Introduction to Tort

Law
Cases
Donoghue v. Stevenson
[1932] AC 562; House of Lords

Facts:
Mrs Donoghue ordered a bottle of ginger beer in a café.
The bottle was made of opaque glass so she could not see
that it contained a decomposing snail. She had drunk most
of the beer before she detected the snail and consequently
felt ill.
Mrs Donoghue sued Mr Stevenson, the ginger beer’s
manufacturer, for negligence.

ginger beer café Mrs Donoghue

manufacturer
Stevenson
claim
Elizabeth O´Leary
Donoghue v. Stevenson
[1932] AC 562; House of Lords

Issue:
Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the
consumers of his products?

Decision:
Yes.
Manufacturers of goods that are made to be consumed
owe a duty to take reasonable care to the ultimate
consumer - based on two–part test

Elizabeth O´Leary
Caparo v. Dickman
[1990] 2 AC 605; House of Lords

Facts:
Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity plc because
Dickman, an accountancy firm, had negligently stated that
Fidelity had profits of ₤ 1,3 million when in fact it had made a
loss of ₤ 465,000. Caparo took over Fidelity and found out
that it was much less valuable than expected based on the
accounts certified by Dickman.
claim
Dickman: „₤ 1,300,000” Caparo

Fidelity
Reality: - ₤ 465,000

Elizabeth O´Leary
Caparo v. Dickman
[1990] 2 AC 605; House of Lords

Issue:
Did the accountancy firm Dickman owe Caparo a duty
of care?
Decision:
No.
Dickman did not certify the accounts in order to give
investment advice. Besides, they did not even know Caparo
when they made their statements about Fidelity’s profits.
There cannot be a duty owed to an indeterminate class of
people like potential investors.Three-part test introduced.

Elizabeth O´Leary
Hedley Byrne v. Heller
[1964] AC 465; House of Lords

Facts:
An advertising agency (Hedley Byrne) were given a report
from a client’s bank (Heller) on the client’s creditworthiness
which later proved to be incorrectly positive. Hedley Byrne
relied on this statement, the client went into liquidation and
Hedley Byrne lost ₤ 17,000 on contracts.
They sued Heller for negligence.

Heller
(client‘s bank)

Hedley Byrne
client

Elizabeth O´Leary
Hedley Byrne v. Heller
[1964] AC 465; House of Lords

Issue:
Does the duty of care exist in relation to statements
that cause pure economic loss?
Decision:
Yes.
There can be a duty of care concerning careless statements
that cause economic loss.
This is the case if there is a special relationship between the
parties and if it was reasonable to rely on this statement.

Elizabeth O´Leary
Lord Oliver`s (CA) conclusions from
Hedley Byrne
 Purpose for which statement was made
 Purpose for which statement was communicated
 The relationship between the adviser, the advisee and
any relevant third party
 The size of any class to which the advisee belongs
 The state of knowledge of the adviser
 Reliance by the advisee

Elizabeth O´Leary
White v. Jones [1995] UKHL 5; House of Lords

Facts:
Mr White fell out with his two daughters and therefore cut
them out of his will. Soon they reconciled and Mr White
informed his solicitor, Mr Jones, that he would like to change
the will again so that his daughters would each be given
₤ 9,000 after his death. Two months later he died, but Mr
Jones had not yet completed the necessary work, so the old
will was still valid. As a result Mr White’s daughters did not
receive their ₤ 9,000 each. Mr White
new will dies

preparing the will

Mr Jones
claim
Elizabeth O´Leary
White v. Jones [1995] UKHL 5; House of Lords

Issue:
Did Mr Jones owe Mr White’s daughters a duty of care?

Decision:
Yes.
A solicitor’s responsibility to a testator can be extended to
the heirs as it is reasonably foreseeable that they could
suffer economic loss if the will is not executed correctly and
in a timely manner.

Elizabeth O´Leary
Barrett v. MOD
[1995] 1 WLR 1217

Facts:
The claimant’s husband, Mr Barrett, was in the Navy
stationed at a naval base in Norway. On a Friday night
when he was off duty he drunk himself into a coma at a bar
provided at the naval base. A Petty officer was told to look
after him, yet eventually he was found dead in his bunk.
The widow claims damages against the Ministry of Defence
(MOD).

Ministry of Defence widow

claim

Elizabeth O´Leary
Barrett v. MOD
[1995] 1 WLR 1217

Issue:
Does the MOD owe a duty of care to protect off-duty
officers?

Decision:
Not in general. However, in this case a duty of care
arose when the Petty officer assumed responsibility for
him by taking care of the drunk Mr Barrett. By failing to
look properly after the deceased, he acted negligently.

Elizabeth O´Leary
Corr v. IBC Vehicles Ltd
[2008] UKHL 13

Facts:
Mr Corr, a maintenance engineer, had a work accident
after which he suffered from disfiguration, headaches and
tinnitus. As a result, he got a depression and eventually
committed suicide. His wife sued IBC for damages. The
company argued that the damages were too remote.

Elizabeth O´Leary
Corr v. IBC Vehicles Ltd
[2008] UKHL 13

Issue:
Are IBC liable for Mr Corr’s suicide or are the damages
too remote?

Decision:
The employer owed Mr Corr a duty of care concerning
psychological as well as physical injury. Mr Corr would
not have killed himself if he had not been injured
because of the employer’s breach of this duty. It was
therefore reasonably foreseeable and the damages fall
into the scope of IBC’s duty of care.

Elizabeth O´Leary
Gray v. Thames Trains
[2009] UKHL 33

Facts:
Mr Gray was involved in a train crash caused by Thames
Trains‘ negligence and as a result suffered from a post-
traumatic stress disorder. One night after the crash Mr Gray
stabbed a man to death. He was convicted of manslaughter
on the grounds of diminished responsibility and detained in
hospital. He claims damages against Thames Trains for his
loss of earnings because of his conviction and detention.

Thames Trains Mr Gray

claim
Elizabeth O´Leary
Gray v. Thames Trains
[2009] UKHL 33

Issue:
Can Mr Gray claim for loss of earnings resulting
from his conviction for manslaughter?

Decision:
No. A person cannot recover damages which are a
result from a sentence imposed on them for a criminal
act. Mr Gray‘s loss of earnings resulted from his own
criminal act (ex turpi causa) and can therefore not be
claimed by him.

Elizabeth O´Leary
Smith v. Leech Brain
[1962] 2 QB 405

Facts:
Mr Smith worked as a galvaniser at Leech Brain & Co. Ltd.
One day when working with molten metal he burned his lip
which was a result of his employer‘s negligence. The lip
had contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by
the burn. He developed cancer and died three years later.
His widow, Mrs Smith, sues Leech Brain for damages.

Leech Brain Mr Smith widow

claim

Elizabeth O´Leary
Smith v. Leech Brain
[1962] 2 QB 405

Issue:
Is Leech Brain liable for his death although Mr Smith
had a predisposition to cancer?

Decision:
Yes. The injury was a foreseeable result of Leech
Brain’s negligence. His predisposition did not matter
as the eggshell skull rule applies and the defendant
has to take the victim as they find it, in this case with
their pre-cancerous cells.

Elizabeth O´Leary
Page v. Smith
[1995] UKHL 7

Facts:
Mr Page got involved in a car accident with Mr Smith which
left him physically unhurt but made him suffer from chronic
fatigue syndrom so he could not do his job as a teacher
anymore. He sued Mr Smith for damages, who argued that
this psychiatric damage was not foreseeable.

Elizabeth O´Leary
Page v. Smith
[1995] UKHL 7

Issue:
Is Mr Smith liable for the psychiatric damage?

Decision:
Yes. It was reasonably foreseeable that Mr Smith’s
negligent behaviour would cause physical or
psychiatric damages. That the extent of the damage
was unforeseeable is irrelevant.

Elizabeth O´Leary