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

《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。

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