INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW

CASELAW
TOPIC 1
CAUSATION:
Loss must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the act –
Scott v. Shepherd:
 Defendant threw a small, lit firework into a busy marketplace with lots of
people and stalls
 In order to protect themselves, the squib was thrown on by two other people
 When it landed near the claimant, it exploded and caused injury to his face
 Claimant later lost use of one of his eyes
RESULT: Held that everything that had occurred was a natural and foreseeable
consequence of the defendant’s action, so he was held liable for damages

Remoteness of damage –
The Wagon Mound:
 Defendant’s boat accidentally spilled a large quantity of furnace oil into the
bay of the Sydney harbour
 This presented concerns to the claimant, who was carrying out welding work
on their wharf, because a fire could be caused by sparks of the welding
 They reported it and the harbour master said it was not a concern because
sparks would not result in the damage they were afraid of
 When they resumed welding, a spark from a welding torch ignited a piece of
cotton waste that was resting on top of the water surface
 The cotton ignited the oil and considerable damage was caused to the wharf
 The defendants did not know that furnace oil could be ignited when floating on
water and could not reasonably have been expected to know this
RESULT: Held that the defendants were not liable for the fire, even though they had
been negligent in spilling oil on the water. A fire resulting from cotton waste ignited
by the oil was not a form of reasonably foreseeable damage. Providing that type of
damage is foreseeable, even if it occurs to a greater extent than normal, you are still
liable. If foreseeable risk results in unforeseeable damage, you are still liable.

Eggshell Skull Principle –

Smith v. Leech Braine & Co Ltd:
 Claimant’s husband worked for the defendants, working and operating a steel
galvaniser machine when a piece of molten metal burnt his lip after he
stepped out behind the protective shield
 Although the burn was treated, it triggered a pre-cancerous condition and the
claimant’s husband died of cancer three years later
 Widow brought a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act
  Issue concerned whether employers could be liable for the full extent of the
burn and cancer that had developed as a result, or would the person’s pre-
existing conditions matter in the award of damages
RESULT: Held that the defendants were negligently liable for damages to the man.
He burnt his lip as a result of the defendant’s negligence in the workplace and
employers are liable for all consequences of their negligence. While the defendants
could not reasonably foresee the injury, the Eggshell Skull Rule still applies – you
must always take your victim as you find them

Breach caused a loss of opportunity or benefit –

Hotson v. East Berkshire AHA
 Claimant was a school boy who fell out of a 12-foot tree
 He suffered a fracture to his hip and was taken to the hospital, who failed to
diagnose his injury and sent him home
 He was taken back to the hospital 5 days later after suffering from severe pain
 He was treated and suffered a muscle disability, leaving him with a permanent
disability and certainty that he would develop osteoarthritis in the future
 If he had been correctly diagnosed, there was a 75% chance he would have
developed this condition, and a 25% chance of full recovery
RESULT: Held that the claimant had not satisfied the burden of proof in evidencing
that, on the balance of probabilities, the hospital’s negligence on his initial visit had
caused the injury, but rather, the fall from the tree was the most likely cause

“But For” Test –

Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee
 Mr Barnett went to the hospital complaining of severe stomach pain and
vomiting after drinking some tea at work
 He was seen by a nurse then doctor, who sent him home
 Mr Barnett died 5 hours later from arsenic poisoning
RESULT: Held that the hospital was not liable for negligence, since the doctor’s
failure to examine Mr Barnett did not cause his death. Even if he had examined him,
there was nothing he could have done to prevent his death.

Damage which is intended is too remote –

Doughty v. Turner:
 An asbestos lid was accidentally knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid
 This resulted in an explosion, through which the claimant suffered burns
 Explosion occurred as a result of the asbestos reacting with the chemicals in
the liquid at high temperature
 At the time, it was not known that the asbestos could react in that way
RESULT: Held that the damage was too remote. It was not foreseeable than an
explosion would occur, resulting in burns, because the risk was unknown at the time.
Hughes v. Lord Advocate:
 Workmen had dug a hole in the road, and had left it unattended with a tent on
top of it and paraffin lamps around it
 Two young boys took a lamp into the manhole
 One of them dropped the lamp and an explosion was caused, injuring one boy
 An injury by burning was foreseeable, but an injury by explosion was not
 The explosion was caused by vaporisation, which was an unusual occurrence
RESULT: The claimant was entitled to damages because the distinction between
burning and explosion was too small to mean the danger was not of a reasonably
foreseeable type. It was not necessary that the whole series of events satisfied the
test of foreseeability. Defendant liable for foreseeable harm, even if it occurred in an
unforeseeable way.

Novus Actus Interveniens –

McKew v. Holland Hannen & Cubitts Ltd.
 Claimant had sustained injuries to his back, hips and leg while at work
 A few days later, the claimant attempted to climb down a steep concrete
staircase which did not have a handrail
 His injured leg gave way beneath him and so he attempted to jump the
remaining 10 steps – he fell down the stairs and was left with a disability
 Claimant sued for both sets of injuries
RESULT: Held that while the defendant accepted liability for the initial injury
sustained during the course of his employment, they were not liable for the second
set of injuries, which resulted from the claimant’s decision to jump down the stairs.
The claimant’s action amounted to a novus actus interveniens, which broke the chain
of causation. An injured person should act reasonably and with care during recovery.

AGE:
Where intention is an element, this may be negated by the defendant’s age (youth) –
Yachuk v. Oliver Blais Co:
 Claimant was a young boy who went to a garage, owned by Oliver Blais, and
asked to buy petrol in a tin can
 Garage owner asked him why he wanted petrol and he said his mother asked
him to buy it to burn something in the garden
 He was sold the petrol, but his mother had nothing to do with this
 He was going to make a fire and dance around it with his friend
 The boy got badly burnt and an action was brought against the owner
 Garage claimed that the child was negligent in buying the petrol
RESULT: Court held that garage was negligent because was dealing with a child.
The defendant should have known better than to sell petrol to a child.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
If an employee is authorised to do an act properly, then the employer will be liable if
the employee performs the act negligently
Century Insurance Co v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board
 Employees of a petrol company were told that when petrol was being
delivered, they were not allowed to smoke
 A driver decided to smoke while emptying the tanker, lit a cigarette and match
 The match set fire to material on the ground, damaging a garage and the
garage owner’s car
 The owner of the garage sued the employer
RESULT: Court held that the employer was vicariously liable because it occurred
while doing their job (which as to empty the tanker).

If the employee does something entirely for their benefit, on a “frolic of their own” –
Hilton v. Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd:
 The deceased and Hilton were employed demolition contractors driven in the
employer’s van, to their place of work
 Men were allowed to use the van for purposes such as going to get
refreshment while at work
 On day of accident, 7 men were working 30 miles from place of employment
 The deceased, Hilton and a third man went to the pub, then a distant café
 As they got near the café the three men realised they would not have time to
go in because they had to pick up the other workers to return to the premises
 As they returned, deceased was killed because of Hilton’s negligent driving
 Widow filed a claim against the employer
RESULT: The employer was not liable because at the time of accident, Hilton was
not doing anything he was employed to do. They were on a “frolic” of their own.

If the employer prohibits the employee from performing certain acts, then the
employer will not be liable if this is ignored. HOWEVER, if the prohibition regards the
particular manner in which the authorised act is performed, they will be liable –

Rose v. Plenty
 Mr Plenty (defendant) was a milkman at a depot
 It was prohibited to allow any child on to any vehicle, with signs laid around all
over the depot
 Children still persisted in going to the depot in the hopes of being allowed on
to the milk floats
 Soon after being employed, Mr Plenty was approached by Leslie Rose, a 13-
year-old boy who asked if he could help the employee with his rounds
 This was agreed upon, and Rose engaged in collecting money and delivering
milk during Mr Plenty’s rounds, and was paid a small wage
 Rose was injured as a result of the defendant’s negligent driving
RESULT: Held that the defendant was 75% liable for contributory negligence, and
damages would be recovered from the employer. The employer was still vicariously
liable despite the direct order having come from the milkman. The milkman was still
performing an authorised task, despite doing so in an unauthorised manner.

An employer can be vicariously liable for serious criminal offences that have been
committed by an employee –
Lister v. Hesley Hall
 Warden at a boarding school for children with emotional and behavioural
difficulties sexually abused some of the children while in his care
RESULT: Despite the warden’s acts being unauthorised by the employer, the abuse
of the boys had been inextricably interwoven with the task the warden was employed
to do. It was so closely connected with his employment that it was fair and just to
hold the employers vicariously liable. They should have realised that the risk of
sexual abuse by wardens was inherent to the nature of their business.

BURDEN OF PROOF:
If the facts are wholly within the control of the defendant, and there is no other
reasonable explanation for the injury but that the defendant was negligent, then the
burden of proof lies upon the defendant to prove they are not negligent –
Mahon v. Osborne – res ipsa loquitur
 A man who went to the hospital to have an operation on his stomach
 Went home and was in excruciating pain, and was rushed back to the hospital
 He was operated again, and they discovered a medical swab inside of him
 He could not bring any direct evidence because he was unconscious, but
there was no other reasonable explanation for the failure to notice the swab
RESULT: Court held that the “thing speaks for itself” and was evidence of
negligence. There was no other reasonable way for the swab to have been left inside
the claimant.

GENERAL DEFENCES:
Act of God –
Nichols v. Marsland:
 Defendant diverted a natural stream on his land to create ornamental lakes
 Exceptionally heavy rain caused the artificial lakes and waterways to be
flooded and damage the claimant’s adjoining land
RESULT: Defendant was held to be not liable under Rylands v. Fletcher because
the cause of the flood was an Act of God (or nature)

Inevitable accident –
Stanley v. Powell:
 Defendant was member of a shooting party, fired at a pheasant but missed
 The pellet from his gun ricocheted off a tree and wounded Stanley
RESULT: Held that defendant wasn’t liable because it was not a wilful/negligent act
Necessity –
Cope v. Sharpe:
 A fire was caused in the claimant’s land
 Defendant tried to extinguish the fire by taking the necessary steps to set it
out and protect others from the fire – this involved trespassing the land
 Claimant sued the defendant for trespass and damages
RESULT: It was necessary to trespass the land in the case of avoiding greater
damage and risk resulting from the fire.

Statutory authority –
Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill:
 Hospital authority were empowered by statute to build a hospital for
contagious diseases
 The hospital was built in a residential district, which caused danger of
infection to the people living nearby
RESULT: Held that the statute gave the hospital authority to build such hospitals, but
did not sanction their construction in places where this would constitute danger. The
statutory authority was conditional, so an injunction was granted on the basis that the
building of the hospital was a nuisance.

Illegality –
Ashton v. Turner: ex turpi causa non oritur actio
 Claimant was injured as a passenger in the car that the defendant was driving
 The crash occurred after they had committed a burglary, and the defendant,
who had been drinking, was driving negligently in an attempt to escape
RESULT: Held that as a matter of public policy, the law would not recognise a duty
of care owed by one participant of a crime to another. Even if the duty was owed, the
claimant had willingly accepted the risk of negligence and resulting injury as his ow

Personal Defence –
Cresswell v. Sirl:
 Defendant shot and killed the claimant’s dog
 Claimant claimed damages for trespass to property (the dog)
 Defendant claimed that he was justified in killing because the dog was
threatening his sheep
RESULT: Held that the defendant would be liable unless he could prove that when
he fired, the dog was in the process of attacking his sheep, and that there was no
way apart from shooting the dog that he could stop the attack.
Volenti non fit injuria –
Baker v. T E Hopkins & Son Ltd:
 Defendant was a small building firm who employed two men to clean out a
deep well, after testing it and deeming it to be a safe environment
 The two employees were overcome by carbon monoxide fumes in the well
that they were trying to decontaminate
 Claimant, Dr Baker, arrived on the scene to try to rescue the two; despite
being warned of the fumes and told that the fire brigade was on the way
 Fumes had been caused by the company negligently placing a motor
operated pump at the bottom of the well
 Defendant sought to invoke volenti non fit injuria
RESULT: Held that the defendants owed the doctor a duty of care, thus the issue of
Dr Baker had voluntarily consented to the risk was irrelevant. The act of the rescuer
in the circumstances was a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty owed.

Nettleship v. Weston:
 Defendant was a learner driver, taking lessons from a friend (claimant)
 Prior to the lessons, the claimant checked to ensure that the defendant’s
insurance covered her for passengers before agreeing to go with her
 On one occasion, Mrs Weston panicked and failed to control the car, crashing
it into a lamp post and fracturing Mr Nettleship’s knee
 Mrs Weston argued that the standard of care should be lowered for learner
drivers, and raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria – in agreeing to enter
the car with her, the claimant accepted the risk of injury
RESULT: Court held that a learner driver is expected to meet the same standard as
a reasonable qualified competent driver.  Volenti non fit injuria did not apply as he
had checked the insurance cover which demonstrated he did not waive any rights to
compensation. His damages were reduced by 50% under the Law Reform
(Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 to reflect the degree to which he was at fault

Smolden v. Whitworth and Nolan Under 19 Colts:

 When you participate in sporting events, you impliedly consent to the normal
risks that go with the sport
 Rules of rugby were changed about injuries that could result for young players
 Requirement of anybody involved in a rugby game to ensure that there would
be no collapsed scrums
 Smolden was enthusiastic young player, during match the referee and coach
failed to prevent a collapsed scrum
 He was paralysed with a fracture to his vertebrae
RESULT: Action was brought against the club, because nothing was done to
prevent the collapse and injury of the young player
Contributory negligence –
Capps v. Miller:
 Motorcyclist suffered injuries when the defendant negligently crashed into him
 Motorcyclist was wearing a safety helmet, but had not fastened the strap well
 He suffered head injuries as a result of the crash, but these were increased by
the fact that his helmet came off
RESULT: Damages were awarded, but were reduced by 10% as it was considered
to be a just and equitable reduction in relation to the claimant’s share of fault
Sayers v. Harlow UDC:
 Claimant went into a public lavatory with a coin in the slot to pay for the toilet
 She tried to leave and the door was jammed and she was stuck for an hour
 She decides to climb on to the lavatory seat to try to get over into the cubicle
 She fell and broke her arm and sued the council
RESULT: Held that council pay compensation, but damages were reduced by 20%

TOPIC 2
DUTY OF CARE:
Neighbour Principle –
Donoghue v. Stevenson:
 Young lady in Scotland went out with a friend and they stopped at a corner
shop
 Friend went into the shop and bought her a bottle of ginger beer / lemonade
 Bottle was opaque and you could not see the contents
 Shopkeeper gave them a glass and poured the ginger beer into the glass
 In the bottle was the decomposed remains of a snail and she became very ill
 Girl sued the shopkeeper – couldn’t sue under SGA because of privity rule
 Shopkeeper made the drink and case went all the way to the Supreme Court
 Court in Scotland was not convinced there ever was a snail in the bottle
RESULT: Held that the manufacturers owe a duty of care to the eventual users of
their products, and established the idea of the Neighbour Principle (Lord Atkins)

Tripartite test –
Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman:
 Caparo had bought shares in the defendant audit company, relying on the
results of the report in this financial decision
 It was discovered that the auditors had negligently misrepresented the profits
of the firm, causing a loss for Caparo
 Initial hearing was that a duty of care was owed, but overturned on appeal
RESULT: No duty of care had arisen to existing or potential shareholders, because
the only duty of care owed was to the governance of the company. There was no
sufficient proximity between the two parties since the auditors were not individually
aware of the company or for what purposes the accounts were being used by them.

Foreseeability –
Stansbie v. Troman:
 Stansbie was decorating at Troman’s home
 He was left alone at the property and left the house to purchase wallpaper
 Left the door unlocked and was absent from the house for two hours
 During his absence, a thief entered the house and stole several items of value
 Troman sought to recover the cost of these items from Stansbie
RESULT: Held that Stansbie was under a duty to take reasonable care when he left
the house unoccupied and with the door unlocked. The claimant suffered losses as a
direct result of this breach.

Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co:

 Seven boys were detained in a bostral (youth detention center) run by Home
Office, working on Brownsea island under the supervision of three officers
 One night, the officers retired for the evening leaving the boys unsupervised
 Boys escaped, broke into a yacht club, stole a yacht and damaged it
 The yacht club sued for damages on the boat
RESULT: Home Office, and thus the officers, owed a duty of care as was reasonable
in the circumstances. They were in a position of control over a third party, with the
purpose of preventing those people (the boys) from causing damage. It was
foreseeable that harm would result from this duty being neglected.

Proximity –
Bourhill v. Young:
 Defendant was negligently riding a motorcycle and was responsible for a
collision with a car in which he died of fatal injuries
 At the time of the crash, Mrs Bourhill, a pregnant fishwife, was leaving a tram
about 50m away and heard the collision (but did not see it)
 After Mr Young’s body had been removed, she approached the scene and
witnessed the immediate aftermath
 She later gave birth to a stillborn child, which she claimed was a result of
nervous shock and suffered loss due to Mr Young’s negligence
RESULT: Held that there was no duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant.
It was not foreseeable that the Mrs Bourhill would suffer psychiatric harm as a result
of the defendant negligently causing a loud accident. Mrs Bourhill was not sufficiently
proximate to the scene of the crash itself.

Fair, Just and Reasonable to impose a duty –

Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police:
  Plaintiff’s daughter was the last victim of a mass murderer called the
Yorkshire Ripper before being arrested
 Mrs Hill made a claim against the Chief Constable on the grounds that the
police had been in negligent in their detection and detention of previous cases
of murder in the area
 Had the investigations been done thoroughly, her daughter would not have
been killed by the murdered
RESULT: Held that the police do not owe a duty of care to individual members of the
public who suffer as a result of the criminal’s activity. The only exception to this is
where the failure to apprehend the criminal creates an exceptional added risk, so as
to establish a relationship of proximity between the police officers and victim.

Osman v. Ferguson
 Claimant’s family was concerned with a teacher who developed an incessant
obsession for the boy and the family (harassment and stalking)
 They told the police officer about what happened but no action was brought
 The teacher shot the claimant’s father and the family sued the police officer
RESULT: It was made known that there was considerable and specific risk to the
family, with a degree of proximity and foreseeability to allow for an action of
negligence to arise. However, the case of Hill v. Chief Constable of Yorkshire had
laid down a blanket of immunity on the police from such actions, as a matter of public
policy. The police was not liable for breach of duty.

BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE:

Where the case concerns experience, the same standard of care is taken with all –
Wilshere v. Essex Area Health Authority:
 A prematurely born baby was negligently given too much oxygen by a junior
doctor whilst in the hospital
 Baby developed a disease which caused for him to go blind
 Although it can be caused by being given too much oxygen, there were four
other possible causes to be considered
 Initially held that the defendant was liable on the precedent of McGhee v.
National Coal Board (1973), which held that where there existed a plurality of
possible causes, the burden fell to the defendant to prove that their actions
had not been the material cause (but for) of the injury – overturned on appeal
RESULT: Held that the defendant was not liable. Whilst the junior doctor owes the
same level of care as a fully qualified doctor, regardless of the number of potential
causes of injury, it always falls to the claimant to establish the likelihood of causation

A higher standard of care is required by professional people –

Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee:
 Claimant was suffering from mental illness and on the advice of a consultant,
attended the defendant hospital for electro-convulsive therapy
  He signed a consent form which did not warn him that this treatment involved
a risk of suffering fractures without the use of relaxant drugs
 Claimant suffered fractures which could have been reduced by using drugs
 At the time, there were two opposing bodies of opinion about the use of these
drugs while undergoing the treatment
 One opinion which was subsequently accepted as correct was that relaxant
drugs should be used unless there is a strong reason they are inappropriate
 Alternative view – relaxant drugs might discourage the treatment
 Claimant argued that the defendants had been negligent in administering the
treatment without relaxant drugs and in not warning of the risks
RESULT: Held that the hospital had not been negligent because a doctor who acts
in accordance with the opinion of other skilled doctors cannot be deemed negligent
just because there are other skilled doctors who take a contrary view – Bolam Test

FACTORS OF BREACH:
Magnitude of risk –
Bolton v. Stone:
 Lady was walking near a public recreation ground used by the cricket club
 Only had been 6 occasions where a ball was hit beyond the boundary fence
 Cricket ground was the farthest from the housing complex and had a 7-foot
fence surrounding the field
 Cricket ball hit this lady on the head and caused her some injuries
RESULT: Held that the cricket club did owe a duty of care; however, they were not in
breach of the duty because the risk was too remote and the event was rare. Courts
looked at the burden of precaution and determined that this was a rare event. They
are also entitled to take into account the precedence that could be caused if all
people were to sue if they were hit.

Practicality of precautions –
Latimer v. AEC Ltd:
 Claimant worked in the defendant’s factory, which had become flooded due to
adverse weather conditions
 Factory was mopped up, put out warning signs for slippery floors and placed
sawdust on the floor to make the area safer to walk on for workers
 Claimant was carrying a barrel, slipped on the floor and hurt his ankle
RESULT: Held that the defendants had not been negligent and had taken all the
reasonable precautions possible to minimise the potential risk to employees.
There was no breach of statutory duty, nor an obligation to shut down the factory.
This case states that employers only have to take the necessary steps to
minimise a risk that a reasonable person would do in the same circumstances

Vacwell Engineering v. BDH Chemicals:

 Defendant supplied the claimant with chemicals contained in glass ampoules
  These had a label of “harmful vapour” on them
 When the scientists were washing off the labels, one of the containers
shattered, causing a violent explosion to occur as a result of the water coming
into contact with the chemical
 Explosion killed a scientist and caused considerable damage to the laboratory
 Issue concerned whether the defendant was liable for unforeseeable damage
caused by the explosion of the chemicals they had supplied
RESULT: Held that the defendant was negligent and failed in their duty of care as
they did not give sufficient warnings about the chemicals being marketed to the
claimant. It does not matter than the damage was more extensive than foreseen, it is
the type of damage that must be foreseeable.

Roe v. Minister of Health:

 Class actions - two young men were taken to the hospital with appendicitis
 The only new thing about this operation was they were given a new spinal
anaesthetic
 They were paralysed from the waist down and an investigation revealed that
the paralysis was caused by the approved anaesthetic
 In order to avoid cross-contamination the ampoules were stored in phenol
 Discovered that some glasses had hairline fractions that mixed with the
phenol
RESULT: Court held that at the time, they had done everything they reasonably
knew to avoid any potential risk; thus, they were not liable

Social utility of the action –

Watt v. Hertfordshire County Council:
 Fire station received call that a woman was trapped under a vehicle close by
 Officer in charge of the station ordered that a lorry should be loaded with a
large jack for lifting heavy weights
 Jack was loaded on to the back of the lorry, but it could not be lashed down
and the men in the back were to hold it steady
 Lorry driver suddenly applied brakes and one of the firemen travelling with the
jack was severely injured
 If standard procedures had been followed, another fire station would have
been contacted to provide a safe means for carrying the jack; however, this
would cause a delay of 10 minutes
RESULT: Held that the fire authorities had not breached the duty of care which they
owed to the injured fireman. The injury by comparison was minor to the benefit of
saving the lady’s life, which outweighed the risk of not using the right truck

Common practice –
Wilson v. Governors of Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Primary School:
  Nine-year old boy was hit in the eye by another boy’s coat at the end of the
school day (after-school hours)
 Attendants were provided to supervise during lunch time, but not at the time
where the children were going home
 Parents sued the school for negligence
RESULT: Held that since most primary schools did not provide this supervision
during the afterschool hours, it was not regarded as a breach of duty of care. At this
point, the duty is passed on to the parents, and the incident could have happened
anywhere outside the school gates.

R v. P&O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd:

 Sinking of a cross country ferry, “Herald of Free Enterprise”, en route to
Belgium
 Ferry came into port on a tight schedule to board the ferry
 Car ferry capsized and officer responsible was asleep, having been on duty
12 hours and had forgotten to ensure that the doors were closed
 As a result, 190 passengers were killed, many injured and cars damaged
RESULT: Since nobody had been appointed responsible for Health and Safety, at
the time it was difficult to find the corporation guilty

Special characteristics of the claimant –

Paris v. Stepney Borough Council:
 Claimant was a fitter who had the use of only one eye, and was told by his
employers to hammer and grind the underneath of a vehicle
 He was not given protective goggles and lost the use of his good eye when it
was pierced by a shard of metal which flew off when he was hammering a bolt
 Defendant argued that there was no breach of duty as they did not provide
goggles to the workers with vision in both eyes, as it was not standard
practice – thus no obligation to do so
RESULT: Held that there was a breach of duty. The employer should have provided
goggles to the claimant because the seriousness of harm to him was have greater to
him than for the workers with sight in both eyes. The duty is owed to the particular
claimant, not to a class of people of reasonable workers.

Special characteristics of the defendant –

Mullins v. Richards:
 Two 15-year-old girls were play-fighting with rulers at lunch time
 In the course of the game, the defendant’s ruler snapped, causing a splinter to
hit the claimant in the eye, blinding her
 Issue in this case involved whether the defendant’s age could be taken into
account in determining how a reasonable person would act in her situation
RESULT: Held that the defendant was not in breach of duty of care. Case
established the principle that the defendant’s age is relevant to the standard of care.
A child is only to be held at the standard of a reasonable child of the same age, not
of an adult. A reasonable 15-year-old would not have foreseen any injury arising
from the game, and did not take any additional steps to avoid the risk of harm

INJURY RESULTED FROM BREACH OF DUTY (CAUSATION):

McGhee v. National Coal Board
 Claimant contracted a skin condition in the course of his employment with the
defendant, the National Coal Board
 Defendant requested McGhee work with brick kilns
 Failed to satisfy their statutory duty to provide a washing area to allow
employees to remove the dust from the kills
 Employees could not wash off the dust until they returned home
 There were two possible causes for the dermatitis – exposure to brick dust
during the working day, or continued exposure at the end of the day
RESULT: Held that the claimant only had to demonstrate that the dust was
attributable to the breach of duty that materially increased the risk of harm

NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT:
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller and Partners Ltd
 Claimants were advertising agents placing contracts on behalf of a client on
credit terms – they would be personally liable should the client default
 To protect themselves, the claimants asked their bankers (the defendant) to
obtain a credit reference
 Reference was given both verbally and in writing, but contained an exclusion
clause to the effect that the information was given without responsibility
 Claimant relied upon this reference and suffered economic loss when their
client went into liquidation
RESULT: Held that the defendants were not liable because the disclaimer was
enough to protect them from liability. However, the House of Lords ruled that
damage for pure economic conditions could arise in situations where certain
conditions were met.

BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY:

R v. Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison ex Parte Hague:
 Prisoner claimed damages under the Prison Rules 1964 for being segregated
from other prisoners for a period
 The rules were intended to deal with prison/prisoner administration and
management, giving no private rights to the individual
 When prisoners bring cases, it has to be by deputy governor
RESULT: Claim failed because what Parliament intended through their statute was
not to confer a private law action

X v. Bedfordshire CC:
  Breaches of statutory duty by local authorities in relation to the care of
children
RESULT: Held that the breach of statutory duty itself was not sufficient to give rise to
private law cause of action; the mere assertion of careless exercise of a statutory
power was not sufficient in itself to give rise to private law cause of action; decision
on whether or not to exercise discretion under a statute was not the same

Revill v. Newbury:
 Newbery had taken the habit of sleeping in a shed with a gun on his allotment
to protect his property at night – his property was subject to many break-ins
 Revill and his accomplice trespassed on to the allotment and attempted to
break into the shed, but the defendant shot the gun to frighten them
 Defendant intended only to frighten them, but accidentally shot the claimant
 Claimant raised a claim for breach of Section 1 of OLA 1984
 Defendant invoked a defence of ex turpi causa and alleged contributory
negligence of the claimant
RESULT: Judge reduced damages to the claimant, acknowledging contributory
negligence, but rejecting the defence of ex turpi causa. This was on the grounds that
Newbery was negligent in the expected standard of care of an occupier. Under OLA
1984, he owed a duty of care to Revill, and used violence in excess of the limits
reasonably allowed by self-defence. Where there is a conflict between statutory law
and case law, statutory law will always prevail.

NERVOUS SHOCK:
Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police:
 Joint action was brought by claimants who had relatives involved in the
Hillsborough Stadium disaster, in which 95 football fans died in a crush
 Was later established that this was due to the negligence of the police,
permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium
 The disaster was broadcasted on live television, where several claimants
alleged they had witnessed friends and relatives die, or were at the stadium
 All claimed damages for psychiatric harm
RESULT: Finding for defendant, court held that in cases of purely psychiatric
damage caused by negligence, a distinction must be drawn between primary and
secondary victims.

White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

 Claimants were all police officers who had been on duty in the Hillsborough
Stadium disaster, and brought a claim for breach of duty against employer
 Damages were sought for psychiatric harm they had suffered as a result of
witnessing the tragedy first-hand
RESULT: Held that although the employer was under a duty to reasonably protect
his employees from the risk of physical harm, there was no extension of this duty in
the case of psychiatric harm with no risk of physical injury. A rescuer whom is not in
risk of reasonably foreseeable danger cannot recover damages for psychiatric injury
sustained by witnessing or participating in the aftermath of the incident. Such
rescuers are to be categorised as secondary victims.

McLoughlin v. O’Brian
 Husband of the claimant and three of their children were involved in a road
traffic accident with a lorry being negligently driven by the defendant
 An ambulance took them to the hospital, and one of the children died
 Claimant went to hospital and witnessed the nature and extent of the injuries
suffered by her husband and other children
 She suffered from nervous shock, depression and a personality change
 Issue concerned determining the nature and extent of the duty owed in
causing psychiatric injury
RESULT: Held that the claimant was entitled to recover damages from the
psychiatric injured suffered. The class of persons considered to be proximate to the
event was extended to include those within the immediate aftermath of the event.

CJD Group B Plaintiffs v. Medical Research Council:

 Disease occurring called Mad Cow Disease that was affecting brains of cattle
 Concerns that people who ate this meat would also develop the disease
 Produced a growth hormone serum for people using parts of the cattle
 Every person that used the growth hormone were faced with the possibility
that they had the disease
 Brought a class action suit
RESULT: Held that the defendant was liable because of the burden of psychiatric
loss on the primary victim was extended to impact the way they lived their lives

TOPIC 3
TRESPASS TO THE PERSON:
Assault –
Tuberville v. Savage:
 Defendant put his hand on his sword and stated, “If it were not assize-time, I
would not take such language from you”
 Assize-time refers tow hen judges were in town for court sessions
RESULT: Held that this did not amount to an assault as the words indicated that
there was no ensuing threat of violence

Blake v. Barnard:
 Defendant pulled a gun on the claimant which he knew was not loaded
 Claimant had reasonable belief of getting shot to death, because he did not
know that the gun was not loaded
RESULT: Held that the threat amounted to an assault.

Battery –
Nash v. Sheen:
 Hairdresser applied a chemical tone rinse on the claimant instead of a perm,
which caused a skin reaction
 Claimant sued for battery, which was successful
RESULT: Held that the defendant was liable because the claimant did not consent to
the chemical being applied

Lane v. Holloway:
 Claimant was drinking outside and the neighbour yelled at them to leave
 The other neighbour yelled insults
 Claimant believed he was about to be hit so they slapped the defendant
 Defendant struck the claimant so hard he needed 19 stitches
RESULT: Held that the defendant’s defence was disproportionate to the situation

False Imprisonment –
Christie v. Leachinsky:
 Claimants arrested the defendant at his warehouse without a warrant
 They had reasonable grounds for suspecting he had stolen some fabric, but
did not give this as the ground of arrest
 Leachinsky filed for damages on basis of false imprisonment
RESULT: Held that the arrest warrant can only be justified if it is an arrest on a
charge made known to the person arrested, therefore they were liable.

Meering v. Grahame White Aviation Company Ltd:

 Claimant suspected of stealing paint from his employer and was asked to
accompany two works’ policemen to the office to be interrogated
 Claimant did not know he was being suspected and later discovered that two
policemen remained outside to keep him in the office
RESULT: Held that the claimant was falsely imprisoned

TRESPASS TO GOODS:
Rose v. Matt:
 Defendant keen on aeroplane models
 Persuaded the shopkeeper to accept a clock as security for the debt
 Comes back and puts the clock in his pocket, disappearing with it
RESULT: Held that the defendant was liable because although he owned the clock,
he gave away his right of possession by exchanging it as security of a debt

TRESPASS TO LAND:
Kelsen v. Imperial Tobacco Co:
 Defendant owned freehold in premises from which he ran a wholesale
tobacco business
 Leased part of the premises to the claimant from which he ran a tobacconist
shop and had a flat in which he resided
 Defendant erected a sign that protruded into the claimant’s airspace
RESULT: Held that an injunction was to be granted to prevent trespass of airspace

League Against Cruel Sports v. Scott

 Claimants owned 23 unfenced areas of land to protect local deer
 Staghounds (dogs) used to enter the land in pursuit of the deer
 Claimants sought an injunction against further trespasses
RESULT: Defendant was held liable for allowing the dogs to trespass

OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY:
Definition of occupier –
Wheat v. Lacon

Duty of care owed by the occupier –

Jolley v. London Borough of Sutton:
 Two 14-year old boys found an abandoned boat on land owned by the council
 Council stuck a notice on the boat warning not to touch the boat, and that if
the owner did not claim it in 7 days it would be taken away
 Council never took the boat away
 Boat was in rotten condition, was a danger and they decided to do it up
 Boys had been working on it for 6-7 weeks when one of them suffered from
spinal injuries and paralysis after the boat fell on top of him
 Claimant, the injured boy, brought a claim under Occupier’s Liability Act 1984

RESULT: At first instance, the judge found for the claimant, affirming that only the
kind of injury needs to be foreseeable, not the specific outcome. This was overturned
on appeal. Although this was overturned in the court of appeal, the key principle is
the fact that the three tests for establishing occupier’s duty to a trespasser were met.

Scott v. Associated British Ports:

 In separate incidents, two teenage boys were badly injured while “train-
surfing” on the defendant’s premises
 A fence did exist in order to protect the premises
 They brought claims under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984
RESULT: Judge held that the presence of a fence would not have been sufficient to
deter the trespass of the boys and found that they were aware of the risks they were
taking in trespassing the premises. Because the danger was created by the children
themselves, their claim was bound to fail. Second incident occurred after the first, so
the defendant was aware of the danger and was responsible for taking precautions
to avoid this situation. However, there were no actual steps that could be taken to
stop this danger, because the danger was only created by the boys when they would
take on this activity of train-surfing.

TOPIC 4
PRIVATE NUISANCE:
Repetition –
British Celanese Ltd v. A H Hunt

Intention –
Christie v. Davey

Locality –
Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki

TORT OF RYLANDS V. FLETCHER

Rylands v. Fletcher:
 Defendant wanted to improve the water supply to his mill and was allowed to
build a reservoir on the land
 Independent engineers were taken on to build the reservoir, and came across
disused mine shafts which they failed to seal properly
 Consequently, water from the reservoir flooded the claimant’s coal mine
RESULT: Held that although it had been the engineers, not the defendant, who had
failed to take reasonable care, the defendant was still held to be liable.

Common Benefit –
Peters v. Prince of Wales Theatre Ltd:
 Claimant leased a shop adjacent to the defendant’s theatre
 Claimant’s shop sustained flood damage when pipes from the theatre’s
sprinkler system burst due to icy weather conditions
 Claimant brought an action based on strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher
RESULT: Defendant was not liable. Sprinkler system was equally for the benefit of
the claimant and he was deemed to have consented to its use, since its installation
was prior to him having obtained the lease.

TOPIC 5
DEFAMATION:
Damaging to reputation of claimant –
Yousopoff v. MGM:
 Defendants made a film which falsely imputed that the claimant had been
raped or seduced by Rasputin, the mad monk
RESULT: Held that the defamatory matter was in the pictorial part of the picture, and
amount to libel since it was a permanent matter capable of being seen by the eye.
Berkoff v. Burchill:
 Defendant was journalist and writer who was retained to write articles about
cinema for the Sunday Times
 She wrote a review stating that Berkoff (claimant) was a “notoriously hideous-
looking person”, then repeating this and stating he was “only marginally
better-looking than the creature in Frankenstein”
 Claimant sued for libel
RESULT: Held that while calling someone ugly may be an expression of an opinion,
and thus not defamatory, in this case, it was said with the intention to expose the
person to ridicule

Libel –
Monson v. Tussauds Ltd:
 Monson was tried along with members of a gang involved in a shooting of a
young man in Scotland
 Different legal system, so in situations where there are very serious criminal
offences, the jury in Scotland gave a third option of “not proven”
 He discovered there was an effigy of him at Madame Tussaud’s
 He sued them for libel because the effigy made the assumption that he had
been found guilty when he hadn’t
RESULT: Held that the defendant was liable for libel

Lord McAlpine v. Sally Bercow:

 Wife of a speaker of the House of Commons published comments on the
internet that Lord McAlpine was a paedophile
 There had been other mistaken widespread allegations against another senior
conservative of child sexual abuse
RESULT: The text contained an innuendo that the claimant was involved, and was
therefore defamatory. An innuendo meaning is something that can be implied from
the words complained, but only if the reader knows facts, not of general knowledge.

Slander –
McManus v. Beckham
 Whilst visiting the claimant’s autograph shop, the defendant allegedly claimed
that a signed photograph of her husband was not genuine
 Shop sought to support their claim for damages by relying upon subsequent
publications in the media of the defendant’s alleged claims
RESULT: Defendant had to pay £55 000 in damages to the claimant, on the grounds
that she reasonably knew her claims would be reported, thus libel. She should have
reasonably known that there was a significant risk that as a public figure, what she
had alleged would have been repeated.

TOPIC 6
SUCCESSIVE INCIDENTS:
Baker v. Willoughby:
 Willoughby caused injuries to Baker’s leg in a road accident
 Baker brought a claim because he was unable to continue is old job
 In the meantime, he found a new job at the jeweller shop
 At the jewellery job, there was an armed robbery and he was shot in the same
leg that was previously injured
 They had to amputate his leg
 Defendant argued that the shooting incident had broken the chain of
causation and that the injuries from the road accident no longer existed
 The issue was whether the shooting was from a new intervening act, or if the
defendant should be accountable for all losses suffered
RESULT: Held that the defendant was liable for damages, even after the shooting
and amputation of the leg. Court took the view that if Mr Willoughby had not been
negligent in his driving to begin with, the claimant would not have lost his leg. When
two accidents are consecutive and contribute to the same injury, the original
defendant would be liable for the overall injury. Successive incidents are ignored.

EQUITABLE REMEDIES:
Injunction –
Warner Bros v. Nelson
Page One Records v. Britton

TOPIC 7
CAUSATION
Causation must show that the defendant’s act was the substantive cause of crime –
R v. Smith
R v. Malcherek

Acts and omissions –

Greener v. DPP

GENERAL DEFENCES TO CRIME:

Mental Condition –
M’Naghten Rule
R v. Bell
Provocation –
R v. Thornton

Automatism –
R v. Kemp

Intoxication –
R v. Tandy

Immunity –
Libyan Embassy Siege: Shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher

Compulsion –
R v. Thomas

Necessity –
R v. Dudley and Stephens

Mistake
R v. Tolson

Self-defence –
R v. Martin

TOPIC 8
MANSLAUGHTER:
R v. Tandy
Hyam v. DPP

SEXUAL OFFENCES:
Rape –
R v. Brown

Indecent assault –
R v. Court

TOPIC 9
THEFT
Theft Act 1968 –
R v. Turner
Williams v. Phillips

Burglary –
R v. Smith and Jones
R v. Collins
Criminal damage –
Lloyd v. DPP

TOPIC 10

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE:

Treason –
Joyce v. DPP

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND MORALITY:

Blasphemy and Obscenity –
Whitehouse v. Lemon
R v. Anderson, Dennis and Neville

Contempt of Court –
Moore v. Bristol Clerk of Assize