ON 16 JUNE 1956, the High Court of Australia delivered Holloway v McFeeters [1956] HCA 25; (1956) 94 CLR 470 (6 June 1956).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/94clr470.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Category Archives: Negligence
Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19
ON 4 April 1952, the High Court of Australia delivered Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19; (1952) 85 CLR 352 (4 April 1952).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1952/19.html
“In questions of this sort, where direct proof is not available, it is enough if the circumstances appearing in evidence give rise to a reasonable and definite inference: they must do more than give rise to conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability so that the choice between them is mere matter of conjecture: see per Lord Robson, Richard Evans & Co. Ltd. v. Astley (1911) AC 674, at p 687. But if circumstances are proved in which it is reasonable to find a balance of probabilities in favour of the conclusion sought then, though the conclusion may fall short of certainty, it is not to be regarded as a mere conjecture or surmise: cf. per Lord Loreburn (1911) AC, at p 678″. (at p358)”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Alford v Magee [1952] HCA 3
ON 5 MARCH 1952, the High Court of Australia delivered Alford v Magee [1952] HCA 3; (1952) 85 CLR 437 (5 March 1952).
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
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.
1300 00 2088
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.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2
ON 21 OCTOBER 1935, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2 (21 October 1935).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1935/2.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35
ON 18 AUGUST 1933, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35; (1933) 50 CLR 387 (18 August 1933).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1933/35.html
Per Dixon J at 418:
‘The condition that goods are of merchantable quality requires that they should be in such an actual state that a buyer fully acquainted with the facts and, therefore, knowing what hidden defects exist and not being limited to their apparent condition would buy them without abatement of the price obtainable for such goods if in reasonably sound order and condition and without special terms.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
ON 26 MAY 1932, the House of Lords delivered Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562; [1932] UKHL 100 (26 May 1932).
ww.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html
Mrs Donoghue suffered shock and severe gastro enteritis after consuming a bottle of ginger beer which contained the decomposed remains of a snail. The bottle had been purchased by her friend. She sought damages from the manufacturer without having a contractual relationship with them.
Mrs Donoghue was awarded damages as the court ruled that the manufacturer owed her a duty to take reasonable care and that duty existed independently of the contract.
The case established the tort of negligence.
Per Lord Atkin:
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Addie v Dumbreck [1929] UKHL 3
ON THIS DAY in 1929, the House of Lords delivered Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358; UKHL 3 (25 February 1929).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1929/1929_SC_HL_51.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Smith v Charles Baker & Sons [1891] UKHL 2
ON 21 JULY 1891, the House of Lords delivered Smith v Charles Baker & Sons [1891] UKHL 2 (21 July 1891).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1891/2.html
The English Court of Appeal had held that a railway worker could not recover damages for his injuries because he had voluntarily assumed the risk (volenti non fit injuria).
On appeal, the House of Lords held that the worker was not barred from recovery by the mere fact that he continued to work with the knowledge of the risk or danger. Whether or not the worker has assented to the risk is a question of fact not law.
The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision, holding that there was no evidence to find that the worker consented to the particular risk that caused his injuries.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 