The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

In Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988) a premature baby was given too much oxygen by a junior doctor and as a result the baby suffered from a condition which affected his retina and rendered him blind. The parents sued and the court held that a junior doctor is under the same duty as any other competent doctor and found for the parents. In Newman & Others v United Kingdom Medical Research Council (1996) almost 2,000 children who suffered from growth disorders were treated with human growth hormones and as a result many of them died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), a rare, degenerative, invariably fatal brain disorder, which affects about 1 in a million worldwide. The researchers were held to be liable and experiments should have ceased or stopped the moment the researchers realized that the treatment was fatal. In Mansfield v Weetabix (1997) the defendant crashed his lorry into the plaintiff’s shop and the plaintiff sued for the resulting damage. The defendant tho

In Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) a group of boys from a borstal school, a type of detention center for young delinquents, were doing some supervised work on an island. The boys were subsequently left unsupervised and 7 of them attempted to escape on board a stolen boat that later collided with the plaintiff’s yacht and the plaintiff sued for the damage to his yacht caused by the collision. The plaintiff was successful. It was held that the officers or the home office that the officers were answerable to were liable for the damage because it was foreseeable, given their track record, that the boys would try and escape, and in doing so, try and commandeer a vehicle to help them escape. The officers should have exercised due care and diligence in carrying out their duties and their failure to do so or their omission had resulted in damage being caused to the plaintiff’s yacht. In Nettleship v Weston (1971) the defendant was a learner driver who’d employed the plaintiff to help

In Paris v Stepney (1951) the plaintiff, a World War II veteran was employed in the defendant’s garage. He was blind in one eye, having incurred the injury during the war and while he was working, he tried to loosen a stiff bolt with a hammer and as a result a splinter went into his good eye and he lost his vision. The plaintiff sued the defendant for not providing him with suitable safety equipment while he was working, i.e. a pair of goggles. The failure to do so had caused him to go completely blind. It was held that the defendant, his employer, who knew that the plaintiff was blind in one eye should have taken the appropriate steps to provide the plaintiff with the necessary safety equipment – the higher the possibility of an injury, the higher the likelihood that the courts will impose a duty of care and deem that the duty of care had been breached when the injury occurs. In Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) the plaintiff was employed in the defendant’s factory and as a result of unus

After it has been established that a duty of care exists in that the defendant ought to have the plaintiff in contemplation when he undertook the act or failed to act, in order for the defendant to be held liable or for the plaintiff to be awarded damages, or to have any measure of success, the plaintiff must then go on to establish or proof that the defendant has breached the duty. Duty in itself does not imply liability. The test that is imposed to determine if the duty that is owed has been breached is the objective test and the standard that is imposed is that of the reasonable man i.e. the question that is asked is would a reasonable man have acted in the manner that the defendant did? If the answer is no then the chances are that the defendant has breached his or her duty of care. Likewise, when it comes to omissions or a failure to act the question that has to be asked is would a reasonable man have failed to act in the given circumstances and if the answer is no then the c

In order for a plaintiff to be successful in a claim for negligence, the plaintiff must be able to establish: - i) That the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care ii) That the defendant had breached that duty of care iii) That the defendant’s breach has caused the plaintiff some type of damage and has led to one of the following: - a) Physical injury b) Psychological injury or nervous shock c) Damage to property and d) If it is possible to quantify the resultant damage or injury in monetary terms. Before the courts award damages, they will also look to see if there are any policy considerations that ought to negate the defendants claim for damages and if there are then the courts would not award damages or find in favor of the plaintiff. A duty of care arises as a result of the defendant’s actions or omissions (a failure to do something especially that which is required by law) see Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856). The defendant is deemed to owe the p

In Topp v London Country Bus (1993) the driver of a bus who worked for a bus company, at the end of his shift left his bus in the yard with the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. The bus was subsequently stolen by thieves who in their haste to make a speedy getaway ran over a lady on a bicycle who died as a result. The plaintiff, her husband brought an action against the bus company (vicarious liability – employers are liable for the wrongful actions of their employees during the course of employment) for negligence. The question we have to ask is ought the defendant to have had the plaintiff’s wife in contemplation when he left the keys in the ignition? It is foreseeable that the bus might be stolen as a result of the driver’s negligence but to say that the driver would have foreseen that the bus might have been stolen and a lady would have been run over while the thieves were stealing the bus and that the victim would have died as a result of the injuries sustained is not s

In Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) Caparo industries wished to acquire a company called Fidelity. At the time of the acquisition the report prepared by the auditors did not accurately reflect the financial status of the company and it was much worse than what had been anticipated. The plaintiffs (Caparo Industries) acquired shares in Fidelity based on the report by the auditors (defendants) and they incurred loss and as a result sued the defendants for their negligence or for not preparing a report that accurately reflected Fidelity’s status. Caparo has to be distinguished from the other cases that we have done so far because unlike the other cases where there has been some form of damage to property or injury (physical or psychological), the plaintiffs in Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) were suing for financial loss or pure economic loss. As we have seen thus far, a duty of care arises when the defendant while carrying out the act ought to have the plaintiffs in contemplatio