英国侵权法判例选Word格式文档下载.docx
《英国侵权法判例选Word格式文档下载.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《英国侵权法判例选Word格式文档下载.docx(21页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
![英国侵权法判例选Word格式文档下载.docx](https://file1.bdocx.com/fileroot1/2023-2/4/ab0b8994-d697-4e7e-ac68-548ccb25d808/ab0b8994-d697-4e7e-ac68-548ccb25d8081.gif)
asaresultofhergivingpermissionforaSundaySchoolpicnictobeheldinthetearoom.
Therewasnoreasonforhertoanticipatethatgivingpermissionwouldresultinchildren
beingscaldedbyboilingwater.
3.
HughesvLordAdvocate1963SLT150(HL)
Twoyoungchildrenwereinjuredwhentheydroppedaparaffinlampintoanopen
manhole.Bothopenmanholeandlamphadbeenleftunattendedbythedefenders.Itwas
heldthat,althoughtheexplosionwasunforeseeable,
itwasforeseeablethatchildren
wouldbeinjuredifanopenmanholeandaburninglampwereleftunattended.Therewas
sufficientforeseeabilitytoestablishadutyofcare.
4.
BourhillvYoung1942SC(HL)78
Youngwaskilledasaresultofacollisioncausedbyhiscarelessdriving.Itwasheldthat,
althoughhecertainlyowedadutyofcaretoavoidharmingotherroadusers,Mrs
Bourhill,whowas50feetawayfromthecollisionanddidnotactuallyseeit,wasnot
withintheambitofthisduty.Young’sexecutorswerethereforenotliableforthenervous
shockshesufferedasaresultoftheaccident.
5.
AlcockandOthersvChiefConstableofSouthYorkshire[1991]4AllER907(HL)
TheactionwasbroughtbyrelativesofpersonskilledorinjuredatHillsboroughfootball
stadium,onthebasisof“nervousshock”sufferedasaresultofthedisaster.Itwasheld
that,beforetherewouldbeliabilityforcausingnervousshock,certaincriteriamustbe
fulfilled:
(a)
Ithadtobereasonablyforeseeablethattheplaintiffwouldsuffernervousshock.
Thiswouldarisewheretherewereclosetiesofaffectionbetweentheplaintiffand
thevictim.
(b)
Theplaintiffmusthavebeenwithinsightorhearingoftheeventoritsimmediate
aftermath.Identifyingadeadfriendorrelative8hourslater,orwatchingthe
eventsontelevisionwasnotsufficientinthiscase.
6.
RobertsonvForthRoadBridgeJointBoard
1994SLT566
Twoworkerssufferedpsychiatrictraumawhentheywitnessedthedeathofafellow
workerwhichwascausedbythenegligenceoftheirmutualemployer.Held:
Nodutyof
carewasowedtothetwoworkersinthisinstance.Therelationshipbetweenthemandthe
workerwhowaskilledwasnotsufficientlycloseforthenervousshocktobeforeseeable.
7.
McFarlanevEECaledoniaLtd[1994]2AllER1
AworkeronthePiperAlphaoilrig,whowasonasupportvessel550metresawayfrom
therigwhenitexploded,claimedagainsttheownersoftherigforthepsychiatricillness
hehadsufferedasaresultofwhathehadseen.Held:
McFarlanewasnotinanyactual
dangerorfearsforhisownsafety.Hewasnotwithintherangeofforeseeabilityandno
dutyofcarewasowedtohim.
8.
SpartanSteelandAlloysLtdvMartin&
CoLtd[1973]1QB27
Buildersweresuedfordamagesarisingoutofdamagetoapowercablewhichinterrupted
thepowersupplytoafactory.Held:
Damagetometalinthefurnaceatthetimethecable
wasdamagedwasrecoverable.Lossofprofitthroughprocessingtimelostwhilecable
wasbeingrepairedwasnotrecoverable-thiswaspureeconomiclossandnodutyofcare
wasowedinrespectofthis.
9.
HedleyByrne&
CovHeller&
Partners[1964]AC465
Theplaintiffssoughtdamagesforlossesincurredbecauseofanegligentcreditreference
givenbythedefendantbank.Held:
Althoughintheparticularcasethebankhadno
liabilitybecauseithadexpresslyexcludedliabilityforthereference,intheabsenceofa
disclaimer,abankowedadutyofcaretoensurethatinformationwasaccurate.
10.
MartinvBell-Ingram1986SLT575
Asurveyoremployedbyabuildingsocietytocarryoutavaluationonahousenegligently
missedtheexistenceoffaultsinthefoundations.Thehousepurchaserwasforcedtospend
considerablesumstoremedythedefect.Held:
Thesurveyorwasliabletothehouse
purchaserforhisnegligence.Heknewhisreportwouldbeseenbythepurchaserand
reliedonbyhimindecidingwhethertopurchasethehouse.
11.CaparoIndustriesplcvDickman[1990]2WLR358
Indecidingwhethertomakeatakeoverbidforacompany,theplaintiffreliedonaccounts
preparedbythecompany’sauditors,whichturnedouttobeerroneous.Itwasadmitted
theauditorshadbeennegligentintheirpreparationoftheaccounts,butitwasheldthat
theirdutyofcarewasowedtothecompanyonly,andnotindividualexistingor
prospectiveshareholders.
12.
D&
FEstatesvChurchCommissionersforEngland[1988]3WLR368
Leaseholderssuedtorecovertheexpenseofrepairingdefectiveplasterworkwhichhad
beendone17yearsearlier.Held:
Althoughplasterhadbeennegligentlyapplied,thecost
ofrepairingandreplacingthedefectiveplasterwaspureeconomiclossandnot
recoverable.
13.
MurphyvBrentwoodDistrictCouncil[1990]3WLR414
Alocalauthoritywassuedwhenthefoundationsofahouse,builttoplansapprovedby
thelocalauthority,provedtobedefective.Becauseofthedefect,theownerhadtosell
thehouseatconsiderablylessthanitsvalueifithadbeensound.Held:
TheCouncildid
notoweadutyofcaretopreventthiskindofeconomicloss,sothelosscouldnotbe
recoveredunderthelawofdelict.
14.
JuniorBooksvVeitchiCo1982SLT492
Veitchi,aflooringspecialist,wasanominatedsub-contractorunderacontractbetween
JuniorBooksandOgilvieBuilderstoconstructanewfactory.Thefloorwasdefectiveand
hadtobereplaced.JuniorBooksclaimedindelictagainstVeitchiforthecostofthis
replacement.
Theclaimwouldbeallowedeventhoughthelosswaspurely
economic.Therewasaspecialproximitybetweenthepartieswhichbroughtaboutaduty
ofcare.
15.
WaughvJamesKAllanLtd1964SC(HL)102
Alorrydriverwhoinjuredapedestrianaftersufferingaheartattackwhiledrivingwas
heldnottohavebreachedthedutyofcareheowedtothepedestrian.Hisactwas
involuntaryandhehadnoreasontosuspecthewasseriouslyill.
16.
NettleshipvWeston[1971]2QB691
Alearnerdriverfailedtostraightenthesteeringwheelafterturningacornerandraninto
alamppost,damagingthepostandinjuringherdrivinginstructor.Held:
Shewasliable
forboththedamageandtheinstructor’sinjury.Alearnerdriverisexpectedtoshowthe
samestandardofcareasanyotherdriver.
17.
BoltonvStone[1951]AC850
Theplaintiffwasinjuredwhenacricketballwashitoutofthegrounds.Thishad
happenedonly6timesin30yearsandno-onehadbeeninjuredbefore.Held:
Therewas
nonegligenceinfailingtotakeprecautionsagainstthis.Theriskwassoslightthatany
reasonablepersoninthesamepositionwouldhavefeltjustifiedinignoringit.
18.
ParisvStepneyBoroughCouncil[1951]AC367
TheplaintiffwasamechanicemployedbytheCouncil.Hisemployersknewhewasblind
inoneeye.Achipofmetalflewintohisgoodeye,leavinghimtotallyblind.Heclaimed
hisemployerswerenegligentinnotsupplyinghimwithgoggles.Theybroughtevidence
showingthiswasnotusualpracticeinthetrade.Held:
Becausethemagnitudeoftherisk
wasgreaterinthisparticularcase,theemployerswerenegligentinnotprovidinggoggles
forthisparticularemployee.
19.
WattvHertfordshireCountyCouncil[1954]1WLR835
Afiremanwasinjuredwhenaheavyjackshiftedwhilebeingcarriedinalorrynot
especiallyequippedtocarryit.Thefireservicewasonitswaytorescueawomantrapped
underacar.Itwasheldthatthefireauthoritywasnotnegligentbecausetherisktothe
firemanwasnotsogreatastoprohibittheattempttosavealife.
20.
LatimervAECLtd[1953]AC643
Thedefendant’sfactorywasfloode