Latimer v AEC Ltd

A factory floor was dangerously slippery following flooding. The employer put down sawdust but did not have enough to cover the whole floor. Employee was injured when he slipped on an uncovered patch. There would be no liability as the employer had done what was reasonable in the circumstances to protect against the risk (Quadrant of breach factors).

Knowles v Liverpool County Council

Claimant injured finger when a flagstone that he was carrying broke due to an inherent defect in its manufacture. The employer argued 1) that he could not have known about the defect so should not be liable and 2) that a flagstone was not equipment. The HoL held that section 1(1)(b) of the Employers Liability Act 1969 made it clear that the employer would be liable for defects that were not obvious or visible and which were caused by a third party such as a manufacturer. Further, the broad definition of equipment would encompass 'any article' of whatever kind furnished by the employer for the purpose of his business.

Bolton v Stone
Cricket ball hit Miss Stone, hit 100 yards , cleared fence of cricket club. Application of quadrant of factors to test for breach of duty : - low probability of breach occurring, if injury were to occur a medium to high injury. would have been very costly to implement any precautionary steps, would have highly compromised the social and economic benefits. Therefore held there had been no breach of duty

Paris v Stepney BC
One-eyed mechanic - chip of metal flew up and entered his good eye blinding him. Quadrant of factors proved breach. very cheap to provide precautionary measures.

Watt v Hertfordshire
MV accident and fire brigade accident fire brigade asked to respond- lifting jack in fire brigade vehicle shifted when braking suddenly and hit one of the firemen. No breach as only one of the quadrant factors was breached .

Tomlison v Congleton
Young man disobeyed 'no swimming signs', dived headfirst into lake, hit his head on sandy bottom, tetraplegia resulted. No breach because the the risks were very low and the social and economic utility of imposing restrictions would prove highly restrictive.

Collins williamson v Silverlink train
Passenger mucking around on platform late at night, drunk, train left platform- too close, fell between train and platform- leg partially amputed. No systemic breach as it was an extremely low risk of it happening, and precautionary measures would be very high.

Harris v birkenhead Corporation
The council was the occupier of an empty house even though it had not taken physical possession as it had served a notice of compulsory purchase on the owner thus was in legal control of the property.

Lowry v Walker
A path across the defendant's field was used as a short cut to the railway station by several people. The defendant was aware of this and objected to it but never took active steps to prevent its occurrence. Without warning, D put a wild horse in the field which attacked claimant. It was held that the Defendant's awareness of the presence of people on his land and his failure to stop or limit their actions amounted to an implied license to enter the property.

Phipps v Rochester Corp
A five-year- old child played on land under development by local council, on one occasion he fell down a trench dug by council. Was held that the primary responsibility of a parent was for the child, it was not for the occupier to prevent against unforeseeable risks, and no responsible parent would have let their children play on the building site.

Glasgow Corp v Taylor
A seven year old child died after eating poisonous berries in a public park. The plants were fenced off but there were no notices warning that the berries were poisonous.It was held that the plants did not present an obvious risk of danger, so council should have taken measures to draw attention to the concealed danger that they represented. Court also commeented that an occupier who is aware that something on his land would act as an allurement to children must take greater care to protect against this risk involved.

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

Claimant was an 11 year old who was seriously injured falling from fire escape that ran up three storeys of a hospita building. At trial the claimant accepted that he was aware that the fire escape was dangerous and that he should not have been climing upon it. Trial judge found NHS trust liable on the basis that the state of the premises posed a danger; the respondent was aware that children played in the hiospital grounds and so should have guarded against the danger posed by the fire escape.CA overturned the finding at first instance on the basis that the occupiers liability act 1984 required that injury be caused by the danger presented by the state of the building not that injury be caused by the stat eof the building.

Tomlinson v Congleton BC
Lord Hobhouse-Pursuit of an unrestrained culture of blame and compensation has many evil consequences and one is certainly the interference with the liberty of the citizen. Of course there is some risk of accidents arising out of excitement of the young.

Cambridge water co v Eastern Counties Leather
The defendant company was a leather manufacturer which used chemical solvents in the tanning process,. The chemicals were stored in drums on the defendant's premises. Following new EU regulations, tests were carried out on the claimant's water and it was found to be polluted by the chemicals from the tannery as spillages had leaked into the water. At first instance the claim based on Rylands v Fletcher was dismissed on the basis that there was not a non-natural use of land due to the amount of time that the tannery had been in operation and the industrial area it was located. the CA rejected this argument and held that the storage of chemicals was a non-natural use of land and found the defendant liable for the damage caused on a strict liability basis. Lord Goff examined the precise wording of Blackburn J in Ryalnds v Fletcher identifying phrases such as 'anything likely to do mischief if it escapes'. Something he knows to be mischievious, and liability for natural and anticipated consequences as evidence that Rylands v Fletcher required at at least foreseeability of the risk' as a prerequisite to recovery of damages. He went on to say that the tort was strict liability only in the sense that the defendant would be liable for the consequences of escape even if he had taken steps to prevent it occurring. Lord Goff made reference to Wagon Mound and concluded that Rylands v Fletcher required foreseeability by the defendant of the relevant type of damage. - Applying this principle Din cambridge water was not liable.

	Created by Falaq Lall about 10 years ago

Note on Cases Tort 2 , created by Falaq Lall on 07/05/2014.

Cases Tort 2