was a pure economic loss= no duty of care. Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966): ‘relational’ economic loss Institute negligently let a disease out that infected cattle nearby. C’s were auctioneers that claimed against D’s for damages for loss of business. Did the D’s take reasonable care, and did they owe the C’s a duty to make sure the virus did not escape? Held: this was a case of relational economic loss = pure economic loss and no duty of care is owed. Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1990): PEL vs. property damage In this case, the residence had a poor foundation. Council did inspect the house. C could not afford to repair the house. C lost £35000 because it was worth less due to the cracks in the foundation from 10 years prior. Held: this was a pure economic loss as noting was to come of the loss (no physical injury) and the defect was hidden= no duty of care owed. Defective Premises Act 1972, 6 years max. Negligent misstatements minus the exception of the Hedley Byrne (1964) There can only be a duty of care if there’s a misstatement not an action. There was no duty of care because the bank gave the statement asserting no responsibility.

Duty of care: the Hedley Byrne exception Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964): negligent misstatements that established principle H wanted to invest in a company, E but had to first check their credit worthiness which they acquired from the bank. Bank said that E was good for business but added at the end of their statement that the bank should not be held responsible. E liquidated and H lost money. H’s appeal was for damages due to money lost. Held: no duty of care owed as there was a disclaimer= no assumption of responsibility. Esso Petroleum v Mardon (1975): special relationship During a tenancy negotiation, Esso said they were to make a projection in their profits which was relied on by M to allow them to rent place. E actually made a financial loss. The transaction showed for a business relationship and reasonable to believe E having knowledge on info. Special relationship found. Held: duty of care owed. You don’t have to be in a business to give advice. Chaudhry v Prabhakar (1998): special relationship i...