This lecture summarizes the Duty of Care component in relation to negligence. The video is accompanied by the Case Summaries and the Spider Graph, which are both downloadable PDF's.

This lecture summarizes the Breach component in relation to negligence. The video is accompanied by the Case Summaries and the Spider Graph, which are both downloadable PDF's.

This lecture summarizes the Causation, Remoteness and Damage components in relation to negligence. The video is accompanied by the Case Summaries and the Spider Graph, which are both downloadable PDF's.

This lecture summarizes the Defences and Proof components in relation to negligence. The video is accompanied by the Case Summaries and the Spider Graph, which are both downloadable PDF's.

This lecture summarizes the Vicarious Liability. The video is accompanied by the Case Summaries and the Spider Graph, which are both downloadable PDF's.

This lecture summarizes Employer's Liability. The video is accompanied by the Case Summaries and the Spider Graph, which are both downloadable PDF's.

This lecture summarizes Nuisance. The video is accompanied by the Case Summaries and the Spider Graph, which are both downloadable PDF's.

This lecture summarizes the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The video is accompanied by the Case Summaries and the Spider Graph, which are both downloadable PDF's.

This lecture summarizes Defamation. The video is accompanied by the Case Summaries and the Spider Graph, which are both downloadable PDF's.

This lecture summarizes Occupier's Liability. The video is accompanied by the Case Summaries and the Spider Graph, which are both downloadable PDF's.

How to Effectively Answer a Question on Negligence

In this video, we will have a look at how to understand a question in Negligence and how best to apply the Law in answering it.

How to Effectively Answer a Question on Nuisance

In this video, we will have a look at how to understand a question in Nuisance and how best to apply the Law in answering it.

How to Effectively Answer a Question on Vicarious Liability

In this video, we will have a look at how to understand a question in Vicarious Liability and how best to apply the Law in answering it.

NOTE: Please download the Spider Graphs and Sample Answers from the "Additional Resources" section of this lesson.

DONOGHUE v STEVENSON [1932] UKHL 100

In the evening of 26th August 1928, May Donoghue went to Wellmeadow Cafe in Paisley, Scotland with her lady friend.

The friend ordered a Pear and Ice Cream for herself and a Scotsman Ice Cream Float, a mix of Ice Cream and Ginger Beer, for Donoughue.

The owner of the Cafe, Francis Minchella, brought over a tumbler of Ice Cream and poured Ginger Beer on it from a brown and opaque bottle labelled D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley.

Donoghue drank some of the Ice Cream Float.

Donoghue's friend poured the remaining Ginger Beer into the tumbler and a decomposed Snail also floated out of the bottle.

Donoghue claimed that she felt ill from the sight complaining of abdominal pain. She received emergency treatment and subsequently diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock.

Donoghue lodged a writ in the Court of Sessions, Scotland's highest civil court, seeking £500 as damages.

Her action failed,but she was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

House of Lords established Stevenson should be responsible for the well being of individuals who consume his products, given that they cannot be inspected. The case was remitted to the Court of Sessions in Scotland. Stevenson died before the case was finalized and its reported that there was an out of court settlement by the Executors of £ 200 of the £ 500 that was claimed.

Donoghue v Stevenson establishes 3 major legal principles.

1. It established that negligence is a tort. As Donoghue had not purchased the Ginger Beer, she could not establish contractual agreement with Stevenson;

2. Manufacturer has a duty of care to the consumer or users of their products; and

3. Neighbor principle - The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour,,which raises the question as to who is my neighbour.

Lord Atkin

"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law,you must not injure your neighbour, and the lawyer's question, who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then,in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question"

John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1

Plaintiff Fletcher (in the original Court), was the occupier of underground mines. Defendants Rylands and Horrocks were the owners of a mill and they planned to make a reservoir for the purpose of storing water to be used for their mill. Although the two lands were adjacent at one point, some intervening land lay between the two. 

Underneath the lands of the defendants on which the reservoir was to be constructed, there were old and disused mining passages. There were 5 vertical shafts and some horizontal shafts. Vertical shafts were filled up with soil and rubbish and no one knew about their existence. 

Defendants constructed the reservoir through an agency which had an Engineer and contractor. The Engineer and the contractor had not taken reasonable care and caution. When the reservoir was constructed and partially filled with water, it broke through and filled the vertical shafts and from there to the horizontal shafts flooding the plaintiffs mines causing considerable damage. 

The Court of Exchequer was of the opinion that the plaintiff had established no cause of action. 

On appeal the Court of Exchequer Chamber decided that there was a cause of action and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. 

House of Lords affirmed the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber. 

Mr. Justice Blackburn in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, stated thus,

"we think that the rule of law is, that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief, if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so is prima facile answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape"

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) 1 AC 310

On 15th April 1989, a football match was arranged to be played at the Hillsburrough Stadium, Sheffield, between the Liverpool and Nottingham Forrest Football Club. It was a Semifinal of the FA Cup.

The South Yorkshire Police Force, which was responsible for crowd control at the match allowed an excessively large number of intending spectators to enter the ground at the Leppings Lane end, an area reserved for Liverpool supporters.

They crammed into pens 3 and 4 below the west stand and in the resulting crush, 95 people were killed and over 400 physically injured.

Scenes from the ground were broadcast live on television from time to time during the course of the disaster and recordings were broadcast later.

The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and personal injuries.

16 seperate actions were brought against him by persons, none of whom were present in the area where the disaster occurred, although 4 of them were elsewhere in the ground. All of them were connected in various ways with persons who were in that area, being related to such persons or, in one case, being fiancé.

In most cases, the person with whom the plaintiff was concerned was killed. In other cases, that person was injured and in one case turned out to be uninjured.

All the plaintiffs claimed damages for nervous shock resulting in psychiatric illness which they alleged was caused by the experiences inflicted on them by the disaster.

The House of Lords held that, a person who sustained nervous shock, which caused psychiatric illness as a result of apprehending the infliction of physical injury or the risk thereof to another person, could only recover damages from the person who’s negligent act caused the physical injury. Or else, the risk to the primary victim, if he can satisfy both the tests of reasonable foreseeability and the test of proximity between the plaintiff and the accident.

Accordingly, the plaintiff could only recover if:

1. His relationship to the primary victim was sufficiently close that it was reasonably foreseeable
2. His proximity to the accident in which the primary victim was involved or it’s immediate aftermath was sufficiently close both in time and space, and;
3. He suffered nervous shock through seeing or hearing of the accident or its immediate aftermath

Per Lord Keith, Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver;

“A bystander who suffers shock-induced psychiatric illness after witnessing a particularly horrific catastrophe close to him may be entitled to recover damages from the person who’s negligent act caused the catastrophe, if a reasonably strong nerved person would have been so shocked”

McGhee v National Coal Board (1973) 1 WLR 1

James McGhee, the appellant, was employed for many years by the respondents as a laborer at their Prestongrange Brickworks. His normal work was to empty pipe kilns. McGhee was used to cycle home after work and his employers had failed to supply shower baths or any other proper washing facilities.

On Thursday, 30th March 1967, he was sent to empty brick kilns. Working conditions at that place were much hotter and dustier than in the pipe kilns. On the Sunday, the 2nd April 1967 he felt extensive irritation of his skin. He continued to work on Monday and Tuesday and then went to his doctor, who put him off work and later sent him to a skin specialist. He was found to be suffering from dermatitis.

McGhee sued the respondents for damages, alleging breaches on their part of common law duties to him.

It was held in the Court of Session that, McGhee had to prove that his additional exposure to injury caused by him having to cycle home unwashed, caused the disease in the sense that it was more probable that this additional exposure to injury was the cause of it.

McGhee appealed.

The House of Lords allowed the appeal.

Per Lord Salmon;

“My Lords, I would suggest that the true view is that as a rule, when it is proved on a balance of probabilities that an employer has been negligent and that his negligence has materially increased the risk of his employee contracting an industrial disease, then he’s liable in damages to that employee if he contracts the disease notwithstanding that the employer is not responsible for other factors which have materially contributed to the disease. Wordlaw v. Bonnington Castings Limited (1965) SC (HL) 26 and Nicholson v Atlas Steel Foundry and Engineering Company (1957) SC (HL) 47. I do not find the attempts to distinguish those authorities from the present case at all convincing"

Mohamud v W M Morrison Supermarkets PLC (2016) UKSC 11

The victim, Mohamud, was of Somali origin. On the 15th March of 2008, he was on his way to take part with other members of his community at an event in London.

The respondent company, Morrison, was a well known operator of a chain of supermarkets. The one in Small Heath, Birmingham, included a petrol station which had a kiosk with a display of goods and a counter for the customers to pay for their purchases.

Amjid Khan was an employee of Morrison’s and his duty was to see the petrol pumps and the kiosk was kept in good running order to serve customers.

When Mohamud came to the petrol station, he wanted to inquire whether he could print some documents from a USB stick, which was with him. There were two of three staff members and Khan, who was behind the counter had replied by saying “we don’t do such shit”.

The claimant protested at being spoken to in that manner. Khan used foul, racist and threatening language and ordered the claimant to leave.

The claimant walked out of the kiosk and returned to his car by the air pump. Khan followed the claimant.

The claimant, got into his car and switched on the engine but before he could drive off, Khan opened the front passenger door and told the claimant in threatening words, never to come back.

The claimant told Khan to get out of the car and shut the passenger door. Instead, Khan punched the claimant on his left temple causing him pain and shock. The claimant, switched off the engine and got out of the car to close the passenger door. At that moment, Khan, again punched him in the head, knocked him to the ground and attacked him seriously with punches and kicks.

The claimant lay curled up on the forecourt of the petrol station trying to protect his head from the blows. At some stage, Khan’s supervisor came and told him to stop the attack but he ignored his instructions.

The claimant had said that, he had not done anything that could be considered abusive or aggressive.

The trial judge although expressed great sympathy for what had occurred, decided that the company was not vicariously liable for Khan’s unprovoked assault.

The Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The claimant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Per Lord Toulson;

“It was Khan’s job to attend to customers and to respond to their inquiries. His conduct in answering the claimant’s request in a foul mouthed way and ordering him to leave was inexcusable but within the “field of activities” assigned to him. What happened thereafter was an unbroken sequence of events… [Khan] was following up on what he had said to the claimant. It was a seamless episode… [Khan]’s employers entrusted him with that position and it is just that as between them and the claimant, they should be held responsible for their employees abuse of it”

Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016) UKSC 10

Mrs. Cox worked as the catering manager at Her Majesty’s Prison Swansea. She had day to day charge of, all aspects of catering at the prison, including the operation of the kitchen, where meals were prepared for the prisoners. She was in charge of four members of staff and there were about 20 prisoners who worked in the kitchen and came under her supervision.

On 10th September 2007, Mrs. Cox was working in the kitchen with a catering assistant and about 20 prisoners. Some kitchen supplies were delivered to the ground floor of the prison and Mrs. Cox instructed 4 prisoners to take them upstairs to the kitchen stores.

During the course of this operation, a sack of rice was dropped by one of the prisoners and burst open. Mrs. Cox bent down to prop it up and prevent spillage. While she was bent over, another prisoner, Mr. Inder, attempted to carry two sacks past her, lost his balance and dropped one of the sacks onto Mrs. Cox’s back, causing her injury.

It was accepted that Mr. Inder was negligent.

The Swansea County Court on 3rd May 2013 found that the accident occurred, because Mr. Inder had failed to take reasonable care for Mrs. Cox’s safety, but, dismissed that claim on the basis that the prison service was not vicariously liable for Mr. Inder’s negligence.

On an appeal against that decision, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, stating that, defendants cannot avoid vicarious liability on the basis of technical arguments on the employment status of the individual who committed the Tort.

The Ministry of Justice appealed, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

As per Lord Reed;

“It would be as naive to imagine that all employees are subjectively committed to the interests of their employer as to imagine that no prisoner working in a prison kitchen derives any satisfaction from doing his job well or from obtaining the vocational qualifications available to him. The fact that a prisoner is required to serve part of his sentence in prison, and to undertake useful work there for nominal wages, binds him into a closer relationship with the prison service than would be the case for an employee. It strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for imposing vicarious liability"

Congratulations on completing The Law Simplified course on the Law of Tort!

If you are interested in further learning and taking your 'Pass' to an 'Ace', watch this video and see how other students have benefited from the Tutoring Masterclass Programme