Precedent+in+Action


 * The Development of the Tort of Negligence**

This case involved the sale of a gun which was faulty, causing the son of the buyer to be injured. The court held that the seller was liable because he was intentionally deceitful.
 * Lambridge v Lery (1837)**

Ratio:
 * When a false representation is made by a person who knows it be false, and the result of that false representation is one contemplated by the defendant and another person acts on it, and that person is injured as a result, the the defendant is responsible to the injured party.

This case involved the sale of a faulty mail coach, which caused injuries to the purchaser. The court distinguished this case from Lambridge v Lery on the basis that the decision in Lambridge was concerned with misrepresentation and fraud.
 * Winterbottom v Wright (1842)**

This case involved the sale of hair wash that caused injury. The defendant knew the chemicals in the wash were dangerous, but claimed it was fit for use.
 * George v Skivington (1869)**

Ratio:
 * When false representations are made by a person and the result of the false representations is one contemplated by the defendant and another person acts on it, and that person is injured as a result, then the defendant is responsible to the injured party.

Relevance of George v Skirvington:
 * This case established the notion of the duty of care and separated negligence from fraud.
 * There was no requirement to show that the defendant actually knew that the product was dangerous, just that the product was dangerous.

This case involved a painter who was injured when he was contracted to paint a ship. The injury was a result of scaffolding on the ship which was unsafe. The court was asked to consider whether the dock owner was liable for the injury caused. The court held that there was a duty of care owed to the painter as he was invited onto the dock. However, the court was unable to find in the painter's favour as it was not a result of fraud as in previous cases cited, notably Lambridge and Skirvington.
 * Heaven v Pender (1883)**

However, the minority in Heaven v Pender commented on the necessity to widen the scope of liability stating that fraud need not be interchangeable with negligence.

This case is famously known as the 'snail in a bottle case'. Donoghue was unable to claim breach of contract, so she claimed the manufacturer owed her a duty of care. On appeal to the House of Lords, the court held that the manufacturers were liable to pay compensation despite there being no contractual relationship. The court therefore established the neighbour principle, in that a duty of care is owed to people who you can reasonably foresee as being affected by your actions. Therefore, a manufacturer who sells a product that is intended to reach the final consumer in the state that the manufacturer left it and who disregards reasonable care to the point where the consumer is injured is liable for the consumer's injuries.
 * Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)**

This case involved injuries suffered as a result of the chemicals used in the during the manufacturing of underwear. The matter ended up at the Privy Council and it was held that the facts meant that Donoghue v Stevenson could be applied by analogy.
 * Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)**

In this case the court held that negligence was incapable of extending to economic loss. Though the accounts did not give a true indication of the financial status of the company, and the investors lost money as a result, negligence could not be made out.
 * Chandler v Crane Christmas & Co (1951)**

In this case, the court effectively overturned the decision in Chandler, finding that there was no difference between physical and economic loss. The court therefore expanding the boundaries of negligence.
 * Hedley Byrne v Heller (1963)**

The court held that no duty of care was owed by a party claiming non-expertise to give financial advice, because unlike Hedley Byrne v Heller, the advice was not given in the exercise of a professional skill by an advisor.
 * Mutual Life and Citizens Assurance Co v Evatt (1971)**

In this case, a solicitor was negligent in the preparation of a will, which cause the beneficiary of the will to no longer have a claim. The court held that the duty of care applies to people who are affected by your actions, irrespective of whether you are directly advising them.
 * Ross v Caunters (1980)**