• Duty of care
• Breach of the duty of care
• That the breach of duty of care caused harm
• The harm sustained was forseeable

• Denial
• No duty owed
• The duty owed was not breached
• The harm did not rise from the breach
• The claimant was partly to blame
• Volenti non fit injuria

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

• duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can foresee are likely to affect your neighbour.

Caparo v Dickman 1990 - 3 stage test

• Proximity
• Reasonable Foreseeability
• Is it fair, reasonable and just to impose a duty?

Example, Hillsborough Disaster in 1989.

Wilsons Clyde Coal v English

• A safe place of work
• A safe system of working
• Competent personnel
• Appropriate IITS
• Safe appliances and plant

Latimer v AEC Ltd(1953)

• A heavy rainstorm flooded the factory making the floor oily. Employer put down sawdust and did everything reasonably practicable to deal with situation. Latimer slipped regardless and injured himself. He lost his claim that a safe place of work was not provided since everything reasonably practicable had been done.

General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas (1953)

•  A dangerous practice was overlooked resulting in injury. Lord Reid stated; it to be a fault of the employer, as he was aware of dangerous work systems and did nothing to change it. Employer failed to provide a safe system of work.

Davie v New Merton Board Mills (1959)

• Davie was injured after a chisel broke whilst he was using it. He lost his claim for negligence in failing to provide safe plant and equipment as the employer would not have been able to know the equipment was defective, it was sourced from a reputatble manufacturer and the incident was not foreseeable.

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co (1957)

• Management were aware of member of staff playing practical jokes and issued reprimands and warnings to him however they failed to stop it before Hudson became injured.

• The defendant was obligated by the SD
• The claimaint was within class of persons that statue applies
• The statue was breached
• The breach of statute caused the harm
• The harm was the sort the statute aimed to prevent.

• Stature barred - eg no action on S2-8 of HASAWA due to S47.
• No breach of duty
• Duty was not owed
• Harm not covered by statute
• Breach did not cause loss - Corn v Weirs Glass (1960)

Two types of damages:

General - not easily quantifiable i.e., injury to health, personal inconvenience etc.

Special - hospital fees, loss of earnings etc.

Joint and Several Liabilities

 Joint Tortfeasors

 Lister v Romford Cold Storage

If more than one party is responsible for the negligent act they are all held individually liable for full damages. After successful claim, damages can be claimed from one party. That party may then claim contributions from the other parties also liable.

1. Letter of claim sent to prospective defendant.

2. Defendants reply within 21 days identifying their insurer.

3. Investigation - Admit or deny liability.

4. Proceedings, defence letter providing facts admitted, facts denied and defendants verion of eventa

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

National Railway Board v Herrington

Duty to tresspassers owed when;

• Occupier knows tresspassers are gaining access
• Occupier is aware of a danger.
•  The risk is one which the occupier must offer some protection to.