Discover published sets by community

In 1856, a water main burst, causing damage to Blyth's property. The court held that Birmingham Waterworks had not breached their duty because they had adhered to the standard of a reasonable person. The court established that negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

This 1957 case concerns medical negligence and established the 'Bolam test' for breach of duty in professional negligence: a professional is not guilty of negligence if they have acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men.

Following a flood, AEC Ltd put down sawdust and warned workers, but did not close the factory. Latimer slipped and was injured. The court ruled there was no breach of duty by the employer, as the measures taken were reasonable and the accident was not foreseeable.

A 1998 case where two 15-year-old girls' play-turned-fight resulted in one losing sight in one eye. The court held that the standard of care owing by a child is that of a reasonable child of the same age, not of a 'reasonable person'.

This 1932 case is foundational in establishing the modern concept of negligence, giving rise to the duty of care. Donoghue was ill after drinking a ginger beer that had a decomposed snail. The manufacturer, Stevenson, was found to have breached the duty of care owed to Donoghue.

A 1990 case that established a three-part test for duty of care: foreseeability of damage, a 'sufficiently proximate' relationship between the defendant and claimant, and that it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty. Caparo purchased shares based on an inaccurate audit report and argued the auditors owed them a duty of care.

In this 1837 case, the defendant's haystack caught fire due to his negligence. The defendant had been warned of the risk but chose to act on his own belief that it was fine. The court rejected the subjective standard of 'the best of my judgment' in favor of an objective standard.

Weston, a learner driver, crashed the car while Nettleship was instructing her, causing him injury. The court held that drivers must meet the standard of the average competent driver and that Weston had breached this duty, regardless of her learner status.

In 1954, a firefighter, Watt, was injured when a jack fell on him during transit in a situation of emergency. The court decided that the importance of the emergency justified taking such a risk, so the employer did not breach any duty of care.

Two patients were paralyzed following spinal anaesthetic procedures. Unknown to the doctors, the anaesthetic became contaminated. At the time of the operations, the risk of contamination was unknown, so the court held that the doctors had not breached their duty of care.

A 1951 case where an employee was blinded in one eye at work due to lack of goggles. The court found that the employer breached their duty by failing to provide goggles, especially because the employee only had one good eye; thus they should have taken special precautions.

In 1865, a worker was injured by falling bags of sugar. The court established the principle of res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself'), shifting the burden of proof to the defendants since the injury could not have happened without negligence on their part.

In 1951, a cricket ball hit Stone, who was outside her home, causing injuries. Bolton's cricket club was not found to be negligent as the risk of harm was considered too remote, given the precautions they had taken.

In 1969, the hospital's negligence was not found to be the cause of Barnett’s death. Despite the duty of care being breached when a doctor failed to attend to Barnett, it would not have avoided the outcome due to the nature of his illness (arsenic poisoning).