Class notes
Law 1051 Negligence Case Sheet - Lecture notes 1-10
- Course
- Institution
This is a comprehensive and detailed doc on Negligence Case Sheet - Lecture notes 1-10 for law 1051. Essential!!
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
anyiamgeorge19
Reviews received
Content preview
NEGLIGENCE CASE SHEETCase Significance
STANDARD OF CARE/ DUTY OF CARE
Principle Authority; Caparo v Dickman
Perrett v Incremental by analogy. DoC can be established based on previously established
Collins cases.
Hobhouse LJ stated that the law cannot be remade for every case
Wagon Mound 1st Test leg: REASONABLE FORESSEABILITY;
1 The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney
Harbour. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some
welding works ignited the oil. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some
boats and the wharf.
Held:
Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. A test of remoteness of
damage was substituted for the direct consequence test. The test is whether the
damage is of a kind that was foreseeable. If a foreseeable type of damage is
present, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage, no matter
whether the extent of damage was foreseeable.
Bolton v Stone CLASS OF PERSONS; if the claimant belongs to a class or group of people that
could be foreseeably affected, the defendant is liable
Mrs Stone was one of a class of residents living nearby to Cheetham Cricket Club,
and thus a duty of care was owed by the club to her in respect of errant cricket
, NEGLIGENCE CASE SHEET
balls (though, note, the court found no breach here); and
Hayley v The court held that it was irrelevant that the claimant was blind and thus
London susceptible to harm to which sighted people would not foreseeably have been
Electric susceptible, because it was entirely foreseeable that blind people would be
susceptible to the harm, and thus the claimant fell within that class of persons.
Islington LBC Applies to reasonable person , IN THE SHOES OF THE DEFENDANT (objectivity)
v UCL Hop
The court noted that there was a marked difference between what the defendant
hospital ought to have foreseen and what the secretary—whose instructions to a
patient caused harm—ought to have foreseen. The salient details are as follows.
A cardiac surgeon’s secretary telephoned a patient to cancel an operation, and also
told the patient to stop taking medication that had been prescribed in anticipation
of the operation. This instruction resulted in the patient suffering a stroke.
The secretary could not have foreseen the harm that might result from her
instructions, whereas the hospital ought to have foreseen the harm that might
result from its systemic negligence in failing to make proper arrangements for
advising patients whose operations were cancelled, and thus the hospital was sued
directly for its negligence and not vicariously for the negligence of the secretary
Stovin v Wise 2nd leg of test; PROXIMITY
, NEGLIGENCE CASE SHEET
Four possible defintitons of proximity; geographical, temporal, relational, casual
Hill v CC West The notion that liability is predicted solely on foreseeability of harm is incorrect.
Yorkshire
The House of Lords held that the police did not owe a duty of care to the claimant
—a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe—in failing to prevent her murder,
on the basis that risk posed to her by the alleged negligence was no different to
that posed to any other female then living in Yorkshire, and that the harm relied on
the wilful wrongdoing of another, and thus there was insufficient proximity.
Marc Rich Co 3RD LEG OF TEST; JUST/REASONABLE (POLICY)
v Bishop Rock
NB: It is unfair to impose large and potentially crippling liability on a claimant who
cannot share the loss.
Facts
During a voyage a ship developed a crack in its hull. The ships owners requested
its classification society to inspect the damage. An employee of the classification
society advised that the ship should be put into dry dock in order for repairs to be
carried out. However, after complaints from the ship owner as to the cost of such
an action, the advice was altered and temporary repairs were carried out. Shortly
afterwards, the ship sank and the claimant lost cargo valued at USD 17.6 million.
The claimant recovered USD 17.5 million from the ship owner being the total
extent of the liability in relation to the tonnage of the ship. The claimant sought to
, NEGLIGENCE CASE SHEET
recover the difference from the classification society. The claim succeeded at first
instance, but was overturned on appeal. The Claimant appealed to the House of
Lords.
Issue
Whether, on these facts, the elements necessary to impose a duty of care on the
classification society were made out.
Held
It was held that a duty of care did not exist to the claimant by the classification
society. The House of Lords reiterated the three elements necessary for the
imposition of a duty of care set out in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]
2 AC 605: proximity of relationship, foreseeability of damage and it being fair, just
and reasonable to impose a duty. It was held that the first two elements of the test
were satisfied on these facts. However, it was held that it would be unfair, unjust
and unreasonable to place a duty of care on a classification society as against a
ship owner, it being the ship owner who would ordinarily be required to recover in
circumstances such as this, because this went against the internationally
recognised contractual structure that existed in this area. It would also be unfair,
unjust and unreasonable to hold the classification society liable as against the
cargo owner because classification societies act for collective welfare and could
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller anyiamgeorge19. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $12.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
81849 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now