Essential Tort Law Precedents and Liability Principles

Duty of Care and the Neighbor Principle

1. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932): Mr. D went to a restaurant where the waiter poured some beer over his friend's ice cream. They later discovered a snail in the beer. Mr. D sued the restaurant, seeking £500 for gastroenteritis. Decision: The court established the Neighbor Principle, ruling that the defendant owed a duty of care to the consumer even in the absence of a formal contract.

The Caparo Three-Stage Test

2. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990): Caparo held shares that were undervalued, moving from £465,000 to £1.3m. Caparo sued Dickman for negligence, but the defendant was not held responsible. This case established the three-stage test for determining a duty of care.

Product Liability and Professional Negligence

3. Evans v Triplex Safety Glass (1936): Evans purchased a car fitted with "triple safety glass," but an incident occurred when the glass shattered. The decision was that the manufacturers were not liable because a significant amount of time had passed since the glass was manufactured.

4. Clay v Crump (1964): An architect stated that a wall was safe, but it later collapsed. The decision held that the architect was at fault for the resulting damages.

Psychiatric Injury

5. Dulieu v White (1901): A pregnant woman working in a bar was frightened by an incident and subsequently suffered a miscarriage. This case addressed the recovery of damages for psychiatric injury.

Breach of Duty

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

A person was being taught how to drive and crashed the vehicle. The court found the driver at fault; the lack of experience did not lower the required standard of care.

Phillips v Whiteley (1938)

A woman developed an infection after having her ears pierced. The court ruled that the establishment was not liable because it maintained all safety standards; the infection likely occurred later at her home.

Damages Caused by the Breach

Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969)

A woman sued, claiming her husband died on the day he was discharged from the hospital. However, the medical examination showed he did not die due to the reason he visited the hospital. He would have died regardless, so the hospital was not held liable under the "but for" test.

McGhee v National Coal Board (1973)

A worker suffered an injury because a workplace lacked necessary safety measures (specifically, washing facilities). The employers were held liable for the harm caused by failing to provide essential equipment.

Remoteness of Damage

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton (2000)

An abandoned boat was left on council land, and the authorities were aware of it. Children played on the boat, and a 14-year-old boy was injured. The mother sued, and the Council was found liable for maintaining a known danger on their property.