|
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) |
|
Established the "neighbour" principle. |
| |
|
Caparo v Dickman (1990) |
|
3 part test for duty of care. |
| |
|
Kent v Griffiths (2000) |
|
Example of foreseeablility. (Foreseeable that someone waiting for an ambulance would suffer harm if it were unduly delayed.) |
| |
|
Bourhill v Young (1943) |
|
Proximity in time alone is not enough to establish duty of care. |
| |
|
McLoughlin v O’Brien (1983) |
|
Claimant's relationship to victim of accident was enough to establish proximity. |
| |
|
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988) |
|
Police do not owe a duty of care to victims of crime and their families. |
| |
|
MPC v Reeves (2001) |
|
Police owe a duty of care to people taken into custody. |
| |
|
Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorks (2001) |
|
Duty of care is owed by police to prisoners only when the risk is known. |
| |
|
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks |
|
Baron Alderson's famous definition of the "reasonable man". |
| |
|
Wells v Cooper (1954) |
|
An amateur doing DIY is expected to reach the same standard as a competant professional. |
| |
|
Nettleship v Weston (1971) |
|
A learner driver must reach the same standard as a competent qualified driver. |
| |
|
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957) |
|
Duty of care for professionals : 2-part test. |
| |
|
Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority (1997) |
|
Courts may decide that the standard accepted by the profession in general is not high enough. |
| |
|
Roe v Minister for Health (1954) |
|
Reasonable man would not protect against unknown risks. |
| |
|
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) |
|
Greater care must be taken when the claimant is particularly vulnerable. |
| |
|
Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995) |
|
If an employee suffers work-related illness, employer must take extra care to avoid a repeat or worse illness. |
| |
|
Bolton v Stone (1951) |
|
No need to protect against very remote risks. |
| |
|
Haley v London Electricity Board (1964) |
|
It is reasonable to protect against risks which are statistically likely. |
| |
|
Latimer v AEC (1952) |
|
Duty of care is not breached if the defendant has taken all practical precautions. |
| |
|
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954) |
|
Lower standard of care where the benefits of the risk outweigh the potential harm. |
| |
|
Day v High Performance Sports (2003) |
|
Lower standard of care when making a rescue attempt. |
| |
|
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1968) |
|
"But for" test. |
| |
|
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. (2002) |
|
Modified "but for" test in asbestos cases. |
| |
|
Barker v Corus (2006) |
|
Modified "but for" test in asbestos cases. |
| |
|
Smith v Littlewoods (1987) |
|
Intervening acts which are not foreseeable will break the chain of causation. |
| |
|
Corr v IBC Vehicles (2006) |
|
Depression suffered as a result of an accident is not an intervening act. |
| |
|
The Wagon Mound (1961) |
|
The defendant is liable for all foreseeable damage, but nothing else. |
| |
|
Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967) |
|
Defendant is liable if the type of harm is foreseeable, even if the form is takes is unusual. |
| |
|
Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) |
|
Defendant is liable if the type of harm is foreseeable, even if the form is takes is unusual |
| |
|
Doughty v Turner Asbestos (1964) |
|
Damage which is not foreseeable is too remote. |
| |
|
Smith v Leech Brain (1962) |
|
Take your victim as you find him. |
| |
|
Gabriel v Kirklees Metropolitan Council (2004) |
|
Confirmed that reasonable foreseeability is still the correct test for remoteness of damage. |
| |
|
Scott v London & St. Katherine’s Docks (1865) |
|
3 part test for res ipsa loquitur. |
| |
|
Bergin v David Wickes Television Ltd (1994) |
|
"Res ipsa loquitur is a convenient label for a group of situations where there has been an unexplained accident, and common sense suggests there has been negligence."
|
| |
|
Pearson v North Western Gas Board (1968) |
|
Even where res ipsa loquitur is proven, the defendant can avoid liability by proving that they had taken all reasonable precautions. |
| |
