A horse, startled by an unknown cause, bolted from its field onto a road and collided with the claimant's car, causing injury. The House of Lords held the keepers strictly liable under the Animals Act 1971, establishing a wide interpretation of liability. Facts The appellants, Mr and Mrs Henley, were keepers of several horses in a field adjacent to a main road. The field was secured by fencing and an electric fence. For an unknown reason, one of the horses, described as normally quiet and placid, was startled. Along with two other horses, it panicked, broke through the fencing, and
A woman was murdered by her ex-partner after her 999 call was mishandled and not given high priority. The Supreme Court found the police owed no common law duty of care to protect her from the actions of a third party, reinforcing the established position on police liability. Facts Ms Joanna Michael made a 999 call to Gwent Police at 2.29 am on 5 August 2009. She reported that her violent ex-partner had come to her house, found her with another man, and had bitten her ear. He then left, taking her car to drive the other man home, and
A harbour board loaned a crane and driver to stevedores. The driver's negligence caused an injury. The House of Lords held the board, as the general permanent employer, remained liable, establishing a strong presumption that responsibility for a loaned employee is not easily transferred. Facts The appellants, Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, owned a number of mobile cranes which they hired out with a driver. The driver was an employee of the Board, paid and subject to dismissal by them. The Board hired a crane and a driver, Mr Newall, to the respondents, Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd, a firm
A steel erector died after falling 70 feet. His employer breached its statutory duty by not providing a safety belt. However, the employer was not held liable as evidence showed the deceased would not have worn a belt anyway, thus breaking the causal link. Facts The case concerned a fatal accident involving an experienced steel erector, Hugh McWilliams, who fell 70 feet to his death while working for the defenders, Sir William Arrol & Co Ltd, on the construction of the Forth Road Bridge. The defenders were in breach of Regulation 94 of the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations,
The widow of a man who died from lung cancer sued a tobacco manufacturer for negligence. The court dismissed the claim, finding she had failed to prove that any breach of duty by the company caused her husband to smoke. Facts The pursuer, Mrs McTear, brought an action for damages against the defender, Imperial Tobacco Ltd, following the death of her husband, Mr McTear, from lung cancer in 1993. Mr McTear began smoking in 1964 as a teenager and became a heavy smoker, consuming approximately 20 John Player cigarettes per day. He continued to smoke until his death. The pursuer
The plaintiff suffered severe nervous shock after seeing her seriously injured family in hospital, two hours after a road accident. The House of Lords held the negligent driver was liable, extending the duty of care to those witnessing the 'immediate aftermath'. Facts The plaintiff, Mrs McLoughlin, was at her home approximately two miles from the scene of a serious road traffic accident involving her husband and three of her children. The accident was caused by the negligence of the defendants. About two hours after the accident occurred, she was informed and driven to Addenbrooke’s Hospital. There, she saw her husband
An employee injured his leg due to his employer's negligence. Knowing his leg could give way, he later descended steep stairs unassisted, jumping and breaking his ankle. This was deemed a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation. Facts The pursuer, Mr McKew, sustained an injury to his left leg in the course of his employment with the defenders. The defenders admitted liability for this initial injury, which left the pursuer’s leg prone to giving way unexpectedly. Some weeks later, the pursuer was inspecting a flat which was accessed via a steep staircase with no handrail. As he began
A worker contracted dermatitis after exposure to brick dust. His employer provided no on-site washing facilities, prolonging skin contact with the dust. As the employer's breach of duty materially increased the risk of injury, they were held liable, despite causation not being definitively proven. Facts The pursuer, Mr James McGhee, was employed by the defenders, the National Coal Board, to clean out brick kilns. This work exposed him to hot, abrasive brick dust. The nature of the work caused him to sweat, making the dust adhere to his skin. The defenders did not provide any washing or shower facilities at
Four UK Christians claimed their rights to manifest religion were violated by employers. The ECHR found a violation for an airline employee prevented from wearing a cross, but not for a nurse, a registrar, or a counsellor whose beliefs conflicted with employer duties. Facts The case concerned four separate applications brought by British nationals who were devout Christians. They alleged that domestic law failed to protect their right to manifest their religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14. First Applicant (Ms Eweida) Ms Eweida was
A couple had a healthy child after a negligently performed vasectomy. They sued for damages, including the costs of raising the child. The House of Lords held they could claim for the pain of pregnancy but not the financial cost of upbringing. Facts Mrs and Mr McFarlane, a married couple with four children, decided against having more children for financial reasons. Mr McFarlane underwent a vasectomy performed by a surgeon employed by the Tayside Health Board. He was subsequently given negligent advice that his sperm count was negative and he no longer needed to use contraception. Relying on this advice,
