Law - Chapter 5 cases


Published on

Case summary & court held

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
1 Comment
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Law - Chapter 5 cases

  1. 1. Winterbottom v Wright – Duty of Care<br />Facts:<br />Plaintiff, a mail coach driver, was seriously injured when a vehicle broke down due to lack of repair. Defendant had contracted with the Postmaster General to keep the coach in safe and secure condition. Defendant failed to comply with this promise, resulting in Plaintiff’s injuries.<br />TCH:<br />The contract was between the defendant and the Postmaster and not the plaintiff. If similar plaintiffs were allowed to sue there would be unlimited actions. The operation of contracts should be confined to those who entered into them. The defendant did not injure the public, nor create a public nuisance, therefore he is not liable. There is no public duty, a carrier cannot be sued unless a duty existed between the defendant and plaintiff.<br />Donoghue v Stevenson – Duty of Care<br />Facts:<br />Donoghue went to a café with friend and drank ginger beer which had been manufactured by Stevenson. That caused Donoghue suffered from nervous shock and gastro-enteritis.<br />TCH:<br />Stevenson owed Mrs. Donoghue a duty of care. Stevenson must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably foresee would likely to injure other.<br />Grant v Australian Knitting Mills – Duty of Care - Product<br />Facts:<br />Dr Grant bought two sets of full body underwear, made by AKM. After wearing it, he developed a severe skin disorder and was hospitalized for a year. This is caused by bisulphate of sofa, a chemical used to treat wool. It had not been properly rinsed from the clothing.<br />TCH:<br />The underwear was made of the purposes of apparel as worn by plaintiff. These facts establish a duty of care between plaintiff and manufacturer. There had been a breach of manufacturer’s duty and so it is liable for damages for its negligence. Additionally, the retailers were liable in contracts for breaches of statutorily implied warranties.<br />Perre v Apand – Duty of Care<br />Facts:<br />The claim was brought by the Perre family, potato growers in the Riverland whose major sources of profit were lucrative contracts to supply potatoes to Western Australia. Seed potatoes supplied by Apand to a farm owned by the Sparnons near the Perre’s land introduced a potato disease, bacterial wilt, onto the Spanons’ property. The disease did not spread to the Perre’s land, but because Western Australia regulations forbid the importation of potatoes grown within 20 kilometers of an outbreak of bacterial wilt for 5 years after the outbreak, the Perres lost all their lucrative potato supply contracts to Western Australia.<br />TCH:<br />The defendant will owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, Perre if the act or omission to act was foreseeable and the plaintiff was reliant on the defendant.<br />Bolton v Stone – Breach of duty – Standard of Care<br />Facts:<br />During a cricket match a batsman hit a ball which struck and injured the plaintiff who was standing on a highway adjoining the ground.<br />TCH:<br />In this case, the risk of a ball escaping the field was so low that a reasonable person would not have taken further precautions. Unless one has committed acts that are unreasonable, he has not breached a duty to his neighbor. Therefore, the plaintiff (Stone) should not be able to recover from defendant.<br />Daniels v White<br />Facts:<br />A bottle of lemonade was bought, but on drinking it the plaintiff felt a burning sensation. The lemonade as found to contain a chemical, and compensation was available based upon Donoghue v Stevenson.<br />TCH:<br /><ul><li>The duty owed by the manufacturers to the consumers was not to ensure that their goods were perfect, but merely to take reasonable care to see that no injury was done to the consumer or ultimate purchaser, and this duty they had completely fulfilled.
  2. 2. The husband did not, in the circumstances, rely upon the skill or judgment of the retailer, and could not recover under the Sale of Goods Act 1893, s 14(1), but there was a sale by description, and, therefore, a breach of the implied condition that the goods should be of merchantable quality, and he could recover under the Sale of Goods Acts 1893, s 14(2).</li></ul>Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd<br />Facts: <br />The plaintiff’s husband was killed when he had an epileptic fit and fell from a painting platform 20 feet above the ground. The platform was unsafe, because it did not comply with the statutory safety regulations, but the plaintiff’s husband had also been negligent in not informing his employer that his doctor had forbidden him to work at heights because he could not suffer a fit and then fall. <br />TCH:<br />Cork’s death was caused, in equal measure, by both his own negligence and also the employer’s failure to comply with safety standards.<br />Dietrich v Northampton <br />Facts:<br />The pregnant mother slipped on a defect in a highway of Northampton, Massachusetts, and fell. At the time, she was between four and five months along in pregnancy. Her fall caused a miscarriage and the child, “although not directly injured, unless by a communication of the shock to the mother,” was too little advanced in fetal life to survive premature birth. There was testimony, however, based upon observing motion in its limbs, that it did live for ten or fifteen minutes.<br />TCH:<br />No claim could be made because the child was part of its mother in the womb and did not possess the separate existence necessary to stand as a plaintiff in court. <br />Watt v Rama<br />Facts:<br />A child sued for damages for injuries received as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred while she was in utero.<br />TCH:<br />A child who at or after birth suffered injuries caused by the negligence of another in driving his motor vehicle, before the child was born, was entitled to sue the driver for negligence.<br />Distillers v Thompson<br />Facts:<br />TCH:<br />Liable for bodily injury.<br />