Allied Maples Group v [Tort - negligence - damage causation and Simmons & Simmons (a speculative action of a third party

- whet firm) [1995] CA of damages] D solicitors advised C on the pu company that owned them, and in so doing he properties owned by the company. D drew up other properties and thereby get rid of the liabi sue but could not because the agreement, so th

Baker v Willoughby [1970] HL

Held: C showed that there was a substantial, the third party would have taken the action. [Tort - negligence - damage causation and successive causes - remedies - contributor injury, both parties] D drove a car that stru road. Neither saw each other because of other ankle. D had been driving at excessive speed or both; and C had been negligent in not seeing approaching and in not waiting until they had p

Held: The duties of pedestrians and motorists were different and the potential danger of each apportionment of liability, 25 per cent to pedes

In 1967, three years later, and before the abov victim in an armed robbery during which he wa leg had to be amputated. D was liable to pay th and not just till 1967, because the supervening latent condition but by being inflicted on the cla Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Management Committee (1969) QBD

[Tort - negligence - causation in fact cau not sufficient] D, hospital where C went bec doctor refused to examine him and sent him ho poisoning five hours later. His family sued the h died even if the proper treatment had been giv was not the cause of his death.

Dodd Properties v Canterbury City Council [1980] CA

Cs family lost ^[Negligence - remoteness of damage - ex not physical weakness] D constructed a ca structural damage to C's building. C brought an negligence and/or nuisance. D admitted liability

Held (1) damages were compensatory and s party in the same position as if the wrong had sense did not mean C had failed to mitigate the the cost of the repairs was to be assessed as at 1970's prices. cf Liesbosch Dredger C won Doughty v Turner [Tort negligence - remoteness of damag Manufacturing Co (1964) where C worked. C was injured by an asbestos CA metal. It was then unknown that the extreme undergo a chemical change creating or releasin one or two minutes later cause an eruption of t

Held: Following The Wagon Mound and distingu

D was not liable because the eruption which inj reasonable man at the time when the accident foreseeable but what happened was an acciden an unexpected factor, viz the instability of asbe Fairchild v Glenhaven (2002) HL

[Tort negligence causation - C able to r employers] D representing a number of form of care to prevent workers contracting mesothe dust. Some workers had already died. C could had suffered the offending dust. Existing rules employer had been negligent.

Held: C could succeed against either or both em out who would pay what proportion of the awar Where 1. C had been employed by more than one e 2. D had a duty of care to prevent dust inhal 3. D had been in breach of that duty and, 4. C had contracted mesothelioma, and 5. any other cause of mesothelioma could be 6. C could not (because of the limits of huma employment he had inhaled the dust.... ...C was entitled to recover against both his em That conclusion was consistent with principle, a Wilsher had been correctly decided on its facts

would be extended in the instant case on the fa ...If the mechanical application of generally ac there must be room to question the appropriate case." Lord Bingham "... such injustice as may be involved in imposi in these circumstances is heavily outweighed b victim" Lord Hoffman "The concepts of fairness, justice and reason un requirements of liability ...The purpose of the c just result ..." Lord Nicholls "Any other outcome would be deeply offensive requires and fairness demands." It had not been suggested in argument that the employer should be for any sum less than the f entitled, although either of them could of cours against any other employer liable in respect of (Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978). The Fairchild decision is a decision on its own be other analogous situations where a Fairchil appropriate, that category of case is to be kept probabilities test remains the guiding principle

C won This decision was refined in barker v Corus [20 be set in proportion to the amount of time a wo Froom v Butcher [1975] [Tort negligence damages contributo CA traffic accident but was not wearing a seat belt recommended but not legally required. Decisio contributory negligence and if it were, what lev Cs damages were reduced by 25%. Failure to w negligence if use of a belt would have avoided o accident. For the future a deduction of 25% where weari injuries, or 15% where there would still have b been less severe. Gaca v Pirelli General ^[Tort - damages and compensation - ded plc [2004] CA insurance deductible from damages] D e

an accident at work. Whilst C was off work he r insurance scheme. Following the termination of gratuity payment from the defendant and a pay permanent total disability. C claimed damages a fundamental difference between a payment m compensate him for the consequences of injurie made to a victim of an accident by a third party The instant case did not come within the benev had been made by the tortfeasor, and the paym policy was not equivalent, or analogous, to pay sympathy. D won Hotson v East Berkshire [Tort negligence - damage - causation Health Authority [1987] recovery] D the hospital where C, a young b HL injuring his hip. The injury was wrongly diagno treatment. He suffered a permanent disability; denied liability. Held: C had not proved on negligent treatment had caused his disability 75-25 that it had not. C therefore had no claim

Lord Bridge; C would be entitled to full damage of recovery, if C had shown that medical neglig

C lost Hughes v Lord Advocate [Tort negligence exact type of damage (1963) HL employed workmen who took a break, leaving paraffin lamp at each corner. C, one of two boy into the tent. One of them tripped, the lamp fel explosion injuring one boy. Held: The accid danger and that made it foreseeable even thou unexpected.

Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Harbour and General Works (Stevin) Ltd (1991) CA

An accident to a child through burns, was reaso that the development of the accident as it actu explosion) could not reasonably have been fore liability, and accordingly C was entitled to recov [Tort negligence - foreseeability or type intervening events - no general duty] C w second serious accident occurred which led to e

Held: The physical conditions of the soil were f

commonly find in estuaries, i.e. difficult. The so A claim can succeed where the conditions are p unpredictably when subjected to the contractor temporary or permanent. The damages concept in personal injury cases " equally to property damage claims.

C won Hunter v Canary Warf [Tort causation - parties private nuisan Ltd and London reception had been affected by the building of t Docklands Development overruling Khorasandjian on the point that th Corporation (1997) HL (rather than a right to exclusive possession) wa private nuisance. And reaffirming the decision i complainant needed only a "substantial link" wi and would transform nuisance from a tort to lan might be a nuisance if reception was affected b discharges) on DD's premises, but the mere pre constituting a nuisance. The law of private n injuries, which are properly covered by the tort

Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] HL

C lost [Tort negligence breach - sensitivity of rule] D the employer of a workman who suffe negligence. His earning capacity was reduced b have a pre-existing spinal disease unrelated to trial, he was totally incapable of work. Held decision in Baker v Willoughby [1970]. The em of earnings, this being a rare case in which the benefit of the defendant. The onset of this illne relevant to the assessment of damages".

Law Reform Apportionment of liability in case of contributor (Contributory 1. (1) Where any person suffers damage as the Negligence) Act 1945 s.1 of the fault of any other person or persons, a cl (1) be defeated by reason of the fault of the person recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced and equitable having regard to the claimant's s damage: Provided that-(a) this subsection shall not operate to defeat a

Liesbosch Dredger v SS Edison [1933] HL

(b) Where any contract or enactment providing to the claim, the amount of damages recoverab subsection shall not exceed the maximum limit (2) Where damages are recoverable by any per subject to such reduction as is therein mention total damages which would have been recovera (3), (4) . . . (5) Where, in any case to which subsection (1) persons at fault avoids liability to any other suc by pleading the Limitation Act 1939, or any oth which proceedings may be taken, he shall not b . from that other person or representative by v (6) Where any case to which subsection (1) of the jury shall determine the total damages whi claimant had not been at fault and the extent t reduced. ^[Negligence - remoteness of damage d immediate consequence of breach - extent physical weakness] D the owner of the Edis The owners of the dredger were too poor to bu substitute to carry out an existing contract; it w than hire.

Held: Cs damages were limited to the cost of hire between the sinking and the date when a r service. Lord Wright The law cannot take account of everything that subsequent matters as outside the scope of its law to judge the cause of causes," or conseque Malone v Laskey [1907] [Tort negligence causation - no cause o CA contractual relationship between C and D] to a company B whose manager and his wife C using the toilet the tank fell on her causing inju from a generator next door had made the tank to fix the tank, but it still fell on her.

Held: C could not recover on the ground of neg relation between C and D, and the doing of the of defendants not done in the discharge of a du

C lost This case had been previously doub Hunter. Margereson & Hancock v [Tort - negligence - remoteness of damage JW Roberts Ltd (1996) rather than the extent of damage must be CA near where the two complainants had lived and mesothelioma due to their exposure to asbesto

Held: D was liable to C because they knew or o was escaping from the factories into the surrou people who were exposed to it.

Risk of harm of allowing asbestos dust to escap As stated by Lord Lloyd in Page v Smith (199 whether the defendant can reasonably foresee to the risk

McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] HL

C won Also here [Tort - negligence - proximate cause] D fa whom they sent to clean out brick kilns in hot a abrasive brick dust, C cycled home, further exe grime. After some days he was found to be suff

Held: D was liable in negligence because their contributed to, the injury suffered by C, notwith for which D was not responsible, which had con

(1) Ds breach of duty had, for practical purpos to C; (2) C had shown, on a balance of probabilities, contributed to by respondents breach of duty.

Disapproved dictum Lord Wilberforce Wilsher McKew v Holland and ^[Tort - negligence - causation - novus ac Hannen and Cubitts who suffered an injury at work which the defen (Scotland) Ltd [1969] HL occasionally lost control of his left leg, which ga A few days later he went to inspect a flat which between two walls, and without a hand-rail. the stair, holding his young daughter by the ha brother-in-law. Suddenly he lost control of his l

McWilliams v Arrol [1962] HL

to save her, and tried to jump so as to land in a downstairs. As a result he sustained a severe fr jumping in the emergency did not break the ch broken by his conduct in placing himself unnece confronted by such an emergency, when he cou carefully by himself, or sought the assistance o conduct therefore amounted to a novus actus in If he had had no reasonable alternative to actin broken the chain of causation. C lost [Tort negligence - causation] D a buildin steel erector who fell 70 feet to his death. C th statutory duty to provide a safety belt (but not evidence to show that the man would probably provided. Held: the firm's negligence and b cause of his death. Their breach of duty was not the cause of the d deceased would not have worn a safety belt if i no duty on the employers to instruct or exhort

C lost Ogwo v Taylor [1987] HL [Tort - damage - foreseeability] D negligen blowlamp. C a fireman was injured while fightin foreseeable result of D's negligence, and it was fireman and expected to take risks as part of h Page v Smith [1996] HL [Tort - negligence - damage causation and remoteness of damage - foreseeability - ps ] D's car collided with C's car. C was physicall suffer the onset of myalgic encephalomyelitis (M 20 years but which was then in remission.

Held: D had to take his victim as he found him namely whether the defendant could reasonabl the claimant to the risk of personal injury, whe

C was not required to prove that nervous shock was irrelevant that D could not have foreseen t personality. Psychiatric illness could be suffere although not demonstrably attributable directly Per Lord Lloyd. In the case of secondary vic

Perrett v Collins (1998) CA

Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries plc [1998] HL Whole case, here

participants in an accident, the defendant will n foreseeable in a person of normal fortitude and order to be able to apply the test of reasonable [Tort negligence duty of care just to insurance or need for stricter regulation] passenger. The plane crashed C was injured. were both liable in negligence having certified a and the duty extended to any passenger who w imposing a duty of care, members of the public by careful operation of the regulatory system, a negligent operation. C won. [Tort - negligence - damage causation and foreseeability] ICI, employed C as a secreta (RSI) in her hands allegedly caused by typing.

Held: In order to succeed, the onus was on C caused by repetitive movements while typing. C condition was not reasonably foreseeable in he

Re: Polemis. Polemis and Furness Withy & Co [1921] CA

R v Croydon Health Authority (1997) CA

C lost [Tort - negligence - damage causation and of remoteness] D chartered a ship had loade encountered bad weather and the petrol leaked carelessly allowed a plank to fall into the hold o something and thereby caused a spark which in hold. The vapour caused a fire which destroyed not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of al reasonably foreseeable that the falling plank wo vessel. Because of this, the court established D damage caused by the fire was recoverable dep consequence of the negligent act. Although the reasonably been foreseen as a consequence of liable for the loss of the ship by fire. The defe hold drums of petrol. Re Polemis was not followed by the Privy Cou Wagon Mound is now preferred. [Tort negligence - foreseeability of dama job as nurse. D failed to inform C and her GP o and later became depressively ill thinking she h not responsible for her becoming pregnant, dam

Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958] CA

[Tort - foreseeability of damage - contribu provided public toilets. When C tried to leave th missing. After trying for fifteen minutes to attra standing on the toilet roll holder, but the roll ro herself. Held: her actions were not unreaso was a natural and foreseeable consequence of D However, her damages were reduced by 25% f roll as a secure foothold. Scott v Shepherd [1774] [Tort negligence - remoteness of damag Ct of CP threw a lighted squib into a crowded market ho stallholder to another until it put out the claima

Held: Trespass and assault will lie for originally been thrown about in self-defence by other per De Grey, CJ "I look upon all that was done subsequent to th the first force and first act, which will continue think that any innocent person removing the da justifiable. . . . I do not consider [them] as free under a compulsive necessity for their own safe there was, I think, guilty of a public nuisance, a case." Blackstone J thought that [negligence], and no Simmons v British Steel ^[Tort remoteness of damage primary plc [2004] HL psychiatric reaction following initial injury C. C fell and hit his head at work. He suffered d Whole case here flared up, not because of the original injury bu accident (lack of apology or support following accident when warned of the danger). Held consequences of the accident and not just for t neither de minims nor an intervening act. C was a primary victim according to the class wrongdoer takes his victim as he finds him Smi There must now be added these further quali (1) that a defender is liable although the dama extent than was foreseeable, as he can escape regarded as differing in kind from what was for (1963) HL; and (2) where it is established that physical injury t

unnecessary to ask whether it was foreseeable injury: Page v Smith [1996] HL. The genera injury would not have occurred but for the act o number of factors contributed to the injury it is factor attributable to the defender's fault made Bonnington Castings Ltd [1956] HL.

C won Smith v Leech Brain & Co [Tort negligence - foreseeability of dama (1962) QBD rule' is an exception] D the employers of a molten metal through his employers' negligenc burn aggravated a pre-existing cancerous cond sued. Held: "injury to the person" was rega some minor injury at least was foreseeable.

Spartan Steel v Martin [1972] CA

A tortfeasor took his victim as he found him, an did not override this principle; accordingly, sinc suffered was reasonably foreseeable, defendan although they could not reasonably have forese initial injury, viz, that the burn would cause can ^[Tort negligence - damage public po negligently cut off the electricity supply to PCs "melt" that was ruined by the power cut, includ was allowed. However, C did not succeed fo could have been completed during the period th was probably the fear of opening the floodgates severed the power supply to a whole estate or principle of parasitic damages in English law of damage which, if they stood alone, would no could be annexed to some other claim for dama respect of the four melts was recoverable as claim in respect of the first melt. Lord Den At bottom I think the question of recovering ec the courts draw a line to mark out the bounds o as to limit the responsibility of the defendant. damages recoverable--saying that they are, or of policy so as to limit the liability of the defend Lawton LJ: The differences which undoubtedly exist betwee type of case and what in another cannot be rec

Stovold v Barlows [1995] CA

Lord Denning MR that such differences have ari law. Maybe there should be one policy for all c not, in my judgement, a task for this court. C won. [Tort - damage causation and remoteness causation of loss - action taken by third pa with the sale of C's house, and the sale fell thro on time.

Held: The purchaser might have preferred the documents had been sent promptly and, so, th 50 per cent. On the question of causation where the loss de the correct approach is to evaluate the loss of t result of the defendants negligence. Thompson v James (1998) CA

[Tort negligence causation - intervenin parents of a child not to have a measles vaccin brain damage. Childs history suggested to D t than to most children. Held: There was no d care, it was not fair, just or reasonable to hold advice he had given to Cs parents.

The advice given by other doctors to whom C h event. It broke the chain of causation because advice.

It was not foreseeable that the defendants failu immunisation would have had a significant influ parents and the defendant knew other doctors Wagon Mound1 [Tort - negligence - remoteness of damage Overseas Tankship carelessly discharged oil from their ship, the W (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock wind and tide carried the oil beneath C's wharf and Engineering Co carried on by C's employees. After being advise Ltd (The Wagon Mound) employees continued their work. Some 55 to 6 [1961] molten metal set some waste floating in the oil into a large fire which severely damaged the wh slipways. Held: Damage to the wharf by the pollution of

by fire was not reasonably foreseeable. C was l fire risk because it was their workmen who actu

Wagon Mound 2 The Wagon Mound (No 2), Overseas Tankship (UK), Ltd v The Miller Steamship [1967] [1966] PC

D not liable for the fire but liable for the fo the question of whether the risk of fire was fore high boiling point it is unlikely to catch fire und Mound 1 and 2, the two sequential claimants ar Each of these diametrically different presentatio very same court as equally true and valid facts [Tort - negligence - remoteness of damage carelessly discharged oil from their ship, the W wind and tide carried the oil beneath a wharf w carried on. After being advised that they could Some 55 to 60 hours after the original discharg in the oil on fire. The flames quickly developed the ships owned by C. Held: The damage admittedly very small) and therefore not too re damage, of a particular kind was foreseeable, t damage irrespective of the foreseeability of its potential consequences of that unlikely occurre duty of care to avoid it. C won Commen part in creating the fire and thus proved that th furnace oil might catch fire when spilled in a ha exclusively on the finding that the risk of fire (f Mound 1) was greater than zero and D should b Lord Reid: It follows that in their lordships' v reasonable man having the knowledge and exp engineer of the Wagon Mound would have know the water catching fire in some way: if it did, se was not only foreseeable but very likely. In Wagon Mound 1 both C and D were eager to furnace oil catching fire in a harbour. D becaus foreseeable risk and C because otherwise their contributory negligence (it was a spark from th going). The court ultimately found that the risk C for fire damage because it was unfair to hold harm. Lord Reid: So if the [claimants] in the former case had se the engineers of the Wagon Mound that this oil

difficulty in parrying the reply that then this mu manager. Then there would have been contrib contributory negligence was a complete defenc Wilsher v Essex Area [Tort negligence causation - proximate Health Authority [1988] probabilities] D the hospital where C was bo HL excess oxygen. The catheter was twice inserted developed an incurable eye condition.

Held: His blindness could have been caused by premature babies, of which the hospital's admit combination of negligence and injury did not in causation. It was not for D to show an altern balance of probabilities) that the negligence ha materially contributed to it, and this he could n

C lost, a retrial ordered. Disapproved Fairirchild v Glenhaven Funeral S Ltd; Matthews v Associated Portland Cement M
2000-2008 M Souper Copyright reserved | disclaimer Law Weblog | Contact us |

<img alt="" src="http://sixthform.info/phlogger/pphlogger.php?id=MikeSouper2&