Category Archives: Duty of Care

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Torts

Anns v Merton LBC [1977] UKHL 4

ON 12 MAY 1977, the House of Lords delivered Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728.

Anns and others were tenants in a block of flats in which were discovered to have structural defects. The council of Merton were responsible for inspecting the depth of the foundations during the construction of the building. The tenants therefore sued the council and the builder for negligence.

The council were held to owe a duty of care to the tenants to ensure the foundations were of the correct depth. The case is historically significant by how it broadened the way in which the courts determined if there was a duty of care.

The court introduced a two stage test to determine the scope of the duty of care, though this test is no longer followed in Australia: see Council of the Shire of Sutherland v Heyman [1985] HCA 41; (1985) 157 CLR 424 (4 July 1985).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1977/4.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, Immunities, LAW FIRM, Nuisance, Occupiers Liability, Personal Injury, Statutory Authorities

Benning v Wong [1969] HCA 58

ON 3 DECEMBER 1969, the High Court of Australia delivered Benning v Wong [1969] HCA 58; (1969) 122 CLR 249 (3 December 1969).

Per Barwick CJ:

“In the construction of statutes authorizing the performance of works, there are cardinal rules, the observance of which is fundamental to our system of law. Firstly, the statute will not be construed to authorize an interference with common law rights without compensation without unambiguous and compelling language. It is for the Parliament to make its will in this respect plain. It is not for the courts to search out implications which so displace or reduce common law rights. Secondly, a statute only authorizes those acts which it expressly nominates and those acts and matters which are necessarily incidental to the acts so expressly authorized or to their execution. Thirdly, a statute which authorizes the doing of an act or the performance of a work in general only authorizes it to be done in a careful manner. If the authority is to extend to a careless execution of an authorized act, the plainest of language must be used.” (at 256)

“There is no magic in the words “statutory authority”. Whether or not a statute exonerates from a liability in tort, which in the absence of the statute would be incurred, depends on the terms of the statute and their effect in the particular case. The question is always one of statutory construction… The mere fact that a statute makes it lawful for a man to bring something to a place and accumulate it there does not to my mind exonerate him from liabilities which the law imposes in consequence of his doing so…

When a statute authorizes the carrying on of an activity which cannot be carried on without creating a nuisance or doing other harm, the nuisance or harm, to the extent that it is an inevitable concomitant of doing the authorized work, is itself made lawful ; and its occurrence will therefore create no liability, except for such compensation, if any, as is provided for in the authorizing statute or by some other relevant enactment. But, except where Parliament has prescribed the place where and the method by which the work is to be done, the authorized undertaker must in choosing the place, time, manner, method, equipment and appliances for the conduct of his operations, use due skill and care and act reasonably to avoid avoidable harm.” (at 308-9)

“…a person who has to justify his otherwise tortious act by an assertion of statutory authority must show as part of this justification in defence that he did the authorised act skilfully and carefully …” (at 381)

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Professional negligence

Sydney Solicitors

SYDNEY SOLICITORS. ON 11 NOVEMBER 1968, the High Court of Australia delivered Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1968] HCA 74; (1968) 122 CLR 556 (11 November 1968).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1968/74.html

The High Court of Australia first recognised liability for negligent misstatement.

Barwick CJ at 572 stated that there is a duty of care “whenever a person gives information or advice to another … upon a serious matter … and the relationship … arising out of the circumstances is such that on the one hand the speaker realizes or ought to realize that he is being trusted … to give the best of his information or advice as a basis for action on the part of the other party and it is reasonable in the circumstances for the other party to seek or accept and in either case to act upon that information and advice”.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Professional negligence

Sydney Lawyers

SYDNEY LAWYERS. ON 11 NOVEMBER 1968, the High Court of Australia delivered Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1968] HCA 74; (1968) 122 CLR 556 (11 November 1968).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1968/74.html

The High Court of Australia first recognised liability for negligent misstatement.

Barwick CJ at 572 stated that there is a duty of care “whenever a person gives information or advice to another … upon a serious matter … and the relationship … arising out of the circumstances is such that on the one hand the speaker realizes or ought to realize that he is being trusted … to give the best of his information or advice as a basis for action on the part of the other party and it is reasonable in the circumstances for the other party to seek or accept and in either case to act upon that information and advice”.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Professional negligence

Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1969] HCA 74

ON 11 NOVEMBER 1968, the High Court of Australia delivered Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1968] HCA 74; (1968) 122 CLR 556 (11 November 1968).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1968/74.html

The High Court of Australia first recognised liability for negligent misstatement.

Barwick CJ at 572 stated that there is a duty of care “whenever a person gives information or advice to another … upon a serious matter … and the relationship … arising out of the circumstances is such that on the one hand the speaker realizes or ought to realize that he is being trusted … to give the best of his information or advice as a basis for action on the part of the other party and it is reasonable in the circumstances for the other party to seek or accept and in either case to act upon that information and advice”.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Professional negligence

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1963] UKHL

ON 28 MAY 1963, the House of Lords delivered Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners a Ltd [1964] AC 465; [1963] UKHL (28 May 1963).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1963/4.html

A negligent, although honest representation, may give rise to an action for damages for financial loss even if there was no contract between the advisor and the advisee and no fiduciary relationship. The law will imply a duty of care when the advisee seeks information from the advisor who has a special skill and where the advisee trusts the advisor to exercise due care, and that the advisor knew or ought to have known that reliance was being placed upon his skill and judgment.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence

Chapman v Hearse [1961] HCA 46

ON 8 AUGUST 1961, the High Court of Australia delivered Chapman v Hearse [1961] HCA 46; (1961) 106 CLR 112 (8 August 1961).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1961/46.html

Chapman negligently drove his vehicle causing it to collide with another vehicle and overturn. Chapman was ejected from his vehicle and came to rest unconscious on the roadway. Dr Cherry came to Chapman’s assistance but was struck and fatally injured by a vehicle driven by Hearse who had negligently failed to see him.

The executor or the estate of Dr Cherry sued Hearse in the Supreme Court of South Australia for damages arising from the doctor’s death.

The Chief Justice of the South Australian Supreme Court found Hearse to be liable, ordering him to pay damages but also ordered that Chapman should contribute one quarter of that sum.

Chapman appealed to the South Australian Court of Appeal, who dismissed the appeal.

Chapman appealed against the decision in the High Court, arguing that (1) Chapman owed Dr Cherry no duty of care as it was not reasonably foreseeable (2) Dr Cherry’s death was caused solely by the negligence of Hearse and (3) the damage was to remote in any case.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. On the questions of duty and remoteness, the High Court held that Chapman did owe Dr Cherry a duty of care as it was “sufficient in the circumstances of this case to ask whether a consequence of the same general character as that which followed was reasonably foreseeable as one not unlikely to follow a collision between two vehicles on a dark wet night upon a busy highway”. In essence, the court held that one is liable for all damage which is of the same general nature as that which could be reasonably foreseen.

On the question of causation, the court held that a wrongful intervening act does not of itself break the chain of causation as long as the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, Employer's liability, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Personal Injury

Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 42

ON 10 AUGUST 1956, the High Court of Australia delivered Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 42; (1956) 96 CLR 18 (10 August 1956).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1956/42.html

The duty of care of a reasonably prudent employer is “a duty to take reasonble care to avoid exposing the employees to unnecessary risks of injury” (per Dixon CJ and Kitto J at 25) and “a duty to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to provide a safe system of working” (per Fullagar J at 34).

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, United Kingdom

Bolton v Stone [1951] UKHL 2

ON 10 MAY 1951, the House of Lords delivered Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850; [1951] 1 All ER 1078; [1951] UKHL 2 (10 May 1951).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1951/2.html

Liability does not extend to damage caused by a certain act or omission unless the possibility of causing the damage was reasonably foreseeable at the time.

The damage is not reasonably foreseeable if the likelihood of it happening involves a risk so small that a reasonable person would feel justified in disregarding it.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

 

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence

Bourhill v Young [1942] UKHL 5

ON 5 AUGUST 1942, the House of Lords delivered Bourhill v Young [1942] UKHL 5 (5 August 1942).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1942/5.html

A car and motorcycle collided near a tram causing fatal injuries to the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist was travelling at excessive speed and was at fault. A passenger on the tram heard the sound of the collision but saw nothing. She was startled by the noise of the collision, suffering nervous shock, though she was not in immediate physical injury herself. She observed blood on the roadway after the motorcyclists body had been removed. She later suffered a miscarriage. She claimed damages including losses to her business arising from the nervous shock.

The House of Lords held that the motorcyclist was not guilty of negligence as he did not owe a duty of care to the tram passenger as he could not have reasonably foreseen the likelihood that anyone placed as her (in a position of apparent safety) could have been affected in such a manner.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088