Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 4
Hedley Bryne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 6
Rule – Negligent Misstatement 6
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd [1970] AC 1004 (HL) 9
Redeveloping the duty of care test 11
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] ACT 728 11
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and Others [1990] 2 AC 605 12
Rule: assessing the duty of care in novel situations 14
The status quo in New Zealand 17
Attorney-General v Carter [2003] 2 NZLR 160 17
Assumption of responsibility 17
The NZ approach to duty of care arising from negligent misstatements 18
Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2005] 1 NZLR 324 19
Couch v Attorney-General [2008] 3 NZLR 725 21
North Shore City Council v Attorney General [2012] NZSC 49 23
Examining the duty of care analysis 25
Palsgraf v Long Island Railway Co, 248 N.Y. 339 (1928) 25
Application of the analysis (Categories) 26
Positive acts causing physical damage 26
Mobil Oil Hong Kong Ltd v Hong Kong United Dockyards Ltd [1991] 1 Lloyds LR 309 (PC) 26
Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Ltd [1996] 1 AC 211 27
Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923 28
van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit [2000] 1 NZLR 179 30
Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321 32
Scott Group Ltd v McFarlane [1978] 1 NZLR 533 (NZCA) 35
Connell v Odlum [1993] 2 NZLR 257 37
Body Corporate 207624 v North Shore City Council (Spencer on Byron) [2013] 2 NZLR 297 39
X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 42
Other Elements of Negligence 45
Standard of Care and Breach 45
Overseas Tankship Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 617 45
Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645 47
Bannerman, Brydone Folster & Co v Murray [1972] NZLR 411 49
Wilson & Horton Ltd v Attorney-General [1997] 2NZLR 513 50
Lecture 36: (11/08/20)
Four elements:
Duty of care
The defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care
Breach
The defendant breaches their duty of care and were careless/unreasonable in doing so.
Causation
The defendant’s breach then caused damage to the plaintiff
Damages
Because of the breach, the plaintiff has suffered loss and incurred costs that they should not be liable for.
If there are no costs incurred by the plaintiff, there is no claim for negligence.
Lecture 37: (14/08/20)
Originally, negligence comes from 12th to 14th Century Trespass
In the 12th century, you could trespass if there was a direct and forcible interference with a person or land.
In the 13th century, two writs developed – a writ of trespass to the person and one of ‘trespass on the case’.
In the 14th century, there was a separation of trespass to the person, and ‘trespass on the case’ (like negligence).
Trespass to the person – assault, battery, wrongful imprisonment.
There must be directness
There must be fault – interference
The plaintiff does not necessarily need to prove damages – strict liability.
Trespass on the case – nuisance and negligence
Can be direct or indirect
There can be liability without an intention to interfere
The plaintiff must prove damages.
The plaintiff alleged that she visited a café with a friend and consumed a tumbler-full of ginger beer, poured from an opaque bottle, purchased by her friend from the owner of the café.
A portion of the ginger beer was poured into a glass which was drunk by Donoghue – when her friend poured the remainder of the bottle, a decomposed snail floated out of the bottle.
Donoghue claimed that she felt ill from this sight, complaining of abdominal pain/
She was subsequently diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis (physical harm) and mental shock (psychiatric harm).
The plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the ginger beer in tort.
The question before the House of Lords was whether if the allegations could be proved, the manufacturer owed any obligation of care to the consumer of their products:
If there is a contractual basis between a consumer of a product and a manufacturer, negligence is not needed.
Here, there was no contractual relationship between both parties, because Donoghue’s friend bought the ginger beer and it was not bought from the manufacturer directly.
The minority held that there was no duty, as the manufacturer was only liable in contract to which the plaintiff is not a party of – privity of contract.
Lord Atkin for the majority recognised that the case was irrelevant to privity of contract as the plaintiff was not suing on the contract but for the defendant’s negligent conduct:
“a duty to take due care arises when a person or property of one was in such proximity to the person or property of another than, if due care was not taken, damage might be done by the one to the other.” – Lord Atkin at 581.
An appropriate basis for imposing a legal duty to take care – proximity and foreseeability.
General public sentiment dictates that a moral wrongdoer should pay for their carelessness which causes damage:
“Love thy neighbour” translates to “you must not injure your neighbour” in law.
If Mr. Stevenson had not taken reasonable care...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.