Bourhill V Young [1943] ac 92

Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
Facts

• 
  A motorcyclist was driving negligently, crashed into a car and was killed. The claimant was in safe place and did not witness the accident but decided to go and see what had happened. The claimant suffered shock and a miscarriage after seeing blood and debris on the road. The claimant sought damages from the defendant, the motorcyclist's estate.
  

Issue

• 
  Was harm to the claimant reasonably foreseeable? Can proximity between the claimant and the defendant be determined?
  

Held

• 
  No duty of care was found as the claimant was a not reasonably foreseeable victim of the negligence, not present at the scene of accident and no close relationship with persons involved in the accident.
  

Caparo industries plc v dickman 1990 2 ac 605
A company called Fidelity plc, manufacturers of electrical equipment, was the target of a takeover by Caparo Industries plc. Fidelity was not doing well. In March 1984 Fidelity had issued a profit warning, which had halved its share price. In May 1984 Fidelity's directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March. This confirmed the position was bad. The share price fell again. At this point Caparo had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 1984 the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dickman, were issued to the shareholders, which now included Caparo. Caparo reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, Caparo found that Fidelity's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dickman for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been accurate.


Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend brought her a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream. The ginger beer came in an opaque bottle so that the contents could not be seen. Mrs Donoghue poured half the contents of the bottle over her ice cream and also drank some from the bottle. After eating part of the ice cream, she then poured the remaining contents of the bottle over the ice cream and a decomposed snail emerged from the bottle. Mrs Donoghue suffered personal injury as a result. She commenced a claim against the manufacturer of the ginger beer.

• 
  Decision : Her claim was successful but the case was settled out of court. The plaintiff could pursue a claim against the defendant because a manufacturer owes a consumer a duty of care.
  

Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
[2018] UKSC 50

• 
  Facts:
  

A went to A & E after suffering a head injury and was told by the receptionist the wait would be 4 to 5 hours. A felt ill so left after 19 minutes. He later collapsed and suffered permanent brain injury. The information was incorrect; he would have been seen within 30 minutes by a nurse to assess his need to see a doctor. Had he seen a doctor sooner he could have made a full recovery.

• 
  Decision:
  

As between the NHS Trust and its patients, duty of care exists and it includes giving accurate information. It was held that the trust had breached their duty of care.

Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Facts

• 
  Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts which stated that the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1.3M. In fact Fidelity had made a loss of over £465,000. Caparo brought an action against the auditors claiming they were negligent in certifying the accounts. Did the Dickman owe the Caparo a duty of care?
  

Decision

• 
  No duty of care was owed.
  

Ratio Decidendi
There was no sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors since the auditors were not aware of the existence of Caparo nor the purpose for which the accounts were being used by them.

Haley v London Electricity Board
[1964] 3 WLR 479, [1965] AC 778
Facts

• 
  The defendants dug a trench in the street in order to do repairs. Their workmen laid a shovel across the hole to draw pedestrians’ attention to it, but the claimant was blind, and fell into the hole, seriously injuring himself.
  

Issue

• 
  Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that a blind person might walk by and be at risk of falling in
  

Decision

• 
  The number of blind people who lived in London meant that the defendants owed a duty to this category of people
  

Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd
[1936] 1 All ER 283
Facts

• 
  The claimant bought a car which had been fitted with a windscreen of ‘Triplex Toughened Safety Glass’. The claimant was injured when the windscreen shattered while he was driving.
  

Decision

• 
  The manufacturers of the windscreen were not liable because too much time had elapsed between the manufacture of the windscreen and the incident. The windscreen had been in place for over a year.
  

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control
[2000] EWCA Civ 2116
Facts

• 
  The claimant (Michael Watson), suffered severe brain damage after being injured during a match. He sued the Board, on the basis that they were in charge of safety arrangements at professional boxing matches, and evidence showed that if they had made immediate medical attention at the ringside, his injuries would have been less severe.
  

Decision

• 
  The court held that there was sufficient proximity between Mr Watson and the Board to give rise to a duty of care
  

West Bromwich Albion Football Club v Medhat El- Safty [2005] EWHC 2866 (QB)
Facts

• 
  The Claimant club signed Michael Appleton in January 2000 on a 3 year contract. In November 2001 he was injured. He was referred by the club to Mr El-Safty, Consultant Surgeon who advised that reconstructive surgery should be carried out. He performed the operation which was unsuccessful. Mr Appleton never recovered and has had to retire from football. The advice that the knee should be reconstructed was negligent. If the appropriate course of action had been taken, Mr Appleton would have been fit again within about 4 months. The club claimed damages from the Defendant for the losses it alleged it had suffered both in contract and in tort.
  

Issue

• 
  The Defendant denied that there was a contract with West Bromwich Albion and denied that he owed any duty in tort.
  

Decision

• 
  The court held that it was not just and reasonable to impose a duty on the defendant
  

Hillas v. Arcos [1932] 43 Ll.L.Rep. 359
Facts
A contract for the supply of wood made between the claimant buyer and the defendant seller had an option in it that permitted the buyer to buy additional wood the following year. The option did not specify what type of quality of wood was to be supplied.
Decision
The details of the option offered could be obtained from previous dealings and the custom and practice in the timber trade

Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
Facts

• 
  A flick knife which was illegal to sell was displayed in a shop window with a price tag next to it
  

Issue

• 
  Could this be illegal, when was a contract of sale made in a shop?
  

Decision

• 
  Not illegal. A product displayed in a shop is an invitation to treat only and therefore has no contractual significance in the shopping process
  

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6
Facts
Boots introduced the then new self-service system into their shops whereby customers would pick up goods from the shelf put them in their basket and then take them to the cash till to pay. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain brought an action to determine the legality of the system with regard to the sale of pharmaceutical products which were required by law to be sold in the presence of a pharmacist. The court thus needed to determine where the contract came into existence.
Decision
Goods on the shelf constitute an invitation to treat not an offer. A customer takes the goods to the till and makes an offer to purchase. The shop assistant then chooses whether to accept the offer. The contract is therefore concluded at the till in the presence of a pharmacist.