Mrs Geary sustained tetraplegia after sliding down banisters in a pub and falling backwards onto the marble floor below. She sued the pub owners for negligence. The court held that she had voluntarily assumed an obvious and inherent risk, and the defendant owed no duty to protect her from her own freely chosen dangerous conduct.
Mrs Gorringe was severely injured when her car collided with a bus at a road crest. She sued the highway authority for failing to paint warning signs on the road. The House of Lords held that neither the statutory duty under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 nor section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 created a private law duty of care to provide road warnings.
A fire officer attended an accident scene where his son had been injured through his own negligent driving. The father suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after witnessing his son's injuries. The court held that a person who inflicts injuries upon himself owes no duty of care to third parties who suffer psychiatric harm as a result of witnessing those self-inflicted injuries.
Mrs Gwilliam, aged 63, was injured using a 'splat-wall' at a hospital charity fair due to negligent setup by an independent contractor. The contractor's insurance had lapsed. The Court of Appeal considered whether the hospital owed a duty to check the contractor's insurance and whether that duty was breached.
A bungee jumping operator sued an HSE inspector for negligent advice given to local councils, which led to improvement and prohibition notices being served against his business. The Court of Appeal held that no duty of care was owed by inspectors to business owners for economic loss caused by enforcement action under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Hedley Byrne, advertising agents, suffered financial loss after relying on negligent credit references given by Heller & Partners about a customer. The House of Lords established that a duty of care can arise for negligent misstatements where there is a 'special relationship' between parties, even without a contract, though the defendants escaped liability due to their disclaimer of responsibility.
Lloyd's Names sued their managing agents for losses suffered from negligent underwriting. The House of Lords held that managing agents owed a duty of care in tort to both direct and indirect Names, based on the Hedley Byrne principle of assumption of responsibility. Concurrent liability in contract and tort was permitted.
The mother of Jacqueline Hill, murdered by Peter Sutcliffe (the 'Yorkshire Ripper'), sued West Yorkshire Police for negligence in failing to apprehend him sooner. The House of Lords held that police owe no duty of care to individual members of the public in investigating crime, and public policy considerations supported immunity from such claims.
A hotel collapsed due to a massive landslip caused by natural cliff instability. The hotel owners sued the local council who owned the land between the hotel and the sea. The Court of Appeal held that while a measured duty of care existed regarding land support, liability was limited to damage that was reasonably foreseeable without extensive geological investigation.
Seven Borstal trainees escaped from Brownsea Island while officers slept, damaging the respondent's yacht during their escape. The House of Lords held that Borstal officers owed a duty of care to nearby property owners to prevent foreseeable damage by trainees, establishing liability where officers acted outside their instructions.
A 13-year-old girl was struck by a car after stepping out from behind a school minibus. The driver was travelling too fast and failed to keep proper lookout. The Supreme Court reduced the girl's contributory negligence from 70% to 50%, holding both parties equally responsible for the accident.
Police officers sued the Commissioner alleging breach of duty in defending civil proceedings brought against her based on their alleged misconduct. The Supreme Court held that no duty of care was owed to officers to conduct litigation so as to protect their economic or reputational interests, as imposing such a duty would not be fair, just or reasonable.
Parents wrongly suspected of child abuse sought damages for psychiatric injury caused by doctors' negligent misdiagnosis. The House of Lords held that healthcare professionals investigating child abuse owe no duty of care to parents, only to the child, due to the potential conflict of interest between protecting children and parents' interests.
A claimant in a personal injury case sued his expert witness psychologist for negligently signing a joint statement that damaged his case and led to a reduced settlement. The Supreme Court abolished the immunity from negligence claims that expert witnesses had previously enjoyed when providing evidence for their instructing clients.
Junior Books engaged Veitchi as nominated sub-contractors to lay flooring in their factory. The floor proved defective due to poor workmanship, requiring replacement. Despite no contractual relationship between the parties, the House of Lords held Veitchi liable in tort for pure economic loss, given the exceptional proximity between the parties.
An asthmatic woman suffered respiratory arrest after the London Ambulance Service took 34 minutes to respond to an emergency call, when it should have arrived within 20 minutes. The Court of Appeal held that the ambulance service owed a duty of care to the claimant once the call was accepted, distinguishing it from fire and police services.
A mother sued Pembrokeshire County Council in negligence after her children's names were wrongly placed on the Child Protection Register. The court struck out the negligence claim, following D v East Berkshire, holding that social workers investigating suspected child abuse owe no duty of care to parents suspected of abuse due to potential conflict with duties owed to the child.
Soil and debris fell from the National Trust's hillside onto neighbouring properties due to natural geological instability. The Court of Appeal held that landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent naturally occurring hazards on their land from damaging neighbours' property, following Goldman v Hargrave.
Boys at a residential school were sexually abused by the warden employed to care for them. The House of Lords held that the school owners were vicariously liable for the warden's torts, as his wrongdoing was closely connected with his employment duties of caring for the children, overruling the restrictive approach in Trotman.
A lorry driver negligently injured his father while reversing in a yard during employment. The employer, held vicariously liable, sought indemnity from the driver. The House of Lords held that employees owe an implied contractual duty of care to employers and rejected implied terms protecting drivers from personal liability through employer insurance.
Mrs Malone, a licensee occupying premises through her husband's employment, was injured when a cistern bracket fell. The Court of Appeal held she could not sue the property owners for nuisance (having no proprietary interest) or negligence (no contractual duty owed to her). This case established that only those with property interests can sue for private nuisance.
A cargo ship developed hull cracks during a voyage. A classification society surveyor initially recommended permanent repairs but reversed this decision, allowing the vessel to sail with temporary repairs. The ship sank, losing all cargo. Cargo owners sued the classification society in negligence. The House of Lords held no duty of care was owed to cargo owners.
The plaintiff, on board the support vessel Tharos during the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster, claimed psychiatric injury from witnessing the catastrophe. The Court of Appeal held he was not owed a duty of care as he was neither in actual danger, a rescuer, nor had sufficient proximity as a bystander.
Mrs McLoughlin suffered severe psychiatric illness after arriving at hospital to find her family seriously injured and her daughter dead following a road accident caused by the defendants' negligence. The House of Lords held she could recover damages for nervous shock despite not witnessing the accident itself, establishing that liability extends to those who come upon the immediate aftermath.
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.
September 13, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive