CASES:

LAW OF TORTS:

Hargreaves v Bretheton [1958] 3 All ER 122

Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237

Perera v Vandiyar [1953] ALL ER 1109

NEGLIGENCE AND THE DUTY OF CARE:-

 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

Donoghue’s friend purchased her a bottle of ginger beer. The bottle contained the decomposing remains of a
snail though this was not visible. As a result of the remain, Donoghue suffered from nervous shock and
gastroenteritis. Donoghue attempted to claim against the manufacturer of the ginger beer (Stevenson)
claimed that he owed her a duty of care. Could a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of
goods? In favour of Donoghue; a duty can be owed to the ultimate consumer. Lord Atkin’s neighbour
principle sums up the reasoning:

You must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted
reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be
likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who
are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being
so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.

Letang v Cooper [1965]

A car driver negligently ran over the claimant while she was sunbathing. A claim in trespass was made against
the driver as the time limit of 3 years for negligence had expired. Could there have been a trespass committed?
No. No intent, trespass is more difficult to prove than negligence, so make your claim promptly in negligence
for a batter chance of succeeding. Therefore, its possible for trespass to be committed negligently (without
intention).

NEGLIGENT OMISSIONS:-
 Dorset Yacht co v Home Office [1970]

Prisoners escaped from a rehabilitation program on an island. During their escape, they crashed into the
claimant’s boat. The defendant’s had failed to prevent the escape – an omission. Could the claimants recover?
Yes – recovery allowed. The reasoning was that; as damage was done during the escape, it was foreseeable,
further damage, such as when on land would not be.

FACTORS OF FINDING LIABILITY: DETERENCE:-

Grimshaw v Ford Motor Co [1981]

A Ford Pinto burst into flames when another car crashed into the back of it after it stalled on a freeway. The
passenger, Mr Grimshaw, suffered severe injuries. Evidence showed that Ford knew that this was a defect in
the car during its design, but decided that it was cost prohibitive to rectify the issue. Should risk-benefit
analyses be used when there is a potential for severe injury to people? No, therefore Ford would be liable to
compensate Grimshaw. Ford had calculated how many deaths/serious injuries could be compensated for to
still turn a profit without making alterations to the design of the car to make it safer; this had to be rectified
by the court. Tort law tries to deter wrongs.

Nettleship v Weston [1971]

A driving instructor was injured by his pupil when the pupil negligently crashed. Could the learner driver
(pupil) be liable? yes. By being on the road, the learner driver is expected to behave as a reasonable driver.
 TRESPASS TO LAND:-
League Against Cruel Sports v Scott [1986] .

This case shows that trespass can result from negligent failure to ensure dogs do not go onto another’s land.
The League Against Cruel Sports is anti-hunting and they also buy small pockets of land and use them as
nature reserves – this is to make areas that are safe for animals and, also, the more land they buy they hope
they can force out hunting. In this case, there was a hunt going on and the dogs (used by the hunters) were
going onto the League's land. As a result, the League sued the hunt master who was responsible. The question
was: was the league master intentionally setting the dogs upon the land? The court said they could infer an
intention to trespass from "the indifference to such incursions while persisting to hunt near the claimant’s
property". Thus, the defendant was found guilty of trespass.

Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco (1957)

The neighbour of a property had an advertising hoard that projected 8cm over the building (i.e. the airspace)
next door. This was held to be a trespass and, therefore, the claimant could insist the hoard gets taken down
or charge money for it being there.

Bernstein v Skyviews [1978]

Skyviews took photos of Bernstein's manor house from the air and tried to sell him the photos. Berstein
wanted to sue for trespass to his airspace. Justice Griffiths held that trespass to higher level airspace was not
just and reasonable. It didn't infringe any rights of the claimants airspace. The court applied some common
sense - they said it was said that you own the airspace that is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of
your land. For public policy reasons it would be unjust to tie liability to higher level airspace; would cause
mass suing of air plane companies. The Civil Aviation Act 1982 says that if planes are flying over your property
it is not a trespass/nuisance so long as the height it is flying is reasonable in the circumstances.

Star Energy v Bocado [2010]

Star Energy were digging for oil and were putting pipes underneath somebody else’s land (2000 feet
underneath the ground). This was still held to be trespass i.e. trespassing 2000 feet underneath your land may
be seen as trespass. The court said the owner was "entitled to the surface itself and everything below it down to
the centre of the earth” (from Rowbotham v Wilson (1860), but as long as this was applied sensibly e.g. at a
certain point beyond the crust it is impossible for any human activity to take place: Sprankling, 2008.

Basely v Clarkson (1681)

The defendant cut grass from the land which he believed belonged to him, but in fact belonged to the
neighbor, the claimant. The court held that whether the defendant knew the title of facts or not was irrelevant:
his act was voluntary and did cause loss that the claimant had suffered. There is no liability if the entry is
involuntary i.e. a person who is carried onto the land of the claimant by a 3rd party is not liable in trespass.

Bury v Pope (1587)

Water Board v Seven Trent Waters Limited [2002]

Conway v Wimpy & Co Ltd [1951]

Nicholls v Ely Beet Sugar Factory [1931]

Scrutton's rationale in Calgarth [1927]

Verall v Great Yarmouth [1981]

 Rigby v Chief Constable of North Hamptonshire [1985]

TRESPASS TO PERSON; ASSAULT:-

Mead's v Belts Case (1823)

R v Ireland [1998]

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

Stephens v Myers (1840)

Thomas v Nashville Union of Miners [1986]

R v Constanza [1997]

Smith v Chief Constable of Woking (1983)

TRESPASS TO PERSON; BATTERY:-

Williams v Humphrey, The Times (1975)

James v Campbell (1832)

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commission [1969]

Scott v Shephard (1773)

 DDP v K (1990)

Cole v Turner (1704)

Wilson v Pringle [1987]

TRESPASS TO PERSON; FALSE IMPRISONMENT:-

Bird v Jones (1845)

P wanted to walk across the footpath on Hammersmith Bridge in England but was unable because D had
placed temporary fencing on the bridge to enable spectators to participate in a regatta. P proceeded to climb
over the fence, D stationed 2 cops to prevent P from proceeding. P tried to force his way and was taken into
custody. It was not false imprisonment. Though it blocked P‟s passage across the bridge, there was nothing to
stop P from turning around & going back the way he came. No false imprisonment because P‟s passage was
only obstructed in one direction.

Robinson v Balmain New Ferry [1910] AC 295

Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co Ltd [1915] AC 67

Attorney General v Mumba (1984) ZR 14

The Respondent was arrested without warrant by the police. He was not told of the ground of his arrest until
after about 6 hours og his arrest. The Appellants on the other hand argued that there was reasonable
suspicion that the Respondent had participated in or had been in some way connected with an alleged coup
d'etat earlier on that date and that consequently he was arrested on that suspicion. The fact that the police
didn't tell the Respondent that he was arrested is what amounted to false imprisonment (Article 20 clause 2 of
the Constitution).

Grainger v Hill (1843)

· In tort of false imprisonment exits even if one is too ill to move or realise what going on.

Meering v Graham White Aviation Co (1920)

P was an employee of the D. D suspected P of theft. Employer sent two of the security to hold him up in office
till police came. P did not realize he was being detained. He was not guilty of the theft and later sued for false
imprisonment. It was argued by the employer that there was no false imprisonment because he had not
actually been told that he was not allowed to leave, neither did he know that he was imprisoned. An
imprisonment can occur even when it begins and ends whilst P is still in that state of unawareness.

Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988]

It was stated that law attaches supreme importance to liberty of the individual and if he suffers a wrongful
interference with that liberty it should remain actionable even without proof of special damage .

Wilkinson v Downton [1897]

D told the P her husband had been seriously injured in a traffic accident as a practical joke, she suffered
shock and a serious physical illness.

Janvier v Sweeney [1919]

D were detectives who wanted to obtain from P some letters that they thought she had access to, they
threatened her that they would tell the authorities that she had been involved with a German spy during the
war years. She became physically ill as a result of the threats. A stronger case than Wilkinson v Downton
saying you cannot go around threatening to report things to the police in order to get what you want from Ps.
P was successful and approved the rule from Wilkinson v Downton.

TRESPASS TO PERSON; DEFENCES:-

Lane v Holloway [1968]

Elderly plaintiff stuck younger defendant of the shoulder and the defendant retaliated with an extremely
severe blow to the face the blow was out of proportion hence defendant was liable. provocation is not a
defence all it might do is reducing or extinguish claimant's entitlement. This was applied in Barnes v Nayer
(1986).

Barnes v Nayer (1986)

TRESPASS TO GOODS:-
Hemmings v Stoke Poges Golf Club (1920)

The Plaintiff was employed by the club and occupied a cottage belonging to it. Later, he left the Defendants‟
service and was called upon to give possession. On refusal, he and his property were ejected with no more force
than necessary. It was held that the Defendants were not liable for assault or trespass.

Oakley v Lyster (1931)

The Plaintiff leased land and dumped material there. The Defendant acquired freehold and wrongfully
claimed the material was his. He used some of the material himself and his solicitors warned the Plaintiff not
to enter on the land. The Defendant was held liable for conversion.

Wright v Macadam [1949]

Mrs Wright, a statutory tenant with landlord Macadam, was given permission to use a nearby shed (on
Macadam’s land) to store coal. A new tenancy was granted to Mrs Wright, which made no mentions of the
coal storage. Had the permission to use the shed for coal storage, by virtue of s 62 of the Law of Property Act
1925, turned the permission into a legally enforceable easement upon the execution of the new tenancy? Yes.
The storage right did not amount to a claim for exclusive possession of the shed; Macadam still had access.

Kirk v Gregory

the defendant moved jewellery which was later stolen (ahh, sugar!) and it was held that there was a trespass to
goods.

Slater v Swann

Goods cover almost any physical object, including animals.

AB & Ors v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust

D the hospitals that had retained tissue from the bodies of deceased children taken at or after post-mortem
without the knowledge or consent of the parents. The claimants were three lead claimants in group litigation.
In each case, they consented to the carrying out of a post mortem, but were not informed in detail of the
procedure or that organs might be removed and retained. Where organs had been retained, they were often
treated in some way so as to preserve them. In the case of a doctor treating a mother who had had a child
which had died, the doctor would have a duty to advise the mother about future pregnancies. That duty
extended to giving the parents an explanation of the purpose of the post mortem and what it involved,
including alerting them to the fact that organs might be retained.

Hutchins v Maughan [1947] VLR 131

This case considered the issue of trespass and whether or not the actions of a neighbour laying poisonous
baits on his property which resulted in the death of his neighbours dogs amounted to trespass.

Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott (1946) 74 CLR 204

This case considered the issue of trespass and whether or not a person who sold wine in bottles which were the
property of Penfolds Wines amounted to trespass.

Armory v Delamirie (1722) 5 Stra 505, 93 ER 664

This case considered the issue of personal property and whether or not a boy who found a precious jewel was
entitled to keep the item when a goldsmith rKJefused to return it to the boy.

DEFAMATION; TRUE INNUENDO :-

Tolley v J.S Fry & Sons Ltd [1931]

An amateur golfer had a caricature of him appearing in an advert for Fry‟s chocolate without his knowledge.
This is not defamatory however he argued that those who knew him as an amateur golfer would see him as
accepting money for the advert something that was contrary to acceptable amateur conduct in golf. The
House of Lords held that the advert was capable of being caught out by the meaning on innuendo. Therefore,
people who knew Tolley might think less of him and his reputation would be harmed.

Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929]

 DEFAMATION; FALSE INNUENDO :-
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd. [1964]

In this case a paragraph was printed about a company and its chairman Mr. Lewis stating that the fraud
squad was investigating them. A claim for defamation on the literal meaning failed. Innuendo was raised and
claimed but the courts rejected this stating the test was objective and there was no way a reasonable person
would assume that a police investigation indicated that Lewis and the company were guilty of such conduct.
Even if they could possibly infer from the paragraph that Lewis and the company might be suspected of
fraud.

STRICT LIABILITY:-
Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

B a mill owner hired independent contractors who were apparently competent. They were to construct a
reservoir to provide water to the mill. In the process of work the contractors found some old mine shafts and
passages on B‟s land. They appeared to be filled in with earth so the contractors did not block them and when
the reservoir was filled the water burst onto and flooded A‟s land the defendant owned a mill and
constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir
filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant
causing extensive damage to A‟s land.
 Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [2004] UKHL 61

A Highrise building had been supplied water though a high water pressure pipe. The Pipe burst and a
considerable amount of water had been released before the burst pipe was discovered and fixed, water
escaped into a land fill and along a railway line and under the line was a gas pipe which had to be suspended.
Repairs cost 93,681 Pounds.

Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand (1869)

Stated that the default position is that the owner of the injured land suffers a private loss for the benefit of the
public.

Gaddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir (1878)

Blackburn stated that “…no action will lie for doing that which the legislature has authorized, if it be done
without negligence, although it does occasion damage to anyone.

Carstairs v Taylor (1871)

A rat making a hole in a wooden gutter box was considered an Act of God.

Nichols v Marsland (1876)

A very heavy rainstorm was considered an Act of God.

Rickards v Lothian [1913]

A vandal who blocked a washbasin and turned on the tap leaving it running and causing flooding. “It is not
every use to which land is put that brings into play that principle. It must be some special use bringing with it
increased danger to others and must not merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as proper for the
general benefit of the community”. Distinctions are very hard to explain as to what will and what will not be
allowed in terms of the „ordinary use of land‟ and „proper for the general benefit of the community‟.

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc.

The House of Lords decided that liability was limited to damage which was termed natural i.e. reasonably
foreseeable, consequence of the escape. Lord Goff added – “liability should be no more extensive that it would
have been in nuisance if the discharge itself had been negligent or intentional”. This illustrates that Rylands v
Fletcher was established to create liability for an isolated escape only (i.e. unforeseeable).

Shiffman v St John of Jerusalem (Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Venerable Order of the Hospital)
[1936]

Hale v Jennings Bros [1938]

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997]

It noted that nuisance was a tort against land and therefore concluding that the rule only applied to land
related issues. Therefore personal injuries are not recoverable under the rule.

NUISANCE:-

PRIVATE NUISANCE:-
Bamford v Turnley (1860)

Private nuisance amounts to “any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and
unreasonable interference with a [claimant's] land or his use or enjoyment of that land.” The person affected
must have a legal interest in the land, therefore meaning that tenants of properties are protected from private
nuisance.

Khorasandjian v Bush (1993)

Exceptions have been made where it was ruled that a woman living in her mother‟s house was entitled to an
injunction to prevent telephone harassment. This was later overruled in Hunter v Canary Wharf 1998.

De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914)

Noise generated at night during building works amounted to private nuisance.

British Celanese v Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd

Foil which had blown from the defendants property and caused electric damage to a substation which in turn
caused a blackout was considered a private nuisance.

National Hotels Development Corporation (T/A Fairview Hotel) v Motala (2002)

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks [1996]

Where the plaintiff‟s vessel suffered damage as a result of a fireworks display which only lasted 20 minutes
but the debris some of it hot and burning fell onto the property which was potentially flammable. Damages
were awarded.

Lord Wright in SedleighDenfield v O‟Callaghan [1940]

“a balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own and the
right of his neighbor not to be interfered with”.
 Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

If one lives in an industrial area where there is noise coming from the factory the court will examine the
nature of that location when a nuisance claim is brought forward.

Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co. ltd [1993]

Where planning permission to develop disused naval dock to a 24 hours commercial dock was an issue and
held it did not change the character of the neighbourhood.

Robinson v Kilvert (1989)

The defendant had a shop on the lower floor which required hot and dry air. The plaintiff floor temperature
rose to 80F (26 degrees Celsius) which in turn diminished the value of the brown paper he had kept. The heat
was not such as to affect ordinary paper or to cause discomfort to the plaintiff‟s workforce.

McKinnon Industries ltd v Walker [1951]

damaged orchids as a result of fumes from the defendant‟s factory was seen as sufficient.

Network Rail Infrastructure ltd v Morris (t/a Soundstar studio) (2004)

Bradford Corp v Pickles [1895]

The defendant drained his land with the intention of diminishing the water supply which would in turn force
his neighbours to buy his land. The injunction was not granted House of lord refused to note the element of
malice and moved to distinguish. They distinguished from Christie on two grounds;

· In Bradford the plaintiff had no right to receive the water therefore no right had been interfered with
to establish a nuisance.
 · Secondly the defendant had done no more than exercise his right to appropriate or divert
underground water to obtain a better deal from the plaintiff

PUBLIC NUISANCE:-

GENERAL DEFENCES AND REMEDIES:-

Nettleship v Weston [1971]

States nothing will suffice short of an agreement to waive any claim of negligence.

ICI v Shatwell [1956]

Two brothers were testing detonators at a defendant's quarry they ignored safety recommendations and one
of them got injured as a result and then decided to sue under vicarious Liability the court refused and said he
had assumed the risk. Agreement should therefore be interpreted loosely as meaning the claimant has clearly
consented to the risk.

Dann v Hamilton [1939]

Owens v Brimmell [1977]

Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952]

A person is guilty of contributory negligence if fails to act reasonably the way a prudent man would .
 Jones v Boyce (1816)

Man jumped out of moving bus.

Froom v Butcher [1976]

Seatbelt case where they assessed that courts could- Reduce damage by 25% if the injury would have been
prevented altogether. Reduce damage by 15% if the injury would have been less severe. 0% if wearing seatbelt
would not prevented the injury.

Stapley v Gypsum Mines ltd [1953]

Thomas v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1998]

Which indicated a level of awards suitable for damages against the police for false imprisonment and
malicious prosecution.

NEGLIGENCE:-
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

Lord Atkins formulated the general principle known as the neighbourhood principle by which the existence
of a legal duty of care could be determined thus effectively inventing the modern tort of negligence. "The rule
that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's
question “Who is my neighbour?" receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or
omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my
neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought
reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or
omissions which are called in question."

Watt v Rama (1972)

P‟s mother who was pregnant with her suffered injuries as a result of a motor accident due to D‟s negligent
driving. P was subsequently born and she suffered from brain damage and epilepsy. It was alleged that P‟s
handicap was due to the injury sustained by her either in the accident while unborn or in the course of her
birth as a result of injury to her mother. D denied that he owed a legal duty of care to P while she was still in
her mother‟s womb. Victorian Supreme Court held that since was born as a handicap because of the injuries
sustained by her as the result of the accident involving her mother who was pregnant with her at the time of
the accident; D owes P a duty of care. It was immaterial whether at the time of the negligent act whether the
victim was in existence or not, so long as the victim was the member of the class reasonably likely to be
adversely affected by that at.

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

Caparo Industries v Dickman 1990

Topp v London Country Bus (South West) Ltd 1993

The claimant was unsuccessful because he was unable to establish that the defendant ought reasonably to
have foreseen that a joy-rider would has stolen the bus which his employee left unattended in a lay by. His wife
was killed through the negligence of the unidentified joy rider when he collided with her and knocked her off
her bicycle.

Margereson v JW Roberts Ltd, Hancock v Same (1996)

It was held that the owner of an asbestos factory should reasonably have foreseen that children who played
near the factory might later in life develop pulmonary injury through dust contamination. A DOC was owed
to them.

Fardon v Harcourt – Rivington 1932

Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92

Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong 1988

John Munroe v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority 1997

Hill v Chief Constable for West Yorkshire (1988) HL

Hemmens v Wilson Browne (A Firm) [1993] 4 All ER 826

A solicitor was not liable in negligence, where his mistake might yet be rectified; this was an inter vivos
transaction and the parties could still resolve the position. Though a solicitor had a duty to the beneficiary of a
settlement, the settlor could still perfect the deed.

Ephraim v London Borough of Newham Negligence of Local Government

A Local Authority was liable for its negligent reference of a homeless person to unsafe premises. Housing Act
1985 65(4).

Daka v Attorney General (1990-1992)

The reasonable man test has been adopted in Zambia as mentioned in this case.

Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943]

Members of a church picnic were having tea in the park but due to bad weather they had to move indoors
and with permission of the appellant they used a room belong to them. Here they could consume their tea
whilst the tea urn was being moved in the passage it was dropped by one of the carries the tea escaped,
scalding 6 children, it was argued that the manageress should have foreseen the risk that the tea would be
spilt however it Held that she was not liable.

Bolton v Stone [1951]

The claimant in this scenario was hit by a cricket ball which was struck out from the cricket ground which was
surrounded by a fence 17 feet high. The fence was some 75 yards from the striker and hit the claimant 100
yards away, only six balls had ever been struck over the fence in 28 years. Court held that the club was not
negligent. The test here is whether the risk of the damage to the person on the road was so small that a
reasonable man in the position of the appellant considering the matter from the point of view of safety would
have thought it right to refrain from taking steps to prevent the danger therefore in that light it would be
right not only to take that into consideration but also how serious the consequences could be.

Wells v Cooper [1958]

The claimant was delivering fish at the defendant‟s house when he tried to open the door, the handle came off
and he lost his balance and feel, the handle had been replaced by the owner who was an amateur carpenter.
He had used three quarter inches nails in doing so. The Court held he was not liable. The standard of care
and skill to be demanded in order to discharge his duty of care to the plaintiff is that of a reasonably skilled
carpenter this does not mean the degree of care and skill will be measured by reference to contractual
obligations as obligation to quality.

Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980]

It was stated that a driver who suffers a stroke even though he is unaware of the condition and loses control as
a result is still liable.

Mansfield v Weetabix ltd [1998]

Ruling changed this and stated that Roberts was wrong on this point and that a driver will not be held liable
should be become unable to control a vehicle once a debilitating condition manifests itself.

Roe v Minister of Health [1954]

Where the plaintiff went to hospital for a minor operation but suffered permanent paralysis as a result of
being given a spinal anaesthetic which was contaminated with phenol. Contamination occurred when the vile
containing the anaesthetic was stored in phenol which in turn sipped into the vile through tiny invisible
cracks. At the time it was not know that contamination could occur this way. The trial came in 1954 by which
time the dangers had been known. Defendants were held not be liable. Denning said although in 1954 it
would be considered negligent if it occurred; you had to look at it as in 1947.

Hilder v Associated Portland Cement manufacturers ltd 1961

The defendant was an occupier of grass field who allowed some boys to play football there, one of the boys
kick the ball over a low fence which hit a motorcycle rider on the other side who in turn suffered injuries.
Defendants were held liable.

Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953]

The floor of the defendant's factory was flooded and as a result some oil leaked and mixed with the water, the
water subsided but the floor remained slippery and sawdust was used to prevent the floor being slippery but
they did not have enough. Later a worker who was on a particular patch that was still slippery fell and broke
his ankle and then sued. House of Lords held that they we not negligent they had done everything possible to
negate risks without having to close the factory.

Darbon v Bath tramways motor co ltd [1946]

The relevant issue was whether in war time the driver of a left handed drive ambulance had be negligent in
turning into a road without giving a hand signal The court held that the driver was not to be liable as in
wartime it‟s necessary.

McHale v Watson [1966]

A 12 year old boy threw a rod which ricocheted off a post and hit a 9 year old girl the court refused to apply
the reasonable man test to cases involving children and applied a low standard of care which was appropriate
to the defendant‟s age. Applying that standard, the child was not liable however remember that the test
remains objective. Kito J‟s reasoning was used, “it is no answer for a child, any more than it is for an adult to
say that the harm caused was due to his being abnormally slow witted quick tempered absent minded or
inexperienced”.

Mullin v Richards [1998]

Here the defendant was a 15 year old girl and so was the plaintiff, they were fencing in class with rulers and
one broke and hit the plaintiff in the eyes causing blindness. It was held that the test to apply was that of the
ordinary careful and reasonable 15 years old and whether the ordinary 15 year old would have foreseen the risk
involved.

Jones v Boyce (1816)

There were some elements of contributory negligence in his case. Here a passenger on a bus had acted
reasonably when thinking that the coach was going to crash so he jumped out in order to save himself and
broke his leg. The jury found in his favour. The judge had directed the jury that the man was not guilty of
negligence just because he picked the more perilous of two alternatives which he was confronted with in an
emergency.

Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat [1988]

The defendant was driving a coach on a dual carriage way when another vehicle cut in front of him, to avoid a
collision he hit the brakes and coach swerved and skidded across the central reservation where it collided with
a bus travelling in the opposite direction injuring plaintiffs who were on the opposite bus. The Privy Council
held that the action of the driver had been reasonable given the circumstances he was put in.

Marshall v Osmond [1983]

Where police are chasing a suspected criminal this may count as an emergency. In this case the suspect got
injured during the car chase and the court held that you could not judge the police in these circumstances as
those where they would have had time to think and access a situation. Compare this to:

Rigby v Chief Constable [1985]

Northamptonshire were police were held liable for fire damage to the defendants shop.

Wooldridge v Sumner [1963]

The court laid down the test for standard of care. A participant would only be liable if he or she acted in
reckless disregard of the spectator's safety however this was subject to criticism as it favoured the defendant.

Wilks v Cheltenham Cycle Club [1971]

Stating that the standard of care would be adjusted to take account of the fact that a competitor could
reasonably be expected to go all out to win even if it meant exposing other to risk. This does not mean foolish
behaviour will be acceptable.

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969]

Where three night watchmen after drinking some tea got sick and started vomiting, they went to the hospital
and were told to go see their own doctors by the casualty office , they went home and the deceased passed
away , it later turned out that the tea had arsenic poison in it. The deceased widow‟s contended that the
hospital should have treated her husband. The court held that the hospital was not liable.

Cook v Lewis [1951] and Summers v Tice (1948)

Both cases involved hunting accidents in which the plaintiff was shot by one bullet fired by two defendants.
Evidence could not established who the bullet came from so both we held liable as joint tortfeasors. A similar
approached was adopted in:

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services ltd [2003]

Where the claimant contracted a disease caused by asbestos fibres it was impossible to tell where it occurred
so all the employers were made liable. However, it clear this will only apply in special circumstances where
considerations of justice and policy demand that the but for test be reduced therefore you can‟t expect to
work all the time.

The Koursk [1924]

Where two ships collided and both were simultaneously subject to negligent navigation.

Fitzgerald v Lane [1987]

Where the defendant was crossing a pedestrian crossing the light showed green for cars and red for
pedestrians, he was hit by a negligent driver and then hit by second car also driving negligently. He suffered
severe injuries to the spine and at trial evidence could not determine who was to blame all three were held
liable including the claimant. As you can see the „but for test‟ would not work because it needs to identify
who exactly is responsible so in such cases everyone is as one cannot been more responsible than the other.

H.M Att-Gen v Hartwell [2004]

An emotionally disturbed office went to a pub and shot and injured a tourist. He had been given access to a
gun by the defendant. Held that the action did not break the chain and the defendant was liable.

Dorset v Yatch Co Ltd

Where criminal intervention did not break the chain. In the right scenario actions of a claimant may break
the chain of causation. This idea is known as the defence of volenti non fit injuria where the claimant caused
his or her own loss by accepting the risk. It overlaps with the rules on contributory negligence.