A lender sued a valuer for a negligent overvaluation after the property market fell and the borrower defaulted. The House of Lords held the valuer's liability was limited to the consequences of the inaccurate valuation, not losses from the market fall. Facts This House of Lords judgment concerned three conjoined appeals all dealing with the same essential issue. In each case, a lender financed a property acquisition, taking a mortgage over the property as security. The lender commissioned a valuation from the defendant valuers before advancing the funds. The valuers negligently provided a valuation that was significantly higher than the
Owners of a derelict cinema were sued after vandals started a fire that damaged neighbouring property. The House of Lords held the owners were not liable, establishing there is no general duty of care to prevent harm caused by third parties' deliberate wrongdoing. Facts The defenders, Littlewoods Organisation Ltd, purchased a cinema in Hamilton in 1976 with the intention of demolishing it and replacing it with a supermarket. While awaiting the necessary permissions, the cinema was left unoccupied and unattended. The property was frequently broken into by children and vandals, a fact known to the defenders’ employees. However, the defenders
The deceased in each conjoined appeal contracted mesothelioma following one tortious asbestos exposure and background environmental exposure. The Supreme Court held that the 'material increase in risk' test for causation from Fairchild applies, even with only a single tortious defendant. Facts This Supreme Court judgment concerned two conjoined appeals, both involving claims for damages for mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. In the first case (Sienkiewicz), the estate of Enid Costello claimed against her former employer, Greif (UK) Ltd. Mrs Costello was exposed to asbestos dust while working in the defendant’s factory. This was the only known tortious exposure, but
A patient suffered paralysis following a spinal operation. She sued for negligence, arguing the surgeon failed to warn her of this small risk. The House of Lords held the surgeon was not negligent, applying the 'Bolam test' to risk disclosure. Facts The appellant, Mrs Amy Sidaway, suffered from persistent pain in her neck, right shoulder, and arms. She was referred to Mr Falconer, a senior neurosurgeon at Bethlem Royal Hospital. He diagnosed a problem with her cervical spine and recommended a laminectomy operation. The operation carried a small inherent risk of damage to the spinal cord, estimated at less than
The estate of a man who died 25 days after negligent post-operative care appealed against the conventionally low award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The Court of Appeal upheld the established modest sum, confirming its applicability even in medical negligence. Facts Mr Peter Shaw, an 86-year-old man, underwent a total hip replacement on 20 January 2014. Following the operation, he developed significant abdominal pain and distress. His condition deteriorated, and a CT scan on 12 February 2014 eventually revealed a perforated duodenal ulcer. He died the following day from peritonitis. The defendants admitted that the failure to diagnose
A social worker, employed by a council but managed by an NHS Trust while working in an integrated team, was assaulted by a patient's relative. The Court of Appeal held the Trust owed her a direct duty of care as it had assumed responsibility for her safety. Facts The claimant, Mrs Selwood, was an experienced social worker and approved mental health professional employed by Durham County Council (the first defendant). She was seconded to the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust, the second defendant) and worked as part of an integrated multi-disciplinary Community Mental Health Team
An occupier of land was held liable for flooding caused by a blocked pipe laid by a trespasser. The court found they 'continued' and 'adopted' the nuisance, as they knew of the pipe's existence and failed to maintain it. Facts The respondents, the trustees of a religious society, occupied land that had a ditch on its boundary. Without the respondents’ knowledge, a local council, acting as a trespasser, laid a 15-inch pipe in this ditch to carry away water. The work was poorly executed, as no guard or grate was placed at the pipe’s inlet, creating a risk that it
A customs officer was injured by falling bags of sugar at the defendant's warehouse. The court held that the incident itself was sufficient evidence of negligence, establishing the legal principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' (the thing speaks for itself). Facts The claimant, Mr Scott, was a customs officer. While on duty, he was lawfully present on the premises of the London and St Katherine Docks Company. As he was passing the entrance to one of the defendant’s warehouses, six heavy bags of sugar, which were being handled by the defendant’s employees using a crane, fell and struck him. The claimant
A patient suffered fractures during electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) and sued for negligence. The court found the hospital was not liable as the doctors followed a procedure accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion. This case established the 'Bolam test' for professional negligence. Facts The claimant, John Hector Bolam, was a voluntary patient at Friern Hospital, a mental health institution managed by the defendants. He was suffering from depression and agreed to undergo electro-convulsive therapy (ECT). During the procedure, Mr Bolam was not administered any muscle relaxant drugs, nor was he physically restrained, apart from a nurse supporting his shoulders
During the course of electro-convulsive therapy [E.C.T.] treatment administered to him at the defendants’ mental hospital, the plaintiff, a voluntary patient, sustained bilateral “stove-in” fractures of the acetabula. E.C.T. treatment consisted in the passing of an electric current through the brain of the patient which, when given unmodified, i.e., without the prior administration of a relaxant drug, resulted in violent muscular contractions and spasms, attended with a known, though slight, risk of bone fracture. In accordance with his normal practice the doctor treating the plaintiff had given the E.C.T. unmodified, and without applying any form of manual restraint other than
