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.
Mrs Letang was sunbathing in a car park when Mr Cooper accidentally drove his car over her legs, causing injury. She sued more than three years later, claiming trespass to the person to avoid the three-year limitation period for negligence. The Court of Appeal held that unintentional injury claims are properly classified as negligence, not trespass, and the three-year limitation applied.
A man who killed three people during a psychotic episode was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. He sued healthcare providers for negligence, claiming damages for his detention and other losses. The Supreme Court held that the illegality defence barred his civil claim despite his lack of criminal responsibility, as allowing recovery would damage the integrity of the legal system.
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.
Joanna Michael made a 999 call reporting threats from her ex-partner. Due to communication failures between two police forces, officers arrived too late and she was murdered. The Supreme Court held police owed no common law duty of care to protect individuals from third-party violence absent an assumption of responsibility, but allowed the human rights claim to proceed to trial.
The plaintiff went on a flight with a pilot who had consumed the equivalent of 17 whiskies after spending the afternoon drinking together. The aircraft crashed, killing the pilot and severely injuring the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria applied, as the plaintiff had knowingly and willingly embarked on an obviously dangerous activity.
Children were scalded when a tea urn was dropped in a narrow passage at a tea room managed by the Corporation. The House of Lords held that the manageress could not reasonably have foreseen the accident occurring from permitting the urn to be carried through, and thus no negligence was established.
Mr Murphy purchased a house built on a defective concrete raft foundation which had been approved by the council's independent consulting engineers. When cracks appeared and the house became dangerous, he sold it at a loss. The House of Lords departed from Anns v Merton, holding that local authorities owe no duty of care for pure economic loss arising from defective buildings.
Oil negligently discharged from the appellants' ship spread across Sydney Harbour and ignited, destroying the respondents' wharf. The Privy Council held that liability in negligence depends on whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, overruling the 'direct consequences' test in Re Polemis. This established foreseeability as the test for remoteness of damage.
Overseas Tankship’s ship Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil in Sydney harbour. Welding sparks ignited it, destroying nearby repair ships. The Privy Council held that even a very small but serious risk must be guarded against if reasonably foreseeable, shaping negligence breach analysis.
Mr Paris, effectively blind in one eye, was employed as a garage hand and suffered total blindness when a metal fragment entered his good eye while hammering a bolt. The House of Lords held that his known vulnerability increased his employer’s duty of care, requiring eye protection.
Two vulnerable children suffered years of harassment from neighbours after being housed next to a persistently anti-social family. They sued the local authority for failing to protect them under its Children Act functions. The Supreme Court held no common law duty of care arose on the pleaded facts.
Mr and Mrs Reilly were trapped in an overcrowded hospital lift for over an hour and claimed for psychological harm. The Court of Appeal held that mere fear, claustrophobia and transient physical symptoms without a recognisable psychiatric illness or physical injury are not actionable in negligence.
A customs officer walking lawfully between warehouses in London docks was struck by six falling bags of sugar. The Exchequer Chamber held such an unexplained accident, where the docks were under the defendants’ control, was reasonable evidence of negligence, articulating the principle that the accident itself can prove fault.
The tanker Inverpool stranded in the Ribble estuary. To refloat her, the master discharged about 400 tons of oil, which polluted Southport Corporation’s foreshore and Marine Lake. The Court of Appeal majority held the shipowners liable in public nuisance and negligence; the master was not personally liable.
Roadworks contractors negligently damaged an electricity cable supplying Spartan Steel’s factory, causing physical damage to a melt in an arc furnace and loss of production profits during a 14½ hour outage. The Court of Appeal limited recovery to physical damage and directly consequential profit, excluding pure economic loss.
Miss Stone was struck by a cricket ball hit out of the Cheetham Cricket Club ground onto a public road. The House of Lords held the club not liable for negligence, as the risk of such an accident was so small that a reasonable person would not have taken precautions against it. This case established the principle that liability requires more than mere foreseeability of harm.
Richard Vowles, a rugby hooker, was paralysed when a scrum collapsed after the referee permitted an inexperienced player to join the front row without proper enquiry. The Court of Appeal upheld that amateur referees owe players a duty of care to enforce safety rules, and the referee's breach caused the injury.
A fireman was injured when a heavy jack, hastily loaded unsecured on a lorry during an emergency call to free a trapped woman, shifted and crushed his leg. He sued his employer in negligence. The Court of Appeal held there was no breach of duty, emphasising the higher risks justified in life‑saving emergencies.
Donoghue v Stevenson established the "neighbour principle," laying the foundations for duty of care and modern negligence law.
Mr Wheat, a paying guest in a public house, fell down an internal back staircase and died. His widow sued the brewery owners under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The House of Lords held the brewery were occupiers but had not breached the common duty of care.
A newsagent was injured when the saddle of a hired bicycle, supplied as a replacement under a hire agreement, tilted forward causing him to fall. The Court of Appeal held that an exemption clause protecting against contractual liability did not extend to liability for negligence, establishing important principles on construing exemption clauses.
A 10‑year‑old pupil suffered severe brain injury during a school swimming lesson taught by independent contractors. The Supreme Court held that the local education authority potentially owed a non‑delegable duty to ensure reasonable care in such lessons, clarifying when public bodies have personal, non‑delegable duties despite outsourcing.
A professional photographer unfamiliar with horses was injured at a horse show when a competitor's horse veered off course during a galloping competition. The Court of Appeal held the rider was not negligent, establishing that participants in sporting events owe spectators a duty not to show reckless disregard for their safety, but mere errors of judgment do not constitute negligence.
August 31, 2026
National Case Law Archive
August 31, 2026
National Case Law Archive
August 31, 2026
National Case Law Archive