CHAPTER

GENERALNEGLI
GENCE

GENERAL

Hay
nesvHar
wood[
193511KB145
Fact s:Thepl ai
ntif
fwasapol iceconst ableondut yinsidea
policest ati
on.Int hest reetwher ethest at
ionwaswer eal ar ge
number of peopl ei ncluding children.The def endant l eft
,
unat tendedt o,hi
st wohor seswi thav anattached.Thepl aintif
f
saw t hehor sesr unningawayandcomi ngdownt hest reet
.He
rushedt ostopthem andi nthepr ocesssust ainedinjuries.
Held:Thedef endanthadbeennegl igentinl eavinghi shor se
unat tendedt oand, si
ncet hepoli
cewer eunderagener aldutyt o
protectl i
feandt hedef endantoughtt ohav econt empl atedt hat
someonemi ghtat temptt ost opthehor se,heowedt hepl aintif
f
adut yofcare.
Principle:Negl i
gencei nl aw meanst henegl ectofsomedut y
owedt ot hepersonwhomakest hecl aim.

PerGr eerLJatpp.152and153:" Iproposet oconsider

fi
rst,upongener alprinciples,whet herthesepoi ntsare
sound.Whati smeantbynegl igence?Negl i
gencei n
theai rwi l
lnotdo;negl igence,i nor dertogi v
eacause
ofact ion,mustbet henegl ectofsomedut yowedt o
theper sonwhomakest hecl ai
m.I nthiscase,i fthe
dutywasowedt o,amongot her s,thepl ai
nti
ff,i
fhei s
oneofacl assaf fectedbyt hewantofcar eort he
negl i
genceoft hedef endant s,t hatis,negligenceof
whi cht hepl ai
nt i
ffcanav ailhi msel fasacauseof
action.Whati st henegl i
gencecompl ai
nedofher e?Mr.
Hilberyr i
ghtly descr i
bed i t as a f ail
uret o use
reasonabl e caref ort he saf etyoft hose who wer e
l
awf ul
lyusingt hehi ghwayi nwhi chthisv anwi ththe
twohor sesat t
achedwasl eftunat t
ended.Iper sonall
y
hav enodoubtt hatapol iceman, orindeedanyone, and
sti
ll mor e
 a pol iceman usi ng t he hi ghway f ort he pur pose of
stoppingar unawayhor seandt her ebypr ev ent i
ngser ious
accident sandpossi blypr ev ent i
ngl ossofl i
fei swi thint he
categor yoft hosel awf ull
yusi ngthehi ghway .Accor di ngly,
Ithinkt hef irstpoi ntf ai
ls.Ofcour se,i tdoesnotf ollow
thatinal lcircumst ancesi ti snegl igencet ol eav ehor ses
unattended i n a hi ghway ; each case wi t
h al li t
s
cir
cumst ances has t o be consi dered; but t he
cir
cumst ances whi ch make i t qui te cl ear t hat t he
defendant s'ser v
antwasgui l
tyofawantofr easonabl e
careinl eavinghi shor sesunat t
endedar ethatt hiswasa
crowdedst reeti nwhi chmanypeopl e,includi ngchi ldr en,
wer elikel ytobeatt het i
mewhent hehor seswer el eft
and bef oret hedef endant s'ser v antcoul d getbackt o
them.Thedef endant s' serv anthadbeenf requent l
yi nt he
neighbour hood;hehadof tendel iver edgoodsatQui ney '
s
whar f
;andhemustbet akent oknow somet hingoft he
charact eroft henei ghbour hood,al thoughhedeni edany
knowl edge ofschool s bei ng t her e.To l eav e hor ses
unattended,ev enforsuchashor tt i
meast hr eemi nut es,
i
n apl acewher emi schi ev ouschi ldr en maybeabout ,
wher esomet hi ngmaybedonewhi chmayr esulti nt he
horsesr unningaway ,seemst omet obenegl i
gent—
havingr egardt othepr ovedci rcumst ances. "

THECONCEPTOF"
DUTYOFCARE"
Heav
envPender(
1883)11QBD503
Facts:Thedef endantwasadockownerwhopr ov i
dedst agi ng
outsidet hedockf orpur posesofwor ksont heshi p.Heent er ed
i
ntoacont r
actwi t
hashi pownert omakeast agingf oruset owor k
ont heshi p.Theshi powneral socontractedashi ppai ntertopai nt
theousi deoft heshi p.Thepl ainti
ffwasanempl oy eeoft heshi p
painterand,whi l
ehewasont hestagingpainti
ngt heshi p,oneof
theropesbr okeandhef ellandi nj
uredhimself.
Held:Thedef endantwasunderadut ytotakecar et hatther opes
heusedwer efitfortheirpur poseandt husli
ablet ot hepl ai ntif
f
alt
hought herewasnocont ractbetweent hem.
Pri
nci pl
e: Apersonmayoweadut yofcar etoanotheri ndependent
ofacont ractprovidediti sr easonablethatinj
urymayr esultf rom
wantofcar e.
PerBr
ettMRatpp.507and508:
"Ifaper
soncont
ract
s

•
2
withanot hert ouseor dinar ycar eorski lltowar dshi m or
hispr oper tytheobl igat ionneednotbeconsi der edi nt he
l
ightofa dut y ;i ti s an obl i
gat ion ofcont ract.I ti s
undoubt ed,howev er,t hatt her emaybet heobl i
gat ionof
suchadut yf r
om oneper sont oanot heral thought her eis
nocont r actbet weent hem wi thr egar dt osuchdut y .Two
dri
ver smeet i
ng hav eno cont ractwi theachot her ,but
undercer tainci r cumst ancest heyhav ear eci procaldut y
towar dseachot her .Sot woshi psnav i
gat ingt hesea.Soa
rai
lwaycompanywhi chhascont ract edwi thoneper sont o
carryanot herhasnocont ractwi tht heper soncar r
iedbut
hasadut ytowar dst hatper son.Sot heowneroroccupi er
ofahouseorl andwhoper mi tsaper sonorper sonst o
comet ohi shouseorl andhasnocont ractwi thsuch
personorper sons, buthasadut yt owar dshi m ort hem.I t
should be obser ved t hatt he exi stence ofa cont ract
betweent woper sonsdoesnotpr ev entt heexi stenceof
thesuggest eddut ybet weent hem al sobei ngr aisedby
l
awi ndependent lyoft hecont r
act ,byt hef act swi thr egar d
towhi cht hecont racti smadeandt owhi chi tappl iesan
exactlysi mi l
arbutacont ractdut y....Thequest i
onswhi ch
wehav et osol vei nt hiscasear e:whati st hepr oper
defi
ni ti
onoft her elationbet weent woper sonsot hert han
the r elat i
on est abl i
shed by cont ract ,orf raud,whi ch
i
mposesont heoneoft hem adut yt owar dst heot hert o
obser ve,wi thr egar dt ot heper sonorpr oper t
yofsuch
other,suchor dinar ycar eorski llasmaybenecessar yt o
preventi njuryt ohi sper sonorpr oper ty ;andwhet hert he
presentcasef allswi thinsuchdef i
nition.Whent wodr ivers
ortwoshi psar eappr oachi ngeachot her ,suchar el at i
on
ari
sesbet weent hem whent heyar eappr oachi ngeach
otheri nsuchamannert hat, unlesst heyuseor dinar ycar e
andski llt oav oidi t,ther ewi llbedangerofani njur ious
coll
ision bet ween t hem.Thi sr elat ion i sest ablished i n
suchci rcumst ancesbet weent hem, notonl yi fitbepr ov ed
that t heyact ual lyknow andt hinkoft hisdanger ,but
whet hersuchpr oofbemadeornot .Iti sest abl i
shed, asi t
seemst ome, becauseanyoneofor dinarysensewhodi d
 thi
nkwoul d atonce recogni
se t hati
fhe did notuse
ordi
narycareand skillundersuchci r
cumstancesthere
would be such danger.And ev eryone ought,byt he
univ
ersal
l
yr ecogni
sedrul
esofr i
ghtandwrong,tothi
nkso
muchwi t
hregardtothesafety

3"
ofot herswhomaybej eopar disedbyhi sconduct ;and
i
f,bei nginsuchci r
cumst ances,hedoesnott hi
nk,and
i
n consequence negl ects,ori fhe negl ect st o use
ordinarycar eorski l
l,andi njuryensue,t hel aw,whi ch
takescogni sanceofandenf orcest her ulesofr ight
andwr ong,wi l
lforcehi mt ogi veani ndemni tyf ort he
i
njury.I nt hecaseofar ailwaycompanycar ryinga
passengerwi th whom i thas notent ered i ntot he
contractofcar riaget hel awi mpl iest hedut y ,because
i
tmustbeobv ioust hatunl essor dinarycar eandski l
l
beusedt heper sonalsaf et yoft hepassengermustbe
endanger ed.Wi thregar dt ot hecondi t
ioni nwhi chan
owneroroccupi erleav eshi shouseorpr oper tyot her
phraseologyhasbeenused,whi chi ti snecessar yt o
consider.I famanopenshi sshoporwar ehouset o
customer si tissai dt hathei nv i
test hem t oent er,and
thatt hi
si nv i
tationr aises t her el ati
onbet weent hem
which i mposes on t he i nv i
tert he dut y of usi ng
reasonablecar esot okeephi shouseorwar ehouse
thatitmaynotendangert heper sonorpr oper tyoft he
personi nvited.Thi si sinasenseanaccur atephr ase,
and as appl ied tot he circumst ances a suf fi
cient l
y
accur at
ephr ase."

Andatpp.509and510:" Thepr opositi

onwhicht hese
recognisedcasessuggest ,andwhi chis,ther
efore,to
bededucedf r
om t
hem,i sthatwhenev eronepersoni s
byci r
cumstancesplacedinsuchaposi t
ionwithregard
toanot herthateveryoneofor di
narysensewhodi d
thi
nkwoul datoncer ecognisethatifhedi dnotuse
ordinarycareandskilli
nhi sownconductwi t
hr egard
tot hose ci
rcumstances he woul d cause dangerof
i
njuryt othepersonorpr opert
yoft heother,adut y
ari
sest o useor di
narycar eand ski l
lto av oid such
danger .Wi t
houtdi splaci ngt heotherpr oposi ti
onst o
whichal lusionhasbeenmadeasappl icablet ot he
parti
cularcircumst ancesi nrespectofwhi cht heyhav e
beenenunci ated,thispr oposi t
ionincl
udes,It hink,all
the recogni sed cases of l i
abi
li
ty.Iti st he onl y
propositi
onwhi chcov erst hem all.Itmay ,therefore,
safel
ybeaf fi
rmed to bea t rueproposi t
ion,unl ess
someobv i
ouscasecanbest atedinwhicht heliabili
ty
mustbeadmi tt
edt oexi st,andwhi chyeti snotwi thi
n
thi
spr oposition.Therei snosuchcase. "

"
4
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Der
ryvPeek(
1889)14App.cas.337
Facts:Byst atute,noper soncoul dusest eam powert omov e
carri
agesexceptwi tht heconsentoft heBoar dofTr ade.A
companyofwhi cht hedef endant swer edi r
ector
s,appl iedt o
usest eam powert omov etheircar ri
ages.Pendi ngtheconsent
oftheBoar d,thedef endant si ssuedapr ospectusst ati
ngt hat
thecompanyhadt hepowert ousest eam power .Thepl ai nti
ff
rel
yingont hisacqui redshar esi nthecompany .TheBoar d
subsequent lyrefusedconsentandt hecompanywaswoundup.
Held:Thedef endant sowedt heplainti
ffadut yofcar ebutsi nce
thedef endant smadet hest atementi nt hehonestbel iefthati t
wast r
ue, theywer enotl i
able.
Pri
nciple:I faper sonmakesast atementi ntendingi tt obe
rel
iedonbyot hers,t heper sonowesadut yofcar et ot hose
whom hei ntendt or elyont hest atement .

PerBr amwel lJatp.350:" CottonLJsay s,'Thereisa

dut ycastuponadi rectorwhomakest hatst atement
tot akecar et hattherear enost at ement si nitwhi chin
factar ef al
se;t ot akecar et hathehasr easonabl e
ground f or t he mat erial stat ement s whi ch ar e
cont ai
nedi nt hatdocument( prospect us) ,whichhe
i
nt endst obeact edonbyot her s.Andal thoughi nmy
opinioni tisnotnecessar yt her eshoul dbewhatI
shoul dcal lfr
aud, theremustbeadepar tur ef r
om dut y
,
andhehasv iolatedther i
ghtwhi cht hosewhor eceive
the st atementhav et o havet rue statement s only
madet ot hem. 'Thisseemst obeamostf ormidable
mat ter.Iagr eet herei ssomesuchdut y.Iagr eet hat
notonl ydi r
ectorsi nprospect uses,butal lpersonsi n
alldeal i
ngsshoul dtellthetrut h.Ift heydonott hey
furnishev idenceoff raud;theysubj ectt hemsel vest o
hav ethecont ractrescinded."

DonoghuevSt evenson[ 1932]AC562

Facts:Af r
iendoft heplainti
ff'
spurchasedabeermanufactured
byt hedef endantf orher .Thebeerwasi nanopaquebot tl
e
sucht hatitwasi mpossi bletoseet hecontent
s.Af
terdr
inking
some oft he beershe f ound a decomposed snaili
nt he
remainderoft hebeer .Thepl aint
if
fsuffer
edshockandgast r
o-
enteri
tti
s.
Held:Thedef endantowedt heplaint
if
fadut yofcarealthough
therewasnocont ractualrelat
ionbetweenthem.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Princi
ple:Apersonowesadutyofcar
et oal
lthosewhom hecan
reasonablyf
oreseehi
sact
ionsmayinj
ure.

5"
PerLor dAt kinatp.580:" Atpr esentIcont entmy self
wi t
hpoi nt
ingoutt hati nEngl ishl awt heremustbe,and
i
s,somegener alconcept i
onofr elati
onsgi v i
ngr i
set oa
dut yofcar e,ofwhi cht hepar ticularcasesf oundi nt he
booksar ebuti nst ances.Thel i
abilityf ornegl igence,
whet hery oust yl
ei tsuchort r
eati tasi not hersy stems
asaspeci esof' culpa' ,isnodoubtbaseduponagener al
publ i
csent imentofmor alwr ongdoi ng f orwhi ch t he
offendermustpay .Butact soromi ssionswhi chany
mor alcodewoul dcensur ecannoti napr acticalwor l
dbe
treatedsoast ogi v ear ightt oev eryper soni njur edby
them t odemandr eli
ef .Int hi swayr ul
esofl aw ar i
se
whi chl imi
tt her angeofcompl ainant sandt heext entof
theirr emedy .The r ulet haty ou ar et ol ovey our
neighbourbecomesi nl aw,y oumustnoti njurey our
neighbour ;and t he l awy er 's quest ion,Who i s my
neighbour ?r eceivesar estrictedr eply.Youmustt ake
reasonabl ecar et oav oidact soromi ssi onswhi chy ou
canr easonabl yf oreseewoul dbel ikelyt oi njurey our
neighbour .Who,t hen,i nl aw i s mynei ghbour ?The
answerseemst obe' personswhoar esocl oselyand
directlyaf fectedbymyactt hatIoughtr easonabl yt o
hav et hem i ncont empl ationasbei ngsoaf fectedwhenI
am di r ect
ingmymi ndt ot heact soromi ssionswhi ch
arecal ledinquest ion'."

PerLor dThanker t
onatp.602:" Therecanbenodoubt ,
i
nmyopi nion,t
hatequal l
yinthelawofScot l
andandof
Englandi tli
esupont hepar t
yclaimingr edressinsucha
case t o show t hatt here wassome r el
ation ofduty
between herand t he defenderwhi ch r equir
ed the
defendert oexer cisedueandr easonabl ecaref orher
safety.Itisnotatal lnecessarythatther eshouldbeany
dir
ectcont ractbetweent hem,becauset heactionisnot
based upon cont ract,butupon negl igence;buti tis
necessar yf orthepur suerinsuchanact i
ont oshow
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ther
ewasadutyowedt oherbyt
hedefender,
becausea
mancannotbechar gedwithnegl
i
gencei fhehasno
obli
gat
iont
oexer
cisedil
i
gence

Andatpp.603and604:" Thespeci alci rcumst ances

from whi cht heappel lantcl aimst hatsuchar elationshi p
ofdut yshoul dbei nferredmay ,It hi
nk,best atedt hus,
namel y, that t he r espondent , in pl acing hi s
manuf actured ar ti
cle ofdr ink upon t he mar ket,has
i
nt ent i
onall
y so excl uded i nterf
er ence wi th, or
exami nat
ionof ,t hear ticl
ebyanyi nter medi atehandl er
oft hegoodsbet weenhi msel fandt heconsumert hathe
has,ofhi s own accor d,br oughthi msel fi nto di rect
relationshipwi tht heconsumer ,wi t
ht her esul tthatt he
consumeri s ent i
tl
ed t or ely upon t he exer cise of
dili
gencebyt hemanuf acturertosecur et hatt hear ti
cle
shal lnotbehar mf ultot heconsumer .Ifthatcont ent i
on
besound,t heconsumer ,onhershowi ngt hatt hear ti
cle
hasr eachedheri ntactandt hatshehasbeeni njur edby
thehar mfulnat ureoft hear ti
cle,owingt othef ailureof
the manuf acturer t o t ake r easonabl e car e i n i ts
prepar ati
onpr i
ort oi tsencl osurei nt heseal edv essel,
wi l
lbeent it
ledt or eparat i
onf rom themanuf act urer.

"Inmyopi nion,t heexi st

enceofal egaldut yunder
such ci rcumst ances i si n conf ormity wi t
h t he
princi plesofbot hthel awofScot l
andandoft hel aw
ofEngl and.The Engl ish cases demonst rate how
i
mpossi blei ti st ocat al
oguef inall
y ,amidt heev er
vary ing t ypes of human r el
ationships, those
relationshi psi nwhi chadut ytoexer cisecar ear i
ses
apar tf rom cont ract
, andeachoft hesecasesr elates
toi tsownsetofci rcumst ances,outofwhi chitwas
claimedt hatt hedut yhadar isen.I nnoneoft hese
cases wer et he ci rcumst ances ident i
calwi tht he
presentcaseasr egar dsthatwhi chIr egar dast he
essent ial el ement i n t hi
s case, namel y
,t he
manuf act urer'sownact i
oni nbr i
ngi nghimsel fint o
directr elationshi pwi t
ht hepar t
yi njured.Ihav ehad
thepr ivilegeofconsi deri
ngt hedi scussionoft hese
aut hor i
ties bymynobl e and learned f r
iend,Lor d
Atki n,i nt hej udgmentwhi chhehasj ustdeliv
er ed,
andIsoent i
r elyagr eewi thitthatIcannotusef ully
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

addany
thi
ngt
oit
."

PerLor dMacmi l
l
anatp.619:" What ,t
hen,ar et he
cir
cumst anceswhi chgi v
er i
set othisdut yt ot ake
care?I nthedai lycont actsofsoci alandbusi nessl i
fe
humanbei ngsar et hrowni nto,orpl acet hemsel ves
i
n,ani nfinit
ev arietyofr elati
onswi ththeirf ell
ows;
andt hel aw canr eferonl yt othest andardsoft he
reasonabl emani nor dert odet erminewhet herany
parti
cularr elat
iongi vesr i
set oadut yt otakecar eas
betweent hosewhost andi nt hatr elati
ont oeach
other.Thegr oundsofact ionmaybeasv ari
ousand
manif oldashumaner rancy ;andt heconcept i
onof
l
egalr esponsibili
tymaydev elop in adapt ation to
alt
eringsoci alcondi ti
onsandst andards.The

crit
erionofj udgmentmustadj ustandadapti t
selfto
the changi ng circumst ances ofl i
fe.The cat egories of
negli
gence ar e nev erclosed.The car di
nalpr inci
ple of
l
iabil
it
yi sthatt hepar tycompl ainedofshoul dowet ot he
partycompl ai
ningadut ytotakecar e,andt hatt hepar t
y
compl ai
ningshoul dbeabl et
opr ovethathehassuf f
ered
damagei nconsequenceofabr eachoft hatdut y.Wher e
thereisroom f ordi ver
sityofview, i
tisindeterminingwhat
cir
cumst anceswi llest
abl i
shsucha r el
ati
onshi pbetween
thepar t
iesast ogi verise,ontheonesi de,toadut yt
ot ake
care,andont heot hersidetoar i
ghtt ohavecar etaken."

Andatp.620:" Now Ihav enohesitati

oni naf f
ir
mi ng
thataper sonwhof orgainengagesint hebusi nessof
manuf acturingar t
iclesoffoodanddr inki ntendedf or
consumpt ionbymember softhepublicint hef ormi n
whichhei ssuest hem isunderadut yt otakecar ei n
themanuf actur eoft hesearti
cles.Thatdut y,inmy
opinion,he owes t othose whom he i ntends t o
consume hi s pr oducts. He manuf actures hi s
commodi ti
esf orhumanconsumpt i
on;hei ntendsand
cont emplat est hattheyshallbeconsumed.Byr eason
oft hatv eryf acthepl aceshimselfinar el
ationshi p
withal lthepot enti
alconsumer sofhi scommodi ties,
andt hatrelationshipwhi chheassumesanddesi res
forhi sownendsi mposesuponhi m adut yt ot ake
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

caretoavoidinj
uri
ngthem.Heowest hem adutynot
toconvertbyhisowncar elessnessanar t
icl
ewhich
heissuestothem aswholesomeandi nnocenti
ntoan
art
icl
ewhichisdangeroustolif
eandhealth.
"

Dor setYachtvHomeOf fice[1970]AC1004

Fact s:Bor st alboy swor kingonani sl
andundert hecar eof
borst alof f
icer st ookaboatandl ef
tthei sl
andatni ght,but
owi ngt othei rbei ngunski l
fulinnav i
gati
oncauseddamaget o
thepl ainti
ff'
sy achtwhi chhadbeenmoor edashore.Ont he
prelimi naryquest ionofwhet herthedefendantsowedadut yof
caret ot hepl ai nti
ff,t
hedef endantscontendedthatsincet he
boy swer enei thert hei
rser vantsnoracti
ngundertheirauthorit
y,
andsi ncet heywer eoffullage,theywerenotliabl
e.
Hel d:Thatt hedef endantsowedadut yofcaretotheplaint
iffto
takecar ethatt heboy sdi dnotcausedamaget othei
rproper t
y.
Principl e:Adef endantowesadut yofcaret oaper soni fhis
actionsar e

l
ikel
ytoaf
fectt
hepl
aint
if
fori
fther
eisar
easonabl
efor
eseeabi
l
ityof
damagetotheot
her
.

PerLordRei datpp.1026and1027:" Inlatery earsthere

hasbeenast eadyt rendt owar dsr egar dingt hel aw of
negli
genceasdependi ngonpr inciplesot hat,whena
new pointemer ges,oneshoul dasknotwhet heritis
coveredbyaut horitybutwhet herr ecogni zedpr i
nci
ples
applytoi t
.DonoghuevSt ev enson[ 1932]A. C.562may
beregardedasami l
estone, andt hewel l
-knownpassage
i
nLor dAt kin'
sspeechshoul d,It hi
nk,ber egardedasa
stat
ementofpr inciple.Iti
snott obet reatedasi fitwere
astatutorydefinition.Itwillr equirequal if
icat i
oni nnew
ci
rcumst ances.ButIt hinkthatt het imehascomewhen
wecanandshoul dsayt hatitoughtt oappl yunl essthere
i
s some j ust
ificati
on or v ali
d expl anat i
on f or i
ts
excl
usion."

Atp.1030:"Thesecasesshowt hat
,wherehumanact i
on
formsoneoft heli
nksbetweent heori
ginalwr
ongdoing
ofthedefendantandt helosssuffer
edbyt heplai
ntif
f,
thatact
ionmustatleasthavebeensomet hi
ngveryl
ikel
y
tohappeni fitisnott ober egar
dedasnov usactus
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
nterv eniensbr eakingt hechai nofcausat i
on.Idonot
thi
nkt hatamer ef oreseeabl epossi bi
li
tyi sorshoul dbe
sufficient,fort hen t hei nterveni
ng human act i
on can
mor epr operlyber egar dedasanew causet hanasa
consequence oft he or iginalwr ongdoi ng.Buti ft he
i
nterv eningact ionwasl ikelyt ohappenIdonott hi
nkt hat
i
tcan mat terwhet hert hatact ion was i nnocentor
tort
iousorcr imi nal.Unf or t
unately,tort
iousorcr iminal
acti
onbyat hirdpar tyi sof tent he'veryki ndoft hing'
whichi slikelyt ohappenasar esultoft hewr ongfulor
carelessactoft hedef endant .Andi nthepr esentcase,
ont hef actswhi chwemustassumeatt hi sstage,Ithink
thatt het akingofaboatbyt heescapi ngt rai
neesand
thei
runski lf
ulnav i
gat ionl eadingt odamaget oanot her
vesselwer et hev eryki ndoft hingt hatt heseBor st al
offi
cer soughtt ohav eseent obel i
kely.
"

PerLor dMor ri
sofBor t
h-y
-Gestatp.1034:"Ont hese
factsanor malorev enmodestmeasur eofprescience
andpr evi
sionmusthav eledanyor di
naryperson,but
ratherspecial
l
yanof f
iceri
ncharge,toreal
i
set hatthe
boy smightwishtoescapeand

mightuseay achtifonewasnearathandt ohel p

them t odoso.Thati sexact l
ywhati tissaidt hat
sevenboy sdi d.Inmyv i
ew,t heof fi
cersmusthav e
appr eciatedt hateitheri nanescapeat temptorby
reason ofsome ot herpr ompt i
ng t he boy s mi ght
i
nter fer
e wi th one oft he y achts wi t
h consequent
l
ikelihoodofdoi ngsomei njuryt oit.Ther i
skofsucha
happeni ngwasgl ar
inglyobv ious.Thepossi bi
li
tiesof
damage bei ng done t o one oft he near by yacht s
(assumi ng thattheywer enear -
by )wer emanyand
appar ent .I
nt hatsit
uationandi nt hosecircumst ances
Iconsi derthatadut yofcar ewasowedbyt heofficers
tot he owner s oft he near byy achts.The pr inciple
expressedi nLor dAtkin'sclassi cwor dsi nhisspeech
i
nDonoghuevSt evenson[ 1932]A. C.562,580,woul d
seem t obedi rect
lyappl i
cable.I fthepr i
ncipleappl i
ed,
theni twasi ncumbentont heof fi
cerst oav oi
dact sor
omi ssionswhi chtheycoul dr easonabl yforeseewoul d
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

bel i
kelyt
oinjuretheowner sofy acht
s.Theywer e
personssoclosel
yanddirectl
yaf f
ectedbywhatt he
off
icersdi
dorfail
edtodot hattheyoughtreasonabl
y
tohavebeeni
nt hecont
empl at
ionoftheoff
icers.
"

Andatp.1035: "Theconcl usi ont

hatIhav er eachedis
thattheof f
icersowedadut ytothecompanyt otake
suchcar easi nal ltheci r
cumst anceswasr easonable
withav i
ewofpr eventingt heboy sintheirchar geand
undert heircont rolf rom causi ng damage t ot he
nearby proper ty oft he company i ft hatwas a
happening of whi ch t here was a mani fest and
obviousr i
sk.Ifi nt heday ti
met heof fi
cer ssaw t hat
theboy sint heirchar geandundert hei
rcont rolwere
deli
beratel
yset t
ingoutt odamageanear byy achtor
werei nt heactofdamagi ng i
tand i ft heycoul d
readil
yhav ecausedt hem t odesistthef act swoul d
warrantaconcl usiont hatt herewasaf ailuret otake
reasonablecar e."

And atpp.1037 and 1038:" I

fA can r easonabl y
foreseet hatsomeactoromi ssionofhi smayhav e
ther esultthatlossordamagemaybesuf feredbyB
whoi ssomeonewhowoul dbecl osel yanddi rectl
y
affectedbyt heactoromi ssion,therewi llbesome
circumst ancesi nwhi chal egal dutywillbeowedbyA
to B and somei nwhi chi twi l
lnot .Thequest ion
arisesast owhati sthedi v
idingl i
neandonwhi ch
side t he pr esent case f all
s.The f act that t he
i
mmedi atedamagesuf fer ed byB mayhav ebeen
causedbyCdoesnotaf fectt hequest ionwhet herA
owedadut ytoB;suchf actwoul donl yrelatet oa
quest i
onwhet hert heactoromi ssionofAdi dresult
i
ndamaget oB.Someactont hepar tofCmi ghtbe
thev erykindoft hi
ngwhi chwoul dbel ikelytohappen
i
ft herewasabr eachofdut ybyA.

"Inanswer i
ngthequesti
onwhi chIhav eposed,hel
p
willsomet i
mesbeder i
vedbyconsi deri
ngthewayin
whi chclai
msar i
singinpar t
icul
arcaseshav ebeen
deal twith by t
he court
s.Par ti
culardecisi
ons i
n
relati
on to clai
ms ar i
sing f r
om set s of fact
s
compar abletot hose being investi
gated may,if
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

appr ov ed,giveguidance.Butpr ecedentsdonotf i

x
thel i
mi t
sofwhatmaybecal leddutysituat
ions;they
i
llustrat ethem.Ift her
ear enocl ear-cutprecedents
thecour tmayhev et oreachadeci si
onwhet her,once
the f act s and ci
rcumst ances ofa si t
uation are
ascer tained,itcan be sai dt hatitwas a ' duty
situation'.
"

PerLor dPear sonatp.1054:" Itseemst omet hat

pri
maf acie,int hesi t
uationwhi char oseint hi scase
accor di
ng t o t he al l
egat i
ons, t he pl aintiffs as
boat owner s wer e i n l aw ' neighbour s' of t he
defendant sandsot herewasadut yofcar eowi ngby
thedef endantst othepl ai
ntif
fs.Iti st ruet hatt he
Donoghue vSt evenson pr inci
ple asst at ed i nt he
passagewhi chhasbeenci tedisabasi candgener al
butnotuni versalpr i
ncipl
eanddoesnoti nl awappl y
toal lthesi tuationswhi char ecov eredbyt hewi de
wor dsoft hepassage.Tosomeext entthe,deci sion
i
nt hiscasemustbeamat terofi mpr essi onand
i
nst i
nctivej udgmentast owhati sf ai
randj ust.I t
seemst omet hatt hiscaseoughtt o, anddoes, come
withint heDonoghuevSt evensonpr i
ncipleunl ess
therei ssomesuf fi
cientr easonf ornotappl yingt he
pri
nci pl
et oi t
.Ther efore,onehast oconsi dert he
suggest ed r easons f ornotappl ying the pr i
nciple
here."

Smi thvLit
tl
ewoods[19871AC241
Facts:Somechi l
drensetfi
redel
iberatelyi
nt hecinemaoft he
defendantswhich wasnoti n use.Thef i
reescalated and
burnedt headjoi
ningpremisesoft heplainti
ffs.Therewas
evidence that the chi
ldr
en and t eenagers had usual l
y
overcome the securi
tyatthe cinema and t here had been
previousatt
emptst osetfi
rethere.Howev er,thedefendants
di
dnotknowofsuch

previ
ousacts.
Held:Sincethecinemai
tselfdidnotposeanyfi
ret
hreatand
thedefendantshadbeenignorantoft
heprevi
ousat
temptsto
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

setfir
et her
e,theywer enotunderanydut yt oanti
cipatethe
fi
reandt husnotli
able.
Pri
nciple:Anoccupieroflandmayoweadut ytooccupiersof
adjoi
ningpremisesinr espectofactsoftrespassonhi sland
whichcausedamaget ot headjoi
ningpr
emi sesifsuchact s
arereasonablyfor
eseeableintheci
rcumstances.

PerLor dBr andonofOakbr ookatp.250:" Thefir

st
question i
s:whatwas t he gener aldutyowed by
Litt
lewoods,asowner sandoccupi ersofthedisused
cinema,tot heappel
lants,asowner soroccupiersof
otherbuil
di ngsneartot hecinema?Theanswert o
thatquestionis,i
nmyv iew,thatLittl
ewoodsowedt o
theappellantsadutyt oexercisereasonablecareto
ensurethatt heci
nemawasnot ,
anddi dnotbecome,
asour ceofdangert oneighbour i
ngbuildi
ngsowned
oroccupiedbyt heappell
ants.

"
Thesecondquest ioni swhet hert hatgener alduty
encompassedaspeci fi
cdut yt oexer ciser easonablecare
topr ev enty oungper sons'obt ainingunl awf ulaccesst o
theci nema,and,hav i
ngdoneso,unl awfullysetti
ngi ton
fi
re.The answert ot hatquest ion,i n accordance wi t
h
gener alpr inciples governing alike the l aw ofdel i
ctin
Scot l
and and t he law ofnegl i
gence i n Engl and,must
dependonwhet hertheoccur renceofsuchbehav i
ourwas
reasonabl yf oreseeable byLi t
tlewoods.I tshoul d have
beenr easonabl yforeseeablebyLi tt
lewoodsi ftheyhad
known oft heact ivi
ti
esofy oung per sonsobser ved by
certaini ndivi
dual sinthel ocali
ty.Butt heydi dnotknowof
suchact i
vi
tiesbecauset hei ndividualsconcer neddi dnot
i
nf orm ei t
herLi ttl
ewoodsort hepol iceoft hem, nordidthe
police t hemsel v es obser v
et hem.I nt he absence of
i
nf ormat ion about such act i
viti
es, ei ther from t he
i
ndi vi
dual sr eferredtoorf r
om t hepol ice,Iam ofopi ni
on
thatt heoccur renceoft hebehav iouri nquest i
onwasnot
reasonabl y f oreseeable by Li ttl
ewoods. I concl ude,
therefore? t hat the gener aldut y of car e owed by
Lit
t l
ewoods t ot he appel l
ants di d notencompass t he
specif i
c duty r
eferr
ed

t
oabov
e."
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
"l
ie

PerLor dGr iff

ithsatp.251:" Thef ir
ei nthiscasewas
caused by t he cr i
minalact i
v i
ty oft hird part
ies upon
Lit
tlewoods' pr
emi ses.Idonotsayt hattherewi l
lneverbe
cir
cumst ancesi nwhicht helawwi l
lrequireanoccupierof
premi ses tot ake specialpr ecautions againstsuch a
cont i
ngencybutt heywoul dsur el
yhav et obeex treme
i
ndeed.I tiscommongr oundt hatonlya24- hourguar don
thesepr emi seswoul dhav ebeenl i
kelytopreventthisfi
re,
andev enthatcannotbecer t
ai n,suchi sthedeterminati
on
andi ngenuityofy oungv andals.

"Ther ewasnot hing ofani nher entlydanger ousnat ure

storedi nthepr emi ses,norcanIr egardanempt yci nema
stri
ppedofi t
sequi pmentasl ikelyt obeanymor eal l
uring
tov andal sthananyot herrecent l
yv acatedpremi sesi nthe
cent re of a t own. No message was r eceived by
Lit
tlewoods f rom t he localpol ice,f i
re bri
gade orany
neighbourt hatv andal swer ecr eat i
nganydangeront he
premi ses.Inshor t,sof arasLi tt
lewoodsknew,t her ewas
nothi ng si gnificant l
y di fferent about t hese empt y
premi sesfrom thet ensoft housandsofsuchpr emi sesup
and down t he count ry.Peopl e do notmount24- hour
guar dsonempt ypr operti
esandt hel awwoul dimposean
i
ntol erablebur deni fitr equiredt hem t odososav eint he
most except ional ci rcumst ances. I f i
nd no such
except i
onalci rcumst ances i nt his case and Iwoul d
accor dinglydismi sst heappeal s.
"
PerLor dMackeyofCl ashfernatpp.257and258:" I
n
appr oachingt heser i
valsubmi ssi
onsi thastobebor nein
mind t hatt hedamaget ot henei ghbouri
ng pr oper t
ies,
uponwhi chthecl aimsagai nstLit
tlewoodsar ef ounded, i
s
damagebyf i
reorot her
wiser esulti
ngfrom v andal i
sm in
Lit
tlewoods'pr emises.A dut yofcar et o prev entt hi
s
damagei stheonl ydutyal l
egedt obei ncumbentupon
Lit
tlewoodsr elevanttothiscase.Fr om thi
sitf oll
owst hat
unlessLi ttl
ewoodswer eboundr easonablytoant ici
pate
andguar dagai nstt hisdanger,theyhadnodut yofcar e,
rel
ev antt ot his case,r equiri
ng t hem toi nspectt heir
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
premises.Unl
ess,t
her
efor
e,Li
tt
lewoods,ontaki
ngcont
rol
of these premises wit
hout any knowledge of t
he
subsequenthist
oryofthepropert
yaf t
ertheyassumed
contr
ol,ought

reasonablytohaveantici
pat
edthattheywoul dbeseton
fi
reandt husorot her
wisecreateasubst anti
alr
iskof
damaget onei ghbouri
ngpropert
iesiftheydidnottake
precauti
ons,theclai
msmustf ai
l.
"

PerLor dGof fofChi ev el

eyatp.274:" Butl i
abi l
ityshoul d
onlybei mposedundert hispr incipl
e( wher et hedamage
i
scausedbyt heactofat hir
dpar t
y)i ncaseswher et he
def ender has negl igent l
y caused or per mi tted t he
creat ionofasour ceofdangeronhi sl and, andwher ei tis
foreseeabl ethatt hir
dpar tiesmayt r
espassonhi sl and
andspar kitof f,t herebydamagi ngt hepur suerorhi s
proper ty.Mor eov eri ti s nott o be f orgot t
en t hat,i n
ordi naryhousehol dsi nthiscount ry,therear enowaday s
many t hings whi ch mi ghtbe descr ibed as possi ble
sour cesoff ireifi nterferedwi thbyt hirdpar ties,r angi ng
from mat chesandf ireli
ght er
st oel ect ri
ci ronsandgas
cooker sandev enoi l
firedcent ralheat i
ngsy stems.These
arecommonpl acesofmoder nl i
fe;andi twoul dbequi te
wr ong i f househol der s wer e t o be hel d l i
abl e i n
negl igencef oract ingi nasoci all
yaccept ablemanner .No
doubtt hequest ionwhet herl i
abi l
it
yshoul dbei mposed
ondef endersinacasewher easour ceofdangeronhi s
l
andhasbeenspar kedof fbyt hedel i
ber atewr ongdoi ng
ofat hirdpar t
yi saquest iont obedeci dedont hef actsof
each case,and i twoul d,It hink be wr ong f ory our
Lor dshi ps'Houset oant icipatet hemanneri nwhi cht he
l
aw maydev elop:butIcannothel pt hinkingt hatcases
wher el iabi
li
tywi llbesoi mposedar el ikelyt obev ery
rare. "

CBSSongsLt dvAmst r
andConsumerEl ect
ronicsPl
c[19881AC
1013Facts:Thepl ai
nti
ff
s,copy
rightowner sint hemusictrade,
suedthedefendantsi
n,amongother s,negli
genceonthegrounds
thatt
hedefendantsbymanufact
ur i
ng, adver
ti
singandoff
eri
ngf or
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
salehi -
fisystemswi thfacil
i
tiesf orrecordingathighspeedf r
om
pre-recorded cassettes ont
o bl ank t apes,had author i
sed and
i
ncitedmember soft hepublictoinfringetheircopyri
ghtsandwer e
i
nbr eachofadut yofcareowedt ot hem.
Held: Ont hequestionofdutyofcar e, i
twashel dthat,
althoughthe
defendant sowedadut yofcar enott oi nf
ri
ngeoraut hor i
sethe
i
nfringementoft heplaint
if
f'scopy ri
ght,theyowed no dut yto
prevent,discourageorwar nagainstsuchi nf
ri
ngement .
The

PerLor dTempl emanatpp.1059and1060:" Final l

yB. P.I.
submi tt hatAmst radcommi t
tedt het ortofnegl igence,
thatAmst radowest oal lowner sofcopy r
ightadut yt o
takecar enott ocauseorper mitpur chaser stoi nf ri
nge
copy r i
ghtoral t
er nat i
v elyt hatAmst radowesadut yt o
takecar enott of acili
tat ebyt hesal eoft heirmodel sOfby
theiradv ertisementt he i nfringementofcopy right .My
Lor ds,i ti sal way seasyt odr aftapr oposi tionwhi chi s
tail
or -madet opr oducet hedesi redr esul t
.Si nceAnnsv
Mer t
onLondonBor oughCounci l[1978]A. C.728putt he
fl
oodgat es on t he j ar ,a f ashi onabl e pl ainti
ffal l
eges
negl i
gence.The pl eadi ng assumes t hat we ar e al l
neighbour s now,Phar isees and Samar i
tans al ike,t hat
foreseeabi lityisar eflect i
onofhi ndsi ghtandt hatf orev er y
mi schancei nanacci dent -
pr onewor ldsomeonesol vent
mustbel iabl eindamages.I nGov er nor soft hePeabody
Donat i
onFundvSi rLi ndsayPar kinson&Co.Lt d.[ 1985]
A.C.210 t he pl aint i
ffs wer et he aut hor s oft hei rown
mi sfortunebutsoughtt omaket hel ocalaut hor i
tyl i
able
fort heconsequences.I nYuenKunYeuvAt torney -Gener al
ofHongKong[ 1988]A. C.175t hepl aintiffchoset oi nvest
i
nadeposi t-takingcompanywhi chwenti nt oliqui dat i
on;
the pl aint i
ffsoughtt or ecov erhi s deposi tf rom t he
commi ssionerchar gedwi tht hepubl i
cdut yofr egi stering
deposi t
-taki ngcompani es.I nRowl i
ngvTakanoPr oper ties
Ltd.[ 1988]A. C.473acl aimf ordamagesi nnegl igence
wasmadeagai nstami nisteroft heCr ownf ordecl iningi n
goodf aitht oexer cisei nf av ouroft hepl aintif
fast at utor y
discr eti
onv estedi nt hemi ni steri nt hepubl i
cint erest .In
HillvChi efConst ableofWestYor kshi re[ 1988]Q. B.60;
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
[1988]2W. L.
R.1049damagesagai nstapol i
cef or
cewer e
soughtonbehal foft hevict
im ofacr i
minal.Inthepr esent
proceedingsdamagesandani nj
unct i
onf ornegl i
gence
aresoughtagai nstAmst radforabr eachofst atut
orydut y
whichAmst r
addi dnotcommi tandi nwhichAmst raddi d
notpar t
ici
pate.Thef i
ghtsofB. P.Iaret obef oundi nt he
Actof1956andnowher eelse.Underandbyv ir
tueoft hat
ActAmst r
adowedadut ynottoi nfr
ingecopy ri
ghtandnot
toaut hori
seani nfr
ingementofcopy ri
ght.Theydi dnot
owea dut yt o preventordi scour ageorwar n against
i
nf r
ingement."
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
'
l
ie

Capar
ovDi
ckman[
1990]2AC605
Fact s:Thepl aintiff
shadj ustbegunbuy i
ngshar esi nal imited
l
iabi l
itycompanywhent heannualaccount soft hecompanywer e
publ i
shedi ncompl iancewi tht heCompani esAct .Rel yingont he
account sthepl ainti
f f
spur chasedmor eshar esi nor dert ot ake
overt hecompany .Theaccount scont ainedi naccur aciesandt he
plaintiff'sinv estmentf ail
ed.They sued t he di rectors oft he
companyf orcer tif
yingt heaccount sal legingt hatt heyoweda
dut yofcar et obot hshar eholder sandpr ospect i
vei nv estorsin
publ i
shi ngt heaccount soft hecompany .
Hel d:Si nce the pur pose oft he statutoryr equi r
ementwast o
enabl et heshar ehol dersexer ciset heircl assr ightsi nagener al
meet ings,thedef endant swer enotl iablet othepl aint i
ff
sast hey
wer enotwi thint heircont empl ati
onatt het imeofpr epar i
ngt he
account s.
Princi ple: Liabi li
ty f or economi c l oss due t o negl i
gent
mi sstat ementi sconf i
nedt ocaseswher ethest atementoradv i
ce
hasbeengi v
ent oaknownr ecipientf oraspeci f i
cpur poseof
whi cht hemakerhasbeenawar eanduponwhi cht her ecipi
ent
hasr eliedandact edt ohi sdet riment.Tohol dt hataper sonowes
adut yofcar et oanot her ,i
naddi t
iont othet estsoff oreseeabi l
ity
andpr oximity,i
tmustbef air
,justandr easonabl etoi mposesuch
dut yundert heci rcumst ances.

PerLor dBr idgeofHar wichatpp.617and618:" What

emer ges ist hat,in addi ti
on t ot he foreseeabi li
tyof
damage,necessar yingr edi entsinanysi tuat i
ongi ving
ri
setoadut yofcar ear et hatt hereshouldexi stbetween
thepar t
yowi ngt hedut yandt hepar tytowhom i tis
owedar elationshi pchar act eri
sedbyt helaw asoneof
'
proximity'or' neighbour hood'and t hatt he si t
uation
shouldbeonei nwhi cht hecour tconsider si tfair
,just
andr easonabl et hatt hel aw shoul dimposeadut yofa
givenscopeupont heonepar tyfort hebenef itoft he
other.Buti tisi mpl i
citint hepassagesr efer redtot hat
the concept s ofpr oxi mityand f air
ness embodi ed in
theseaddi ti
onali ngr edient sar enotsuscept i
bleofany
suchpr ecisedef ini
tionaswoul dbenecessar ytogi ve
them util
it
yaspr acticalt ests,butamounti nef f
ectt o
l
itt
le mor et han conv eni entl abelst o at tach tot he
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
featur
es ofdi ff
erentspecif
ic sit
uat i
ons which,on a
detail
edexami nati
onofal lt
heci rcumstances,thelaw
recognisespragmatical
l
yasgi vi
ngr i
set oadut yofcare
ofa gi ven scope.Whi l
strecognising,ofcour se,the
i
mpor tanceoftheunderlyi
nggeneralpr i
nci
plescommon
tothewhol efi
eldof
The

negli
gence,Ithi
nkt helawhasnowmov edinthedirecti
on
ofat t
achinggreatersi gnifi
cancet othemor etradit
ional
categori
sati
onofdi st
inctandr ecogni
sablesi
tuati
onsas
gui
dest ot heexistence,t hescopeandt heli
mitsoft he
var
ieddutiesofcarewhi chthelawi mposes.
"

Andatpp.620and621:" Thesal i
entf eat ureofal lt hese
casesi st hatt hedef endantgi vingadv i
ceori nf ormat ion
wasf ullyawar eoft henat ur eoft het ransact ionwhi cht he
plaintiffhad i ncont empl at i
on,knew t hatt headv i
ceor
i
nf ormat ionwoul d becommuni cat ed t o hi m di rectlyor
i
ndi rectlyandknewt hatitwasv er yl ikelyt hatt hepl ai ntif
f
woul dr ely on t hatadv i
ce ori nf or mat ion i n deci di ng
whet her or not t o engage i n t he t ransact i
on i n
cont empl ation.I nt hese ci rcumst ances t he def endant
coul dcl earlybeexpect ed,subj ectal way st ot heef fectof
anydi sclaimerofr esponsi bil
it
y ,speci ficallyt oant icipat e
thatt hepl ainti
ffwoul dr elyont headv iceori nf ormat ion
givenbyt hedef endantf ort hev erypur posef orwhi chhe
didi nt heev entr elyoni t.Soal sot hepl aintiff,subj ect
agai nt ot he ef fectofany di scl aimer ,woul di nt hat
situationr easonabl ysupposet hathewasent i
tledt or ely
ont headv iceori nfor mat ioncommuni cat edt ohi mf ort he
verypur posef orwhi chher equi red i t.Thesi t uationi s
ent i
relydi fferentwher east atementi sputi ntomor eor
l
essgener alci rculat ionandmayf or eseeabl yber el
iedon
byst r
anger st ot hemakeroft hest atementf oranyoneof
av ari
et yofdi fferentpur poseswhi cht hemakeroft he
statementhasnospeci fi
cr easont oant icipate.Tohol dt he
makeroft hest atementt obeunderadut yofcar ei n
respectoft heaccur acyoft hest atementt oal landsundr y
foranypur posef orwhi cht heymaychooset or elyoni tis
notonl yt osubj ecthi m,i nt hecl assi cwor dsofCar dozo
C.J.t o' l
iabili
tyi n an i ndeter mi nat e amount f or an
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
i
ndet er
mi nate t i
me t o an i ndeterminate class:'see
Ultr
amar esCor porati
onvTouche( 1931)174N. E.441,444;
i
ti s also t o conferon t he wor l
d atl ar
ge a qui t
e
unwar r
ant ed entit
lementt o appropriatef ortheirown
purposes t he benef i
t of the exper t knowledge or
professi
onalexper ti
se att
ri
buted t ot he makeroft he
statement .Hence,l ooki
ngonlyatt heci r
cumst ancesof
thesedeci dedcaseswher eadut yofcar e
17EE

i
nr espectofnegl i
gentst atement shasbeenhel dtoexi st,
Ishoul d expect t of ind t hat t he ' l
imit or cont rol
mechani sm i mposedupont hel iabi
lit
yofawr ongdoer
towar dst hosewhohav esuf feredeconomi cdamagei n
consequenceofhi snegl i
gence'r estedi nthenecessi t
y
topr ove,int hiscat egoryoft het ortofnegl i
gence,asan
essent i
ali ngr edient of t he 'pr oximity'bet ween t he
plainti
ffandt hedef endant ,thatt hedef endantknewt hat
hisst atementwoul dbecommuni catedt othepl ai
nt i
ff,
eitherasani ndi vi
dualorasamemberofani dentif
iable
class,speci ficall
yi n connect i
on wi th a par ti
cular
transactionort ransactionsofapar ti
cularkind( e.g.ina
prospect us inv i
ting investment )and t hatt he plaintif
f
woul d bev eryl ikelytor elyoni tfort hepur poseof
deci di
ngwhet herornott oent erupont hattr
ansact ionor
uponat ransact ionoft hatki nd."

Andatp.623:" Theseconsi der

ationsampl yj ustif
yt he
concl usionthataudi torsofapubl iccompany '
saccount s
owenodut yofcar et omember soft hepubl i
catl arge
whor elyupont heaccount sindecidingt obuyshar esin
thecompany .Ifadut yofcar ewer eowedsowi dely,i
tis
dif
ficultt o seeanyr easonwhyi tshoul dnotequal l
y
extendt oallwhor elyont heaccount sinr el
ati
ont oot her
dealings wi th a company as l ender s ormer chants
extendi ngcr edittot hecompany .A cl aimt hatsucha
dutywas owed byaudi tor
st o a bank l ending t oa
companywasemphat icallyandconv incinglyrejectedby
Mill
et tJ.inAlSaudiBanquevCl arkePi xl
ey[1990]Ch.
313.Theonl ysuppor tforanunl i
mi teddut yofcar eowed
byaudi tor
sf ortheaccur acyoftheiraccount stoal lwho
mayf oreseeablyr elyupont hem ist obef oundi nsome
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
j
urisdi
cti
onsintheUni t
edSt atesofAmer i
cawher ether
e
arestri
ki
ngdi f
ferencesinthel aw i
ndi f
ferentstates.I
n
thi
sjuri
sdict
ionIhav enodoubtt hatthecreationofsuch
anunlimiteddutywoul dbeal egi
slat
ivest epwhi chit
wouldbef orParl
i
ament ,notthecourts,t
ot ake."

DavidMcMahonvGav inDear[ 20141SCLR616

Facts:The plai
nti
ffvolunteered as a bal
lspott
erin a gol
f
tour
namentandwasst ationedatahol etocheckbal
lsl
andi
ngin
theroughorint
othegorse.Hewashi tandinj
uredbyabal
lpl
ayed
bythedefendant
whowascompet i
ngi nthetournament.Hesuedt hatthedef endant
had beennegligentinnotchecki ng t
o seewhet hert herewas
someone.
Held:Since the defendanthad notcommi t
ted an er rorof
j
udgmentt hatareasonablecompet it
orwouldnotcommi t,buthad
pl
ayedtheballi
nt heordinar
ycourseoft hegame, hewasnotl i
able.
Pri
ncipl
e:Apersonowesnogr eaterdutytopreventri
skswhi chare
i
ncident
altoaspor ti
nggameandi sthusnotli
ableforsuchi njur
ies
unl
ess he commi t
s an errorofj udgmentwhi ch a reasonabl e
competit
orwouldnotcommi t.

PerLor dJonesatpp.683and684,par s.209t o211:

[2091" Theviewexpr essedbyLor dDi plocki nWool dr i
dge,
thataspect at ort akest her iskofanydamagecausedt o
him byanyactofapar t
ici
panti nt hecour seofandf ort he
pur poses oft he compet i
ti
on,unl ess t he par ticipant 's
conducti ssuchast oev incear eckl essdi sregar doft he
spect ator'
s saf et y,has been cont r
ov ersialand was
expr essl yreject edbyt heExt raDi visioni nShar pe.Fur ther,
asMrCl ancypoi ntsout ,Lor dDi plockr efer redt o' the
agonyoft hemoment 'and,i ndeed,hel dt hatMrHol l
aday
wasact i
ngi nt heagonyoft hemomentatt hemat erial
time, thathehad' not i
met ot hink' andt hat , '
i
fhet ookt he
wr ong deci si on t hat woul d not i n l aw amount t o
negl igence' (p.72) .Iacceptt hatt hisi snotacaseoft hat
type.I nmyopi ni on, howev er, i
nt hepassageswhi chIhav e
quot ed i n par a. 186,Lor d Di pl
ock' si ntent ion was t o
expl or ethenat ur eoft her elat i
onshi pbet weencompet itor
and spect atori n gener aland was notconf ining hi s
anal ysi stot henat ureoft her el ati
onshi pbet weent he
par ti
cul arcompet itorandt hepar ticularspect at ori nv olved
i
nt hatcase.Ir espect full
yadoptt hatanal ysisandIdr aw
thef ol l
owi ngpr oposi ti
onsf rom t heaut hor it
ies:

(
i) i
ncasesi nvolvi
ngi njurytospect atorscausedby
compet it
orsactingi ntheordinarycour seofplay,
thet esttobeappl i
edi ndet
ermi ningt heissueof
negligencei s'whetherornott hecompet it
ori n
quest i
onhascommi t
tedanerr orofj udgmentt hat
ar easonablecompet i
torbei
ngar easonableman
oft he spor t
ing wor ld woul
d nothav e made';
(Sharpe,para.10);
 (
ii
) i
ndet
ermi
ningt
hatquest
ion,
thecour
tshoul
d

haveregar
dtothewholerel
evantsur
roundi
ng
fact
s and ci r
cumstances; (Wil
ks, per
Phil
l
imoreL],
atp.676;
Phee,para.
24)
;

(
ii
i) i
ndeci dingwhet herthecompet itorhascommi tted
aner r
orofj udgmentt hatar easonabl ecompet i
tor
woul dnothav emade,i ti srelevantt ohav eregar d
totheper ilswhi chmi ghtr easonabl ybeexpect ed
to occurand t he ext entt o whi ch the or dinary
spect atormi ghtbe expect ed to appr eciat
e and
taket her iskofsuchper il
s,( Hall,perScr ut
tonLJ
quot edi nWoodl ni dgebyDi plockLJatp. 67);int he
caseofagol fcompet i
tion:'
Spect at orswhopayf or
admi ssiont o golfcour sest o wi tnessi mpor tant
mat ches,t hought heykeepbey ondt heboundar ies
requiredbyt hest ewards, r
unt her iskoft hepl ayers
sli
cingorpul li
ngbal lswhi chmayhi tthem wi th
consi derablev elocit
y and damage' ,( Hall
,per
Scrut t
onLJatp. 209) .

[210]" Whi lsti ti sr ightt o acknowl edge t hatt his

pursuerwasact ingasanof ficialandwasnotaspect at or ,in
myj udgmenti tisappr opriatet oappl yt hesepr oposi tionst o
thefactsoft hiscase,ont hev iewt hatt hedef enderowedno
greaterdut yofcar et ot hepur suer ,asanof fi
cial,thanhedi d
toaspect at or.Forr easonst owhi chIshal lcome, thepur suer
wasnoti nt hesameposi ti
onasgr eenst af f
,i nr espectof
whom speci ficgui dancei sgi veni nt her ulesofgol f.Inmy
opini
on,not hi ngt urnsont hef actt hat ,asMrCl ancyar gued
whenseeki ngt odi st inguishHal l,thepur suerdi dnotpayf or
admission.Hehad v olunteer ed t o of ficiateand,t her ef ore,
mustbet akent ohav eappr eci atedandaccept edt her i
skof
beingst r
uckbyami s- hi
tbal l.Nordoesany thingt urnont he
factthatt hepur suerwasnotst andingi nanar eacor donedof f
forspect ator s.Inmyv i
ew,Lor dJust iceScr utton'sr efer ence
tospect at orskeepi ngbey ondt heboundar i
eswassi mpl yt o
emphasi se t hat,ev en when doi ng ev erything t hat t he
spectatorwasr equir edt odo,suchper son,nonet heless,r an
theriskofbei nghi tbyagol fbal landmustbet akent ohav e
acceptedt hatr isk.Inmyopi nion,ar easonabl ecompet it
oras
areasonabl e
•
20
 CaseBr
ief
s: Lawl
ort
sGhana

'
l
he OJ m

manoft hespor t
ingworl
dwouldexpectballspott
ers
toappr eciatethattheywereatri
skofbei nghitbya
strayball
, part
icul
arl
ysowhenitwastheirtasktospot
stray balls,and t hat t
hose who performed that
functi
ont ookthatr i
sk.

[211]"Asacor oll
aryoft hatv i
ew, i
nmyj udgment , such
acompet it
orwoul dexpectt hatof f
icialssuchast he
pursuer,locat edwher ehewas,woul dmakehi msel f
awar eofpl ayont hesi xthhole.I nmaki ngt hatf i
ndi ng,
Ihav einmi ndMrThomas' sv iew t hat,becauset he
game ofgol fi s nota super vised spor t
,and gol f
coursesar enotsuper vised,bot ht hosepl ayingand
thosespect ating(orof fi
ciati
ng)needt obeobser vant,
awar eoft heposi tionofot her sont hecour seand
awar eoft hei rownsi t
uat i
on.Iam al somi ndfulofMr
Dernie'
sev idencet hat ,ifhewasr efereeingwhena
shotwas bei ng play ed,he woul d expectt hatt he
playerswoul dbewat chingoutf orhim, andt heywoul d
expectthathewoul dbewat chingoutf orthem.Dur i
ng
the cour se of Mr Der nie'
s cr oss- exami nation, I
gatheredthatMrCl ancywasi ntendingt osuggestt hat
MrDer niewaspar t
icularlyhighlyqual if
iedasar eferee
andt hathisv iewsmaynotr epr esentwhatt her eferee
ofor di
narycompet encewoul ddoandexpect .Inmy
view,howev er ,itisamat t
erofcommonsenset hat
bothspect at orsandof f i
cial
sshoul dbeexpect edt obe
awar eofthest at
eofpl ay,forthei rownpr otection."

Atpp.687 and 688,par .223:"Irej

ectthe pur
suer
's
proposi
ti
ont hatthedef
enderoughttohav
ewalkedonto
geta bet t
erv iew.Had the def
enderchosen t
o walk
 CaseBr
ief
s: Lawl
ort
sGhana

towar dst hebuggy ,ov er200yardsaway ,hewoul dhav eno

wayofknowi ngwhensomebodyhi ddenf rom sightmi ght
comei ntov i
ew.Ther ewoul dbeatl eastachancet hatit
woul dbenecessar yt owal ktot hebuggyi nordert obe
suret hatt herewasnoonet here,andhewoul dthenhav e
towal kbackt ohi sbal l
.Totestt hepr acticabil
i
tyoft hat
proposi t
ion,someone wal ki
ng att hree mi les perhour
woul dt akeaboutf ourandahal fmi nut est ocov er200
yards( twoandaquar terminuteseachway ).Inthiscase,
the def endercoul d notbe expect ed t o commence hi s
j
our neyf orwar duntilMrKel l
etthadpl ayedhi sshot.Given
thatthedef enderhadonl y40secondst opl ayhissecond
shotf rom t het i
mewhenMrKel l
ett'
sbal lcamet orest
,he
woul dhav eusedupt hewhol eoft hattimewal ki
ngjust29
yardsi nthedi recti
onoft hebuggy21•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

andback,wi thnot i
mel efttopr epar eforandt akehi s
shot.Inanyev ent,asMrHomeraccept edi ncr oss-
exami nation,ev eni ft hedef enderhadwal kedf orwar d
tocheckt hear ea,andev enifitwer eclearwhenhedi d
so,ther i
skt hatsomebodymi ghtmov eint othear ea
asthedef enderwal kedbackt ohi sbal lwoul dremai n.
For t hat r eason, Mr Homer agr eed t hat goi ng
backwar ds and f or wards t ot he bal l' has t o end
somet ime' .Iacceptt heev i
denceofMrThomaswhi ch
Ihav er ecor dedi npar asl10and121oft hisopi nion
that,hav i
ngseent hecar t,thedef enderdi dt her ight
thi
ng.Wal kingf orwar dwoul dhav ei nt
erruptedthef l
ow
ofthegame,andputt hedef enderi nbr eachoft he
rul
esoft he t our nament .The f low oft he game i s
i
mpor tantenoughi nat ournamentl i
ket hi
sf ort he
organiserst o moni tort hepaceofpl ayand,i fany
groupf ellbehi nd, theywoul dbet oldtospeedup. "

Andatp.691,par .233:" Insummar y,t hedef ender

playedhi ssecondshoti nt heor dinarycour seofpl ay.
Thedangeroft hepur suer'sbei nghi tbyt hatshotwas
ar i
sk i nci
dentalt ot he compet i
tion,whi ch was
accept edbyt hepur suer.Thei njurysust ainedbyt he
pursuerwasnotcausedbyaner r
orofj udgmentont he
partoft he defendert hata r easonabl e compet i
tor
beingar easonablemanoft hespor ti
ngwor l
dwoul d
nothav emade.Foral loft hef oregoingr easons,i nmy
opiniont hepursuerhasnotdi schar gedt heonuson
himt oest abl
ishthatt heinjurywhi chhesust ainedon
4Apr il2009wascausedbyt hef aultandnegl igenceof
the def ender.Int hese ci rcumst ances,Ineed say
nothingaboutt hepar t
ies'respect i
v ear gument sont he
i
ssueofcont ri
butor
ynegl igence. "

Robi
nsonvChi
efConst
abl
eofWestYor
kshi
rePol
i
ce[
20141
EWCACiv15
Fact s:Inanattemptt oar restadr ugdealerwhowassel l
i
ng
drugsont hestreet
,thepol i
cemenandt hedr ugdealerwho
struggledwit
ht hem knockedi ntothepl ai
ntif
fwhowaswal ki
ng
pastandshewasi nj
ured.Shesuedt hepoli
ceinnegligence.
Hel d:Itwoul
dnotbef ai
r,justandr easonablet oimposeadut y
onpol i
ceoff
icersdoingt heirbestt ogetadr ugdealeroffthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

st
reetsafel
yandthustheplaint
if
f'
sactionmustfai
l
.
Pr
inci
ple:A dut y ofcar e would be imposed i
funderthe
ci
rcumstances,
iti
sf ai
r,j
ustandreasonabl
etoimposeadut
y.

PerLadyJust i
ceHal lett
,VP atpar s.40— 42:40.
"Second,t heCapar otestappl i
est oal lcl aimsi nt he
moder nlawofnegl i
gence.Thet hirdst ageoft het est
mayhav ebeent ri
ggeredbyt hedesi ret oconst rainthe
dev elopmentoft helaw ofnegl i
gencei nr el
at i
ont o
claimswhi chdonoti nv olvedi rectphy sicaldamage,
buti thasbecomepar toft hegener allaw.I nthev ast
maj orit
yofcl ai
mst heanswert ot hequest ionposedat
thet hir
dst ageoft het est—whet heri tisf airjustand
reasonabl et oi mposeadut y— maybeobv i
ousbuti t
stil
lappl i
es.Icanseenoj ustif
icationi nt hecasel aw
ort het extbooksf orrest r
icti
ngi tsappl icat i
ont ot he
mor e di ff
icul tareas.I n any ev ent ,Mi ss Wi ddett
accept st he f i
rsttwo st ages oft he Capar ot est;
foreseeabi lit
yandpr oximi tyappl yt oal lcl aimsand
theywi l
linev it
ablyinvolvesomeexami nat ionofwhat
mi ghtbe cal l
ed public pol i
cy .The cour twi llonly
i
mposeadut ywher ei tconsi dersi trightt odosoon
thef acts.

41. " Theideat hattheCommonLawwoul di mpose

adutyi nci r
cumst anceswher eitisunf airunjustand
orunreasonabl etodoso,i st omymi ndnonsensical.
Thecour tmaynothav eusedt hesewor dsbutt he
wholebasi soft hedeci si
oni nDonoghuevSt evenson
wast hati twasf airjustandr easonabl etoi mposea
duty
.Thegi ngerbeerwasi ntendedf orconsumpt i
on
andpr oducedinsuchawayt hecont entscouldnotbe
examinedbyt heul t
imateconsumer .Theconsumer
hadnocont ractwi ththemanuf acturerandt heref
ore
no ot her r emedy . The manuf actur
er was
understandablyhel dliabl
efort hedamagecausedt o
her.

42. " Moreover,theadopti

onoft heCapar otestto
claimsi nnegligencegeneral
lyi
sr efl
ectedi nallthe
most r ecent appellate deci
sions ( ev
en wher e
reference is made to Rigby
).The t hr
ee issues of
foreseeabil
it
y,proximit
yandwhetheritisfairjustand
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

r
easonabl
etoimposeadut yareaddr
essedint urn,
what
everthenatureofthehar
m.Anexampl eoft hi
s
whi
chwasnotr eli
eduponbycounsel
,ist
hedecision
i
nSmi t
handOthersvTheMi ni
str
yOfDefence[2013]
3WLR

Atpar
s.46and47:[46]"
Thatbr
ingsmetomyt
hir
dconcl
usi
on.
Thegener
alpr
inci
plei
sthatmostclai
ms

23u•

againstt hepolicei nnegl igencef ortheiract sor

omi ssions i n the cour se of i nv est
igating and
suppr essingcrimeandappr ehendi ngof fenderswi l
l
fai
lt het hir
dstageoft heCapar ot est.Itwillnotbe
fai
rj ustandr easonabl et oi mposeadut y.Thi sis
because t he cour ts have concl uded t hat t he
i
nter estsoft hepubl icwi l
lnotbebestser vedby
i
mposi ngadut yt oi ndi
viduals.Ishal lnotrepeatt he
j
ustificati
onsoel oquentlyexpr essedbyot hers,in
particularLordSt eyn,sav efort heset wosent ences:
'
Thepr imef uncti
onoft hepol icei st hepreserv at
ion
oftheQueen' speace.Thepol icemustconcent r
ate
onpr eventi
ngt hecommi ssionofcr ime;pr ot
ecting
l
ifeandpr operty;andappr ehendi ngcr i
mi nal
sand
preser vi
ngev i
dence. '

47." This' i
mmuni t
y '(Iuset heter m asshor thand)
woul dbeofl i
ttl
eOfnopr acti
calbenef i
ti fi twas
restri
cted i nt he way Mi ss Wi ddet t suggest ed.
Ar r
esti
ng cr iminalsv ery commonl y car ries some
form ofr isk.Yet,ther eisanobv iouspubl icint erest
i
nnoti mposi ngadut ywhichmi ghtdet ert hepol ice
from remov i
ngadr ugsdeal erf r
om t hest reets.Mi ss
Wi ddettposedt her hetori
calquest ion:whatwoul d
the publ i
ct hink ift he police,int he pr ocess of
arresti
ngcr i
minals,coul dinjureinnocentmember s
oft hepubl i
cwi thimpuni t
y?Theansweri s:pr ov i
ded
thepol i
ceactwi thinr eason,t hepubl icwoul dpr efer
toseet hem doingt heirjobandt akingdr ugdeal ers
offt he st r
eet.Itwi llbe ofl i
tt
le comf or tt o Mr s
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Robi
nson,butt
he ri
sk t
o passer
s-by l
ike heri
s
tr
umpedbyther
iskt
osoci
etyasawhole."

Andatpar .51:"
Thus,Iam sat isfiedthethree-
stage
Capar otestdoesapplytot hepr esentacti
on.Ifso,i
t
i
sapar adigm exampleofwhyt hecour t
sareloathe
toimposeadut ytowardsi ndi
vidualmember softhe
publicont hepoli
ceengagedi nt hei
rcorefuncti
ons.
I
twoul dnotbef air,j
ustandr easonabl etoimposea
dutyonpol iceoffi
cersdoingthei rbesttogetadr ug
dealeroffthestr
eetsafely
."

Morcom vPer
sonalRepr
esent
ati
vesoftheEst
ateof
Bi
ddick(
deceased)[
20141EWCACi v182
Facts:Thedef endant,thepl ai
ntif
f'
snei ghbour,volunt
eeredto
holdapol etosuppor talofthatchonwhi chtheplainti
ffwasto
standtocar ryoutsomewor k.Thedef endantlefttoanswera
phonecal landtheplainti
fffell
.
Held:Sinceitwasf oreseeablethatthedef endant'
sfailur
eto
performt hetaskhehadassumedwoul dcausei njur
iestothe
pl
ai nt
if
f,hewasl iabl
e.
Princi
ple:Aper sonwhov oluntari
lyacceptsadut yassumest he
dutytoper f
or mthetaskcar efull
y.

PerMcCombe,LJatpar s.42and43:[ 421" I

nt his
case,MrBi ddi
ck chose toi nvolve hi
msel fint he
acti
vit
y.Heassumedr esponsibi
lit
y,notforbear i
ng
MrMor com'sweighti fhehappenedt of allont he
hatchcov er
,buti nunder t
akingt oensuret hatthe
l
atch remained closed.Admi t
tedly
,Mr Bi ddick's
concern was through v i
brat
ion and t he accident
occurr
edt hr
oughwei ghtappli
edt oscrew9.Howev er
,
histask was as Ihav e descr i
bed.He chose t o
abandonhi spost,and,i ndoi ngso,( ast hej udge
found)causedthelockpar t
ial
l
yt odisengage.

[43] "Examining the t radit

ional cr i
teri
a f or t he
exist
enceofadut yofcare, i
tseemst ome, therefore,
thatMrBi ddickputhi mselfinadegr eeofpr oximi t
y
toMrMor com int heper formanceoft hewor ki n
cir
cumst ancesinwhi chitwasf oreseeablethat ,i
fhis
taskwasnegl ected,thehatchmi ghtwor kitselfopen,
withar i
skofcausi ngMrMor com t ofallandsust ai
n
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
njury.Therecanbenodoubt ,insuchci r
cumst ances,
thati
twoul dnormal lybef ai
randr easonabletof i
nd
thatadut yofcar ear ose.Howev er,MrBur nsadds
i
ntot heequationt hatMrMor com expresslydenied
thathewasr el
ying upon MrBi ddicktot akeany
weightort hather egardedMrBi ddi
ck'spositionas
being 'saf
ety cr
it
ical'
.MrBur ns submi tsthatt he
absenceofsuchr elianceiscrit
icali
nnegatingadut y
ofcarei nt
hiscase."

And atpar .53:" Formy par t,Ido notsee any

i
nconsi stencybetweent hispassageint hejudgment
ofHobhouse,LJandt hedeci si
onoft heHouseof
Lordsi nToml inson'
scase.I tseemst omet hatin
Toml insonneitherDef endanthadi nv olveditselfin
anyr elevantactivi
tygivingcont r
olorr esponsibi
li
ty
overadanger oussi t
uation.Inthepr esentcase,Mf
Biddickincontrasthadchosent oinv
ol vehimsel ft
oa
l
imited,but i mpor tant extent in t he potent i
all
y
hazardousact i
vitybeingconductedbyMr

Morcom.Hi sunder t
akingwast okeept hehat chdoor
l
atched.Itseemst omet hatitwasent i
relyf oreseeabl e
that
,shouldhef ailtodoso,t hehatchdoormi ghtf al
l
open,whetherthr
oughv i
brationorpressur e.Ther ei sno
needt oimportanyel ementof' r
easonabl er el
iance'i n
suchacase,asmi ghtber equiredinacaseofeconomi c
l
oss,inordertoleadt ot heexi st
enceofadut yofcar e.
OnceMrBi ddicktookuponhi msel
fthet askofensur i
ng
thatthelat
chr emainedcl osedi tseemst omet hathe
assumedadut ytoper f
ormt hattaskcarefull
y ,eveni fMr
Morcom didnotseeMrBi ddick'sr
oleasanel ementi nhis
ownsafety.
"

Woodl
andvEssexCount
yCounci
l[201411Al
lER482
Facts:The pl ai
ntiff
,a mi norpupi lata schoolr un by the
defendantsufferedseri
ousbr ai
ni nj
uryduri
ngswi mmi nglessons
i
nnor malschoolhour sowi ngtothenegl i
genceoft heswimmi ng
teacherand t he lif
eguard,both ofwhom wer ei ndependent
contract
ors.Thepl ai
nti
ffsuedallegi
ngt hatthedefendantsowed
him anon-delegabledutyofcare.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Held:Si
ncet heswi mmi ngl
essonhadbeenani ntegralpartofthe
school'
steachingf unct
ionsandtheplainti
ffwasent rust
edt othe
schoolforthepur posesoft eachi
ng,thedef endantowedhi ma
non-del
egabledut yofcareandwast husl i
abl
ef orthenegligence
oftheswimmi ngt eacherandtheli
feguard.
Pri
ncipl
e: Assi gning a non- del
egable dut y is act i
onable
negli
gence.

PerLor d Sumpt ion,SCJ atp.500,par .26:" In my

opini
on,ont hel i
mi tedf act spl eadedoradmi tt
ed,t he
respondenteducat ion aut hority assumed a dut yt o
ensuret hatt he appel l
ant's swi mmi ng l
essons wer e
carefull
yconduct edandsuper vised,bywhomev ert hey
mightgett oper for m thesef unct i
ons.Theappel l
ant
was ent rusted t ot he schoolf orcer t
ain essent ial
purposes, whichi ncl udedt eachi ngandsuper vi
sion.The
swimmi ngl essonswer eani ntegr alpartoftheschool '
s
teaching funct i
on.They di d not occur on school
premises,butt heyoccur redi nschoolhour sinapl ace
wheret heschoolchoset ocar r
youtt hispar tofi ts
functi
ons.Thet eachi ngandt hesuper vi
soryfunct ions
oftheschool ,
andt hecont roloft hechi l
dthatwentwi th
them,wer edel egat edbyt heschoolt oMr sSt opford
andt hroughhert oMsBur li
nson,andpr obablyt oMs
Maxwel laswel l,tot heext entnecessar ytoenablet hem
to give swi mmi ng l essons.The al l
eged negl i
gence
occurredint hecour seoft hev er yf uncti
onswhi ch

•
26
the schoolassumed an obligati
on to per
form and
del
egatedt oit
scontract
ors.I
tmustf oll
ow thati
fthe
l
atterwerenegli
gentinperf
ormingthosefuncti
onsand
the chil
d was inj
ured as a resul
t,the educat
ional
authori
tyisi
nbreachofduty.
"

HelenShieldsvCr ossr oads[20131SCLR730

Facts:Thepl ainti
ffsuf f
eredf r
om depressionandwasr eferr
ed
tot he defendant s who wer ear egistered chari
ty pr
ovidi
ng
practi
calandemot ionalsuppor tf
orcarers.Themanagerofone
ofitsoffi
ceswhowasassi gnedtotheplainti
ffandthecourseof
thei
rdiscussions,dev elopedanamor ousrelati
onshi
pleadingto
sexualintercourse.Thepl ainti
ffall
egedt hatasar esultofthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

l
ov eaf fair
,shesuf feredser i
ousi njur
yt oherment alheal thas
wel las cer t
ainf i
nanciallosses.She sued t he defendants
vicariouslyinnegligenceal l
egingt hatthemanagerowedhera
dutyofcar enott o haveanaf fairwi t
hherbecauseoft he
posi t
ionhewasi nashersoci alworkerbutthathehadbr eached
thatdut y by del i
beratel
yi ntending to cause di str
ess and
psy chologicalharm bydecidingtohav eanaf f
airwithher .
Hel d:Undert heci r
cumst ances,i twoul d notbef air,justand
reasonabl etoi mposeacommonl awdut yofcar eont hemanager .
Pr i
nciple:Thecommonl awdut yofcar ewill
notbei mposedona
defendantwher eundert hecircumst ancesoft hepar ti
cularcase
i
ti snotf air
,justandreasonabl etoimposesuchadut y.

PerLordPent l
andatpp.740and741,par s.45— 47:
[
45]"Asr egardstheav ermentsofnegl i
genceont he
par
tofMrBennet t
,insummar ythepursueraversthat
hehadadut ynott oent erintoasexualr el
ati
onship
wit
hherbecauseoft heposi ti
onoftrustheoccupi ed
and i
nv iew ofhi s state ofknowl edge aboutt he
pur
suer'
spsy chol
ogical
v ulner
abil
i
ty.

[46]" I
nt hepar ti
cul arcircumstancesoft hepr esent
caseassetoutbyt hepursuerinherpl eadings.Idonot
considerthatitwoul dbefair,j
ustorr easonablef orthe
commonl aw toimposeonMrBennet tadut yoft he
scopeav er r
ed.Itisi mportanttoscr utini
set hef act
ual
basisoft hepur suer '
scasecl osel
y,par ti
cularl
yinv i
ew
oft he nov elt
y oft he duty ofcar ef orwhi ch she
contends.Essent ially,asitseemst ome,t hepur suer
enteredintoaconsensualsexualr el
at i
onshipwi thMr
Bennet tatat imewhent hel aw consider edhert obe
full
ycapabl eofdoi ngso.Shewasanadul twithfull

27.
ment alcapacity
.She wasnotsuf f
eri
ng fr
om any
recognised f
orm ofment aldi
sorderorhandicap;
according to her aver
ment s her mentalhealth
diff
icul
tieswereinthedi
stantpast
.Sheacceptsthat
shehadexper iencednosymptomsi nthi
sregardfor
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

tent o12y ears.AsIr eadt hepur suer 'sav er ment si n

article5,sheaccept sal sot hatshedi dnotbegi nt o
suf ferf rom anynew ' ment ali llnesssy mpt oms'unt il
aftert hest artoft heaf fair.MrBennet tdi dnotuse
threat s,f orceordur ess;whathei sal l
egedt ohav e
donei st ohav eper suadedt hepur suert ohav ean
affairwi thhi m.Ev ent akingt hepur suer '
scaseati ts
highest ,ther el
at ionshi pwas,howev er,oneent er ed
i
nt obyt woconsent ingadul ts;t hiscanbeseenf rom
thepur suer'sav er ment s.Forexampl e,Inot et hatt he
pur sueraccept st hatshewentwi ll
i
ngl yt o al lt he
meet ingswi thMrBennet t.Shedi scussedhersexl i
fe
withhi m,agai nper fect lyopenl yandwi ll
ingl ysof ar
asherav erment ssuggest .Shet oldhi mt hatshewas
fl
at tered byhi sat tent ion.She engaged i nr egul ar
emai lcor respondencewi thMrBennet tbet weent heir
respect ivepr i
vatee- mai laccount s.Theyst ar tedt o
meetonaweekl ybasi s.Sheaskedhi mt ocol lecther
sonf rom school .Shebel iev edt hathecar edabout
her .On 29t h June,t he pur suerand MrBennet t
exchangedaser iesofemai lsi nwhi cht heyar ranged
tomeetatt hedef ender s'pr emi sest hatev ening.On
that occasi on t he pur suer wi lli
ngl y had sexual
relationswi thMfBennet t.Thepur suer '
spl eadi ngs
cont ainanumberofsomewhatv aguer efer encest o
herv ulner abili
ty,al thoughInot edt hatMi ssGr ahame
i
nhersubmi ssionsr athershi edawayf rom def ining
whatexact lythenat ureandt heext entoft heal leged
vulner abi l
itywer e.Inot eal sot hatt hepur suerav ers
thatMrBennet tknew t hatshe had a hi stor yof
ment alheal thdi fficul ti
es.I tseemst ome,howev er,
that nei ther t he pur suer 's al l
eged st ate of
vulner abi l
ity norMrBennet t'
s knowl edge ofher
backgr oundandpr ev i
ouspr obl emsdet r
act sf rom t he
i
ncont rov ertiblef actt hatt hepur suerwenti nt ot he
relationshi pasawi l
lingpar t neratat imewhenshe
was,i nl aw,deemedt obef ul lycapabl eofsodoi ng.
Int hoseci rcumst ances, Ifindi timpossi blet oi dent if
y
any basi s on whi ch i twoul d be f air,j ustand
reasonabl ef orthecommonl awt oi mposeadut yof
car eonMrBennet tnott oent eri nt ot her elat i
onshi p
witht he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

•
28
pur
suer
.

[47] " I
n my opi nion,t he consensual adul t sexual
rel
ationshi pwhi chdev el
opedbet weent hepur suerand
MrBennet ti sf arr emov edf rom t het ypeofsexual l
y
abusiv er elationshi pwher et hecommonl aw hasbeen
prepar edt ohol dt hatt herei sadut ynott oengagei nt he
rel
ationshi p— cases i nvol vi
ng t he sexualabuse of
chil
drenorofper sonssuf feri
ngf rom ment alhandi cap
areobv iousexampl es.Itwasnodoubtmi sjudgedand
professi onallywr ongf orMrBennet ttohav eanaf fai
r
witht hepur suer ,butt hati sal ongwayf rom say i
ngt hat
i
twasact ionabl ynegl i
gentf orhi mt odoso.Whati fthe
rel
ationshi phadt urnedoutt obeast abl e,happyand
endur i
ng one? Woul d Mr Bennet t stil
lhav e been
consider ednegl igentasamat terofl awf orencour aging
orper suadi ngt hepur suert oent erintoi t?Thel ogicof
thepur suer'sar gumentwoul dt endt oindi catet hathe
woul d be.Iv ent uret o suggestt hatt hi
swoul d bea
surprisingst ateofaf fai
rs.Whenonet hinksaboutt he
pursuer '
scasei nt hisway ,itseemst o met hatt he
damagesheal legedl ysufferedandt helosseswhi chshe
seekst or ecov err eal l
yflow f r
om t hebr eakdownoft he
rel
ationshi pr at hert hanbei ngt her esultofMrBennet t'
s
decisiont oent eri ntoi torhi sallegedef f
or tst opersuade
thepur suert odoso. "

OPOvMLA[ 2014]EWCACi v1277

Facts:The f i
rstrespondentwr ote a semi-autographi
calbook
concerning,amongot hers,hispr
ofessi
onalwor k,hispastsexual
abuseand hi sment ali l
lness.Hisson,t heappl i
cant,brought
proceedingsf oraninjunctiontostopthepubl i
cati
onoft hebook
ongr oundsi twouldcauseherpsy chologi
calhar m.Heal leged
thatthepubl i
cati
onoft hebookwoul dmaket her espondentliabl
e
i
nnegl i
gence.
Held:Thecl aiminnegl i
gencehadnotbeenmadeout .
Princi
ple:Apar entowesachi l
dnodutyofcareatcommonl aw.

PerArdenLJatpars.55— 57:[
551"Onthatbasi
s,t
he
quest
ionoftheexi
stenceofadutyofcarefal
lstobe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

determinedbyr ef
erencetothet hree-par
ttestl
aiddown
i
nCapar oIndustri
espl cvDi ckman[ 1990]2AC 605,
[
1990]1Al lER568,[ 1990]BCLC273.Nodi ff
icul
tyfor
presentpurposesarisesonthefirsttwopartsofthetest
,
namel y

whetherther
ewasar elati
onshipwhichwassuf fi
cientl
y
proxi
mate between MLA and OPO and whet hert he
damage was f oreseeable. The crit
ical questi
on i s
whetheri
twouldbef ai
r,justandreasonabl
et oimposea
dutyofcareonaparenttowar dshi
schild.

56] "
[ The l
astt
wo sent
encesf
rom t
he j
udgmentof
Phil
li
psMRi nHar r
isvPerry,onwhichMrNi ckli
npl aces
parti
cul
arrel
iance,inmyj udgmentdonotassi st:iti s
i
mpossibletor eadthem asl ay
ingdownsomegener al
proposi
ti
onthatapar entowesadut yofcarewhenev er
hecausesachi l
dtobeexposedt oanunacceptablerisk.

[57] " Theonl yci tati

onf rom t heaut hor i
ti
eswhi chwe
havebeenshownwher et hecour thasconsi der edt he
questionofdut yofcar easbet weenpar entandchi l
di s
thatwhi cht hej udgeci tedf r
om Bar ret tvEnf iel dLBC
(above).InBar r
ett,thiscour theldthatt her eshoul dbeno
dutyofcar e.Thatdeci sioni sbi ndingont hiscour t,si
nce
partoft hereasoni ngofLor dWool f,
wi thwhi cht heot her
member soft hiscour tagr eed,wast hati fapar entowed
nodut yofcar enorcoul dt hel ocalaut horit
y,whi chwas
theDef endantint hatcase, inr espectoft heper iodwhen
theCl aimantwasi nl ocalaut hor i
tycar e.Ifthedut yon
whichMrNi ckli
nhast or elyonwer et obei mposed,i t
woul dleadtol i
abili
t yi
nal argenumberofcasesbecause
anyf ormulationoft hepr oposi tionf oradut yofcar ei n
this case woul d encompass a whol e r ange of
commonpl aceact i
v i
ti
esi nwhi chapar enti sinv olvedi n
caringforhischi ld.Iwoul dt hereforehol dthatt hej udge
wasr ightandt hatt heappeal ont hisissuef ail
s."

Mi
tchel
lvGal
sgowCi
tyCounci
l[20091AC874
Fact
s:Thedeceasedwasat enantofthedef
endanttoget
herwit
h
anei
ghbour
.Theneighbouronseveral
occasi
onsthreat
enedtoki
ll
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

him andher eporteditt ot hedefendant.Thedef endantwar nedt he

neighbouronsev eraloccasi onsandi nal linformedt hedeceased
oft hest epsbei ngt akent odealwi ththei ssue.Thedef endant
i
nv itedt heneighbourt oameet i
ngofwhi cht heydi dnoti nf ormt he
deceased.Att he meet ing the neighbourwast hr
eat ened wi th
evictioni fthet hreatscont i
nued.Hel eftt hemeet ingandwentt o
attackt hedeceasedv iolentlywhosuf feredi njuriesfrom whi chhe
died.Thewi dowanddaught erofthedeceasedsuedcl ai mi ngthat
thedef endantowedt hedeceasedadut yofcar eandshoul dhav e
i
nf ormedhi m oft hemeet ingsoast oknowt hest epst ot ake.
Held:Thedef endant swer enotunderanysuchobl i
gati
onandi t
woul dnotbef ai
r,justandr easonabletoimposeacommonl aw
dutyundersuchci r
cumst ances.
Principle:For seeabili
ty of har m is notsuf ficientf or t he
i
mposi t
ionofadut yofcar e; i
tmustbef air,justandr easonabl e
undert hecircumst ancest oimposesuchdut y.

PerLor dHopeofCr aigheadatp.884,par .15and16:

[15]" Threepoi ntsmustbemadeatt heout sett oput
thesubmi ssioni ntoit
spr opercont ext.Thef i
rstist hat
foreseeabi l
it
yofhar mi snotofi tselfenoughf ort he
i
mposi ti
onofadut yofcar e:see,f orexampl e,Dor set
YachtCoLt dvHomeOf fi
ce[ 1970]AC 1004,1037-
1038,per Lor d Mor ri
s of Bor th-y
-Gest ;Smi t
hv
Litt
lewoodsOr ganisationLt d[ 1987]AC241,251,per
LordGr i
ff
iths;Hi l
lvChi efConst ableOfWestYor kshire
[1989]AC53,60,perLor dKei thofKi nkel.Ot herwise,
toadoptLor dKei thofKi nkel '
sdr amat i
ci l
lust rati
oni n
YuenKunYeuvAt torneyGener a/ofHongKong[ 1988]
AC175,192,t herewoul dbel iabilit
yi nnegl i
genceon
thepar tofonewhoseesanot heraboutt owal kov era
cli
ffwi thhisheadi ntheai r,andf orebear st oshouta
war ning.Thesecond, whichf lowsf rom t hef irst,i
st hat
thel awdoesnotnor mallyimposeaposi t
ivedut yona
persont opr otectot hers.AsLor dGof fofChi eveley
explained i n Smi th v Li t
tlewoods Or gani sation Lt d
[1987]AC 241,270- 271,t hecommonl aw doesnot
i
mposel i
abili
tyf orwhat ,wi thoutmor e,maybecal led
pureomi ssions.Thet hird,whi chi sadev elopmentof
thesecond,i st hatthel awdoesnoti mposeadut yt o
prev entaper sonf rom bei nghar medbyt hecr iminal
actofat hir
dpar t
ybasedsi mpl yuponf oreseeabi l
ity
:
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

SmithvLi
tt
lewoodsOr
gani
sat
ionLt
d,atpp272-
279,
perLor
dGoff.

[16]"Thecont extist hereforequitediff

erentf r
om the
casewher eaper soni si nj
uredi nthecour seofhi s
employ mentori nar oadt raff
icaccident.Incasesof
thatkinditcanbet akenf orgrantedthattheempl oyer
'
owesa dut yofcar et ot he person who i si n his
employ mentort hatadut yisowedt ootherr oaduser s
bythedr i
verofav ehi
clewhi chcausesanacci dent.If
commonpl ace situations of t hatkind had t o be
analysed,theconcl usionwoul dbet hatt hedut yi s
owednot
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

simplybecause l oss,injuryordamage i sr easonably

foreseeable.Itis because t her eisar el
at i
onship of
proximitybetweent heempl oyerandhi sempl oyeesand
thedr i
verandot herroaduser s.Thi sissuffici
entinlaw
togiv eri
set oadut yofcar e.Thedut yiscr eatedbyt he
rel
ationship,andthescopeoft hedutyisdet erminedby
whati nt hecont extoft hatr elat
ionshipisr easonably
foreseeable.Insuchcasest hi
si ssoobv i
oust hatthere
i
snoneedt oaskwhet heritisf air
,orwhet heritisjust
and r easonable, that the pur suer shoul d recover
damages. "

Andatpp.889and890, pars.27—29:27" Theasser tion

thatt her ewasadut ytowar nisdecept i
velysi mpl e.But
thei mpl icationsofsay ingt hatther ewasadut yt owar n
i
nt hiscasear ecompl exandf arreachi ng.Thi s,itmaybe
said,isacl earcasewher et herehadbeent hreat st oki l
andDr ummond' sbehav ioursuggest edt hat,ifpr ov oked,
hemi ghtgi veef f
ectt ot hem.Buti fther ewasadut yt o
war ni nt hiscase,musti tnotf ollowt hatt her eisadut y
towar ni nev erycasewher easoci allandl ordhasr eason
tosuspectt hathi stenantmayr eactt ost epst oaddr ess
his ant i
-socialbehav iourby at tacki ng t he per son or
proper tyofany onehesuspect sofi nformi ngagai nsthi m?
Andi fsoci allandl ordsar eundersuchadut y ,mustsoci al
wor ker sandpr ivatelandl ordsnotbeundert hesame
dutyt oo?I nthiscasei ti ssaidthatt hedut ywasowedt o
the deceased.Butot hersi nt he nei ghbour hood had
compl ained t o t he def ender s about Dr ummond' s
behav iour .Wast hedut yt owar nnotowedt ot hem al so?
Itissai dt hatt herewasadut yt okeept hedeceased
i
nfor medoft hest epst hatt heypr oposedt ot akeagai nst
Drummond,andi npar ticulartowar nhi mt hatameet ing
hadbeenar rangedf or31Jul y.Thi ssuggest st hatt he
defender swoul dhav ehadt odet ermi ne,st epbyst epat
each st age,whet her or not t he act ions t hat t hey
proposedt ot akei nfulfil
mentoft heirr esponsi bil
itiesas
l
andl or dsr equi redawar ningt obegi ven,andt owhom.
Andt heywoul dhav ehadt odef ert akingt hatst epunt i
l
the war ning had been r eceived byev ery one and an
oppor tuni t
y gi v en f ori tt o be act ed on.The mor e
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

att
ent
ivetheyweretothei
rordi
nar
yduti
esaslandl
ords
themoreoneroust
hedutytowarnwoul
dbecome.

28 " Thesepr obl emssuggestt hatt oi mposeadut yt o

warn,t oget herwi tht her iskt hatact ionwoul dbet aken
againstt hem byany bodywhosuf feredl oss,i njur yOf
damagei ftheyhadr ecei vednowar ni ng,woul ddet er
sociallandl ordsf rom i nterveni ngt or educet heinci dence
ofant i
-socialbehav iour.Thepr ogr essofev entsi nt his
caseshowst hatt hedef ender swer edoi ngt heirbestt o
persuadeDr ummond t o st op abusi ng hi snei ghbour s.
Theseat tempt smi ghthav ewor ked,asnodoubtt hey
have done i n ot hercases.Farbet t ert hatat tempt s
shoul dbemadet ocur et hesepr oblemst hanl eavet hem
unsol vedort obedeal twi t
h, inev itablyaf tert heev ent , by
thepol ice.Asi nt hecaseoft hepol ice, itisdesi rabl et oo
thatsoci al l
andl ords, soci alwor ker sandot her swhoseek
toaddr esst hemanybehav iouralpr obl emst hatar isei n
l
ocalaut hori
tyhousi ngest at esandel sewher e,of teni n
verydi ffi
cultci rcumst ances, shoul dbesaf eguar dedf rom
l
egalpr oceedi ngsar isingf r
om anal legedf ai l
uret owar n
those who mi ghtbe atr i
sk ofa cr iminalat tack i n
responset ot hei ract ivi
ties.Suchpr oceedi ngs,whet her
mer itori
ousorot her wi se,woul di nvol vet hem i nagr eat
dealoft ime,t roubl eandexpensewhi chwoul dbemor e
useful l
y dev oted t ot heirpr imar yf unct i
ons i nt heir
respect ivecapaci ties:seeLor dBr ownofEat on-under -
Hey wood' sobser v ationsi nVanCol levChi efConst abl e
oft heHer t
for dshi rePol ice[ 2009]1AC225,par a133.
Ther ear eot herconsi derat i
onst oo.Def ensi vemeasur es
againstt her iskofl egalpr oceedi ngswoul dbel ikelyt o
create a pr act ice ofgi v i
ng war nings as a mat terof
routine.Manyoft hem woul dbef ornogoodpur pose,
whileot herswoul dr i
skcausi ngundueal ar m orr ev eal
thet akingofst epst hatwoul dbebestkeptconf i
dent i
al .

29 "AsIhav ealreadynot ed,inCaparoIndustri

esplcv
Dickman [ 1989]QB 653,703,Tay l
orLJ summed t he
mat t
erupbysay ingt hatf
airnessandpublicpoli
cywer e
thetests.Publicpolicywasatt herootofthedecisionin
HillvChi efConst ableofWestYor kshi
re[1989]AC 53
aboutthescopeoft hedutyowedbyt hepoli
cewhi chthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

House f ol
lowed in Br ooks v ComrofPol ice ofthe
Met ropol is[2005]1 WLR 1495 and agai ni n Smithv
ChiefConst ab1eofSussexPol ice:seeVanCol l
evChi ef
Const abl eoft heHertfordshir
ePol ice[2009]1AC225.I
woul dt aket hesameappr oachtot hiscase.Thesi t
uati
on
woul dhav ebeendi fferentiftherehadbeenabasi sfor
sayingt hatt hedefendershadassumedar esponsibi
l
ity
toadv iset hedeceasedoft hestepst hattheywer etaki
ng,
ori
nsomeot herwayhadi nducedt hedeceased

33"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

tor el
yont hem t odoso.I twoul dt henhav ebeen
possibletosaynotonl ythatther ewasar el
ationship
ofpr oximitybutt hatadut yt owar nwaswi thi
nt he
scopeoft hatr el
ationship.Buti tisnotsuggest edi n
thi
scaset hatt hi
sev erhappened,andMrMcEachr an
verypr oper l
yaccept edt hathecoul dnotpr esenthi s
argumentont hisbasi s.Iwoul dconcl udet herefore
thatitwoul dnotbef air,j
ustorr easonabl etohol dthat
thedef ender swer eunderadut ytowar nt hedeceased
oft he st eps t hatt hey wer et aking,and t hatt he
common l aw case t hati s made agai nstt hem i s
i
rrel
ev ant.Iwoul dal sohol d,asagener alrule,thata
dutyt owar nanot herper sont hathei satr i
skofl oss,
i
njuryordamageast her esul
toft hecr iminalactofa
thi
rdpar tywi llari
seonl ywheret heper sonwhoi ssaid
tobeundert hatdut yhasbyhi swor dsOfconduct
assumedr esponsi bil
ityf orthesaf etyoft heper son
whoi satr isk."

SPECI
FICDUTYSI
TUATI
ONS

TheRescuePri
nci
ple
BakervT.
E.Hopki
ns[195913Al
lER225
Facts:Thedef endantcompanywasengagedi nempt yi
ngawel l
,
usingapump.Theengi neoft hepumpcr eatedfumesi nt hewel l
andt wowor kmenoft hecompanyent eredtocheckt hepr obl
em
butwer eov ercomebyt hef umes.Adoct orwhowascal ledto
thescenedescendeddownt hewel lt
or escuethem al t
houghhe
waswar nednott ogo.Hewasal soovercomebyt hef umesand
diedshor tl
yafterhehadbeenbr oughtup.Thecour tfoundt hat
thedef endanthadbeennegl igentinallowingt hewor kment o
entert hewel lsincenocl earwar ni
ngswer egiventhem andt he
met hodempl oy edwasnott hebest .
Held:Si nceitwast henat uralconsequenceoft henegl igence
createdbyt hedef endantthatt hedoctorwoul dattemptt osav e
otherv ictims,thedefendantowedadut ytothedoct or.
Principle:Adef endantowesadut yofcar etoaper sonwhot r
ies
tor escueanot herindangeri fthedangerwascr eatedbyt he
negligence oft he defendantand i twas f or
eseeabl et hat
someonewoul dgot otherescue.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

PerMor ri
s LJ atpp.222 and 223:" Itis submitted,
howev er,t
hatt heact ionofDrBakeri ndescendingt he
wellwasanov usact usi nterveniens,and itisf urt
her
submi tted that t he def endant company coul d not
reasonabl y hav ef oreseen t he possi bi
li
ty of such a
disasterast hatwhi choccur r
ed.I nmyj udgmentt hese
submi ssionsar ewhol lyunsust ainableonceitisheldthat
thecompanywer enegl i
genti ncr eat
ingasi tuati
onof
greatdangerandf urtherinf ail
ingt owar nthei
rservants
ofitori nfail
i
ngt oensuret hattheirservantswouldnotbe
exposedt oit.Therei shappi l
yi nal lmenofgoodwi llan
urget osav ethosewhoar einper il
.Thosewhoputmeni n
perilcanhar dl ybehear dt osayt hattheynev erthought
thatr escuemi ghtbeat tempt edorbehear dtosayt hat
ther escueatt emptwasnotcausedbyt hecreati
onoft he
peril

I
f,howev er,A bynegl igencepl acesB i nper i
lin
suchci rcumst ancest hati ti saf oreseeabl er esul
t
thatsomeonewi l
ltryt or escueBandi fCdoesso
try—ought C i n any appr opr iate sense t o be
descr i
bed as a ' volunt eer '
?I n my j udgmentt he
answeri sNo.Iconf esst hati tseemst omet obe
i
ndeedungr aciousofAev ent osuggesti t.Cwoul d
nothav eagr eedt or unt her i
skt hatA mi ghtbe
negligent,f
orCwoul donl ypl ayhi spar taf t
erAhad
been negl igent.C' si nt ervention comes at t he
momentwhent her eissomesi tuationofper i
land
thecauseofort her esponsi bil
ityf orthecr eat i
onof
theper i
lmaybequi t
eunknownt oC.I fC,act uated
byani mpulsivedesi retosav elife,act sbr av elyand
prompt lyandsubj ugat esanyt i
mor ousov er-concer n
forhisownwel l
-bei
ngorcomf ort,Icannott hinkt hat
i
twoul dbeei therr ati
onalorseeml yt osayt hathe
freelyandv oluntari
lyagr eedt oi ncurt her isksoft he
situati
onwhi chhadbeencr eatedbyA' snegl i
gence.

"WhenDrBakerarr
ivedatthewell
,hepr
oceededt o
actasthepr
ompti
ngsofhumani t
ydir
ect
ed.Het r
ied
to sav
el if
e.He t ried t
o savethe defendant
company'
sserv
ants.Hewasdoubt l
esstr
yingtodo
theverythi
ngthatt hecompanyhopedcoul dbe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

done.Butinanyev entwhathedi dwasbrought

aboutbyandwascausedbyt henegl
i
genceofthe
company.Int hese ci
rcumstances,t
he company
cannotsayt
hathewasav ol
unteer
."

35"

PerOmer odLJatp.236:" Thef ir

stquest i
onwhi ch
fal
lsf orconsi der ati
on int hecaseofDrBakeri s
whet her i n t he ci r
cumst ances t he def endant
companyowedanydut yt ohim.I fMrHopki nsshoul d
hav efor eseen,andi nmyv i
ew heshoul d,t hati nthe
absenceofacl earwar ningoft hedangerWar dor
Wilemanmi ghtgodownt hewel landbeov ercomeby
thef umes,shoul dheal sohav ef oreseent hatsome
personmi ghtat temptt or escuet hem, andi nsodoi ng
sufferinj ury?Hay nesvHanpoodest ablishest hat,if
oneper sonbyhi snegl i
gencecausesanot hert obei n
aposi t
ionofdanger ,heshoul dhav er egar dt ot he
probabi l
ityt hatat hi
rdper sonmi ghtat temptar escue.
Inmyj udgmenti nthiscaseMrHopki nsshoul dhav e
foreseent hatar escuewoul dbeat t
empt ed,andt hat
effortswoul dbemadet oobt aint hehel pofadoct or.
Thedef endantcompanydi dnot,It hi
nkdi sput ethati n
theseci rcumst ancesadoct orendeav ouringt oassi st
mightwel lcomewi thi
nt hisclassofr escuer ,
butt hey
arguedt hatt heconductofDrBaker ,whot heyagr ee
actedwi thsupr emecour age,wassucht hati twas
notr easonabl etoexpectt hem tof oreseei t.
"

PerWilmerLJatp.242: "
Assumi ngt her escuernott o
haveactedunr easonably
,t heref
ore,itseemst ome
thathemustnor mallybelongt othecl assofper sons
who oughtt o be withi
nt he cont empl ation oft he
wrongdoerasbei ngcloselyanddi rectl
yaf f
ectedby
thelat
ter'
sact.Int hepresentcaset hef actthatDr
Bakerwasadoct orisofi t
selfsigni f
icant.Hav i
ng
regar
dt ot he nature oft he perilcr eated by t he
wrongfulactofMrHopki ns, i
twasonl ytool i
kelythat
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

adoct orwoul dbesummoned—asDrBakeri nfact

was—and,i fsummoned,woul dat tempttodoallhe
couldforthev i
cti
m,evenatt heriskofhi sownsafet
y.
Insuchci rcumst ancesIam sat isfiedthatDrBaker
wasoneoft heclasswhooughtt ohavebeenwi t
hin
thecont empl ati
onofMfHopki nswhenhebr ought
aboutt hedanger oussi tuat
ionint hiswell
.Idonot
thi
nk,t herefore,thati tis open t othe def
endant
companyt ocont endt hatnodut ywasowedbyMr
Hopkinst oDrBaker ."

Cut
lervUni
tedDai
ri
es[
1933]2KB297
Facts:Thedef endant '
shor sebol t
edandr anpastt heplai
nti
ff'
s
house enteri
ng an adj oi
ning gar den.The dr i
ver had t r
ied
fr
uitl
essl
yt o st op i
tbutcoul d notand cal l
ed f orhelp.The
defendantenteredt headj oininggar dentohel pst opthehor se
butthehorsethr ewhi m down, causi
nghi mi nj
uri
es.
Held:Sincethepl
ai nti
ffwasundernodut yt
ohol dthehor sebut
hadtri
edt odosoknowi ngt heriskitposed,thedef endantwas
notli
able.
,apersonactsknowi
ngtheri
sksinvol
vedi
n
t
heactunderci
rcumstanceswher
eheisnotunderanydut
y
t
oact,
nodutywouldbeowedt ohim.

PerScr uttonLJatp.303:" Inowcomet ot hemor e

seri
ouspoi ntint hecase.Ist artwi ththis:Ahor se
boltsalongahi ghway ,andaspect atorrunsoutt o
stopi tandi sinjured.Ist heowneroft hehor se
underanyl egalli
abili
tyi
nt hoseci rcumst ances?On
thosef act si tseemst o met hathei snot .The
damagei st heresultoft heaccident .Themanwho
wasi njured,inrunningoutt ostopt hehorse,must
bepr esumedt oknow t heor dinaryconsequences
of hi s act ion, and t he or dinary and nat ur al
consequenceofamant r
y i
ngt ost opar unaway
horseist hathemaybeknockeddownandi nj
ured.
Amani sundernodut ytor unoutandst opanot her
person'shor se,and,ifhechoosest odoanactt he
ordinaryconsequenceofwhi chist hatdamagemay
ensue,t hedamagemustbeonhi sownheadand
noton t hatoft he owneroft he hor se.Thi si s
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

somet i
mesputont hel egalmaximv o/ent
inonf i
t
i
njuria;someti
mesi ti sputt hatanew causehas
i
nterv enedbet
weent heor i
ginall
iabil
it
y,ifany,of
theowneroft hehorsewhi chhasr unaway .That
new causei stheactionoft heinjuredperson,and
that new cause i ntervening prevents li
abil
it
y
attachingtot
heowneroft hehorse."

PerSl esserLJ atpp.305 and 306:" Wit

ht he
evidenceaswehav eit,itseemspl ai
nt hatt he
essentialcause oft he accident the causa
causans—wast heactofther espondenthimselfin
accedingt ot her equesttohol dthehor se'
shead,
thatandnot hingelse.Theremaybecases,wher e,
forexampl e,amanseeshi schildingreatper i
lin
thestreetand, movedbypat ernalaff
ecti
on,dashes
outandhol dsar unawayhor se'sheadi nordert o
sav ehischi ld,andi si nj
ured;thereisno nov us
actusinterveniens.(1)Cert
ainlyamani sentit
led,

37.
i
nor dert o sav ehi msel f,t o at t
emptt o arresta
runaway hor se.But i nt he pr esent case t he
respondentofhi sownmot ionget sov erahedgei n
responset othewor ds' Hel p,hel p! 'andi mper i
lshis
l
ifeorl imbsbyt r
y i
ngt ohol dt hehor se.Howev er
heroi
c and l audabl e may hav e been hi s act,it
cannotpr oper l
ybesai dt hati twasnoti nt helegal
senset hecauseoft heacci dent .Fort hatr easonI
comet ot heconcl usiont hatt hej urycoul dnotf i
nd
thattheappel lants'negl igence,whi chIwi llassume
tohav eexi sted,wast hecauseoft hedamage.The
acti
ont hereforef ail
sont het hr eshol d,becauseof
thefai l
uret oshow t hatt henegl i
gencecausedt he
damage of whi ch compl aint i s made. The
appellant s can al so pr oper ly say t hat the
respondentagr eedt oacceptf reel yandv oluntar
il
y,
withf ul
lknowl edgeoft her iskher an,t hechances
ofthei njuryhesuf fered.Thecasei sonewher ethe
maximv o/entinonpti njur i
aappl ies. "
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Vi
deanvBr
it
ishTr
anspor
tCor
por
ati
on[
1963]2QB650
Fact s:The deceased' s son had gone on t he r ai
loft he
defendantwhi l
eat rolley was appr oaching.Af terf ai
l
ed
attempt st ostopt hedr iver,hewentont other ailtosavehi s
sonandwaski lledwhi let hesonwassev erelyi nj
ured.The
deceasedwast hest ationmast erofthedef endantbuti twas
foundt hathi ssonwasat r
espasser .
Hel d:Althought hesonhadbeenat respasserandwasowed
nodut ybyt hedef endant s,theyowedadut ytot hedeceased
sincei twasf oreseablet hathewoul dgot ot her escue.
Principle:Ther escuerofat respasserhasar ightofact i
on
independentoft het r
espasser .

PerLor dDenni ngMRatp.669:" Ther ightoft he

rescueri sani ndependentr i
ghtandi snotder i
ved
from t hatoft hev i
cti
m.Thev icti
m mayhav ebeen
guiltyofcont ri
but orynegl igenceorhi srightmaybe
excludedbycont ractualst ipulat i
on-butst i
llthe
rescuercansue.Soal sot hev i
ctim may ,asher e,be
at respasserandexcl udedont hatgr ound,butst i
l
l
ther escuercansue.For eseeabi lit
yi snecessar y,
butnotf oreseeabi li
tyoft hepar ticularemer gency
thatar ose.Suf fi
cei tthatheoughtr easonabl yt o
foresee t hat,i f he di d not t ake car e,some
emer gencyorot hermi ghtar i
se,andt hatsomeone
orot hermi ghtbei mpel ledt oexposehi mselft o
dangeri nor dert oef f
ectar escue.Suchi sthecase
here.Sounessoughtt ohav eant i
cipat edt hatsome
emer gencyorot hermi ghtar ise.Hi st rol
leywasnot
l
ikeanexpr esst r
ainwhi chi sher aldedbysi gnal s
andwhi stl
esandshout sof' Keepcl ear'
.Hi strolley
camesi lentlyandswi ftl
yupont heunsuspect i
ng
quiet ude ofa count ry st ati
on.He shoul d hav e
realisedt hatsomeoneorot hermi ghtbeputi nper i
l
i
fhecamet oof astordi dnotkeepapr operlook-
out:andi fany onewasputi nper i
l,thensomeone
woul dcomet ot her escue.Asi thappened,i twas
thest ati
onmast ert r
y i
ngt or escuehi schi l
d;buti t
woul d be t he same i fi thad been a passer -by.
Whoev ercomest ot her escue,t hel aw shoul dsee
thathedoesnotsuf ferfori t.Itseemst omet hat, i
f
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

aper sonbyhi sf aul

tcreatesasi t
uationofper il
,he
mustanswerf orittoanyper sonwhoat tempt sto
rescuet hepersonwhoi si ndanger.Heowesadut y
tosuchaper sonabov eallothers.Ther escuermay
actinstinct
ivel
youtofhumani t
yordel i
beratelyout
ofcour age.Butwhi cheveritis,solongasi tisnot
want on int
erference,ift he rescueri s kil
led or
i
nj ur
ed int heat tempt,hecan r ecoverdamages
from theonewhosef aulthasbeent hecauseofi t.

"
Thef at her'scaseseemst ohav eat tract edmuch
l
essat tention t han t heson' s.Thej udge,It hink,
decidedagai nstt hef atheront hegr oundt hathe
couldnotbei nabet t
erposi ti
ont hanhi ssonwas,
andt hebur denofMr .FoxAndr ew' sar gumentwas
similar, namel y,t hati fthet ruckdr i
verhadnor eason
toexpectt hepr esenceoft hechi ldont hel i
ne,st il
l
l
essr easonhadhet oexpectt of i
ndt hef at hert her e.
Idonott hinkt het wocasesst andorf allt oget her
l
iket his.Theset rucksar enotapar toft her egul ar
trai
nser v i
cewhi chr uns( oroughtt or un)atst at ed
hoursandwi ththear ri
valofwhi cht heempl oyeesof
theBr i
tishTr anspor tCommi ssionmustbet akent o
bef ami l
iar.Thet r
ucksar eoccasi onalv i
si tors,wi th
nost at edt i
mesandnowar ningoft heirappr oach.I t
i
s,t o my mi nd,mostsi gni fi
cantt hati ti s an
i
nstruct iont ot ruck- dri
verst hatt heymustappr oach
stati
onswi thcar e.Thei nfer encef rom t hi si st hat
theymustt akecar et hatther ear enoper sonsont he
l
ine,mor eespeci al l
yr ail
wayser vantsengagedi n
maint enanceandl ikedut ies.Oneoft heseser vant s
was t he dead st at i
onmast er.He was a per son
whosepr esenceont het rackwaswel lwi t
hint he
contempl ationoft hedr iver.Hecoul dnotbesai dt o
beat respasser .I ft hechi ldhadsuf fer ednot hing
and
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

actionhadbeenbr oughtonbehal foft hef at

heral one,I
donotseewhatanswert hedef endant scouldhav et oa
claimf orvicar i
ousl iabi
li
tyfort henegl igentactoft heif
servant ,thet r
uck-driver
.Thef actt hatt hefatheract ed
ratherasaf atherthanasst ati
onmast erseemst omet o
obscur et hei ssue.Thechi ldmi ghtnothav ebeenhi sson
butachi ldofapassenger .Itwoul dcl earlybewi t
hint he
scopeoft hest ati
onmast er'
sempl oymentt ot akeal l
stepst orescuesuchachi l
d.Itisnotnecessar ythatt he
exactev entshoul dbef oreseeable.Thepr esenceoft he
stationmast er ,oneoft heCommi ssion'
sempl oyees,on
the t rack was wi thinthe spher e ofcont empl ati
on.
Whet herifther escuerhadbeenamemberoft hepubl i
c
therewoul dhav ebeenl i
abil
ity
,Ileav eoutofaccount .
"

PerPear sonLJatpp.682and683:" Inow comet ot he

appealoft hewi dow,whocl aimsdamagesf orthedeat h
of her husband caused,as she cont ends,by t he
negl igence ofSouness act i
ng as t he ser vantoft he
def endantCommi ssion.Itiscl earfrom t heev i
denceand
thej udge' sf i
ndingst hatSounessi nhi sappr oacht ot he
stat i
onwasact ingnegl igentlyi nrelationt oany onet o
whom heowedadut yofcar e,andt hatt heconductof
Sounessi nt hisr espectcausedt heacci dent .Theonl y
disput able quest i
on i s whet her Souness owed any
relev antdut yofcar et othedeceased.TheCommi ssion's
argument ,ev identlyacceptedbyt hej udge, hasbeent hat
theposi t
ionoft herescuercoul dnotbeanybet terthan
theposi t
ionoft heper sonr escued, andt hat ,
ast hei nfant
plaint i
ff
'str espasswasunf oreseeable,sot heactofhi s
fatheri nt ry i
ngt orescuehi m wasunf oreseeabl e,and
ther eforebot ht hei nfantpl ainti
ffandhi sf atherwer e
out sidet hezoneofr easonabl econt empl ationandt he
scope ofdut y.Thatwoul d no doubthav e been a
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

formidabl ear gumentift hedeceasedhadbeenonl ya

fatherr escui ng hi
s son.Butt he deceased was t he
stati
onmast er,havi
ngagener alr esponsibil
i
tyf ordeali
ng
withanyemer gencythatmi ghtar i
seatt hest at
ion.It
wasf or
eseeabl ebySounesst hati fhedr ovehi svehicl
e
carelessly i nto the stati
on he mi ght imper i
lt he
stati
onmast er,as the stati
onmast ermi ghtwel lhave
some pr operoccasi on forgoi ng on t he tracki nthe
performanceofhi sdut i
es.Fort hispur posei ti snot
necessar yt hatthepar t
icul
aracci dentwhichhappened
shouldhav ebeenf or
eseeable.Itisenought hatitwas
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

foreseeable that some si t

uation r equiring the
stati
onmast ertogoont helinemi ghtar i
se,andi fany
suchsi tuat
iondi dar i
se,acar elessappr oacht othe
stati
on by Souness wi th hi s v ehicl
e woul d be
dangeroust othest ati
onmast er.Ont hatgroundIhol d
thatSouness'scar el
essappr oacht ot hestationwasa
breachofadut yowi ngbyhi mt ot hedeceasedas
stati
onmast er,and i t caused t he acci dent,and
consequentlytheCommi ssioni sliabletot hewi dow
andherappeal shouldbeallowed. "

Chadwi ckvBr i
ti
shTr ansportCommi ssi
on[196712Al lER945
Fact s:Twot rai
nscol li
dedonar ai
lclosetotheplaint
iff
'shouse.
Hev ol
unt ar
il
ytookpar ti
nther escuemi ssi
on.About90peopl e
diedf rom t heacci dentandsev eralother
swer einjuredand
trapped.Hesuf feredanxietyneur osisasar esul
toft hehor r
or
exper i
enceandsued.
Hel d:Sinceitwasr easonablyf oreseeablet
hatsomeonemi ght
comet ohel pint heev entofsuchacci dent,thedef endants
owedt heplainti
ffadut yofcar e.
Pr i
nciple:At ort
feasorowesar escueradut yofcar eifitwas
reasonabl yforeseeableundert heci r
cumstancest hataper son
mi ghtcomet other escueoft hev icti
m ofhi
st ort
iousact .

PerWal
l
erJatpp.951and952:"
Didt
hedef
endant
s
owea

dutytot heplaint
iffwhowasnott heirser
vantbutwho
hadcomet ot heiraid?Thet esti s:Whatoughtt he
defendantst ohav ef oreseen?..
.Int hepresentcase,
thedef endantswer enegl i
genttowar dstheirpassengers.
Asar esult
,passenger swer einjuredandputi nperil
.
Alloft hatcoul dr easonablyhav ebeenf oreseen.It
couldal sobef oreseent hatsomebodymi ghttryand
rescuepassenger sandsuf ferinjuryinthepr ocess,
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

andinmyopini
ont
hedefendant
sowedadutytoMr
Chadwi
ckwhowaswit
hint
heareaofcont
empl
ati
on.
"

WagnervI
nter
nat
ional
Rai
l
wayCompany282N.
Y.176
(
1922)
Facts:Thepl ainti
ffandhi scousinboar dedacarofanel ectri
c
trai
noft hedef endant.Theconduct ordidnotclosethedoor
andt hepl aintiff
'scousinwast hrownout .Thecarwentahead
beforest oppi ngandt hepl ai
ntif
fwal kedbacki nthedarkt o
l
ookf orhiscousi nwher euponhef el
lbeneaththegroundand
wasi njur
ed.
Held:Thedef endantowedadut yofcar et otheplai
nti
ffasa
rescuer.Pr i
nci pl
e:At ort
feasorowesadut yofcar
etoaper son
whogoest other escueofhi svicti
m.

41u
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

PerCar dozoJatpp.180and181:" Dangeri nvites

rescue.Thecr yofdi str
essi st hesummonst or elief.
Thel awdoesnoti gnor et heser eact ionsoft hemi ndi n
traci ng conductt oi ts consequences.I tr ecogni zes
them asnor mal.Itpl acest hei ref fectswi thinther ange
oft henat uralandpr obabl e.Thewr ongt hatimper il
s
l
ifei sawr ongt ot hei mper i
lledv icti
m;i tisawr ong
alsot ohi srescuer .Thest at et hatl eav esanopeni ngi n
abr idgei sliabletot hechi ldt hatf all
si nt othest ream,
butl iableal sot ot hepar entwhopl ungest oi tsai d
(GibneyvSt ateofN.Y. ,137N.Y.1) .Ther ail
road
companywhoset rainappr oacheswi thoutsi gnali sa
wr ongdoert owardt het rav elersur prisedbet weent he
rails, butawr ongdoeral sot ot heby standerwhodr ags
himf rom thepat h( Ecker tvL.I .RR.Co. ,43N.Y.502.
Cf .Mat terofWat ersvTay lorCo. ,218N.Y.248) .The
rulei st hesamei not herj urisdict ions( Di xonvN.Y. ,N.
H.&H.R.R.co. ,207Mass.126, 130, andBondvB.RR
co. ,82W.Va.557,wi t
hcasest her eci ted.Cf .IBev en
onNegl igence,157,158) .Ther i
skofr escue,i fonl yit
benotwant on, i
sbor noft heoccasi on.Theemer gency
beget st he man.The wr ongdoer may not hav e
foreseent hecomi ngofadel iv erer.Hei saccount able
asi fhehad( Ehrgot tvMay or ,et c.,ofN.Y. ,96N.Y.
264, 280, 281) .

"Thedef endantsay st hatwemustst op,inf oll

owi ng
the chai n ofcauses,when act i
on ceases t o be
'
instinctive'.Bythis,ismeant ,itseems,t hatr escuei s
att heper i
loft herescuer ,unlessspont aneousand
i
mmedi ate.I fthere has been t i
me t o deliberate,if
i
mpul sehasgi v
enwayt ojudgment ,onecause,i tis
said,hasspenti tsfor ce,andanot herhasi ntervened.
Int his case,t he pl ainti
ffwal ked mor et han f our
hundr edf eetingoingt oHer bert'
sai d.Hehadt i
met o
refl
ectand wei gh;impul se had been f ol l
owed by
choice;andchoi ce,i
nt hedef endant '
sv i
ew,i ntercepts
andbr eakst hesequence.Wef indnowar r
antf ort hus
shor t
eni ngt hechainofj uralcauses.Wemayassume,
thoughwear enotr equi r
edt odeci de,thatper iland
rescuemustbei nsubst anceonet ransaction;thatt he
sightoft heonemusthav ear ousedt hei mpulset ot he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
other;i
nshor t
,thattheremustbeunbr okenconti
nuit
y
betweent hecommi ssi
onoft hewrongandt heeffort
toav er
titsconsequences.I fal
lthi
sbeassumed,t he
defendant i s not ai ded. Continuit
y in such
cir
cumst ancesisnotbrokenbyt heexerci
seofvol
iti
on
(Twom/ eyvC.P. ,N.&E.

•
42
RRco. ,69N.Y158;Donnel l
yvPi ercyCont r
acting
co.,222N.Y210; Bir
dvSt .Pau/F.Ins.co. ,224N.Y.
47,54) .sosweepi nganexcept ion,ifr ecognized,
woul dleavelit
tl
eoft her ul
e.'Thehumanmi nd,
' as
wehav esai d(PeoplevMaj one,91N.Y.211, 212) ,
'
acts wi th celeri
ty whi ch i t i s somet imes
i
mpossi bl
e t o measur e.' The l aw does not
discri
mi nat
ebet weent herescuerobl i
viousofper il
andt heonewhocount sthecost .Itisenought hat
theact, whetheri
mpul siv
eordel i
ber at
e, i
st hechi l
d
oftheoccasi on."

Whi
tevChi
efConst
abl
eofSout
hYor
kshi
rePol
i
ce[
19991
1Al
lERI
Fact s:Fol l
owi ng a st adium di sast erin whi ch about95
peopl edied,thepl aintiff
swhower epol iceof f
icersondut y
assisted i ntheaf ter mat hoft hedi sast er
,carryi
ng dead
bodi esandhel pingt hei njured.Theywer el at
erdiagnosed
ofpost -tr
aumat i
cst ressdi sorder.Thedi sasterwascaused
byt henegl igenceofaseni orpoliceof f
icer.Theysuedt he
defendantongr oundst hatt hedef endantowedt hem adut y
ofcar easr escuer s.
Held:Thedef endantowedt hepl aintiff
snodut yofcar eas
rescuer ssincet hepol iceof ficer
swer enoti nanyper sonal
dangerort houghtt ohav ebeeni nanyper sonaldanger.
Principle:Inor dert obear escuerf orthepur posesoft he
recov eryofcompensat ionf orpur epsy chiat
richarm t he
plainti
ffmustatl eastsat isfythethr eshol drequir
ementt hat
heobj ectivel
yexposed hi msel fto dangerorr easonably
believedt hathewasdoi ngso.

PerLordSt ey
natpp.37and38:" Thelawhasl
ong
recogni
sedt hemor alimper
ati
veofencouragi
ng
cit
izens t
or escue per
sons i
n peri
l
.Those who
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
altruisti
callyexposet hemsel v est odangeri nan
emer gencyt osav eot hersar ef av ouredbyt hel aw.
Ar escueat temptt osav esomeonef r
om danger
wi l
lber egardedasf oreseeabl e.Adut yofcar et oa
rescuermayar i
seev eni fthedef endantowedno
dut yt ot hepr imaryv ictim,f orecampl e,because
thel atterwasat r
espasser .Ifar escueri sinjuredin
ar escueat tempt ,apl eaofv ol ent inonf itinjuri
a
wi l
lnotav ailawr ongdoer .Apl eaofcont ri
but or
y
negl i
gence wi llusual lyr ecei v e shor tshr i
ft.A
rescuer 'sacti nendanger inghi msel fwi l
lnotbe
treated as a nov us act us i nterveniens. The
meani nggi ventot heconceptofar escuerint hese
situat i
onsi sofnoassi stance

43"
'
l
ie

i
nsol v
ingtheconcret
ecasebef oretheHouse.Her
ethe
questi
on is:who may r ecov
eri nr espectofpure
psychi
atr
icharm sust
ainedasar escuer
?

"Counself ort heappel lanti sinv okingt heconceptofa

rescuerasanexcept iont ot hel i
mi t
ationsr ecognisedby
theHouseofLor dsi nA/ cock'scaseandPagevSmi t
h.
The r est r
ictive rules, and t he under lying pol icy
considerations,oft he deci sions oft he House ar e
germane.Thespeci fi
cdi fficultycounself acesi sthat
i
ti s common gr ound t hatnone oft he f ourpol ice
offi
cerswer eatanyt i
meexposedt oper sonaldanger
andnonet houghtt hatt heywer esoexposed.Counsel
submi t
tedt hatthisi snotar equirement .Hesought
comf ortint hegener alobser vati
onsi nAl cock' scaseof
Lord Oliveraboutt he cat egoryof' par ticipants':see
[1991]4Al l ER907at923, [
1992]1AC310at407.None
oftheot herLawLor dsi nA/ cock'scasedi scussedt his
category.Mor eover,thei ssueofr escuer s'ent it
lement
tor ecoverf orpsy chiatric har m was notbef or et he
House on t hatoccasi on and Lor d Ol iv erwas not
consideri
ngt hecompet i
ngar gument spr esent lybef ore
the House. The expl anat i
on of Lor d Ol i
ver '
s
observationshasbeent hesubj ectofmuchdebat e.It
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
wasal sov igorousl ycont estedatt hebar .Inmyv i
ew
counself ort heappel l
anthast r
iedt oext r
actt oomuch
fr
om gener alobser vati
onsnotdi rectedt otheissuenow
beforet heHouse:seeal sot hecar efulanalysisoft he
LordPr esidenti nRober tsonvFor thRoadBHdgeJoi nt
Board,RoughvFor thRoadDi dgeJoi ntBoard1995SLT
263at268.Counselwasonl yabl et oci t
eoneEngl ish
decisi
oni nsuppor tofhi sar gumentnamel yt hef i
rst
i
nstance j udgmenti n Chadwi ck v Br i
ti
sh Tr ansport
Commi ssion[ 196712Al lER945, [
1967]1WLR912.Mr
Chadwi ckhadent eredawr eckedr ail
waycar r
iaget o
hel
pandwor kamongt hei njured.Ther ewascl ear
lya
ri
skt hatt hecar riagemi ghtcol lapse.Wal lerJ( l
ater
Wal l
erLJ)sai d( [1967]2Al lER945at949,[ 1967]1
WLR 912 at918) :'Although t her e was cl earl
y an
el
ementofper sonaldangeri nwhatMrChadwi ckwas
doing,IthinkImustdeal wi t
ht hi
scaseont hebasi sthat
i
twast hehor roroft hewhol eexper i
encewhi chcaused
hi
sr eaction.'

•
44
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"Ont hej udge' sf indingst her escuerhadpassedt he

threshol d of bei ng i n per sonal danger but hi s
psy chi at ricinjur ywascausedby' thef ul
lhor rorofhi s
exper ience'whenhewaspr esumabl ynotal way si n
per sonaldanger .Thi sdeci sionhasbeenci tedwi t h
appr ov al:seeMcLoughl i
nvO' Brian[ 1982]2Al lER298
at302, 306, 316, [
1983]1AC410at
419, 424437- 438, perLor dWi l
berf orce,Lor dEdmund
Dav iesandLor dBr idgeofHar wi ch;andi nA/ cockv
Chi efConst ableOft heSout hYor kshi rePol i
ce[ 199114
AllER907at923,[ 1992]1AC310at408perLor d
Oliv er.It oowoul dacceptt hatChadwi ck'scasewas
cor rect ly deci ded.Buti ti s notaut horityf ort he
proposi tiont hataper sonwhonev erexposedhi msel f
toanyper sonaldangerandnev ert houghtt hathewas
i
nper sonaldangercanr ecov erpur epsy chiat rici njury
asar escuer .Inor dert or ecov ercompensat ionf orpur e
psy chi at ric har m as r escueri ti s notnecessar yt o
est abl isht hathi spsy chi atri
ccondi tionwascausedby
theper cept i
onofper sonaldanger .AndWal l
erJr ight l
y
sohel d.Buti nor dert ocont aint heconceptofr escuer
i
nr easonabl eboundsf ort hepur posesoft her ecov ery
ofcompensat ionf orpur epsy chiatrichar mt hepl ai ntif
f
mustatl eastsat isfythet hreshol dr equirementt hathe
obj ect ivel yexposedhi msel ft odangerorr easonabl y
bel i
ev edt hathewasdoi ngso.Wi thoutsuchl i
mi tat i
on
onewoul dhav et heunedi f
y i
ngspect aclet hat ,whi l
e
ber eav edr elativesar enotal l
owedt or ecov erasi n
A/ cock' s case,ghoul ishly cur ious spect at ors,who
assi st edi nsomeper i
pher alwayi nt heaf termat hofa
disast er ,mi ghtr ecov er .Formypar tthel imi tationof
act ualorappr ehendeddanger si swhatpr oxi mi tyi n
thisspeci alsi tuationmeans.I nmyj udgmenti twoul d
beanunwar rantedext ensionoft hel aw touphol dt he
claims oft he pol i
ce of f
icers.Iwoul d dismi ss t he
argumentundert hisheadi ng."

MonkvpcHar
ri
ngt
onLt
d[20081EWHC1879
Facts:Theplai
nti
ffwasaf or
emanataconstruct
ionsit
ewhen
aplatform col
lapsed,owi
ngt othenegli
genceofthecr ane
dri
ver,and fel
lon t wo worker
s,one dyi
ng and the ot
her
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

sustai
ning seri
ous inj
uri
es.The pl ai
nti
ffhad hear
d oft he
acci
denti mmedi at
elyithappened and when hegott ot he
scene,hecr awledundertoseei fhecouldsaveany.Hel at
er
suff
eredpost -
tr
aumat i
cstr
essdisorderandsued.Att
hetr
ial,
45u
hel edevidencet hathebelievedhehadcausedt heaccidentsince
hewasr esponsibleforsupervisingtheinstall
ati
onofthepl at
form;
andt hathet houghtt heplatform hadfal l
enonhi m whilehewas
under.
Held:Sincet heplaint
iff
'sbeli
efwasani rrati
onaloneatthet i
me, i
t
wasnotr easonablyforeseeabl ethathewoul dsuff
erthedamage
compl ai
nedofandt hushisact ionmustf ail
.
Princi
ple:Ar escuerwhosuf f
erspsy chi
atricinj
urywil
lnotsucceed
unlesshepr ov esthatheobj ectivel
yexposedhi mselftodangeror
reasonablythoughthewasdoi ngso.

PerGeor geLeggat tQC( sit

tingasaDeput yJudgeoft he
HighCour t)atpars.27-32:27." MfMonkwast herefore
bynomeanst heonl ypersonwhowentt otrytoassi
stt he
i
njuredmen.Nev erthel
ess,i tisappar entt hatwhenMr
Monkar ri
vedhet ookt hel eadr oleuntilthesitemedi c
reachedt hescene.I twasal socl earfrom MrCar roll'
s
evidence thatMrMonk pr ovi
ded signifi
canthelpi n
comf orti
ng Mf Car rol
lunt ilthe emer gency servi
ces
arri
ved.Intheseci rcumst ancesIf indthatMrMonkgav e
assistancewhi chwasnot' tri
vi
alorper ipheral
'andwhi ch
entit
leshimt ober egardedasar escuer
.

28. "Thenextquest i
oni st her ef
orewhet her ,ingi ving
suchassi st ance,MrMonkobj ect i
v el
yexposedhi msel ft o
dangerorr easonabl ybel i
ev edt hathewasdoi ngso.I tis
notal legedt hatMrMonkobj ect i
velyexposedhi msel ft o
danger .I ti s,howev er,cont ended t hathe r easonabl y
believedt hathewasput t
inghi sownphy si
calsaf etyatr isk
whenassi stingt heinj
ur edmen, int woway s.First, MrMonk
saidi n hi s ev i
dence t hat,i n ordert o gett ot he f allen
platform,hehadt opassunder neat hanotherper i-platform
whi chwasst illatt
achedt ot het opoft heconcr etecor e,and
thather emember sl ookingupashewentunderi tand
thinkingthatt hisplatform mi ghtf allaswell.Idonotaccept
thisev idence.Iconsi deri tunl ikel
yt hatMfMonk,whose
attentionwasf ocussedonget tingt owher ethei njuredmen
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

werelyi
ng,woul
dhavegivenanyt
houghtatal ltowhetherit
wasr i
skyt
opassunderneat
htheotherplat
form.Ashesai d
hi
msel f
,'
whenthecr
unchcomes,yougot ohel ptheperson'
.
ButifMrMonkhadgiventhematteranythought ,t
her
ewas
noreasonwhyheshouldhavebel
i
ev edthatthe

"
46
otherplat
for
m mi ghtsuddenl
yf al
lofitsownaccord;
andi fMrMonkhadhadsuchaf ear,hecouldeasi
ly
haveav oi
dedpassingdirect
lybeneaththeotherperi
-
plat
form,astherewasnoneedf orhi
mt odosoinorder
togettothefall
enplat
for
m.

29. "MrMonk al so gav e evi

dence t hat,when he
crawl ed under neatht he fallen platform t o wher e Mr
O'Sul l
iv
anwasl yi
ng, hewaswor ri
edt hattheplatf
orm mi ght
hav eweakenedbecauseofi tsf allandmi ghtcol lapseon
topoft hem.Hesai di nhiswi tnessst atementt hatt he
platform hadj ustf all
enabout150f eet,whichi twasnot
desi gnedt odo,andt hathet houghtt heplatform pr obably
wei ghedt hebestpar tofat onne.Hesai dt hatitpassed
throughhi smindt hatheshoul dmov eMrO' Sull
ivansoas
togett hem bothoutofdanger ,butonseei ngMrO' Sul l
i
v an
i
twasi mmedi atel
yappar entt hatt herewasno wayhe
coul dbemov ed.

30. "Ido notacceptt his ev idence ei ther.I tis

demonst rablyinaccur ateint wor espect s:asIhav eal ready
ment i
oned,t hedi stancewhi cht hepl at f
orm hadf all
eni s
agreedt obeabout60f eet,andnot150f eet;andi tisal so
commongr oundt hatt heplatfor m wei ghedaboutat hirdof
at onne,andnot' thebestpar tofat onne' .Looki ngatt he
photographsoft hef all
enpl atfor m,itcanbeseent hatit
hadsur vivedt hef allintactandhadl andedupsi dedown
withallbutoneendofi tr estingonsol idgr ound.Thi sis
confir
medbyast atementmadeaspar toft heacci dent
i
nv esti
gationbyGar yPy l
e,af i
r eofficerwhoat tendedt he
sceneandf ounda' scaffoldtypest r
uct ure'whi chwas' over
themot i
onlessmal e,butappear edt ober esti
ngont he
ground and f i
rm'. I can see no r eason i n t hese
cir
cumst ancesf orbel i
evingt hatt hef allenpl atf
or m mi ght
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

coll
apse.Moreov
er,evenifoneofthejointshadgi v enway,
whileIcanunderst
andaconcer nthatt hismightl eaveMr
O'Sull
i
vantr
apped,itappearstomemostunl i
kelythatthis
wouldhaveresult
edi nanyinjur
ytoany oneelsewhohad
cl
imbed underthe platf
orm.Therei s no ev idence that
anybody el
se who at t
ended the scene had any such
concern.For example,Mr Sar sfi
eld,who as Ihav e
descri
bedal
sowentt ogiveaidtoMfO' Sull
iv
an
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

underneat
ht he f
all
en pl
atf
orm,gave ev
idence whi
ch I
accept—thatheneverf
elti
nanyper
sonaldanger
.

31. "Therei sev i

dencet hatsomepeopl ewer e
concer ned thatt ryi
ng t ol i
ftormov et he pl at
form
mi ghtbedanger ous.Forexampl e,inhi sst atement
madeon30Januar y2004aspar toft heacci dent
i
nv est i
gati
on,MfBi shopsai dt hatwhenhear r
ivedat
theacci dentscenehef oundpeopl efranti
callytryi
ngt o
l
iftt heplatform and' i
mmedi atel
yr equestedt hatt hey
stopt hei
ract i
onsast hiscoul dmaket hesi tuation
unsaf e'.Howev er,whileIcanwel lunder standwhyi t
wast houghtthatt ryi
ngt omov et hepl atf
or mfrom t he
posi ti
oninwhi chhadl odgedwoul dgi verisetor i
sk,it
doesnotseem t omei nanywayt of ollow thatt he
platform wasr easonabl yper ceivedtobeasour ceof
phy sicaldangerifitwasl eftwher eitwas.

32. "
It heref
orerejectasi mprobableMfMonk' s
ev i
dence thathe believed he was put ti
ng his own
phy si
calsafetyatriskwhenhewentt ot heaidofMr
O'Sull
ivanandMrCar r
oll;al
ternat
ivel
y.ifhedi dhave
suchabel i
ef,itwasnotar easonableone.I tfol
lows
thatMfMonkcannotest abl
ishthathewasapr i
mary
victi
m onthebasi sofhisinvolv
ementasar escuer.
"

Sadi
ePhi
l
li
psvJamesDur
gan[
199111I
R89
Fact s:Thepl aintif
fs,acoupl e,wer eengagedi ncl eani
ngt he
defendant '
s pr emises att he defendant'
sr equest.The f i
rst
plainti
ffsli
ppedonadef ectivegascookerwhi l
ehol dingacl oth
andi tcaughtf ire.Thesecondpl aintiffi
nanat t
emptt odragt he
fi
rstpl aint
if
ff rom thekitchenwher ethefir
estartedwasal so
i
njur ed.
Held:I tisreasonabl yforeseeablet hatwherefir
eisnegl igent l
y
started,aper sont ryi
ngt oputoutsuchf i
reinordert opr event
i
njur ytopersonsorpr opertymayl ikelysuf
fersomei njuri
es.
Principle:Arescuepr i
ncipleapplieswher ethedamagecaused
tot her escueri saf oreseeableconsequenceoft henegl igent
actoft hetortfeasor.

PerFi
nlayCJatp.94:"
Ihav
ecomet
otheconcl
usi
on,
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wi
thregar
dtothelegali
ssuesari
singinthi
scase,
that
t
hefoll
owi
ngistheposit
ion.Iam sat
isf
iedt
hatwhati
s

•
48
describedast hepr incipleofr escue,andwhati s
dealtwi thi nOgwovTay l
or[ 1988]AC 437,t rul
y
consistsonl yofasi tuati
oni nwhi chthecour twi ll
rul
easaf oreseeabl econsequenceoft henegl igent
commencementofaf irethatper sonsseeki ngt o
putoutt hatf i
re,eitherbyr easonoft heirdut yas
offi
cersofaf irebrigadeorbyr easonoft heirdesi r
e
toprev entdamage, whet hertoper sonsorpr operty,
maybei njuredbyt heex i
stenceoft hef i
re.I tis
essentiall
y,t herefore,adoct r
ineoff oreseeabi l
it
y
and cannot ,i n my v i
ew,come i nt
o oper ation
withoutan i ni
tialnegl igencecausi ng thef ire.In
those ci r
cumst ances,i tseems t o me thatt he
manneri nwhi cht hel earnedt rialjudgeappear sto
haveappl i
edwhathedescr i
besast hedoct ri
neof
rescuei sinlawi ncor rect.

Andatp.95:" Ihav ecomet ot heconcl usiont hat

thedef endantwasnegl igentont hisoccasi on.The
particulartaskwhi chhewasaski ngt hepl ainti
ffsto
carryouti nthiski t chenwas,hav i
ngr egar dtot he
evidenceoft hecondi t
ionoft heki tchen,amost
unusualt askofcl eaningwhi chnoor dinaryper son
coul dbeexpect edt oant icipate.Heowedadut yto
thepeopl ewhom hewasaski ngt ocar ryoutt he
wor kf orhimt ogi v esomeconsi derat i
ont ohow it
mightbedonewi thsaf ety .Thathecannothav e
done,hav i
ng r egar dt ot he f actt hathe nei t
her
arrangedanymet hodofpr ovidi
nghotwat er,which
wasessent i
al,withoutr equi r
ingt helight i
ngofaj et
ont hecooker ; norgav etot hepl ai
ntiffsanyspeci fi
c
war ning,asheshoul dhav edone,hav i
ngr egardt o
thecondi ti
onoft hecookerandt hef actt hatt he
gey serwasnotwor ki
ng,t hatt heywoul dhav et o
prov i
deasy stem ofwor ki nvolving,pr esumabl y,the
use of hot wat er, whi ch av oided t he r i
sks
associ atedwi tht heexcessi velyandusual l
ygr easy
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

condi
ti
onoft
hecookerandi
tssur
roundi
ngar
ea.

"Thedutyofcar ewhi chthedef endantowedand

whichappearst omet obear easonabl
edut y,could
havebeendischar gedinanumberofdi f
ferentway s,
themostobv iousofwhi chwoul dappeartobet hat
hecouldhavear rangedt ohavet hegeyserrepaired
from whateverf aultoccurr
edi ni tbefor
easki ng
anyonetostartcleaningthe

491M
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

kitchen.Thesecondpossi blealternativewast hathe

coul d hav e speci f
ical l
y war ned t he plaintiffSadi e
Phi l
li
ps,whenent er
ingi ntothecont ractwi t
hher ,ofthe
factt hatt herewasnomet hodofmaki nghotwat er
otherwiset hanbyt hef l
ame,andoft hef actt hatt he
ent i
repl acewasex cessivel
yandabnor mal lygr easy.
Suchawar ningwoul d,t oaper sonwi tht heor dinary
exper i
enceofahousekeeper ,whi chthepl aintif
fSadi e
Phi l
li
ps had,be suf f
icientf orhert o dev ise some
met hodofcommenci ngwor kwhi chwoul dnothav e
i
nv olved ther iskswhi ch eventual l
yt ookpl ace.For
these r easons Iconcl ude t hatt he def endantwas
negl i
gentandt hathi snegl igencecont ri
butedt ot he
fi
re and t ot he consequenti njuri
es t o bot ht he
plainti
ffsint hiscase. "

Keat
ingvHur
rel
l[2000]
A11ER(
D)1051
Fact s:Thepl aintif
fandt hef i
rstdef endantwer ewal kingwhen
theymeta nei ghbour .The f i
rstdef endantbecame abusi ve
towar dst henei ghbourandpunchedhi m.Thepl aint i
f ftri
edto
i
nt ervenebypul li
nghi m andt heybot hf elli
nt hemi ddl eofthe
roadandacardr ivenbytheseconddef endantst ruckt hem both.
Thepl ainti
ffsuedal legi
ngbot hdefendant sowedhi m adut yof
car eundert her escuepr i
ncipleasar escuer .
Hel d:Si ncethef i
rstdefendantwasact i
ngunl awful l
yandt he
plainti
f factedlawf ull
ytopr eventhimf r
om f urt
herbr eachesand
sincei twasf oreseeablet hatt hepl ainti
ffwoul di nt erveneto
prev enthimf rom t heunlawf ulact,t
hepl ai
ntif
fmustsucceed.
Principle:Adut ywoul dbeowedt other escuerifhisint erventi
on
wasr easonabl yf oreseeableal thought hedef endantowedno
dut ytot hepersonbei ngrescued.

PerMi chaelSupperstone QC ( si
tt
ing as a Deput y
Judgeoft heHighCourt):"
Inmyj udgmentthegener al
principl
esr el
ati
ngtotheexistenceofadutyofcaret o
rescuersi s clear
.In Hani son v BRB MrJust ice
Bor eham saidatpage684:

'
Thequest i
ont hathastobeconsi der
edisthi
s:isa
manwho, t
hroughlackofcar
eforhisownsafet
y,puts
himselfi
ntoasituati
onofdanger,
andwhoought,asa
reasonabl
e person,to havef or
eseen t
hatanother
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

mightendangerhi mselfbyat temptingt or escuehi m,

l
iablet ohisr escuerf orinjuri
essust ainedi nthecour se
oft her escue,orat tempt edr escue?I nt heabsenceof
author i
tyIshoul dhav eanswer edYes.I thasl ongbeen
established t hata dut yofcar e ariseswhenev era
reasonabl eper sonwoul df oreseet hati fhedi dnot
takecar ehewoul dputanot herindanger .Thatdut yis
owedt oal lwhoar ewi thinthespher eoft hedanger
thuscr eated.I tisalsoowedt oar escuer ,providedthat
thedef endantought ,asar easonabl eman,t ohav e
foreseent hatsomeonewoul d,ormi ght,comet othe
rescueoft heper son imper il
led byt hedef endant'
s
negl i
gence: seeHay nesvHanpood. ..'"

NERVOUSSHOCK

Bourhil
lvYoung[ 19431AC92
Facts:Thedeceased dr ov
ehi smot orcyclenegl i
gentl
yatt op
speedandcol li
dedwi thacaranddi ed.Thepl ainti
ff
,apr egnant
woman,whowasabout45f eetf rom thesceneoft heaccident
heardthesoundbutdi dnotseei t.Shesuf feredsev er
ener vous
shockasar esultandgav ebir
t hlat
ert oast i
llbornchild.Shesued
theexecutor
soft hedeceasedf ordamages.
Held:Thedutyofcar eapersonowesi ncludest hedut ytoprevent
i
njurybyshock,butsi ncet hedeceasedcoul dnotr easonably
for
eseet hei
njurysuffer
edbyt hepl ainti
ff,heowedhernodut y.
Pri
ncipl
e:Inj
urybyshocki sr ecoverablei fthei njur
ywasr easonabl
y
for
eseeableundert hecir
cumst ances.

Per Lor d Thanker ton at pp. 98 and 99:" In t he

observati
onst hatIhav et omake,Ishal lconfinemy self
tothequest ionoft her angeofdut yofamot or-
cycli
ston
thepubl i
cr oadtowar dsot herpassenger sont her oad.
Clearl
yt his dut yi st o dri
v ethe cy cl
e wi th such
reasonablecar easwi l
lav oi
dt heriskofi nj
urytosuch
personsashecanr easonablyf or
eseemi ghtbei nj
ur ed
byf ai
luretoexer cisesuchr easonablecar e.Itisnow
settl
ed that such i njuryincludes injury by shock,
alt
houghnodi r
ectphy sicalimpactorl esionoccurs.I f
,
then,thetestofpr oximi tyorremotenessist obeappl ied,
Iam ofopi niont hatsuchat estinvol
vest hattheinj ury
mustbewi thint hatwhi ch thecy cl
i
stoughtt o hav e
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

r
easonabl
ycontemplatedast heareaofpotentialdanger
whi
chwoul dariseast heresultofhisnegligence,and
t
hequesti
oninthepr esentcaseiswhethertheappel l
ant
waswithi
nthatarea.

51•

"Iam cl ear lyofopi niont hatshewasnot ,fort he

followi ngr easons.Al though,admi t
tedl y,goi ngatan
excessi vespeed,t hecy clisthadhi smachi neunder
hiscont r ol,andt hisatoncedi stingui shest hi
scase
from suchcasesast hosewher et hemot orhasbeen
l
ef tst andi ngunoccupi edandi nsuf fici
ent lybr aked,
andhasst art
edof fonanuncont roll
edcar eer.Att he
ti
meoft hecol l
isionwi tht hemot or-carhewaswel l
pastt het ramcar ,andt heappel l
antwasnotwi t hi
n
ther angeofhi sv i
sion,l etal onet hatt het ramcar
obst ruct edanyv iew ofher .Ther i
skoft hebi cy cl
e
ri
cochet ing and hi tt
ing t he appel lant ,oroff ly i
ng
glasshi ttingher ,inherposi ti
onatt het ime,wasso
remot e,i n myopi nion,t hatt he cy cli
stcoul d not
reasonabl ybehel dboundt ohav econt empl atedi t,
andIdi fferf r
om t heLor dJust iceCl er kont hispoi nt,
but ,asal readyst ated, theappel lant'
scasei snotnow
basedonanyf earofsuchpossi bi
lit
ies, butmer el yon
thesoundoft hecol l
isi
on.Ther ei snosuggest ion
thatt hev ol umeoft henoi seoft hecol li
sionaf forded
anygr oundf orargument ,andIam cl earlyofopi nion
that ,i
nt hi scase, theshockr esul t
ingt ot heappel lant,
situated asshe was,wasnotwi thint hear ea of
pot entialdangerwhi cht hecy clistshoul dr easonabl y
hav ehadi nv i
ew.I nmyopi nion,noneoft hecases
citedpr esent ssuf ficientlyanalogousci rcumst ances,
suchasshoul dcont rolt hedeci sioni nt hepr esent
case. "

PerLordRussellofKil
lowenatp.102:" Cani tbesai d
thatJohnYoungcoul dr easonablyhaveant i
cipated
thataperson,situat
edaswast heappel l
ant,woul d
beaf f
ect
edbyhi spr oceedi
ngt owardsCol intonat
thespeedatwhi chhewast r
avell
ing?Ithinknot .His
roadwasclearofpedest ri
ans.Theappellantwasnot
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

withi
nhisv i
sion,butwasst andingbehi ndt hesol i
d
barri
er of the t r
amcar . His speed i n no way
endangeredher .Int heseci r
cumst ancesIam unabl e
toseehowhecoul dreasonabl yant i
cipatet hat,ifhe
camei nt
ocol l
isionwi thav ehi
clecomi ngacr ossthe
tr
amcari nt
oGl enlockhar tRoad,t her esultantnoi se
wouldcausephy sicali nj
urybyshockt oaper son
standi
ngbehindt het ramcar .I
nmyopi ni
on,heowed
no dutyt othe appel lant,and was,t herefor e,not
guil
tyofanynegl igencei nrelati
ont oher .
"

PerLor dMacmi ll
anatp.103:" I
tisnol ongernecessar y
toconsi derwhet hert hei nf li
cti
onofwhati scal ledment al
shockmayconst i
tuteanact ionablewr ong.Thecr ude
viewt hatt hel awshoul dt akecognizanceonl yofphy si cal
i
nj uryr esulti
ngf rom act ualimpacthasbeendi scarded,
andi tisnow wel lrecogni zedt hatanact ionwi llli
ef or
i
nj urybyshocksust ainedt hrought hemedi um oft heey e
ort heearwi thoutdi rectcont act.Thedistinctionbet ween
ment alshockandbodi lyi nj
urywasnev erasci enti
fi
cone,
forment alshocki spr esumabl yinallcasest heresultof ,
oratl eastaccompani edby ,somephy si
caldi sturbancei n
thesuf ferer'
ssy stem.And ament alshockmayhav e
consequencesmor eser ioust hant hoser esulti
ngf rom
phy sicali mpact .Buti nt hecaseofment alshockt her e
areel ement sofgr eat ersubt l
etythani nt hecaseofan
ordinar yphy sicalinjuryandt heseelement smaygi ver i
se
todebat east ot hepr eci sescopeofl egalliabili
ty.
"

Andatpp.104and105: "Ther eisnoabsol utestandar dof

whati sreasonabl e and pr obable.Itmustdepend on
cir
cumst ancesandmustal way sbeaquest ionofdegr ee.
Inthepr esenti nstancet helateJohnYoungwascl early
negligenti n a quest i
on wi tht he occupant s oft he
mot or carwi thwhichhi scy clecollided.Hewasdr i
vi
ngat
anexcessi v espeedinapubl i
cthor oughfar
eandheought
tohav efor eseenthathemi ghtconsequent l
ycol l
i
dewi t
h
anyv ehicl
ewhi chhemi ghtmeeti nhiscour se,forsuch
anoccur rencemayr easonabl yandpr obablybeexpect ed
toensuef rom dri
vingatahi ghspeedi nast reet.Butcan
i
tbesai dt hatheoughtf ur
thertohav eforeseent hathi s
excessi vespeed, i
nvolvingt hepossi bil
i
tyofcol l
isi
onwi t
h
anotherv ehicl
e,mi ghtcause i njury by shock t ot he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

appel l
ant?Theappel l
antwasnotwi t
hinhislineofv i
sion,
forshewasont heot hersideofat r
amcarwhi chwas
standingbet weenhi m andherwhenhepassedandi t
wasnotunt ilhehadpr oceededsomedi st
ancebey ond
hert hathecolli
dedwi ththemot or-car.Theappellantdid
notseet heaccidentandsheexpr esslyadmi t
sthather
'
terrordidnoti nvolv
eanyel ementofr easonabl
ef earof
i
mmedi atebodilyinj
urytoher sel
f.
'Shewasnotsopl aced
thatt her
ewasanyr easonablelikeli
hoodofherbei ng
affectedbythecy cli
st'
scareless
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

driv
ing.Int heseci r
cumst ancesIam ofopi nionwith
the majorit
y oft he learned judges ofthe Second
Divi
sionthatt hel ateJohnYoungwasundernodut yto
theappel l
antt of oreseet hathisnegli
gencei ndriv
ing
atanexcessi v espeedandconsequent l
ycoll
idingwith
amot or
-carmi ghtr esultini nj
urytoher,forsucha
result could not r easonably and pr obably be
antici
pated.Hewas, therefore,notgui
l
tyofnegl i
gence
i
naquest i
onwi ththeappel lant.
"

Ki
ngvPhi
l
li
ps[
195311QB429
Fact s:At axidri
veroft hedefendant,whil
er ever
singhiscar ,hi
t
thepl ainti
ff'
ssononhi stri
cycle.Thedamagewassl i
ghtbutt he
plainti
ffwhowasabout7080y ardsawayhear dhim scr eam.
Whenhel ookedovert osee,shedidnotseet heboybutsawt he
tri
cy cl
eundert hetaxi.Theboyhadr unhomebutt hepl aint
if
f
suf f
eredner vousshockandsued.
Hel d:Itwasnotr easonablyf or
eseeablet hatbyr ev
ersing
hiscar ,hewoul dcausener vousshockt oaper sony ards
awayandt husnodut ywasowed.
Principle:Injur
ybyshocki sonl yrecoverableonlywher e
the i njur
y i s r easonably f oreseeable under t he
circumst ances.

PerSingletonLJatpp.435and436:" I
ft her
ewasno
dutyowed t ot he appell
anti n Bour hi//vYoung,I
cannotseehowt herewasanyowedbyt hedefendant
tothemot heront hef act
soft hi
scase.I nBonr hi/
/v
Young,Lor dRussel lofKi l
lowenandLor dMacmi l
lan
adoptedt hewor dsofLor dJami eson:'Nodoubtt he
dutyofadr iverist ousepropercar enottocausei nj
ury
topersonsont hehi ghwayori npr emisesadj oi
ningt he
highway,buti tappear stomet hathisdut yisli
mitedt o
persons so pl aced t hatt hey may r easonably be
expectedt obei njuredbyt heomi ssi
ont ot akesuch

•
70
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

care.'AndLor dMacmill
anadded:' Thedutyt otake
carei st he dutyto avoi
d doing oromi tt
ing to do
anythingt hedoingoromitti
ngt odowhi chmayhav e
asitsr easonableandprobableconsequenceinjuryto
others,andt hedutyisowedt ot hosetowhom i nj
ury
mayr easonabl yandpr
obablybeant i
cipat
ediftheduty
i
snotobser ved.'

-
"Canitbesai
dthatt
hedri
ver(
oranydri
veri
nt hewor
ld)
coul
dreasonabl
yorpr
obabl
yanti
cipat
ethati
njury—ei
ther

•
71
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

phy sicalorf rom shock— woul dbecausedt ot he

mot her ,whowasi nNo.12Bi r
stallRoad,whenhe
caused hi st axicab t o move backwar ds a shor t
distancealongGr eenfiel
dRoadwi t
houtlookingtosee
i
fany onewasi mmedi atel
ybehind?Ther ecansur el
y
beonl yoneanswert othatquesti
on.Thedr i
verowed
adut ytotheboy ,butheknewnot hingoft hemot her
;
shewasnotont hehi ghway;hecoul dnotknow t hat
shewasatt hewi ndow, norwast hereanyr easonwhy
heshoul dant i
cipatethatshewoul dseehi scabatal l
;
hewasnoti ntendingt ogointoBi r
stal
lRoadexcept
fort hepurposeoft urni
ng.Icannotseet hatt hefact
thatshesaw t het ricycl
eunderthecabdi sti
nguishes
thiscasef rom Bour hil
lvYoung.

PerDenni ngLJatp.440: "

Thet r
uepr i
ncipl e,asIseei t,
i
st his:Everydrivercanandshoul df oreseet hat ,ifhe
driv
es negl i
gently,he mayi njure somebodyi nt he
vici
nityi n some way orot her;and he mustbe
responsibleforal lthei njurieswhi chhedoesi nf act
cause byhi s negl i
gence t o anyone i nt he v icinity
,
whet hertheyar ewoundsorshocks,unl esst heyar e
toor emotei nlaw t ober ecov ered.Ifhedoesbyhi s
negligence inf actcause i nj
urybyshock,t hen he
shoul dbel i
ablef oritunl esshei sexempt edont he
groundofr emot eness.Thi spr i
ncipl
ei st hesameas
thatst at
edbySi rFr ederickPol locki nhi sbookon
Torts,13thed.,p.451( or15t hed. ,p.334) :'Ev eryone
i
sboundt oexer ciseduecar e.t owardshi snei ghbour s
i
nhi sact sandconduct ,orr atheromi t
sorf allsshor t
ofitathi sper il
;t heper il,namel y,ofbei ngl iablet o
make good what ever har m may be a pr ov ed
consequenceoft hedef ault.
'Ifthisprinciplei scor rect,
theonl yconsequencesf orwhi chhei sexcusedar e
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

t
hosewhi
char
etoor
emot
e."

PerHodsonLJatp.443:" I
tiscl
eart hatt heact
ionwi l
l
l
ief orinj
urybyshockwhenev eraper sonisplacedi n
reasonablef ear of immediat
ei njuryt o himsel f
,
provided thatthedefendantcouldr easonabl
yhav e
foreseentheriskandoughttohaveguar dedagainstit
.
As Lor d Russellsai
d38:'I
n consider i
ng whet hera
personowest oanotheradutyabr eachofwhi chwi l
l
render him l i
abletot hatother i n damages f or
negligence,i
tismateri
alt
oconsiderwhat

55.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

the defendantoughtt o hav e contemplated as a

reasonableman. 'Thediff
icult
yl i
esinappl y
ingthel aw
andi ndet ermi
ningt her angeoft heact i
on.Ont he
authori
ti
esi ti
satl eastdoubtfulwhetheritcanext end
tounintenti
onalact scausingshockwher ethereisno
fearofper sonalinjurytot hepl ai
nti
ff.Speaking,ifI
foll
ow him correctl
y,ofther angeoft heaction,Lord
Wr i
ghti n Bonrhi//v Young was notpr epared to
i
mposeanyexactl i
mituponi t
, sayi
ngt hati
tshouldbe
wher einthepar t
icul
arcaset hegoodsenseoft he
j
udgeorj uryshoulddecide."

BaordmanvSander son[1964]WLR1317
Facts:Thedefendantwentwi ththeplaint
if
fs,
af at
her
andasonof8y earsofage, toagar agetocol
lecthis
car.Whilethedefendantwasr eversi
ngoutofthe
garage,henegli
gentlyi
njuredtheson.Thef at
herwho
waswi thi
nearshothear dthescreamsoft hesonand
rantothescene.Hel atersuff
eredner v
ousshock.

Held:Si
ncethedef endantknewtheplai
nti
ffwaswithi
nearshot
andwasl i
kel
yt ocomet othescene,heowedhim adutyofcare
andthuswasl i
able.
Pri
ncipl
e:Adef endantowesadut yofcaretothenearrel
ati
ves
ofanypersonnegl i
gentl
yinjur
edwhower eknownt obewi t
hin
ear
shotandlikelytocomeupont hescene.

Duli
euvWhite[1901]2KB669
Facts:Thepl
aint
iff
,apr egnantwoman,wasbehi ndthebarof
herhusbandwhent heser vant
soft hedefendantnegli
gentl
y
droveapairofhor sevansi ntothebar.Theplai
nti
ffsuff
ered
nerv
ousshock,becamei llandgav ebi
rt
htoachi l
dwhowasan
i
diot.
Hel
d:Si
ncet
hef
ri
ghtcausedphy
sical
inj
ury
,itwasact
ionabl
e.
Pri
nciple: Damage which resul
tsfrom a nervous shock
occasionedbyfri
ghtisact
ionabl
eevenint
heabsenceofdir
ect
i
mpact ,provi
dedphysi
cali
njur
yhasbeencausedt
othepl
ainti
ff
.

PerKennedyJatp.673:"Fir
stofall
,i
tisargued,fr
ight
causedbynegli
genceisnotinit
sel
facauseofact i
on-
ergo,noneofitsconsequencescangiveacauseof
acti
on.InMit
chel/vRochest
erPg.Co.,t
hepoi nti
sput
thus:'That t
he result may be nervous disease,
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

bl
i
ndness,
insani
ty,
orev
enami
scar
ri
age,
in

nowaychangest hepr i
nci pl
e.Theser esul t
smer ely
shew t he degr ee off r
ightort he ext entoft he
damages.The r i
ghtofact i
on mustst i
lldepend
upont hequest i
onwhet herar ecov erymaybehad
forf ri
ght .
'Wi thal lr espectt ot hel ear nedj udges
whohav esohel d,Ifeeladi fficultyinf ollowingt his
reasoni ng.No doubt damage i s an essent ial
elementi nar i
ghtofact i
onf ornegl i
gence.Icannot
successf ull
ysuehi m whohasf ai l
edi nhi sdut yof
usingr easonabl eski llandcar et owar dsmeunl essI
canpr ov esomemat er i
alandmeasur abledamage.
Ifhisnegl i
gencehascausedmenei theri njuryt o
proper ty nor phy sical mi schi ef, but onl y an
unpleasantemot i
on ofmor e orl ess t r
ansi ent
duration,an essent ialconst it
uentofa r ightof
action f ornegl igence i sl acki ng.' Fear ,
'as Si r
Freder i
ckPol lockhasst ated( 4),'t
akenal onef all
s
shor tofbei ngact ualdamagenotbecausei ti sa
remot eorunl i
kelyconsequence, butbecausei tcan
bepr ov edandmeasur edonl ybyphy sical effects.'It
may ,Iconcei ve, bet r
ulysai dt hat,viewedi nrelation
toanact ionf ornegl igence,di rectbodi lyi mpacti s,
withoutr esultingdamage,asi nsuf f
icientagr ound
oflegalcl aim ast hei nflicti
onoff ri
ght .Thatf right
—wher ephy sicalinjuryi sdi rectlypr oducedbyi t—
cannotbeagr oundofact ionmer elybecauseoft he
absenceofanyaccompany l
ngi mpactappear st o
me t o be a cont ention bot h unr easonabl e and
cont r
aryt othewei ghtofaut hor i
ty."

Andatp.675:" Iti
snot ,howev er,tobet akenthatin
my v i
ew ev ery ner vous shock occasi oned by
negl
igence and pr oducing phy si
cali njur
yt ot he
suff
erergivesacauseofact i
on.Ther eis,Iam
i
ncli
nedt othi
nk,atl eastonel imitat
ion.Theshock,
wherei toperatest hrough themi nd,mustbea
shock which ar i
ses f r
om a r easonabl efearof
i
mmedi ate personali njur
yt o onesel f.A.has,I
conceiv
e,nolegaldut ynott oshockB. '
sner v
esby
theexhibi
ti
onofnegl i
gencet owar dsC. ,ortowards
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

t
hepr
oper
tyofB.OfC.
"

PerPhil
l
imoreJatpp.682and683:" Ithi
nkthere
maybecasesi nwhichA.owesadut yt oB.notto
i
nfli
ctamentalshockonhi m orher ,andthatin
suchacase,i
fA.doesi nf
li
ctsuchashockuponB.
— as by ter
ri
fyi
ng B.— and phy sicaldamage
ther
ebyensues,B.mayhav e an acti
on forthe
physi
caldamage,t hough the medi um through
whichi
thasbeeninf
lict
edisthemind."

57.
Hambr ookvSt okes[ 1925]1KB141
Facts:Thedef endant '
sser vantl eftalorr
yunat tendedt o,with
theengi ner unni ng,onast eep.Thel or
ryst art
edof fandr an
downt hehi ll
.Thepl ai
ntif
f'swi f
e,whohadj ustpartedwi thher
chil
drenwhower eont hest reet,saw thel orryrunningdown
and became f rightened f ort hem.She was t ol d almost
i
mmedi atelyt hatachi ldwhol ookedl i
keherchi l
dhadbeen
i
njured.Shesuf ferednervousshockanddi edasar esult.
Held:Sincet heshockwascausedbywhatshesaw andnot
whatshewast old,andsi ncei twasasar esultoff earforher
chil
dren, shewasent it
ledtor ecov er.
Pri
nciple:Shockr esult
ingf r
om f earforthel i
feorsaf etyofone's
chil
dreni sact i
onabl e.

PerBankesLJatpp.151and152:" Accept i
ngt hel i
ne
ofr easoni ngill
ust r
atedbyt heseauthorit
ies, itfoll
ows
thatwhatamanoughtt ohav eanti
cipatedi smat er i
al
whenconsi deringtheext entofhi sdut y
.Upont he
author i
tiesast heystand, t
hedef endantoughtt ohav e
anticipatedt hati fhi
sl orr
yr anawaydownt hisnar row
street,itmi ghtt err
if
ysomewomant osuchanext ent,
through f earofsome i mmedi ate bodi l
yi njuryt o
hersel f
,t hatshewoul dr eceivesuchament alshock
aswoul di njureherheal th.Cananyr ealdistinct i
onbe
drawnf rom t hepoi ntofv i
ew ofwhatt hedef endant
oughtt o hav eant i
cipatedandwhat ,t heref ore,hi s
duty was,bet ween t hatcase and t he case ofa
womanwhosef earisforherchi l
d,andnotf orher self?
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Takeacasei npoi ntasat est.Assumet womot hers

crossingt hisst reetatt hesamet imewhent hi
slor r
y
comest hunder i
ngdown,eachhol dingasmal lchi l
d
byt hehand.Onemot heri scour ageousanddev oted
toherchi ld.Shei st erri
fied,butt hinksonl yoft he
damaget ot hechi l
d,andnotatal labouther self
.The
otherwomani st imid and l acki ng int hemot her l
y
i
nstinct.Sheal soi ster r
ifi
ed,butt hinksonl yoft he
damaget oher selfandnotatal laboutherchi l
d.The
healthofbot hmot hersi sser iousl yaf fectedbyt he
ment alshockoccasi onedbyt hef r
ight .Cananyr eal
di
stincti
onbedr awnbet weent het wocases?Wi llthe
l
aw r ecogni zeacauseofact i
oni nt hecaseoft he
l
essdeser v i
ngmot her,andnonei nt hecaseoft he
mor e deser ving one? Does t he l aw say t hatt he
defendantoughtr easonabl yt ohav eant ici
patedt he
non-naturalf eelingoft het imidmot her ,andnott he
naturalfeelingoft hecour ageousmot her?Ithinknot .

Inmyopi ni
ont hestepwhi chtheCourtisaskedt o
take,undertheci r
cumst ancesofthepresentcase,
necessar i
lyfoll
ows f r
om an acceptance oft he
decisioninDulienvWhi te&Sons,andIt hinkthat
thedi ct
um ofKennedyJ. ,lai
ddowninquitegener al
termsi nthatcase,cannotbeacceptedasgoodl aw
applicabl
eInev er
ycase.

"Whilecomi ngt ot hisconcl usi

on,f orther easonsI
havegi ven,Iwi sht oconf inemydeci siont ocases
wheret he facts ar ei ndisti
nguishablei n principle
from thefactsoft hepr esentcase, andint hepresent
caseIam mer elydeci di
ngt hati nmyopi niont he
plai
ntiffwoul d est abli
sh a causeof act i
on ifhe
provedt othesat isfact i
onoft hej uryallt hemat er ial
factsonwhi chher el
ies-namel y ,thatt hedeat hof
hiswi f
er esult
edf rom t heshockoccasi onedbyt he-
runningawayoft hel or r
y,thatt heshockr esulted
from whatt hepl aint i
ff'
swi feeit
hersaw orr eali
zed
byherownunai dedsenses, andnotf rom somet hing
whichsomeonet oldher ,andthatt heshockwasdue
toar easonablef earofi mmedi ateper sonali njur y
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ei
thert
oher
sel
fort
oherchi
l
dren.
"

PerLor dAt ki natpp.156—158:" Butapar tfrom t he

admi ssioni nt hepl eadi ngs, Ithinkt hatt hecauseof
action iscompl et e.Thedut yoft heownerofa
mot orcari nahi ghwayi snotadut yt oref r
ainf r
om
i
nf l
icti
ngapar ticul arki ndofi njuryupont hosewho
arei nthehi ghway .I fso, hewoul dbeani nsurer.Itis
a dut yt o use r easonabl e car et o av oidi njuring
thoseusi ngt hehi ghway .Itisthusadut yowedt oal l
way farers,whet hert heyar einjuredornot ;t hough
damagebyr easonoft hebr eachofdut yisessent ial
befor eanyway far ercansue.Fur ther,thebr eachof
duty does nott ake pl ace necessar il
y when t he
vehiclest ri
kesori nj urest heway farer.Thenegl i
gent
actoromi ssionmaypr ecedet heactofi njury.I n
thiscasei twascompl eted att het op ofDov er
Street,whent hecarwasl eftunat t
endedi nsucha
condi t
iont hati twoul dr unv i
olent l
ydownt hest eep
place.Her e,t hen,wasabr eachofadut yowedt o
Mr s.Hambr ook.Nodoubtt hepar t
icularinjurywas
notcont empl at edbyt hedef endant s,buti tispl ain
from I nr ePol emi sandFur ness,Wi thy&Co.t hat
thisisimmat er ial.I ftheactwoul dormi ghtpr obabl y
causedamage, thef actt hat
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

thedamagei tinf actcausesi snott heex actki ndof

damageonewoul dexpect ,i si mmat erial,sol ongas
the damage i ni nf actdi rectl
yt raceabl et ot he
negl igentact ,and notdue t ot he oper ation of
i
ndependentcauseshav ingnoconnect ionwi tht he
negl igentact :perScr ut tonL. J.asp.577.Icanf ind
nopr inci plet osuppor tt hesel f-i
mposedr est ri
ction
stat ed i nt hej udgmentofKennedyJ.i nDul ieuv
Whi te&Sonst hatt heshockmustbeashockwhi ch
arisesf rom ar easonabl ef earofi mmedi at eper sonal
i
nj uryt oonesel f.Itappear st omei nconsi stentwi th
thedeci sioni nPughvLondon,Br i
ght onandSout h
Coast19' .Co. ,andwi tht hedeci sioni nWi lkinsonv
Downt on,i nnei therofwhi chcaseswast heshock
ther esul toft heappr ehensi onoft hei njur yt ot he
plaint iff.Itwoul dr esulti nast ateoft hel awi nwhi ch
amot her ,shockedbyf rightf orhersel f,woul dr ecov er
,
whi le a mot hershocked byherchi ld bei ng ki l
led
bef oreherey es,coul dnot ,andi nwhi chamot her
trav ersi ngt hehi ghwaywi thachi ldi nherar mscoul d
recov eri fshockedbyf rightf orher self,whi lei fshe
coul dbecr oss- exami nedi nt oanadmi ssi ont hatt he
fri
ghtwasr eallyf orherchi ld,shecoul dnot .I nmy
opi nionsuchdi stinctionswoul dbedi scr edi t
abl et o
anysy stem ofj urisprudencei nwhi cht heyf or med
par t.Per sonallyIseenor easonf orex cludi ngt he
by standert he hi ghwaywho r eceives i nj ur yi nt he
samewayf rom appr ehensi onofort heact ualsi ght
ofi nj uryt oat hi r
dpar ty.Ther emaywel lbecases
wher e t he si ght of suf fer i
ng wi ll di rect ly and
i
mmedi atelyphy si
callyshockt hemosti ndur atehear t
;
andi ft hesuf feringofanot herbet her esul tofanact
wr ongf ult ot he spect ator,Ido notsee whyt he
wr ongdoershoul descape. "

Schnei
dervEi
sov
itch[
1960]2QB430
Facts:Theplai
nti
ffandherhusbandwer ebei ngdri
venbythe
defendantwhen,owingtot hedef
endant'snegli
gence,t
hecar
wasi nv
olv
edinanacci dent.Thehusbandwaski ll
edinthe
accident and t
he plaint
iff was unconscious.When she
regainedconsci
ousness,shewast ol
dt hehusbandhaddi ed
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

andshesuf fer
ednervousshockasar esul
t.I
nanacti
onfor
damages,thedefendantcont
endedthatsi
nceshedi
dnotsee
thehusbanddi e,shewasnotent it
ledtodamagesforthe
nervousshock.
Held:Thepl ai
nti
ffwasent i
tl
ed t
o damagesf ort
heshock
suf
fer
edeu60

asar esul
toft
heacci
dentaswel
last
hehear
ingoft
hedeat
hoft
he
husband.

PerPaul lJ" Thepl ai

nt i
ffint hiscasecannotr elyon
thedut yoft hedef endantt owar dst hepl ainti
ff's
husband,and one st arts by consi der i
ng what
preciselywast hedut yoft hedef endantt owar dst he
plainti
ff.Thedut ywast odr ivehi smot or -
carwi t
h
reasonabl ecar e.Ifatanymomenthedi dnotdoso,
there was a br each oft hatdut y .Ifno damage
ensuedt herewasnocauseofact ionsi ncebot h
breachandconsequentdamagemustbepr esentt o
establishacauseofact ion.Damagemayconsi stof
ment alshock,whi chmaybecausedwi thoutany
colli
sion atal l.Equal l
y,a col li
sion mayr esul tin
ment alshockwi thoutanyphy si
cali njur y.Itcannot
bedoubt ed, andi snotchal lengedbyMr .My ers, t
hat
i
ft hepl aint i
ffhadnother selfbeeni nj uredbuthad
seenherhusbandki l
led,t her esultantshockwoul d
hav e been act ionable. I t woul d be a di r
ect
consequenceoft hedef endant '
snegl igentact .Ifthe
plainti
ffhadbeenconsci ousaf t
ert heacci dentbut
hadgai nedt hef ir
stknowl edgeofherhusband' s
deat hbysomeonescr eami ng, '
Raphaeli sdead, 'and
thenseent hatf actforher self ,wouldl iabi l
it
ydepend
onwhet hert hehear ingort hesi ghtpr oducedt he
shock?Woul dnoteachequal lyhav ebeenadi r
ect
and nat uralconsequence oft he negl i
gentact ?
Appr oachedi nt hisway ,itseemst omet of ollow
thatonce a br each ofdut yi s est ablished t he
diff
erencebet weenseei ngandhear i
ngi simmat er i
al.
Hear i
ngcanbej ustasdi rectaconsequenceas
seeing.Thef actt hat,owi ngt ounconsci ousnessi n
thiscase,aper iodoft i
meel apsedbef oret henews
washear d,makesnodi fferencepr ov idedt hatt he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

news was a consequence whi ch flowed di r

ect l
y
from thebr eachofdut ytowardst hepl ainti
ff;any
mor ethanitmakesanydi ffer
encet hatanoper ation
takesplaceaf teraninter
valoft i
me.Thef actt hat
thedefendantbyhi snegli
gencecausedt hedeat hof
theplainti
ff'
shusbanddoesnotgi vet heplainti
ffa
causeofact ionfortheshockcausedt oher ;butt he
plai
nti
ff,havingacauseofact i
onf ort henegligence
oft hedef endant,mayadd t heconsequencesof
shockcausedbyhear ingofherhusband' sdeat h
when est i
mat ing t
he amountr ecov erabl
e on her
causeofact ion."
61•
u

GuayvsunPubl
i
shi
ng[
1953]4DLR577
Facts:Thedef endantfal
selypublishedi nit
snewspaperthat
theplainti
ff'
shusbandandt hreechi l
drenhadbeenki l
ledin
an accident.The pl ai
ntif
fr ead this and suffer
ed shock
whichaf f
ectedherheal t
h.
Held:Thepl ainti
ffwasnotanei ghbourwi thi
nthemeani ng
ofthenei ghbourpri
ncipleandt hust hedefendantowedhim
nodut yofcar e.
Pri
nciple:Adef endant'
sdut yofcar ei sowedonl ytothose
whoar esocl osel
yanddi rectl
yaf fectedbyhi sactsOf
omissionst hatheoughtt ohav et hem inhiscontemplat
ion
asheengagesi nactsthatmi ghtaf f
ectthem.

PerKer winJatp.226:" Iam ofopiniont hatint hi

s
caset heappel lantwasnota' neighbour 'oft he
respondentwi t
hint hemeani ngofLor dAt kin'
sof t
-
quotedst at
ementi nDonoghuevSt ev ensonsi nce
she was nota per son so closely and di rectl
y
affectedbyt hepubl ishi
ngoft her epor tthatt he
respondentoughtr easonablytohav et heappel l
ant
i
n cont emplation as bei ng aff
ect ed injuri
ously
when i twas di r
ecti
ng its mind t ot he actof
publishing.Thisbei ngso,therewasnodut yinl aw
owedbyt her espondentt otheappellant."

McLoughl
i
nvO'Bri
an[1983]1AC410
Fact
s:The pl
aint
if
f'
s husband and t
hree chi
l
dren wer
e
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
nv ol ved in an acci dentowi ng tot he negl i
gence oft he
def endant s.Thepl ainti
ffwhowasaboutt womi l
esaway
wast old aboutt heacci dentaboutt wo hour slaterand
accompani edtot hehospi talwher ethev ictimswer esent .
Att hehospi t
al,shewast oldthatt hey oungestdaught er
wasdeadbutshesaw herhusbandandt heot herchi ldren
andt henat ureandext entoft hei
rinjury
.Sheal legedt hatas
ar esul tofwhatshehear dandsaw, shesuf feredshockand
i
njur yt o healthr esulting i n depression and change of
per sonal i
ty.Held:Thener vousshocksuf f
er edbei ngar esult
oft hei njuri
est oherf ami lyshesaw,shewasent i
tledt o
damages.
Princi ple:Damages r esul ting from ner v ous shock ar e
recov erableinnegligencei ftheshocki scausedbyt hesi ght
or hear i
ng of t he consequence of t he def endant '
s
negl igenceori tsimmedi ateaf ter
mat h.

PerLor dWi l
berfor ceatpp.418and419:" 1.Whi le
damagescannot ,atcommonl aw,beawar dedf or
griefandsor row, acl ai
mf ordamagesf or'nervous
shock' causedbynegl i
gencecanbemadewi t
hout
thenecessi t
yofshowi ngdi rectimpactorf earof
i
mmedi at e personal i njuri
es f or onesel f. The
reservationmadebyKennedyJ.i nDulieuvWhi te&
Sons[ 1901]2K. B.669, thought akenupbySar gant
L.J.inHambr ookvSt okesBr others[1925]1K. B.
141,hasnotgai nedaccept ance,andal thought he
respondent s,i nt hecour t
sbel ow,reser vedt heir
ri
ghtt or eviv
ei t,theydi dnotdosoi nar gument .I
think thati ti s now t oo latet o do so.The
argument sont hisi ssuewer ef ull
yandadmi rably
statedbyt heSupr emeCour tofCal i
forniainDi ll
on
vLegg( 1968)29A. L.R.3d1316.

"2.A pl ainti
ffmayr ecoverdamagesf or'nervous
shock'br oughtonbyi nj
urycausednott ohim-or
herselfbutt oanearr el
ati
ve,orbyt hefearofsuch
i
njury.Sof ar(subj
ectt o5bel ow),thecasesdonot
extendbey ondthespouseorchi l
drenoft heplaintif
f
(Hambr ook vSt okes Brothers[1925]1 K. B.141,
BoardmanvSander son[ 1964]1W. L.R.1317,Flinzv
Berry[1970]2Q. B.40— i ncludi
ngf osterchil
dren—
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

(
whereli
abil
i
tywasassumed)andseeKi
ngvPhi
l
li
ps
[
1953]1Q.B.429)
.
"3.Subj ecttothenextpar agraph,thereisnoEngl ish
casei nwhi chapl ai
nti
ffhasbeenabl et or ecover
ner vousshockdamageswher etheinjur
yt othenear
relativeoccurred outofsi ghtand ear shotoft he
plaintif
f.InHambrookvSt okesBrothersanexpr ess
distincti
on was made bet ween shock caused by
whatt hemot hersaw wit hherowney esandwhat
.shemi ghthavebeent oldbyby standers,liabil
it
y
beingexcl udedinthelat
tercase.

"4.Anexcept i
onf rom,orIwoul dpr efertocallitan
extensionof ,t helattercase,hasbeenmadewher e
thepl ainti
ffdoesnotseeorheart heinci
dentbut
comesuponi t
simmedi ateaft
ermath.InBoar dmanv
Sander son t he fatherwas wi thi
n earshotoft he
accidentt ohi schi l
dandl i
kelytocomeupont he
scene:hedi dsoandsuf fer
eddamagef rom whathe
thensaw.I nMar shallvLionelEnter
pisesInc.[1972]2
0.R.177,t hewi f
ecamei mmediatel
yupont hebadly
i
njuredbodyofherhusband.Andi nBensonvLee
[1972]V. R.879,a si tuati
on existed with some
similari
tytot hepr esentcase.Themot herwasi nher
home100y ardsaway ,and,oncommuni cationbya
thir
dpar t
y,ranoutt othesceneoft heaccidentand
theresuf f
eredshock.

YourLordshi
pshavet
odeci
dewhet
herornott
oval
i
dat
e
theseex
tensi
ons.

"5.Ar emedyonaccountofner vousshockhasbeen

givent oamanwhocameuponaser iousacci dent
i
nv ol
ving numerouspeoplei mmedi atelythereaf t
er
andact edasar escuerofthosei nvolved( Chadwi ck
vBr i
ti
shRailway
sBoar d[1967]1W. L.R.912).'Shock'
wascausednei t
herbyf earforhimsel fnorbyf earor
horroronaccountofanearr elat
ive.Thepr incipleof
'
rescuer' cases was not chal l
enged by t he
respondents and ought ,i n-my opi nion, t o be
accepted.Butwehav etoconsi derwhet her,andhow
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

f
ar,
itcanbeappl
i
edt
osuchcasesast
hepr
esent
.

"Throughoutt hesedev elopment s,ascanbeseen,

thecour tshav eproceededi nthet radit
ionalmanner
oft hecommonl awf r
om caset ocaseuponabasi s
ofl ogicalnecessi ty.Ifa mot her,wi t
h orwi t
hout
accompany i
ngchi l
dren,coul drecoveronaccountof
fearforher self
,how canshebedeni edr ecov eryon
accountoff earforheraccompany ingchi l
dren?I fa
fathercoul dr ecoverhadheseenhi schi l
dr unov er
byabacki ngcar ,howcanhebedeni edrecov eryifhe
i
si nt hei mmedi atevicinityandr unst ot hechi l
d's
assistance?I fawi feandmot hercoul drecov erifshe
hadwi tnessedaser i
ousacci dentt oherhusband
andchi ldren,doesshef ailbecauseshewasashor t
distanceawayandi mmedi atel
yr ushest ot hescene
(cf.BensonvLee) ?It hinkt hatunl esst hel aw ist o
drawanar bitr
aryli
neatt hepoi ntofdi r
ectsi ghtand
sound,t hesear gument sr equi
reaccept anceoft he
extensionment i
onedabov eunder4i nt hei nterests
ofjustice."

And at pp.421 — 423:" But,these di scount s

accepted,ther er emai ns,inmyopi ni
on,j ustbecause
'
shock' i
nitsnat urei scapableofaf f
ect i
ngsowi dea
rangeofpeopl e,ar ealneedf orthel aw t opl ace
some l i
mi tati
on upon t he ext ent of admi ssible
clai
ms.I tisnecessar ytoconsi dert hr
eeel ement s
i
nherenti nanycl aim:t hecl assofper sonswhose
clai
msshoul dber ecognised;t hepr oximityofsuch
personstot heacci dent ;
andt hemeansbywhi cht he
shocki scaused.Asr egardst hecl assofper sons,
thepossibler angei sbet weent hecl osestoff ami l
y
ti
es— ofpar entandchi ld,orhusbandandwi f
e—
andt heordi naryby stander.Existingl aw recogni ses
theclai
msof

•
64
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

thef irst:itdeni est hatoft hesecond,ei theront he

basi st hatsuch per sons mustbe assumed t o be
possessedoff or t
it
udesuf fici
entt oenabl et hem t o
endur e t he cal amities of moder n l if
e, or t hat
defendant scannotbeex pect edt ocompensat ethe
wor ld atl arge.I n myopi nion,t hese posi t
ionsar e
j
ust if
iable,andsi ncet hepr esentcasef all
swi thinthe
fi
rstcl ass,i tisst r
ictlyunnecessar yt osaymor e.I
thi
nk,howev er,thati tshoul dfollow thatot hercases
i
nv olving l ess cl ose r el
at i
onshi ps must be v ery
careful l
yscr ut
inised.Icannotsayt hatt heyshoul d
nev erbeadmi tted.Thecl osert het ie(notmer el
yi n
rel
at i
onshi p buti n care)t he gr eatert he claim f or
consi deration.The cl aim,i n any case,has t o be
j
udged i nt he lightoft he ot herf actors,such as
proximi tyt ot hescenei nt imeandpl ace,andt he
natureoft heacci dent.

"Asr egardspr oxi

mi t
yt otheaccident
,itisobv i
ous
thatt hismustbecl osei nbothti
meandspace.I tis,
afteral l
,thef actandconsequenceoft hedefendant's
negl i
gencet hatmustbepr ovedtohavecausedt he
'
ner vousshock' .Experiencehasshownt hattoinsist
ondi rectandi mmedi atesightorheari
ngwoul dbe
i
mpr acticalandunj ustandt hatunderwhatmaybe
calledt he' aftermath'doctri
neonewho,f r
om close
proximi ty,comesv er ysoonupont hesceneshoul d
notbeexcl uded. ..
.
"Fi
nall
y,andbywayofr ei
nforcementof' af
termat h'
cases,Iwoul d accept,by analogy wi t
h' rescue'
sit
uati
ons,t
hatapersonofwhom i tcouldbesaidt hat
onecouldexpectnot hi
ngelset hant hatheorshe
wouldcomei mmediatel
ytot hescene— nor mallya
parentoraspouse— coul dber egardedasbei ng
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

withint hescopeoff oresi

ghtanddut y.Wher ether
ei s
noti mmedi atepr esence,accountmustbet akenof
thepossi bil
it
yofal terati
onsi nthecir
cumst ances,for
which t he defendantshoul d notbe r esponsible.
Subj ectonl ytothesequal if
icati
ons,It
hinkthatast r
ict
testofpr oximit
ybysi ghtorhearingshouldbeappl i
ed
byt hecour t
s.

"Lastl
y,asr
egar
dscommunicat
ion,
ther
eisnocaseI n
whichthelawhascompensat
edshockbroughtabout
bycommuni cat
ionbyat hi
rdpart
y.InHambr ookv
Stokes
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Brothers[ 1925]1K. B.141,indeed,itwassai dt hat

l
iabil
itywoul dnotar iseinsuchacaseandt hisis
surelyright.Itwassodeci dedinAbr amzi
kvBr enner
(1967)65 D. L.R.(2d)651.The shock mustcome
through si ghtorhear ing of the eventorof i t
s
i
mmedi ate aftermath.Whet hersome equi valentof
sightorhear i
ng,e.
g.t hr
oughsimul t
aneoustelev i
sion,
woul dsufficemayhav etobeconsidered.

PagevSmi
th(
No.
2)[
1995]3Al
lER272
Facts:Thepl ai
ntiff'
svehi cl
ecol l
idedwi ththatofthedef endant
owingt ot henegligenceoft hedef endant.Thepl ainti
ffdidnot
suff
er any phy sicali njury but al l
eged t hat the accident
exacerbated his chr onicf at
igue sy ndrome whi ch he had
suff
eredbef ore.Hesuedf ordamagesi nrespectoft hatment al
i
njury.
Held: Si nce t he def endant's negl i
gence had mat eri
all
y
contri
butedt othepl ai
ntiff'
scondi t
ion,hewasl iabl
e.
Pri
nciple:A def endanti sl i
ablei fhi s negli
gence causes Of
materiall
y cont r
ibutes t o cause or pr ol
ong t he pl ai
nti
ff'
s
conditi
on.

PerSi rThomasBi ngham MRatp.275:" Secondl y

,i t
wasar guedt hatt hejudgehader r
edi naski ngwhet her
on t he bal ance of pr obabi l
it
ies t he defendant '
s
negl igence had mat eri
all
y cont r
ibuted t o t he
recr udescenceoft hepl ai
ntif
f'ssy mpt oms.Heshoul d,
i
twas sai d,hav e asked hi msel fwhet heron t he
balance of pr obabil
iti
es t he pl aintiff would hav e
suf fered t he i nj
uryf or whi ch he was cl aiming
compensat ionbutf orthedef endant 'snegligence.Ido
notf ormypar tacceptt hesecr iti
cisms.I nacasei n
whi chot hercausescoul dhav epl ay edapar tint he
causat ionoft hepl ai
ntiff
'sexacer bat edsy mpt oms,i t
wasi nmyv iew ent i
rel
yappr opri
atef orthej udget o
directhi mselfint hewayt hathedi d,remi ndinghimsel f
thatacausewasonl yt ober egardedasmat eriali
fi t
wasmor et han mi nimalort r
ivi
alori nsignifi
cant.I
cannoti nanyev entseet hatinacasesuchast histhe
out come woul d be di fferent whi chever t est is
formul ated.Thej udgehadal readyaccept edt hev i
ew
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

expressed byone oft he medicalexpert

st hatthe
plai
nti
ff'
sr ecoverywouldprobabl
yhavecont i
nuedbut
fortheacci dent
.Thejudgeadoptedast r
aightf
orward,
pragmat i
c appr oach which was in my j udgment
enti
relyappr opr
iat
einthecir
cumstances.
"

AlcockvChi efConst ableofSout hYor kshirePol i

ce[ 1992]1AC310
Facts: A f ootbal
l st adium di saster r esulti
ng f rom
overcrowdi ngi nwhi ch95peopl edi edandsev eralother s
sustainedv ariousdegr eesofi nj
ur i
eswasbr oadcastl i
v e.
Thepl aintiff
swer er elativesandf ri
endsoft hespect ator s
and they al l
eged t hatt hey had suf fered sev ere shock
result
ingi npsy chi
atricillnessasar esul tofwhatt heysaw
andhear d.Oneoft hem wasj ustout sidet hest adium and
whenhesawt heev ent sont elevisi
on,hewenti nt osear ch
forhismi ssingson.Al ltheot herswer eint heirhomesand
watchedt heev ent
sont elevision.
Held:Vi ewing on telev
isi
on was notequi val
entt o seei ng or
hear i
ngoft heeventori tsimmedi at
eaf t
ermathandt hust he
plainti
ff
smustf ail
;andt hatdamageswer eav ail
abl eonl yfor
i
njur i
esthatwer ereasonablyforeseeableandwher et herewasa
close proximitybetween t he victi
m oft he accidentand t he
plainti
ff
.
Principl
e:Toest abli
shacl ai
mi nrespectofpsy chiatri
ci ll
ness
resulti
ngfrom shocki tisnecessar ytoshow notonl yt hatsuch
i
njur yisreasonablyf or
eseeable,butal sothatther elati
onship
betweent hepl ai
nti
ffandt hedef endantissuff
ici
entlypr oximate
basedont i
esofloveandaf fecti
on.

PerLor dKei thofKinkelatpp.396and397:" Itwas

arguedf ort hepl ai
ntif
fsint hepr esentcaset hat
reasonablef or
eseeabili
tyoft her i
skofi nj
ur yt o
them int hepar t
icul
arf orm ofpsy chi
atr
icillness
wasal lthatwasr equir
edt obringhomel iabil
ityt o
the defendant .I nt he ordinary case of di rect
phy si
calinjurysuf f
eredi nanacci dentatwor kor
elsewhere,r easonableforeseeabi l
i
tyoft her iski s
i
ndeed t he onl yt estt hatneed be appl i
ed t o
determinel i
abili
ty.Butinjurybypsy chi
atri
cillness
i
s mor e subt l
e,as Lor d Macmi ll
an obser ved i n
Bour hi
//vYoung[ 1943]A.C.92, 103.Inthepr esent
typeofcasei tisasecondar ysor tofinj
urybrought
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

aboutbyt hei nfl

ictionofphy si calinjur y,ort her isk
ofphy sicali njur
y ,uponanot herper son.Thatcan
affectt hosecl oselyconnect edwi tht hatper soni n
variousway s.Onewayi sbysubj ect i
ngacl ose
rel
at ivet ot hest ressandst rainofcar i
ngf ort he
i
njur ed per son ov er a pr olonged per i
od,but
psy chiatri
ci ll
nessduet osuchst ressandst rain
hasnotsof arbeent reatedasf oundi ngacl aimi n
damages.SoIam oft heopi niont hati naddi ti
ont o
reasonabl ef oreseeabi lit
yl i
abi li
tyf ori njur
yi nt he
par t
icularf or m ofpsy chiatr
ici ll
nessmustdepend
i
n addi ti
on upon a r equisi t
e r el ationship of
proxi mitybet weent hecl ai
mantandt hepar tysai d
to owe t he dut y.Lor d At kini n Donoghue v
Stev enson[ 1932]A. C.562,580descr ibedt hoset o
whom adut yofcar ei sowedasbei ng:'per sons
whoar esocl oselyanddi r
ectlyaf fect edbymyact
that I ought r easonabl y t o hav e t hem i n
cont empl ation as bei ng so af fected when Iam
directingmymi ndt ot heact soromi ssionswhi ch
arecal ledinquest ion.'

"Theconceptofaper sonbei ngcloselyanddirectl

y
affect
edhasbeenconv enientl
ylabelled'
proximity
',
and this concepthas been appl ied in certai
n
categori
esofcases,par ti
cularl
yt hoseconcer ned
withpureeconomi closs,t olimitandcont rolthe
consequences as regards l i
abi
li
ty which woul d
fol
low ifreasonabl
ef oreseeabil
it
ywer ethesol e
cri
teri
on.

"Asr egardst heclassofper sonst owhom adut y

maybe owed t ot ake reasonabl e caret o avoid
i
nfli
ctingpsy chiatr
icill
nesst hroughner vousshock
sustainedbyr easonofphy sicalinjuryorper i
lt o
another,I t hi
nk i t suf fi
cient t hat reasonable
for
eseeabi li
tyshouldbet hegui de.Iwoul dnotseek
to limitt he cl ass by r eference t o parti
cular
rel
ationshipssuchashusbandandwi feorpar ent
and chi l
d.The ki nds ofr elationship which may
i
nvolv e close t i
es of l ove and af fecti
on ar e
numer ous, anditistheexistenceofsucht i
eswhi ch
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

l
eadst oment aldi sturbancewhent hel ov edone
suffer s a cat ast rophe.They may be pr esenti n
fami l
yr elati
onshi psort hoseofcl osef riendship,
and may be st r
ongeri nt he case ofengaged
coupl est hani nt hatofper sonswho hav ebeen
mar riedt oeachot herformanyy ears.Itiscommon
knowl edge t hatsuch t ies exi st,and r easonabl y
foreseeabl et hatt hose bound by t hem may i n
certainci rcumst ancesbeatr ealriskofpsy chi
atri
c
i
llnessi ft helov edonei si njuredorputi nper i
l.The
closenessoft het iewoul d,howev er,requi retobe
provedbyapl aintiff
,thoughnodoubtbei ngcapabl e
ofbei ngpr esumedi nappr opr i
atecases.Thecase
ofaby standerunconnect edwi tht hev ictimsofan
accidenti sdifficult.Psy chiatri
ci nj
ur ytohi m woul d
notor dinaril
y,i nmyv iew,bewi t
hint her angeof
reasonabl efor eseeabi l
ity,butcoul dnotper hapsbe
entir
el yexcl udedf rom i tiftheci r
cumst ancesofa
catast rophe occur ri
ng v ery close t o hi m wer e
particularlyhor ri
fic."

Victor
ianRai
lwayCommi ssi
onersvCout
las(
1887)13App.
Cas.222Fact s:Thedefendantwasthegat
ekeeperofa
rai
lwaywhichcrosseda

•
68
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

road.Thedef endantnegligentl
yinvit
edt hepl ai
nti
fftocr oss
alt
hought herewasani mpendi ngtrai
n.Theplainti
ffmanagedt o
avoi dacol l
isi
onbutsuf fer
edsev er
eshockr esulti
nginpersonal
i
njur i
es int he form ofi mpai r
ed memor yand ey esightand
delicateheal t
h.
Held:The i njur
ies complained ofwer et oo remot efort he
defendantt obel iabl
e.
Principl
e:Damagesf ornervousshockandment alinj
uri
esar e
notr ecoverableiftheshockandt heinj
uri
esaret ooremotefrom
thenegl i
gentact .

PerSirRi char dCouchatp.225:" Ther uleofEnglishlaw

astot hedamageswhi charerecov erabl efornegli
gence
i
sst atedbyt heMast eroftheRol lsjnTheNot t
ingHill,
a
caseofnegl igentcollisi
on.I
tist hatt hedamagesmust
bet henat uralandr easonableresul toft hedefendants'
act;suchaconsequenceasj nt heor dinar
ycour seof
thi
ngswoul df l
ow f
r om theact .Thel aw woul dbet he
samei nVi ctori
aunlessi thasbeenot herwiseenacted
bythel egislatur
e,whi chiti
snotsai di thasbeen.

"Accor dingt otheev i

denceoft hef emaleplainti
ffher
fri
ghtwascausedbyseei ngt hetr
ainappr oaching,and
thinkingt heywer egoingtobeki l
l
ed.Damagesar isi
ng
from mer esuddent er
rorunaccompani edbyanyact ual
phy sicalinjury
,butoccasioninganer vousorment al
shock, cannot under such ci rcumstances, t heir
Lor dshipsthink,beconsi
dereda

consequencewhi ch,i
nt heor di
narycour seoft hings,
wouldflowf rom t
henegl
igenceoft hegat e-
keeper.Ifit
werehel dthattheycan,itappearstot heirLordships
thatitwoul dbeextendi
ngt hel i
abil
i
tyf ornegligence
muchbey ondwhatthatliabi
l
ityhashithertobeenhel d
tobe."

Chadwi
ckvBr
it
ishTr
anspor
tCommi
ssi
on(
supr
a)
Pr
inci
ple:Damagesarerecover
abl
eforner
vousshockcaused
ot
herthanbyfearf
oronesel
forchi
l
dren.

PerWall
erJatpp.950and951:"Idonotseeany
obj
ect
ioni
npr
inci
plet
odamagesbei
ngr
ecov
erabl
efor
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

shockcausedot hert hanbyf earforone' sownsaf etyor

fort hesaf etyofone' schi l
dren.Oneonl yt oof r
equent ly
comesacr osst hecaseofamanwi that rivialindust rial
i
nj urywhi chsubsequent lypr oducesgenui neneur ot i
c
sy mpt omsnotduet of earbutduet oot hercauses.I t
woul d seem anomal ous i f ser i
ous ment alillness
accompani edbyat rivialinjurywoul dent i
tleamant o
compensat i
onbuti ft herewer enot ri
v i
alinj uryitwoul d
not .Ishoul d al so ment ion t he case ofOwens v
Liver poolCor pn,whi chwasacasewher et heplai ntiff
recov ered damages f orshock notdue t of earf or
per sonalsaf etyorf ort hesaf et
yofchi ldr en.Ther ei s
not hingi nt hisdeci si onwhi chi si nconsist entwi tht he
view,whi ch Ihav e expr essed,and al t hough some
disappr ovaloft hedeci si onwasexpr essedbysomeof
thei rl ordships in Hay( orBour hi/l)vYoung,i n my
opi niont herei snot hingi nthisdi sappr ovali nconsist ent
wi tht he v i
ew t hatIhav ef ormed.I n my opi nion,
ther efore,pr ov i
ded t hatt he necessar yr equisit
es of
l
iabi li
tyar et here,shock,ot hert hanf earf oronesel for
chi l
dr en,causi ngi njur y
,maybet hesubj ectofacl aim
fordamages. "

Tay
lor
vANov
o(UK)Lt
d[2014]QB150
Fact s:Thepl ainti
f f'
smot hersufferedi njur
iest oherheadand
footf oll
owing an acci dentdue t ot he negl igence oft he
defendant .Whi ler ecov eri
ngathome,aboutt hreeweeksl ater,
sheunexpect edlycol lapsedanddi ed.Thepl aintiffsuffer
edpost
-tr
aumat i
cst r
essdi sorderandsued.Thepl ai
nt if
fhadnotbeen
att hesceneoft heacci dentnorhadheseent heimmedi ate
aftermat h,butshewaspr esentwhent hemot hercol l
apsedand
died.
Hel d:Sincet hedeat hoft hemot herandnott heacci dentwas
thecauseoft hepl ainti
f f
'spsychi
atricinjury,thedef endantwas
notl i
ablesincet her ewasnopr oximat erelati
onshi pbetweent he
plaintif
fandt hedef endant .
Pr i
nciple:Tosucceedi nanact ioninnegl i
genceasasecondar y
victim,thepl aint
iffmustpr ovebothar elati
onshi pofpr oxi
mi t
y
wi t
ht hedef endantsuf ficientt
ofoundadut yofcar e,andal so
phy sicalproximityint imeandspacet ot heev entcausedbyt he
negl i
gence.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

PerLor dDy sonMRatpp.164-166, par s.26-32:26" I

acceptt hesubmi ssionofMrCor y-Wr ightt hat ,i
nor der
tosucceed,MsTay lormustshow t hatt her ewasa
rel
at i
onshi pofpr oximi tybet weenNov o andher self.
Thewor d'pr oximi ty
'hasbeen used i nt wo di st i
nct
sensesi nt hecases.Thef i
rsti sal egalt erm ofgr eat
i
mpor tancei nt hel aw ofnegl i
gencegener ally.I ti s
usedasshor t
handf orLor dAt kin'
sf amousnei ghbour
pri
nci ple.Usedi nt hissense, iti sal egalconceptwhi ch
i
s di stinct f rom and nar rower t han r easonabl e
foreseeabi li
t y.Itdescr ibes t he r elat i
onshi p bet ween
partieswhi chi snecessar yinor dert of oundadut yof
careowedbyonet ot heot her .I nhi sspeechi nt he
Alcock case Lor d Ol i
v err efer st o pr oxi mi tyi nt his
sensemor et hanoncei nthepassageswhi chIhav e
cit
edabov e.Lor dAt kin'snei ghbourpr i
nci plei t
sel fi s
concer nedwi thther elat i
onshi pbet weenpar ti
es.You
mustt aker easonabl ecar et oav oidact soromi ssi ons
whi chy oucanr easonabl yf or eseewoul dbel ikelyt o
i
njur e'personswhoar esocl osel yanddi r ectlyaf f
ect ed
bymyactt hatIoughtr easonabl yt ohav et hem i n
cont empl ation as bei ng so af fected when Iam
dir
ect ingmymi ndt ot heact soromi ssi onswhi char e
calledi nquest ion' :DonoghuevSt evenson[ 19321AC
562, 580.Lor dBr idgeofHar wi chmadet hesamepoi nt
i
nCapar oI ndust riesp/ cvDi ckman[ 199012AC605,
617- 618:' Whatemer ges i st hat ,i n addi tion t ot he
foreseeabi li
t yofdamage,necessar yingr edi ent si nany
sit
uat iongi v i
ngr i
set oadut yofcar ear et hatt her e
shoul dexi stbet weent hepar tyowi ngt hedut yandt he
partyt owhom i ti sowedar el ationshi pchar act erised
byt hel awasoneof" proxi mity"or" nei ghbour hood".

27 " Butinsecondar yv i
ctim cases,thewor d'proxi
mity'is
alsousedi nadifferentsenset omeanphy si
calproxi
mityi n
ti
meandspacet oanev ent.Usedint hissense,i
tservesthe
purposeofbei ngoneoft hecont r
olmechani smswhi ch,as
amat terofpol i
cy,thel aw hasi ntr
oducedi nor dertoli
mi t
the numberofper sons who can cl aim damages f or
psychiat
ri
ci nj
uryassecondar yv i
cti
msort oputi ti
nlegal
terms,todenotewhet herthereisar elati
onshipofproxi
mi ty
betweent hepar t
ies.I nasecondar yv ict
im case,physical
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

proxi
mi t
ytotheeventisanecessar
y,butnotsuf
fi
cient
,
condi
tionofl
egal
proxi
mit
y.

28 " Iacceptthesubmi ssionofMrCor y

-Wr i
ghtt hatthe
correctquestioniswhet herMsTay l
orandNov ower eina
rel
ationshipofproximityint helegalsense.Thedi ff
icult
yin
answer i
ngt hisquest i
oni st hat,asLor dOliv ersaid,the
concept of pr oximity depends mor e on t he court'
s
perceptionofwhatist her easonableareaforthei mpositi
on
ofli
abi l
i
tythananypr ocessofl ogic.I
nthecont extofclaims
by secondar yv i
cti
ms,t he cont rolmechani sms ar et he
j
udicialresponsetohowt his

71•
areashoul dbedef i
ned.Thishasi nv ol
vedthedrawingof
boundar i
es which have been cri
ti
cised as ar
bit
rar
yand
unfair
.Butt hi
si swhatt hecour t
shav edoneinanar ea
wheret heyhavehadt ofi
xt heambitofl i
abi
li
tywit
houtany
guidi
ngpr inci
pleexceptLor dAtki
n'sf amous,butelusi
ve,
test.

29 " Int he pr esentcase,Nov o's negl i

gence had t wo
consequenceswhi chwer esepar atedbyt hreeweeksi nt ime.
Thej udgedescr i
bedt hem ast wodi sti
nctev ents.Theuse
oft hewor d' event'hast het endencyt odi st r
act .I
nr eality
ther ewasasi ngleaccidentorev ent( t
hef all
ingoft hest ack
ofr acki ngboar ds)whi chhadt woconsequences.Thef i
rst
wast hei njuriest oMr sTay l
or'
sheadandar m;andt he
second( thr eeweeksl at er)washerdeat h.Ther ewascl ear ly
ar elationshi pofl egalpr oxi
mitybet weenNov oandMr s
Tay lor .Mor eover,i f Ms Tay lor had been i n phy sical
pr oximi tyt ohermot heratt heti
meoft heacci dentandhad
suf feredshockandpsy chiatr
icill
nessasar esultofseei ng
theacci dentandt heinjuriessust ai
nedbyhermot her,she
woul dhav equal i
fi
edasasecondar yv ict
im onest abl
ished
pr i
nci pl
es.But ,i
nmyv iew,t oallowMsTay lort orecoveras
asecondar yv i
cti
m ont hef actsoft hepr esentcasewoul d
bet ogot oof ar.Ihaver eachedt hisconclusionf ort
woi nter
-relatedr easons.

30 "Fir
st,i
tseemst omet hat
,ift
hejudgeisri
ght
,Ms
Tayl
orwould have been abletorecoverdamages f
or
psy
chiat
ri
cil
lnessev
eni fhermother
'sdeat
hhadoccur
red
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

mont hs,andpossi blyy ears,aftert heaccident( subj ect,of

course,t o prov i
ng causat ion).Thi s suggest st hatt he
concept of pr oximi tyt o a secondar yv icti
m cannot
reasonablybest retchedt hisf ar.Letusnow consi dert he
sit
uationt hatwoul dhav ear iseni fMr sTay lordi edatt he
ti
meoft heacci dentandMsTay l
ordi dnotwi tnesst he
death,butshesuf feredshockwhenshecameont hescene
shortl
yaf terthe' immedi ateaf termat h'
.Int hatev entMs
Taylorwoul dnothav ebeenabl et or ecoverdamagesf or
psychiatri
ci l
l
nessbecauseshe( possiblyonl yjust )woul d
havef ail
ed t o sat isfyt he phy sicalpr oximity cont r
ol
mechani sm.Thei deat hatMsTay l
orcoul dr ecov eri nt he
fi
rstsituati
onbutnoti ntheot herswoul dstri
ket heor dinary
reasonable per son as unr easonable and i ndeed
i
ncompr ehensibl
e.I nt hi
sar eaoft helaw,theper cept i
onof
theordinaryreasonabl epersonmat t
ers.

•
72
Thati sbecausewher etheboundar iesofpr oximi t
yaredr awni n
thisdi ffi
cultareashoul d,sof araspossi ble,reflectwhatt he
ordinaryr easonabl epersonwoul dregar dasaccept abl
e.Thisi s
thei deat hatLor dHof fmannwasexpr essingi nt heFrostcase
[1999]2 AC 455 i nt he cont extofdi stinguishing between
diff
er ent cat egories of secondar yv icti
ms i n that case.
Accor dingly,unlesscompel l
edt odosobypr eviousaut hori
ty,I
woul dr efuset ohol dthatitisr easonablet oi mposel i
abili
tyon
Nov of orMsTay lor'
spsy chiatr
icill
ness.Idonotconsi dert hat
therei s anyaut hor i
tywhi ch compel s such a concl usion.I
explainbel owwhyIdonotacceptt hesubmi ssionofMrBar tley
Jonest hatanyoft heauthori
t i
esonwhi chher eliessuppor t
st he
decisionr eachedbyt hejudgei nthepr esentcase.

31 "Thesecondr easoni scloselyconnect edwi tht hefir

st.In
theFrostcaset heHouseofLor dsr ecognisedt hatt hisareaof
thelaw istosomeext entarbit
raryandunsat isfact ory.Thati s
whyLor dStey nsai
d' thusfarandnof urt
her 'int heFr ostcase
andLordHof fmannandLor dBr owneWi lki
nsonagr eedwi thhi m.
Iti
struethattheissuei ntheFr ostcasewasv erydi fferentfrom
thatwit
hwhi chwear econcer nedi nt hepr esentcase.Butt hat
doesnotdet ractfr
om t heforceoft hegener alpoi ntt hattheir
Lordshi
pswer emaki ng.Inmyv i
ew,t heef fectoft hej udge's
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

approach is potenti
all
yt o extend the scope ofl i
abil
it
yt o
secondaryv ict
ims consider
ablyf ur
therthan has been done
hit
herto.Thecour tshav ebeenast utefort hepolicyreasons
art
iculat
ed byLor d Steynt o confi
ne the rightofact i
on of
secondaryv i
ctimsbymeansofst ri
ctcont r
olmechani sms.In
myv iew,thesesamepol icyr
easonsmi l
i
tateagainstanyfurt
her
substanti
alextensi
on.ThatshouldonlybedonebyPar l
iament.

32 "
Itfoll
owst hat,i
nmyv iew,thej udgewaswr ongt
ohol d
thatthedeat hofMr sTay l
orwast her el
evant' ev
ent'forthe
purposes ofdeci ding the pr oxi
mit y question.A par adi
gm
exampl eoft hekindofcasei nwhi chacl aimantcanr ecover
damagesasasecondar yv ictimi sonei nvolvi
nganacci dent
which( i
)mor eorl essimmedi atel
ycausesi njuryordeathtoa
pri
mar yv i
cti
m and( i
i)i
swi tnessedbyt hecl aimant.Insucha
case,therelevanteventistheacci dent.

Itisnotal at
erconsequenceoft heaccident.AuldJput
thepoi ntwel linTay l
orvSomer setHeal thAut hori
ty
[1993]PIQRP262:seepar a11abov e.MsTay l
orwoul d
hav ebeenabl et or ecoverdamagesasasecondar y
victi
mi fshehadsuf f
eredshockandpsy chiat
ri
ci l
lness
asar esultofseei nghermot her
'saccident.Shecannot
recoverdamagesf ortheshockandi ll
nesst hatshe
sufferedasar esultofseei nghermot her'
sdeat hthree
weeksaf tertheacci dent.
"

StephenFl et
chervCommi ssioner sofPubl i
cWor ks[ 200311I R
463Fact s:Thepl ai
ntiffwasexposedt oasbest oswhi l
ei nthe
empl oymentoft hedef endantowi ngt othenegl igenceoft he
defendant .Heallegedt hatowi ngt other isktohi sheal thasa
resultoft heexposuret oasbest os,hehadsuf feredpsy chiatri
c
i
llnessalthoughmedi calexami nat i
onsshowedt hatt heriskwas
remot e.
Held:Si ncet her i
skwasr emot e,thef earofcont racti
ngt he
diseasehadbeeni rrational,resultingint hepsy chiatri
ci nj
ury
andt hust heplai
ntif
fmustf ail
.
Principl
e:Damages f orpsy chiatri
ci nj
uryr esulti
ng f rom an
i
rrati
onal fearofcontract i
ngadi seasear enotr ecov erabl
e.

PerKeaneCJatpp.479and480:"
Iseel
i
ttl
edi
ff
icul
ty
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
nar rivi
ngataconcl usiont hat ,inacasesuchast he
present ,itwasr easonabl yfor eseeabl et hatt hepl ai ntif
f
woul dsuf ferar ecogni sablepsy chiatricdi sor derasa
resul tofhi staki ngmedi caladv i
ceandbei ngi nf or med
thathe was atr isk ofcont racti
ng t he di sease of
mesot helioma,ev en t hough,at t he t i
me of t he
proceedi ngs,he had not act ually cont ract ed t hat
disease.Mor eov er,t hatr esul tshoul d al so f ollow,
i
rrespect iveoft heext entoft her i
sk.If,forexampl e, the
adv iceofPr ofessorCl ancyhadbeent hat ,asamat t
er
ofpr obabi l
it
y,hewoul dcont ractt hedi seaseandt he
plaintif
fhad,i nt he r esult,suf fered t he psy chi atri
c
disor derofwhi chhenowcompl ai
ns,i twoul dseem t o
meunj ustandanomal oust hatt hedef endant sshoul d
escapel i
abili
ty.Thef actt hatt headv i
ceher ecei ved
wast hathewasatnomor et hanav er yr emot er iskof
cont racting the di sease woul d notbe a r eason,i n
principle,f orr elieving t he def endant s ofl iabi lityi n
l
imi ne.I ftheyoughtt ohav ef or eseent hatt hepl ai ntif
f
woul dbeatr i
skofcont r
actingmesot heliomaand, asa
resul t
,mi ghtal sosuf ferpsy chi atri
ci njury,t hef actt hat
thepsy chiatri
ci njurywoul dnothav ebeensuf fer edbya
per son

•
74
of"ordinar
yfort
it
ude"isnotmat er
ial
;thegener
alpr
inci
plethat
thewr ongdoermusttakehisvicti
m ashef i
ndshi
m should,in
theabsenceofotherconsi
derat
ions,appl
y.

"Idonotagr eeint hiscont extwi t

hthev iewoft hetri
aljudget hat
thepl aint
if
f'
sr eactionshoul dber egardedast hatofaper sonof
ordinaryfortit
ude.It hinkt hatsuchaper son,onbei ngi nformed
thatt herewasnomor ethanami nimalr i
skofhi scont racting
thedi sease,woul dnothav eper mit
tedsor emot eacont i
ngency
todi srupthisf ami l
y,wor kingandsoci all i
fe,anymor ethanhe
woul dhav eallowedal lther iskstowhi chwear esubj ectatev ery
turnofourl ives,includingt het obaccosmokepol lut
ioni nmuch
ofourenv ir
onment ,hav easi mil
areffect .Suchaper soni snot
proper l
ydescr i
bed, inmyv iew, asaper sonofnor mal f
orti
tude. "

And atp.486:" Iam,accordi

ngl
y,sati
sfi
ed t
hatt
he l
aw inthi
s
j
uri
sdict
ionshoul
dnotbeextendedbythecourt
ssoastoal
low t
he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

recover
ybypl aint
if
fsofdamagesf orpsychi
atr
icinj
uryresul
ti
ngfrom
ani r
rat
ionalfearofcont r
acti
ngadi seasebecauseoftheirnegli
gent
exposuret o healt
hr i
sks by theiremployer
s,wher et he ri
sk is
charact
erisedbytheirmedicaladvi
sorsasver
yremote."

PerGeogheganJatp.517:" I
tisagainstthatbackgr oundoft he
casel aw,whi chIhav er ev
iewed,t hatthiscour tmustdeci de,as
amat terofpol i
cyandofr easonableness,whet herclaimsf or
damagesf orpsy chiatr
ici njuryonlyandr esulti
ngf r
om f earof
asbest os r el
ated diseases ofa degr ee whi ch i s obj
ect i
vely
i
rrati
onal arerecoverable.Tr adit
ional
ly,courtsdonotal way suse
theact ualwor d' poli
cy '
.Theymayat temptt o draw ar ti
fi
cial
l
imitst owhatcanber egar dedasbei ngr easonabl yforeseeabl e
ort heymay ,in consi dering proximit
yorot herquest ionsi n
rel
ationt ot heexistenceofadut yofcar e,i
nv oket heconceptof
reasonabl eness so t hata dut yofcar e wi l
lnoti nf actbe
i
mposedi fthecour tconsi der
si tunreasonabl et odoso.The
thi
rd cont r
olmechani sm whi ch thecour tmayi mposei si n
rel
ation t o parti
cularheadsofdamage or ,f i
nal l
y,theymay
expressl ydenyacl aim ongr oundsofpubl icpol i
cy.

"Iam qui tesat i

sfi
edt hatf ort heki ndofr easonsadumbr at edi n
the Amer ican cases and al so by r eason oft he obj ect ive
i
rrationalit
yoft hef earsoft heser espondent st hatt heywi l
l
cont r
actasbest os r el
ated di seases,t he appealshoul d be
allowed.AsIhav eal readypoi nt edout ,thet ri
al j
udgei nt hiscase
consi dered t hat t he psy chi at r
ic condi t
ion was r easonabl y
foreseeabl e ev en when appl y ing t he ' person ofr easonabl e
forti
tude'st andar d.I nr elation t ot he i ssue ofr easonabl e
foreseeabi l
ity,Iwoul dnotat tachsi gni ficancet ot hei rrational i
ty
aspect .Ther ehasbeensuchal ar mi ngt reatmenti nt hemedi aof
asbest ost hati twoul dber easonabl yf or eseeabl ethataper son
ofnor malf ortit
udemi ghtser iousl ysuf ferf rom i rr
at ionalf ear s
ofcont ractingt hedi seases.Butt hati squi tedi f ferentf rom
say i
ngt hatt hei r
rationalityisi rrelev antt ot hequest ionsati ssue
ont hisappeal .Inmyv i
ew, itwoul dbeunr easonabl et oimposea
dut yofcar eonempl oyers,whet hert heybeSt at
eornon- Stat e
(therebei ngnoknownj ust if
icat ionf ormaki nganydi stinct i
on) ,
i
nsur edoruni nsured,t ot akepr ecaut i
ons,notmer el yt hatt heir
empl oy ees wi llnotcont ractdi sease,butt hatt heywi llnot
cont r
actsoser i
ousaf earofcont r act i
ngadi sease,howev er
i
rrational,t hatt heydev elop a psy chiat ri
cov erlay.Thecour t
shoul dnotper mitcompensat ionf ori rrational i
tyint hatway .I tis
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

quitedi ffer
entf r
om t hecaseofapl ainti
ffwhosuf fer
sf rom
traumat ic neurasthenial inked wi th phy si
cali ll
ness di r
ect l
y
result i
ng fr
om an acci dent.Fur ther
mor e,therewoul d bean
elementofunf air
nessoft hekindadv ert
edt obyLor dHof fmann
asbet weenempl oyeesexposedt osuchasbest oswhomayi n
factsuf ferfr
om gr eatanxietyfort heremai nderoft heirli
vesbut
notsuchascoul dbechar acterisedaspsy chiatri
cinjury,ont he
onehandandt hosewhosuf f
erf r
om suchanxi etywhi chcanbe
char acteri
sedaspsy chiatr
icinjury,ont heot her.Isitjustthata
wor rierwhohast otakemedi cationforhi swor ryreceivessums
i
nt heor derof€50, 000ormor ewher easwor r
ierswhodonot
hav et otakesuchmedi cationgetnot hing?Ithinknot ."

PECUNI
ARYLOSS

Candl
ervCr
ane,
Chr
ist
mas&Co.[
195112KB164
Facts:The plai
nti
ff desi
red toinvesti n a company and
request
ed t
he accounts oft he company.The MD oft he
companyinstr
uctedthedefendantswhower etheaccountants
ofthecompanyandwhower ealr
eadyprepari
ngtheaccount
st o
speedupwithit,
inf
ormingthem t
hat
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

thepl aintif
fwant edtoseei tforthepur poseofi nvestment .The
account swer epr eparedandshowedt othepl aint
if
f,who, relyi
ng
ont heaccount s,investedi nthecompany .Thepl ainti
fflosthis
i
nv estmentas t he account s were car elessly prepared and
cont ainedmanyi naccur acies.
Held:I nt heabsenceofanycont ractualrel
at i
onshipbet weent he
plainti
f fandthedef endant, t
hedef endantswer enotliabl
ef orthe
l
ossoft heplainti
f f
'sinvestment.
Principle:Damages i nt he form ofpecuni ar yloss ar e not
recov erableinnegl igenceint heabsenceoff r
aud.

PerAsqui thLJatpp.185and186:" Thepoi ntmaybe

put i n t his way : assume t hat Fr aser '
s negl igent
mi srepr esent ationshadbeenmadebyhi sempl oy ers,
thepar tner si nt hedef endantf irm.Assumef urther ,as
thef acti s,t hatt herewasnof raudandnocont ractor
fi
duci aryr el
at ionshi p bet ween t hem and t hepl ai nti
ff.
Woul dt hey ,i nt hoseev ents,hav ebeenl iabl etot he
plaint i
ffi nr espectofdamagei ncur r
edbyhi mt hrough
act i
ng on t hose negl igent mi srepresent ations? The
def endant ssay' No'.Theydonotquest iont hati nt he
absence off raud,cont ractand f i
duciaryr elati
onshi p
ther e ar e cases i n whi ch A may be undera l egal
obligat i
on t oBt o use r easonabl e car ef or some
pur poses.Thei rpr opositioni sthat ,undert hecondi tions
assumedi nt hiscase,t hedef endant swer eunderno
dut y,soundi ngi nt ort
,t ot hepl aintif
ft ot akecar et hat
theirr epr esent ationsoff actshoul dbet rue.Theyr elyin
suppor toft his cont ent i
on on Le Li evrev .Goul d,a
deci sionbi ndi ngont hiscour t.Iagr eewi tht het ri
aljudge
i
nconsi der i
ngt hataut hor i
tyt obeconcl usivei nt heir
favour ,
unl essi tcanbeshownt ohav ebeenov er
ruledor
tobedi st ingui shabl e."

PerCohen LJ atpp.196 — 198:"

In Donoghue v

100
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Stev enson,as i n allt he ot hercases to whi ch our

attentionwascal l
ed, thebr eachofdutyall
egedhasbeen
onewhi chhasr esul tedindamagest otheper sonoft he
pl
ai ntiff
:seeHase/ dinevC.A.Daw &SonLd. ,Dennyv
Suppl ies&Tr anspor tCo.Ld.I nO/dGat eEst atesLd.v
Topl isWr ot
tesley ,J.,r efusedt oapplythepr i
ncipleof
DonoghuevSt ev ensont oacasewher eacompanyhad
paidt oomuchf orapr opertyowingtoanov er-valuati
on
byt he defendant s,who had been i nstructed byt he
promot erst
ov aluei tforthepur poseofthepr omot ion.

101
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"Thecompany ,whi chwast hepl aint if

f ,wasnotf ormed
atthet imeoft hev al
uat i
on.Wr ot t
esl ey ,J., reject i
ngan
argumentbasedonDonoghuevSt ev ensonsai d:'The
concept i
onwhi chr unst hroughal lthesecases, bothin
thoseappl icat ionsoft hepr incipleandi nt hecaseof
DonoghuevSt ev ensoni tsel f,ist hatsomet hingwas
negl igent lycr eat edorputi ntoci rculat i
onwhi chwas
danger ousei thert olifeorl i
mb'— t hosear e,It hink.
thev er ywor dsofLor dAt kinhi msel fandt heot her
l
ear nedLor dswhodel iveredopi nions, ort heopi nions
oft hemaj or i
ty,i nDonoghuevSt ev enson— orel se
thatsomet hing was car elessly handl ed,made,or
mended,whi chwoul dbecomedanger oust ol if
eor
l
imborheal t h.I ti sast ruet odayasi twasi n1893,
whenLeLi ev revGoul dwasdeci ded,t hat ,touset he
wor dsofBowen, L.J.:'
Itisi dlet or efert ocaseswhi ch
wer edeci dedundert otall
ydi ff
er entaspect s, andupon
totallydi ffer entconsi derat ionsoft hel aw.Take,kor
exampl e,t hecaseofanownerofachat t
el ,suchasa
horse,gum ora car ri
age,oranyot heri nst rument ,
whi chi sini tsel fofsuchachar act ert hat ,ifitbeused
carel essl y, i
tmayi njuresomet hirdper sonwhoi snear
toi t;t heni ti saspl ainasday lightt hatt heownerof
thatchat tel ,whoi sr esponsi blef ori tsmanaent ,is
boundt obecar efulhow heusesi t.Exact lyi nt he
samewaywi thr egar dtot heownerofpr emi ses.I fthe
ownerofpr emi sesknowst hathi spr emi sesar eina
danger ouscondi tion,andt hatpeopl ear ecomi ngt here
to wor k upon t hem by hi s own per mi ssi on and
i
nv itation, ofcour sehemustt aker easonabl ecar ethat
thosepr emi sesdonoti njur et hosewhoar ecomi ng
there..How hasi tanyappl icat ion t ot hepr esent
case? 'Thatwast hecaseofacer tifi
cat egi venbyan
archi tect .'Onl y,Isuppose,ont hesuggest i
ont hata
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

mani sr esponsibl
ef orwhathest at
esi nacer ti
fi
cate
to any per son to whom he may hav er eason t o
supposet hatthecer ti
fi
catemaybeshown.Butt he
l
awofEngl anddoesnotgot ot hatextent
;itdoesnot
considerthatwhatamanwr i
tesonpaperi slikeagun
or ot her dangerous i nstr
ument , and, unl ess he
i
ntendedt odecei ve,thelaw doesnot ,intheabsence
ofcont r
act,hold him r esponsibl
ef ordr awi ng his
cert
if
icatecar el
essly.
'

'
"It
hinkthatthatisastruet odayasitwaswheni twas
sai
dbyBowen, '
L.J.Wrottesley,J.
,conti
nued, '
ther
ei s,
i
nmyopi nion,nothingi
nDonoghuevSt evensonwhi ch
makest hatbad l aw.Theexcept i
onsl aid down by
DonoghuevSt evenson'—t heexceptions
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

tother ulethatamani sobligedtobecar efulonlytothoseto

whom heowesadut ybycont r
act—' ar
e,asIunder standthe
decision,confinedtonegligencewhichr esultsindangert o
l
ife,dangert olimb,ordangertoheal
th,and, thepresentcase
notbei ngoneoft hoseexcepti
ons,thepl ai
ntif
fshave,inmy
opinion,nocauseofact i
onont heanalogyoft hatcase'
."

PerDenni ngLJ( dissent i

ng)atp.176:" Now Icomet ot he
greatquest i
oni nt hecase:di dt heaccount antsoweadut yof
caret ot hepl aintiff?Ift hemat terwer efreef rom aut hori
ty,I
shouldhav esaidt hatt heycl ear l
ydidoweadut yofcar et o
him.Theywer epr ofessionalaccount antswhopr epar edand
putbef or ehimt heseaccount s, knowingthathewasgoi ngt o
begui dedbyt hem i nmaki ngani nv
est menti nt hecompany .
Ont hef ait
hoft hoseaccount shedi dmaket hei nvestment ,
wher eas i fthe account s had been car eful
lypr epared,he
woul dnothav emadet hei nv estmentatal l
.Ther esultisthat
hehasl osthi smoney .Int heci rcumstances, hadhenotev er y
ri
ghtt or elyont heaccount sbei ngpreparedwi thpr opercar e;
andi shenotent i
tledt or edr essfrom t heaccount antson
whom her eli
ed?Isayt hathei s,andIwoul dappl ytothiscase
thewor dsofKni ghtBr uce,L. J.,i
nananal ogouscaseni net y
yearsago:' Acount rywhoseadmi ni
strati
onofj usticedidnot
affordredr essi nacaseoft hepr esentdescr iptionwoul dnot
bei nast ateofci vil
ization."'

Andatp.179and180:" Fi
r st
,whatper sonsar eundersuch
duty?Myansweri st hose per sons such as account ants,
surveyors,v aluers and anal ysts,whose pr ofessi on and
occupationitist oexami nebooks, accounts,andot hert hings,
andt omaker eportsonwhi chot herpeopl e—ot hert hant heir
cl
ients—r el
yint heor dinar
ycour seofbusi ness.Thei rdut yis
notmer elyadut ytousecar eint heirr
epor t
s.Theyhav ealsoa
dutytousecar eint heirwor kwhi chr esult
si nt heirr epor t
s.
Hereinliest hedi fferencebet weent hesepr ofessi onalmen
andot herpersonswhohav ebeenhel dt obeundernodut yt o
usecar einthei rstatements,suchaspr omot erswhoi ssuea
prospectus:Der r
yv .Peek ( now al ter
ed by st atute),and
tr
usteeswhoansweri nqui
riesaboutt het r
ustf unds:Low v .

104
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Bouveri
e.Thoseper sonsdonotbri
ng,andarenotexpect
edto
bri
ng,anyprofessionalknowl
edgeorskil
lint
otheprepar
ati
on
ofthei
rstat
ement s:theycanonl
ybe

n
mader esponsiblebyt helawaffectingper sonsgeneral
ly
,suchas
contract,estoppel,innocentmisrepr esent
ationorf r
aud.Butitis
verydi f
ferentwi t
hpersonswhoengagei nacal l
ingwhichrequir
es
specialknowl edgeandski l
l.Fr
om v eryearlytimesithasbeenheld
thattheyoweadut yofcar etothosewhoar eclosel
yanddi r
ectl
y
affected byt heirwor k,apartaltoget herf r
om anycont ractor
undertakingint hatbehalf
."

Atpp.180and181:" Secondly,t owhom dot hesepr ofessi

onal
people owe t hi
s dut y ?Iwi l
lt ake account ants,butt he same
reasoningappl i
estot heot hers.Theyowet hedut y
,ofcour se,to
theirempl oyerorcl ient ;andal soIt hi
nkt oanyt hir
dper sont o
whom t heyt
hemsel v esshowt heaccount s,ort owhom t heyknow
theirempl oy
eri sgoingt oshowt heaccount s, soast oinducehim
toi nvestmoneyort akesomeot heracti
onont hem.ButIdonot
thi
nkt he dutycan be ext ended st i
llf ur
therso as t oinclude
stranger sofwhom t heyhav ehear dnot hi
ngandt owhom t hei
r
empl oyerwi thoutt hei rknowl edge maychoose t o show t hei
r
account s.Oncet heaccount antshav ehandedt heiraccountst o
theirempl oy
ert heyar enot ,asar ul
e,responsiblef orwhathedoes
withthem wi thoutthei rknowl edgeorconsent .
"

Andatpp.184and185:" Myconclusi
onisthatadutytousecare
i
nst atementisrecogni
zedbyEnglishlaw,andthatit
srecogni
ti
on
doesnotcr eateanydangerousprecedentwheni ti
sremembered
thatitisl
i
mi t
edinrespectofthepersonsbywhom andtowhom i t
i
sowedandt hetransact
ionstowhichitappl
ies.

"Onefi
nalword:Ithi
nkt hatthelaw wouldfailtoservethebest
i
nter
estsofthecommuni tyifitshoul
dhol dt
hataccountant
sand
audi
tor
soweadut ytonoonebutt hei
rcli
ent.I
tsinfl
uencewould
bemostmar kedincaseswher ethei
rcli
enti
sacompanyorf i
rm
cont
rol
ledbyoneman.I twouldencour ageaccountant
stoaccept
105
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

theinfor mat ionwhi cht heonemangi vest hem, wi thoutv erify ingit;
and t o pr epar e and pr esentt he account sr at heras a l awy er
prepar esandpr esent sacase, put tingt hebestappear anceont he
account st heycan,wi thoutexpr essi ngt heirper sonalopi nionof
them.Thi si s,t omywayoft hinki ng,anent ir
el ywr ongappr oach.
Ther eisagr eatdi fferencebet weent hel awy erandt heaccount ant.
Thel awy eri snev ercal ledont oexpr esshi sper sonalbel iefi nt he
truthofhi scl i
ent'scase;wher east heaccount ant ,whocer tifi
es
theaccount sofhi scl ient,i sal way scal l
edont o expr esshi s
personalopi ni onast owhet hert heaccount sexhi bitat rueand
correctv i
ewofhi scl ient '
saf fairs; andhei srequi redt odot hi s,not
somuchf ort hesat isfact ionofhi sowncl i
ent ,butmor ef ort he
guidance ofshar ehol der s,i nvest or s,r evenue aut hor it
ies,and
otherswhomayhav et or elyont heaccount si nser iousmat ter sof
business.I f we shoul d deci de t his case i nf av our of t he
account ant st herewi l
lbenor easonwhyaccount ant sshoul dev er
verif
yt hewor doft heonemani naone- mancompany ,because
therewi l
lbenoonet ocompl ainabouti t.Theonemanwhogi ves
them wr ongi nformat ionwi l
lnotcompl ai niftheydonotv erifyit.
Hewant st hei rbacki ngf ort hemi sleadi nginf or mat ionhegi ves
them,and hecanonl ygeti ti ft heyaccepthi swor d wi thout
verif
icat i
on.I ti sjustwhathewant ssoast ogai nhi sownends.
Andt heper sonswhoar emi sledcannotcompl ainbecauset he
account ant sowenodut yt ot hem.I fsuchbet hel aw, Ithinki ti sto
ber egr etted,f oritmeanst hatt heaccount ant s'cer t
ificate,whi ch
shoul dbeasaf eguar d,becomesasnar ef orthosewhor elyoni t.I
donotmy selft hinkt hati tist hel aw.I nmyopi ni onaccount ant s
oweadut yofcar enotonl yt ot heirowncl ient s,butal sot oal l
those whom t hey know wi llr ely on t heiraccount si nt he
transact ionsf orwhi cht hoseaccount sar eprepar ed."

HedleyBy rnevHel lerandPar t

ners[ 1964]AC465
Facts:Thepl aint
if
fwant edt oent erintoanadv ert
isingcont
ract
withacompanywhosebanker swer ethedef endants.Theplai
ntif
f
askedi tsbankt oenquirewhet herthecompanywaswor thdoing
businesswi th.Thepl ai
ntif
f'
sbanker smadet heenqui r
iesf
rom the
defendanti nconf i
dencewi t
houtanyr esponsibi
l
ityont hepartof
thedef endant.Thedef endantsr epli
edst at
ingthatt hecompany
waswor thdoi ngbusinesswi thbutaddedadi sclaimernegati
ving

106
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

anyliabi
li
tythatmayar i
se.Thepl ai
nti
ffenter
edi
ntoanadv er
tisi
ng
agreementwi ththecompanybutt hecompanywasl i
quidated.It
wasf oundthattheadv i
cebyt hedefendantswasnegl
igentl
ygi v
en
al
thoughnotf raudul
ently
.
Held:Thedef endantswouldhav ebeenliabl
etot
heplaint
if
fforthe
l
osssuf fer
edbutf orthediscl
aimer.
Pr
inci
ple:
Pur
eeconomi
clossi
sdamager
ecov
erabl
einnegl
i
gence.

PerLor
dRei
datp.583:
"Ar
easonabl
eman,
knowi
ngt
hat

u
hewasbei ngtrustedort hathisskillandj udgmentwerebeing
rel
iedon,woul d,Ithink,havet hreecour sesopent ohim.He
couldkeepsi lentordecl inetogi vethei nformati
onoradv i
ce
sought ;orhecoul dgi veananswerwi thacl earquali
fi
cati
on
thatheaccept ednor esponsibil
i
tyf oritort hatitwasgiven
withoutthatreflect
ionori nquir
ywhi chacar ef
ulanswerwould
require;or he coul d si mply answer wi t
hout any such
quali
ficati
on.Ifhechoosest oadoptt helastcoursehemust ,I
thi
nk,behel dt ohav eaccept edsomer esponsi
bil
i
tyforhis
answer bei ng gi ven car eful
ly,or t o hav e accepted a
rel
ationshipwi ththei nquir
erwhi chr equireshimt oexerci
se
suchcar east hecircumst ancesrequire."

PerLor dMor r
isofBor t
h-y-
Gestatpp.588—590:" MyLor ds,it
seemst omet hatifAassumesar esponsibi
lit
yt oBt ot ender
him del i
berateadv i
ce,ther
ecoul dbeal i
abil
i
tyift headv i
ceis
negligently given.Isay ' could be'because t he or dinar
y
courtesiesandexchangesofl i
fewoul dbecomei mpossi bleif
i
twer esoughtt oattachlegalobl i
gati
ont oev eryki ndlyand
fr
iendl yact.Butt heprinci
pleoft hemat terwoul dnotappear
tobei ndoubt .IfAempl oysB( whomi ght.forexampl e,bea
professionalmansuchasanaccount antorasol icitorora
doctor )f orr ewardt o give adv i
ce and i ft he adv i
ce is
negligentlygiventherecouldbeal i
abi
li
tyinBt opaydamages.
Thef actthatt headv i
ceisgi veninwor dswoul dnot ,inmy
vi
ew,pr eventliabi
li
tyfr
om ar i
sing.Quit
eapar t,howev er,from
107
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

empl oy mentorcont r
actther emaybeci rcumst ancesi nwhich
adut yt oexer cisecar ewi l
lar iseifaser vi
cei svolunt
arily
under taken.Amedi calmanmayunexpect edl ycomeacr oss
anunconsci ousman,whoi sacompl etestrangert ohim,and
whoi sinur gentneedofski ll
edat tenti
on:ifthemedi calman,
foll
owi ngt hef inet r
aditi
onsofhi sprofession,pr oceedst o
treattheunconsci ousmanhemustexer ciser easonableski l
l
andcar eindoingso. .
..I
canseenodi f
f erenceofpr incipleinthecaseofabanker .If
someonewhowasnotacust omerofabankmadeaf ormal
appr oacht ot hebankwi thadef ini
terequestt hatthebank
woul d gi v
e hi m del i
berate adv i
ce as to cer tainf i
nancial
mat tersofanat ur ewi t
hwhi cht hebankor dinari
lydealtthe
bankwoul dbeundernoobl igat i
ont oaccedet ot herequest:if
,
howev er,t hey under took, t hough gr atuitously,t o give
deliberateadv ice( Iexcl udewhatImi ghtcal lcasualand
per f
unct oryconv ersations)

•
82

108
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

theywouldbeunderadut yt
oexerci
ser easonabl
ecare
i
ngi v
ingit.Theywouldbeli
abl
eiftheywer enegli
gent,
alt
hough,therebeingnoconsi
der
ation,noenforceabl
e
contr
actualrel
ati
onshi
pwascreat
ed.

"Intheabsenceofanydi rectdeal ingsbet weenone

person and anot her ,t her e ar e many and v aried
sit
uat i
onsi nwhi chadut yi sowedbyoneper sont o
another.Ar oaduserowesadut yofcar et owar dsot her
roaduser s.Theyar ehi s'nei ghbour s'
.Adut ywasowed
by the dock owneri n Heav en v Pender .Undera
contractwi thashi pownerhehadputupast agi ng
outside a shi pi n hi s dock.The pl aintif
fused t he
stagingbecausehewasempl oyedbyashi ppai nter
whohadcont ractedwi tht heshi pownert opai ntt he
outsideoft heshi p.Thepr esenceoft hepl aintiffwas
forbusi nessi nwhi cht hedockownerwasi nterest ed
andt hepl ainti
ffwast obeconsi der edashav i
ngbeen
i
nv i
tedbyt hedockownert ouset hest aging.Thedock
ownerwas t herefore underan obl i
gat i
on t ot ake
reasonabl ecar ethatatt het i
mewhent hest agingwas
providedbyhi mf ori mmedi ateusei twasi naf itst ate
tobeused.Forani njurywhi cht hepl aint
iffsuf f
er ed
becauset hest aginghadbeencar elesslyputuphewas
enti
tledt osucceedi nacl aim agai nstt hedef endant .
Thechemi sti nGeor gevSki vi
ngt onsol dt hebot t
leof
hairwasht ot hehusbandknowi ngt hati twast obe
usedbyt hewi f
e.I twashel dondemur rert hatt he
chemi stowedadut ytowar dst hewi fet ouseor dinary
carei ncompoundi ngt hehai rwash.I nDonoghuev
Stevensoni twashel dt hatt hemanuf acturerofan
arti
cleoff ood,medi cine,ort hel ike,i sunderadut yt o
theultimateconsumert ot aker easonabl ecar ethatt he
arti
clei sf ree from def ectl i
kel yt o cause i njuryt o
health.

"MyLor ds,these are butfamil

iarand wel lknown
i
llustr
ati
ons,whi chcould bemul ti
pli
ed,whichshow
that irr
especti
ve of any cont r
actualOf f i
duciary
relati
onshipandi r
respecti
veofanydi rectdealing,a
dut ymaybeowedbyoneper sontoanother.ItisSaid,
howev er,thatwher e carel
ess (
butnotf raudulent)
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

misstat
ementsareinquest
iont herecanbenol i
abi
l
ity
i
nt he makeroft hem unless thereis ei
thersome
contr
actual
orfi
duciar
yrel
ationship

83z•
withaper sonadv erselyaf fect ed byt hemaki ng of
them or unl ess, through t he maki ng of t hem,
somet hi
ngi scr eat
edorci r
culat edorsomesi tuat ionis
createdwhi chi sdanger oust ol ife,l
imborpr oper ty
.In
l
ogicIcanseenoessent i
alr easonf ordi sti
ngui shing
i
njurywhi chi scausedbyar elianceuponwor dsf r
om
i
njurywhi chi scausedbyar elianceupont hesaf et yof
thest agingt oashi porbyar elianceupont hesaf et
y
foruseoft hecont entsofabot tl
eofhai rwashora
bottleofsomeconsumabl el iquid.I tseemst ome,
therefore, thati fAclaimst hathehassuf feredi nj uryor
l
ossasar esultofact i
nguponsomemi sstat ement
madebyBwhoi snoti nanycont ractualorf iduci ar
y
rel
ationshi pwi thhim,t heinqui r ythati sfirstr aisedi s
whet herBowedanydut yt oA:i fhedi dt hef ur t
her
i
nqui ryisr aisedast ot henat ureoft hedut y.Ther emay
beci rcumst ancesunderwhi cht heonl ydut yowedbyB
toA i st he dut y ofbei ng honest :t here may be
cir
cumst ancesunderwhi chBowest oAt hedut ynot
only of bei ng honestbutal so a dut y of t aking
reasonabl ecar e."

PerLor dHodsonatp.598:" Ishal llaterr efert ocer tai

n
caseswhi chsuppor tthev iewt hatapar tf rom whatar e
usuall
ycal led fiduci aryr elationshi pssuch ast hose
between t r
ust ee and cest uique t rust,sol icitorand
cli
ent,parentandchi ldorguar dianandwar dther eare
othercircumst ancesi nwhi cht hel aw i mposesadut y
tobecar eful,whi chi snotl imi tedt oadut yt obe
caref
ult oav oi
dper sonali njuryori njuryt opr oper tybut
covers a dut yt o av oidi nflicti
ng pecuni ar yl oss
provi
ded al way st hatt herei s a suf ficientl
y cl ose
rel
ati
onshi ptogi ver iset oadut yofcar e.Thecour tsof
equit
yr ecognisedt hataf iduci aryr elationshi pex i
sts'i
n
almostev eryshape' , toquot ef r om Fi eldJi nPl owHght
vLamber t(1885) ,52LT646atp652.Hewentont o
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ref
ert oacasec,whi chhadsai dthatther elati
onshi
p
couldbecr eatedv ol
untar
il
y,asitwer e,byaper son
comingi ntoast ateofconf i
denti
alrelat
ionshipwi t
h
anotherbyoffer i
ngt ogiveadviceinamat ter,andso
bei
ngdi sabl
edt hereaft
erfr
om purchasing.

"I
tis di
ff
icultt
o see why l
i
abi
li
ty as such shoul
d
dependont henat
ureofthedamage.LordRoche,in
Morri
sonSS

•
84
CoLt dvGr eystokeCasm ( Car
goowner s)([
194612Al lER
696, atp700; [1947]AC265atp280) ,instanceddamage
toal orrybyt henegligenceofthedriverofanot herlorr
y
which whi l
ei tdoes no damage t ot he goods int he
secondl or
rycausest hegoodsownert obeputt oexpense
whichi srecoverabl
ebydi r
ectact
ionagainstthenegli
gent
dri
ver.
"

PerLor d Dev l
in atpp.602 and 603:" Thi si s whyt he
distincti
oni snowsai dt odependonwhet herf i
nanci alloss
i
scausedt hroughphy si cali njuryorwhet heri tiscaused
directly
.Thei nterposi t
ionoft hephy sicali njuryissai dt o
makeadi f
ferenceofpr inciple.Icanf i
ndnei therlogi cnor
commonsensei nthis.I firrespect iveofcont ract,adoct or
negl i
gentlyadv isesapat ientt hathecansaf elypur suehi s
occupat ionandhecannotandt hepat i
ent '
sheal thsuf fer s
andhel oseshi sl i
velihood, thepat ienthasar emedy .Buti f
thedoct ornegl igentlyadv iseshi mt hathecannotsaf ely
pur suehi soccupat ionwheni nf acthecanandhel oseshi s
l
ivel i
hood, t
her eissaidt obenor emedy—unl ess,ofcour se,
thepat i
entwasapr ivatepat ientandt hedoct oraccept ed
halfagui neaf orhi st roubl e:t henthepat ientcanr ecov er
all.Iam boundt osay ,myl ords,thatIt hinkt hist obe
nonsense.I tisnott hesor tofnonsenset hatcanar i
seev en
i
nt hebestsy stem ofl aw outoft heneedt odr aw ni ce
distincti
onsbet weenbor der l
inecases.I tar ises,ifi tist he
l
aw,si mplyoutofar efusalt omakesense.Thel inei snot
drawnonanyi ntell
i
giblepr inciple.Itjusthappenst obet he
l
inewhi cht hosewhohav ebeendr i
v enf rom t heext reme
asser ti
on t hatnegl i
gentst atement si nt he absence of
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

contr
act
ualorfi
duci
arydutygiv
enocauseofact
ionhav
ein
thecour
seofthei
rret
reatsofarreached.

"Ishallnow exami ne the rel

ev antauthor i
ti
es and y our
l
ordshipswill
,Ihope,par donmei f
,withoneexcept i
on,I
att
endonlytot hosethathavebeendeci dedi nthisHouse,
forIhavemadei tplai
nthatIwi llnotinthismat teryi
eldt o
persuasi
onbutonl ytocompul sion.Theexcept i
oni st he
caseofLeLi evrevGould,foryourl ordshipswi l
lnoteasi l
y
upsetdecisi
onsoft heCour tofAppeali ftheyhav estood
unquesti
oned foras l ong as sev entyy ears.The f ive
rel
evantdeci
sionsofthisHousear eDer r
yvPeek, Noctonv
Lord
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhan

Ashbur t
on, Robi nsonvNat i
onalBankofScot land, Donoghue
vSt evenson,andMor r
isonSSCoLt dvGr ey stokeCast le
(Car goOwner s).Thel astoft heseIcandealwi thatoncef or
i
tl i
esout sidet hemai nst ream ofaut horit
yont hispoi nt .I
ti s
acasei nwhi chdamagewasdonet oashi past her esultofa
colli
sionwi thanot hershi p.Theowner sofcar goont hef irst
ship,whi chcar gowasnoti tsel
fdamaged,t husbecame
l
iablet ot heowner soft hef ir
stshipf oragener alav erage
cont ri
bution.Theysuedt hesecondshi pasbei ngpar tlyt o
blamef ort hecol lisi
on.Thust heywer ecl aimi ng f ort he
fi
nanci allosscausedt othem byhav i
ngt omaket hegener al
aver agecont ributi
onal thought heirpr opert
ysust ainedno
phy sicaldamage.Thi sHousehel dt hatt heycoul dr ecov er.
Thei rlordshi psdi dnoti nt hatcasel aydownanygener al
principleaboutl i
abili
tyf orfinanciallossi ntheabsenceof
phy sicaldamage;butt hecasei t
selfmakesi timpossi blet o
arguet hatt her eisanygener alruleshowi ngthatsuchl ossi s
ofitsnat urei rrecoverable."

Electr
ochr omevWel shPlast
ics[1968]2Al lER205
Facts:Thedef endantsnegli
gentlydr ov
et heirlorryt ocoll
idewi tha
fi
rehy drantneartheplai
nti
ff
'sfactoryanddamagedt hehydrant.The
hydrantdidnotbel ongtotheplaintif
fbutasar esultofthedamage,
thesuppl yofwaterthroughitwasst oppedforhour sandt heplainti
ff
l
ostaday 'swork.Held:Thedut yowedbyt hedef endantsnott o
damaget hehydrantwasowedt ot heowner soft hehy dr
antandnot
theplainti
ffandthustheyarenotliabletothepl ainti
ff.

PerGeof fr
eyLaneJatp.208:" I
tisper f
ectlytr
uethatitmay
seem i nequi
tabl
et hata per son who has undoubt edl
y
sufferedl ossint hismannershoul dhav enor i
ghtofact i
on
againstt hepersonwhost art
edof fthetrainofevents,who
fi
rstputamat chtot hebluetouch-paper,butoneonlyhasto
consi derthepossibleresul
tsifsuchanact ionsucceededto
real
ise t hat thi
si s one of t he cases wher e publi
c
conv enienceandi nt
erestdemandt hatther i
ghtofact i
on
mustst opshort.

"I
nt hecaseofwaterbei
ngcutof fi
nthi
smanneronecan
i
magi neawholeseri
es,may behundr
eds,ofacti
onsbei
ng
broughtagai
nstthe defendant
s based on t
histype of
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhan

negligenceand,asLor dPenzancesai d,thecomplexit

yof
societywoul dmeani neffectthatther
emi ghtbenoendt o
theconcat enat
ionofr esul
tingdamage.Howev er
,whatever
thereasonsbehi nditmaybe,i tisperf
ectl
yplaintomet hat
forther easonswhi chIhav egivenEnglishlaw doesnot
all
ow t he plai
ntif
fsin circumstances such as these to
succeed."

s.
c.1L(
UK)Lt
dvWhi
tt
al[
197111QB337
Fact s:Thedef endant s,whi l
er econst r
ucting a wal l,damaged an
electri
citycablewhi chr analongsi dether oad.Thecabl ebel ongedt o
the el ectri
cit
yboar d butsuppl ied electri
cityt o sev er
alf actori
es
i
ncl udingt hepl aintiff'
sf actory .Owi ngt ot hedamage,t her ewas
powerout age forsome hour s and t his caused damage t ot he
plainti
ff's machines and mat eri
als as wel las causi ng l oss of
product ion.Theyal legednegl igenceont hepar toft hedef endants
andsued.
Held:Si ncet hedef endant sknewt hatthecabl esuppl i
edel ect r
ici
tyto
thepl ainti
ffandt hati ftheydamagedi t,theplaintif
fwoul dbewi t
hout
electri
city,theyowedt hem adut yofcar eandt huswer eliablef orthe
damagecausedt ot hemat erialsandt hepr ofitthereonbutnotf or
thepur eeconomi cl ossar isi
ngf rom lossofwor ksincethatwast oo
remot e.
Principle:Economi cl osswi thoutdamaget o per sonsorpr opert
y
whi char isesf r
om anegl igentacti snotr ecov erableasdamages
exceptwher e such l oss ist he immedi ate consequence oft he
negl i
gence.

PerDenni ngMRatp.343:" Iputononesi de,t heref

ore,t he
disti
nction between di rectand i ndi
rect,and ask my self
simply:Didt hecont ractorsoweadut yofcar et othefact ory
owner s?It hi
nki tplainthatt heydid.Theywer ewor ki
ngnear
anel ectri
ccabl ewhi cht heyknewsuppl i
edcur renttoallt he
factoryowner sint henei ghbour hood.Theyknewt hat
,ifthey
damagedt hecabl e, t
hecur r
entwoul dbecutof fanddamage
woul dbesuf feredbyt hef actor
yowner s.Thosesi mplefact s
putthem underadut ytot akecar enottoi nj
urethecabl e:and
thiswasadut ywhi cht heyowedt oallthef actoryowner si n
thev i
cinit
y.Itcomesst raightwithintheprincipl
el ai
ddownby
LordAt ki
ni nDonoghuevSt evenson[ 1932]A. C.562,580.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhan

Appl
yi
ngthatcase,
Ihol
dthatthecontr
act
orsarel
iabl
eforal
l
themat
eri
aldamagedonetothefactor
yownersandanyloss
ofpr
ofi
t
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

consequentt
her
eon.
"

Atp.344 and 345:" In act ionsofnegl i

gence,when t he
plainti
ffhassuf ferednodamaget ohi sper sonorpr oper ty
,
buthasonl ysust ainedeconomi cl oss,t hel aw doesnot
usual l
yper mithimt or ecov ert hatl oss.Ther easonl iesi n
publ i
cpol icy.Itwasf i
rstst atedbyBl ackbur nJ.i nCat t
lev
Stockt onWat envor ksCo.( 1875)L. R.10Q. B.453,557,and
has been r epeat ed many t imes si nce.He gav et his
i
llustrati
on: When a mi ne i s f l
ooded by negl igence,
thousandsofmenmaybet hr ownoutofwor k.Noneof
them i sinjured,buteachoft hem l oseswages.Haseachof
them acauseofact i
on?Het houghtnot .Soher eIwoul dask:
Whenanel ectri
ccabl ei sdamaged,manyf act ori
esmaybe
stoppedf rom wor king.Caneachoft hem cl aimf ort heirloss
ofpr ofit?It hi
nknot .Itisnotsensi blet osaddl el osseson
thisscal eont oonesol econt ractor .Ver yof tensuchl osses
occurwi thoutany one' sf ault.Ami nemaybef l
ooded,ora
powerf ail
ure may occur ,by mi schance as wel las by
negl i
gence.Wher ei tisonl ymi schance,ev er yonegr umbl es
butput supwi t
hi t
.Noonedr eamsofbr inginganact ionf or
damages.Soal sowheni toccur sbynegl igence.Ther isk
shoul dbebor nebyt hewhol ecommuni t
ywhosuf fert he
l
ossesr athert hanr estononepai rofshoul der s,t hati s,on
onecont ractorwhomay ,ormaynot ,bei nsur edagai nstt he
ri
sk.Ther eisnotmuchl ogici nt his, butst i
lli tist helaw.As
LordWr ightsai dinLi esboschDr edgervEdi sonS. S.[ 1933]
A.C.449,460:' Int hev ari
edwebofaf fai
rs,t hel aw must
abst r
actsomeconsequencesasr elevant,notper hapson
groundsofpur elogi cbutsi mpl yf orpr act icalr easons. 'In
otherwor ds,theeconomi clossi sr egar dedast oor emot et o
ber ecov erableasdamages. ...

"Nowappl ythatcaset oanor dinaryroadaccidentwher ea

haulagecontractoriscarryi
nggoodsundercont racttobe
deli
veredurgentl
ybyaspeci fi
edt ime.Hei sdri
vingt hel
orr
y
and his servantis sitt
ing beside him int he cab.The
defendantnegl i
gentl
ydr iv
es intot he l
orry.The l orr
yis
damaged.Theempl oyeriskill
ed.Butt heserv antisnot
i
njured.Norar et he goods.Yett he servantl oses hi
s
empl oyment;
andt hegoodsar edelayedformany
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

•
88
hour ssot hatt heowneroft hegoodsi shel dupand
l
osespr oduct i
on.Appl y i
ngt het ugcase,i tseemscl ear
thatt heser vantcannotr ecoverf orhi sl ossofwages;
norcant heowneroft hegoodsr ecov erf orhi sl ossof
profit.Suppose nextt he ser vanti si njured and t he
empl oyernot .Butt heempl oyersuf fersdamageowi ng
tot hel ossofhi sser vices.Hecannotr ecov erf rom t he
wr ongdoer :see I nl and Rev enue Commi ssioner sv
Hambr ook[ 1956]2Q. B.641.Yeti nal lthesei nstances
thewr ongdoerwascer tainlyunderadut yofcar et o
ever yoneconcer ned,t hati s,t ot heempl oy er,t ot he
ser vant,andt ot heowneroft hegoods.I ft herehad
beenphy sicaldamaget oanyoft hem,t hedef endant
woul dhav ebeenhel dl i
ablef ort hephy si
caldamage
andt helossofear ningsconsequentt hereon.Yet ,when
therei snophy sicaldamage, thedef endanti snotl iable.
Hisbr eachofdut yist hesame,nomat t
erwhet hert he
damagei sphy sicali njuryoronl yeconomi cl oss.Onl y
the damage i s different.I fy ou r efuse t o al low t he
plaintiffinsuchcasest or ecov erforeconomi cl oss, i
ti s
notbecauset her eisnodut yowedt ohim,norbecause
i
twasnotcausedbyt henegl igenceoft hedef endant ,
butsi mpl ybecausei tist oor emot et obeaheadof
damage.I ti sr atherl iket hecasesonner v ousshock
wher eaby standerf ailst or ecov er .Ther easoni s,not
because t her ei s no dut yt o hi m,butbecause t he
damagei st oor emot e:seeKi ngvPhi ll
ips[ 1953]1Q. B.
429, 439. "

Andat346:" I
nt hiscaseIt hi
nkthecont ract
orsare
l
iabl
ef orthe mat eri
aldamage done tot he fact
ory-
ownersandt helossofprofi
ttrul
yconsequentthereon,
butnotforanyothereconomicloss.
"

Spar
tanSt
eel
andAl
l
oysvMar
ti
n&Co.[
1973]QB27
Facts:Thedef endantsnegli
gentl
ydamagedanel ectr
ici
tycable
whicht heyknew suppl i
edel ect
ri
cit
yt otheplai
nti
ffsfactory
.
Foll
owingt hedamage, t
hepl ai
nti
ff
swer ewit
houtel
ectri
cit
yunti
l
thecablewasr epair
ed.Theyhadt opourmoltenmet alwhich
wasmel tingoutofthefurnacetopreventdamagetothefurnace
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

andsincetheycouldnotkeepthatmetalatt hefi
ghttemperature,
i
tdepr eci
atedi nval
ueandt heylostprofitfrom i
tssale.They
suedandcl ai
medasdamagesi nadditi
ont ot hedepreciated
valueandthel ossofpr
ofitf
rom it
,thecostoff ourmeltswhi ch
theycouldhavedoneduringtheperi
odoft hepowerout age.

Held:Theplai
ntiff
swer eent i
tl
edt odamagesf orthedepr eciated
valueandt hel ossofpr ofi
tf r
om itsi nceitwasf or
eseeabl e
consequenti
aldamagef r
om t henegligentactbutnott hel oss
ari
singfrom t
heirinabi
lit
yt omeltfurt
hermet als.
Princi
ple:Apersonisliableonlyforthereasonablefinancialloss
thatisi mmediatel
y consequent ialtot he physi
caldamage
ari
singoutofhisnegl i
gence.

PerLor dDenni ngMRatpp.36and37:" Atbottom I

thi
nkt hequesti
onofr ecover i
ngeconomi clossisoneof
poli
cy.Whenev erthecour t
sdr awal i
netomar koutthe
boundsofdut y,theydoi tasamat terofpolicysoast o
l
imitther esponsibi
l
ityoft hedef endant.Whenev erthe
courtssetboundst othedamagesr ecov
erable—say i
ng
thattheyar e,orarenot ,t oor emote— t heydoi tas
mat t
erofpol i
cy so as t ol i
mitt he li
abil
it
y oft he
defendant.

"Inmanyoft hecaseswher eeconomi closshasbeen

heldnott ober ecov er
abl e,i
thasbeenputont heground
thatt hedef endantwasundernodut ytot hepl aintif
f.
Thuswher eaper soni sinjuredinar oadaccidentbyt he
negl i
genceofanot her,thenegl i
gentdr i
verowesadut y
tot hei njuredmanhi msel f,butheowesnodut ytot he
serv antoft heinjuredman— seeBestvSamuelFox&
Co.Lt d.[1952]A. C.716,731;nort ot hemast eroft he
i
njur ed man — I nland Rev enue Commi ssionersv
Hambr ook[ 1956]2Q. B.641,660;nort oany oneel se
whosuf fersl ossbecausehehadacont r
actwi tht he
i
njur edman— seeSi mpson&Co.vThomson( 1877)3
App. Cas.279,289;nori ndeed to anyone who onl y
sufferseconomi clossonaccountoft heacci dent—see
Kirkham vBoughey[ 1958]2Q. B.338,341.Li kewi se,
whenpr oper t
yisdamagedbyt henegligenceofanot her,
thenegl igentt ortfeasorowesadut ytot heowneror
possessoroft hechat tel,butnott oonewhosuf f
ers
l
ossonl ybecausehehadacont ractentit
li
nghi mt ouse
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

thechat t
elorgivi
nghi m arightt
orecei
vei tatsome
l
aterdat e— seeElli
ottSteam TugCo.Ltd.vShi ppi
ng
Control
ler[1922]1K.B.127,139andMar garineUnion
G.m.b.H.vCambayPr i
nceSteamshipCo.Ltd.[1969]1
Q.B.219,251-252.
"Inot hercases, howev er,thedef endantseemscl earlyto
havebeenunderadut ytot hepl ai nti
ff,butt heeconomi c
l
osshasnotbeenr ecov eredbecausei ti stoor emote.Take
thei l
lustr ati
ongi venbyBl ackbur nJ.i nCat tlevSt ockt on
Wat env orksCo.( 1875)L. R.10Q. B.453,457,whenwat er
escapesf rom ar eser voirandf loodsacoalmi newher e
many men ar e wor king.Those who had t heirt ools or
clot
hesdest r
oy edcoul dr ecov er;butt hosewhoonl yl ost
thei
rwagescoul dnot .Simi larly,whent hedef endants'shi p
negligent lysankashi pwhi chwasbei ngt owedbyat ug, the
owneroft het ugl osthi sr emuner ation,buthecoul dnot
recov eritf rom thenegl i
gentshi p,thought hesamedut y( of
navigationwi thr easonabl ecar e)wasowedt obot ht ugand
tow — see Soci été Anony me de Remor quage Hél ice v
Bennet ts[ 1911]1K. B.243, 248.I nsuchcasesi ft
hepl aintif
f
Ofhi spr oper tyhadbeenphy sicall
yi njured,hewoul dhav e
recov ered; but,asheonl ysuf f
er edeconomi cl oss,hei shel d
notent itledt or ecov er .Thi sis,Ishoul dt hink,becauset he
l
ossi sr egarded byt hel aw ast oo r emot e:seeKi ng v
Phil
lips[ 1953]1Q. B.429, 439- 440.

"Ont heot herhand,i nt hecaseswher eeconomi clossby

i
tselfhasbeenhel dt ober ecoverable,itisplai
nthatthere
wasadut ytot hepl aint
iffandt hel osswasnott ooremot e.
Suchaswhenoneshi pnegl i
gentlyrunsdownanot hership,
anddamagesi t ,witht her esultthatt hecar gohast obe
dischargedandr el
oaded.Thenegl i
gentshi pwasal ready
underadut ytot hecar goowner s;andt heycanr ecoverthe
costofdi schargingandr el
oadingi t
,asi tisnottooremot e:
seeMor r
isonSt eamshi pCo.Lt d.vGr eystokeCastle(Cargo
Owner s) [1947] A. C. 265. Li kewise, when a banker
negligent
lygivesar eferencet oonewhoact sonit
,thedut y
i
spl ainandt hedamagei snott oor emot e:seeHedleyByrne
&Co.Lt d.vHel ler&Par tnersLt d.[1964]A. C.465.
"
ThemoreIthi
nkaboutt
hesecases,
themoredi
ff
icul
tIf
ind
i
ttoputeachi
ntoi
tsproperpi
geon-
hol
e.Somet
imesIsay:
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

'
Ther ewasnodut y.'Inother
sIsay :'Thedamagewast oo
remote.'Somuchsot hatIt hi
nkt het i
mehascomet o
discardthoset est
swhi chhaveprovedsoel usive.I
tseems
tomebet tertoconsiderthepart
icul
arr el
ati
onshipinhand,
andseewhet herornot,asamat t
erofpol i
cy,economicloss
shouldber ecover
able,ornot.Thusi nWeller&Co.vFoot
andMout hDiseaseResearch
91u
Insti
tute[1966]1Q. B.569i twaspl aint hatt hel oss
sufferedbyt heauct ioneer swasnotr ecoverable,no
mat terwhetheritisputont hegroundt hattherewasno
dutyort hatthedamagewast oo remot e.Agai ni n
Electrochr
omeLt d.vWel shPl asti
csLt d.[1968]2Al l
E.R.205,itispl ai
nt hatt heeconomi cl osssuf feredby
thepl aint
if
fs'factory( duet othedamaget ot hef i
re
hydrant)wasnotr ecov erable,whet herbecauset here
wasnodut yorthati twast ooremot e."

Andatp.39:" Theseconsiderationsleadmet othe

conclusi
ont hatthepl ai
nti
ffsshoul drecoverf orthe
physi
caldamaget otheonemel t(L368),andthelossof
prof
itont hatmeltconsequentt hereon(L400);butnot
forthe loss ofpr ofiton the f ourmel ts(L1,767)
,
becauset hatwaseconomi clossi ndependentoft he
physi
caldamage.Iwoul d,therefore,al
low t
heappeal
andreducet hedamagest oL768. "

PerLawt onLJatpp.46and47:" Thisappealr aises

neatlyaquest ionwhi chhasbeenaskedf r
om t i
met o
ti
me si nce Blackbur n J.' delivered hi s wel lknown
j
udgmenti nCat t
levSt ocktonWat env orksCo.( 1875)
L.R.10Q. B.453andmor efrequent lysi ncethedeci sion
i
nHedl eyBy rne&Co.Lt d.vHel l
er&Par tnersLtd.[1964]
A.C.465, namel y ,whetherapl ainti
ffcanr ecoverfrom a
defendant ,prov edoradmi t
tedt ohav ebeennegl i
gent,
foreseeabl e f i
nancial damage whi ch i s not
consequent i
aluponf oreseeabl ephy sicalinjuryordamage
topr operty.Anydoubt stheremayhav ebeenaboutt he
recov er
yofsuchconsequent i
alf inanci aldamagewer e
settl
edbyt hiscour tinS. C.
M.( UnitedKi ngdom)Lt d.v
W.J.Whi t
ta//& SonLt d.[1971]1Q. B.337.I nmy
j
udgmentt he answert ot hi
s quest ion ist hatsuch
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

fi
nancialdamagecannotber ecover
edsav ewheniti
s
theimmedi ateconsequenceofabr each ofdut
yto
safeguardthepl
aint
if
ffr
om thatki
ndofloss."

Dut tonvBognorRegi sUr banDi str

ictCounci l[197211QB373
Fact s:Thedef endanti ssuedabui l
di ngper mitt oabui l
dert o
build,wi t
ht her equi rementt hatallfoundat ionsanddr ai nsmust
be i nspected byt he def endantbef oret heyar e cov ered.An
i
nspect orf rom t hedef endanti nspect edt heexcav ationsand
theywer ecov ered.Lat ert hebuildersol dt hehouset oanot her
personwhoi nt urnsol di tt otheplaint i
ff
.Thepl ainti
ffdet ected
somedef ect sint hebui ldingaf t
ert akingpossessi onowi ngt o
the negl igenti nspect i
on and sued.The t r
ialj udge awar ded
damagesf ort heest i
mat edcostofr epair,surveyor '
sfeesanda
fallinthemar ketv alueoft hehouse.
Held:Thatt hedef endantowedadut yofcar etot hebui lderand
allsubsequentowner sandoccupi er sandt huswasl iabl eand
thatt hedef endant '
sl iabilit
ywasnotl imitedt ophy sicalinj urybut
i
ncl udeddamaget ot hehouseandanyeconomi cl osst her eon.
Principle:Wher eapr ofessi onalmangi vesadv i
ceonf i
nanci alor
proper tymat t
ers,hi sdut yi sonlytot hosewhor elyonhi m;but
wher ehegi vesadv iceont hesafetyofbui l
dingsormachi nesor
mat er i
alhisdut yist oal lt hosewhomaysuf f
eri njur yi fhis
adv i
cei sbad.

PerLor d Denning MR atp.392:" In myopi ni

on,the
cont rolt hus entrusted t ot he localaut horityis so
extensi vet hatitcar ri
eswi thitadut y.I tput sont he
counci lt he responsi bil
it
y ofexer cising t hatcont rol
proper lyandwi threasonabl ecare.Thecommonl awhas
alway shel dthatar ightofcont r
olov erthedoi ngofwor k
carrieswi thitadegr eeofr esponsibili
tyinrespectoft he
wor k.Suchhasl ongbeent hecasewher eanempl oy
er
hast her ighttocont rolthewayi nwhi chani ndependent
cont ractor does hi s wor k:see Mer sey Docks and
HarbourBoar dvCoggi nsandGl if
f l
th( Liverpool
)Lt d.
[1947]A. C.1.I tisal sothecasewhenanownerora
l
ocalaut hori
tyexer ci
sescont r
olov erpr oper tyforthe
purposeofdoi ngrepai r
s:seeMi ntvGood[ 1951]1K.B.
517;Gr eenevChel seaBor oughCounci l[ 1954]2Q. B.
127;Br ewBr othersLt d.vSnax( Ross)Lt d.[ 1970]1Q.B.
612;orov era gr ati
ng in a highway— McFar l
ane v
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Gwa/ t
er[ 1959]2Q. B.332andScot tvGr een&Sons( A
Fir
m)[ 1969]1W. L.
R.301.Soher e,It hink,t helocal
authori
ty,hav i
ngar i
ghtofcont roloverthebui l
dingofa
house,hav ear esponsibilit
yinrespectofi t.Theymust ,I
thi
nk,taker easonabl ecar etoseet hatt heby elawsar e
compliedwi th.Theymustappoi ntbui
ldingi nspectorsto
examinet hewor ki npr ogress.Thosei nspect orsmust
bedili
gentandv isitthewor kasoccasi onr equires.They
mustcar ryoutt heirinspect i
onwi t
hreasonabl ecareso
astoensur et hattheby elawsarecompl iedwi th."

Atpp.394and395: "Nowadays,si
nceHedleyBy
rne&Co.
Ltd.vHell
er&Par tner
sLtd.[1964]A.
C.465,itiscl
ear
thataprofessi
onalmanwhogi vesguidancet
oothers
owesadut yofcare,notonlytothecl
ientwhoemploys
him,butal
sot o
93r
•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

anot herwhoheknowsi sr elyi

ngonhi sskil
ltosav e
him f r
om har m.I tis cer t
aint hat a banker or
account antisundersuchadut y.AndIseenor eason
whyasol ici
torisnotlikewise.Theessenceoft hi
s
proposi ti
on,however,i
sther el
iance.InHedl
eyBy rnev
Helleritwasst ressedbyLor dRei datp.486,byLor d
Mor risofBor t
h-y-
Gestatpp.502- 503,andbyLor d
Hodsonatp.514.Thepr ofessionalmanmustknow
thatt heotherisrely
ingonhi sskil
landtheothermust
i
nf actr el
yoni t

"Itis att his poi ntt hatImustdr aw a di st i

ncti
on
betweent hesev eralcat egor iesofpr of essi onalmen.I
canwel lseet hati nt hecaseofapr ofessi onalman
whogi vesadv iceonf inancialorpr oper tymat t
ers—
suchasabanker , al awy eroranaccount ant—hi sdut y
i
sonl yt ot hosewhor elyonhi m andsuf ferf inancial
l
ossi nconsequence.Buti nthecaseofapr ofessi onal
manwhogi v esadv i
ceont hesaf etyofbui ldings,or
machi nes, ormat er i
al ,hisdut yi st oal lthosewhomay
suff
eri njuryi ncasehi sadv i
cei sbadI nCandl erv
Crane, Chr i
st mas&Co.[ 1951]2K. B.164, 179, Iputthe
case ofan anal y stwho negl igently cer ti
fies t oa
manuf act ureroff oodt hatapar t
iculari ngredi enti s
harmless, wher easi ti s,inf act, poisonous:ort hecase
ofani nspect orofl iftswhonegl igent lyr epor tst hata
part
icul arli
f tissaf e, wher easi tisinf actdanger ous.It
wasaccept edt hatt heanal ystandt hel i
fti nspect or
would bel iablet o anyper son who wasi nj ured by
consumi ngt hef oodorusi ngt hel ift.Sincet hatcase
thecour tshav ehadt hei nst anceofanar chi tector
engineer .I fhe desi gns a house ora br i
dge so
negli
gent lyt hati tf allsdown,hei sl i
abl et oev eryone
ofthosewhoar ei njuredi nt hef all:seeCl ayvA.J.
Crump&SonsLt d.[ 1964]1Q. B.533.Noneoft hose
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
njured would haver el
i
ed on the ar chit
ectort he
engineer
.Noneoft hem woul
dhav eknownwhet heran
archit
ectorengi neerwas empl oyed,ornot .But
beyonddoubt ,thearchit
ectandengi neerwouldbe
l
iable.Thereasonisnotbecauset hoseinjur
edreli
ed
onhi m,butbecauseheknew, oroughtt ohaveknown,
thatsuchpersonsmi ghtbeinjur
edi fhedi dhiswork
badly.
"

Andatp.396:" Icannotacceptt hissubmissi

on.The
damagedoneher ewasnotsol elyeconomicloss.I
t
was physicaldamage t ot he house.I fMr .Tapp'
s
submissi
on wer ef i
ght,itwoul d mean t hatifthe
i
nspectornegligentl
ypassest hehouseaspr operl
y
bui
ltanditcol
lapsesandinjuresaper son,t
hecouncil

•
94
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ar
eliabl
e:buti
ftheownerdiscover
sthedefectintimetorepai
rit
— andhedoesr epairi
t— thecouncilar
enotl iabl
e.Thatisan
i
mpossibledi
sti
nct
ion.Theyarel
i
ableinei
thercase.

"Iwouldsayt hesameaboutt hemanuf actur

erofanar ti
cle.I
fhe
makesi tnegli
gentl
y ,wi
thal atentdef
ect(sothati tbreaksto
piecesandi njuressomeone) ,hei sundoubt
edlyli
able.Suppose
thatthedefecti sdiscov
eredi nt i
metopreventtheinjur
y.Surel
y
heisliablef
ort hecostofrepair.
"

PerSachsLJatpp.403and404:" Int hei nstantcaset herei s

ample ev i
dence ofphy si
caldamage hav ing occur r
ed t ot he
propert
y.Buti thasbeenar guedthatt hisdamagei sonanal ysis
theequivalentofadi minut i
onoft hev alueoft hepr emi sesand
doesnotr ankforconsi derationasphy sicali njury.Nf r
.Tappf ound
himselfsubmi tt
ingt hatif,f ori
nstance,t her el
ev antdef ecthad
beenint heceili
ngofar oom,andi fitfellonsomebody 'sheador
ont otheoccupi er'schat t
elsandt huscausedphy sicaldamage,
then(subjectofcour setohi sotherpoint sf ail
ing)t herecoul dbea
causeofact ioninnegl igence,butnoti fitf ellont oabar ef l
oor
andcausednof urt
herdamage.Appar ent lyi nt hef ormercase
damageswoul dbel imitedsoast oexcl uder epai rstot hecei l
ing:
i
nt helattercaset herewoul dbenocauseofact ionatal l.That
subtl
elineofar gumentf ai
ledt oattr
actmeandwoul dleadt oan
unhappil
yoddst at eofthel aw.

"Ifphy si
caldamagei s,contrarytomyv iew, asinequanonbef ore
acauseofact i
oncanar iseagai nstabui l
derorabui l
dingowner ,
theni tseemst omet ohav eoccur r
edi nt hepresentcase.Buti n
myj udgmentt o poset hequest i
on:' Isi tphysicaldamageor
economi cdamage? '
istoadoptaf al
laciousappr oach.I nt hiscase
— andper hapsgener all
yi ncasesconcer nedwi t
ht heexer ci
seof
dutiesandpower sbyapubl icaut hority—t hecor r
ectt esti s'What
rangeofdamagei sthepr operexer ciseoft hepowerdesi gnedt o
prev ent?'I
nt hi
swayt hequest ionwhet heranypar ticulardamage
i
sr ecov erablei
sbr oughtbacki ntothear eaofpol i
cyi ndi catedby
Lord Denni ng M. R.i n hisj udgmenti nt he S.C.M.case:and
appr opri
atewei ghtcan, i
fnecessar y,begi ventothef actt hatthis
caseconcer nsahouseandnotachat tel.Att hi
sst age, itsuf f
ices
tosayt hatnot hingi nthenat ureoft hel osssust ainedbyt he
plainti
ff,ofit
self,
precludesacl aim

951M
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

bei
ngmai
ntai
nedf
ort
hatl
oss.
"

Wel l
ervFootandMout hDi seaseInst
it
ute[
1966]1QB569
Facts:The def endants car r
ied on r
esearch intof ootand mout h
diseases.Thev i
rusescapedandcat t
leinthev i
cini
tybecamei nf
ected
withdiseaseandt hecattlemar ketwascl oseddown.Thepl ai
nti
ffs,
whower eauctioneers,al
legedt hatasar esultofthecl osur
eoft he
mar ket
, t
heyhadl ostbusi
nessandsuedundert herule.
Held:Thedef endantsowedadut yonlytot hecattl
eowner sandnot
theplainti
ff
s.
Pr
inci
ple:
Wher
enodut
yofcar
eisowed,
economi
clossi
sir
recov
erabl
e.

PerWi dger yJatp.585:" 1t hinki timpor tantt or ememberat

theout sett hatintheoasest owhi chIhav ereferred, theactor
omi ssi
onr eli
eduponasconst it
utingabr eachoft hedut yt o
takecar ewasanactoromi ssionwhi chmi ghtf or eseeabl y
hav ecauseddi recti
njurytot heper sonorpr opertyofanot her.
Thewor ldofcommer cewoul dcomet oahal tandor dinarylife
woul dbecomei nt
olerableift hel aw imposedadut yonal l
personsatal ltimest or efr
ainf r
om anyconductwhi chmi ght
foreseeabl y cause det ri
ment t o anot her,but wher e an
absenceofr easonablecar emayf oreseeabl ycausedi rect
i
njurytot heper sonorpr opertyofanot her ,adut yt ot akesuch
careexi sts.Itisagai nstthebackgr oundoft hisdut yt hatt he
j
udgment st owhi chIhav eref erredmustbeconsi der ed. "

Andatp.587:" Inmyj udgment ,t herei snot hingi nHedl ey

Byrnet oaffectt hecommonl awpr incipl
et hatadut yofcar e
whi chari
sesf rom ar i
skofdi r
ecti njuryt oper sonorpr operty
i
s owed onl yt ot hose whose per son orpr operty may
foreseeabl
ybei njuredbyaf ai
lur
et ot akecar e.I fthepl aintif
f
canshowt hatt hedut ywasowedt ohi m, hecanr ecov erbot h
dir
ectandconsequent iallosswhichi sr easonabl yf oreseeabl e,
andf ormy selfIseenor easonforsay ingthatpr oofofdi rect
l
ossi sanessent ialpartofhisclaim.Hemust , howev er ,show
thathewaswi thinthescopeoft hedef endant 'sdut yt ot ake
care.

"Inthepr esentcase,thedefendants'dutytot akecaret o

avoidtheescapeoft hevir
uswasduet otheforeseeabl
efact
thatthev ir
usmi ghtinf
ectcattl
eint heneighbourhoodand
causet hem todie.Thedut yofcareisaccordinglyowedt o
theowner sofcat t
leintheneighbourhood,buttheplai
nti
ffs
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

arenotowner sofcat tl
eandhav enopr opri
etaryinter
esti n
anythi
ngwhi chmi ghtconceivabl
ybedamagedbyt hevirusif
i
tescaped.Ev eni ftheplai
nti
ffshav
eapr opri
etaryinterestin
thepremisesknownasFar nham market
,thesepr emisesar e
notinjeopardy.Inmyj udgment,t
heref
ore,t
hepl ai
ntif
fs'clai
m
i
n negligencef ail
sev en i
ft heassumpt i
onsoff actmost
favour
abletothem ar emade."

Chaudhr yvPr abhakar[ 1989]1WLR29

Fact s:Thepl ai
ntif
fr equestedt hef ir
stdef endant,hiscl osef r
iend,to
help herbuya second- hand car .The f ir
stdef endantwas nota
mechani cbuthadsomeknowl edgeofcar s.Thepl ainti
ffinf
or medher
thatshedi dnotwantacart hathadbeeni nvolvedinanacci dent .The
fi
rstdef endantf oundacarwhosebonnethadbeencr umpl edand
straightened but she t hought i tt o be i n good condi t
ion and
recommendedi tfort heplainti
fft obuy .Af ew mont hsaf t
erwar ds,i
t
wasf oundt hatthecarhadbeeni nvolvedi naser iousacci dentand
wasunr oadwor thy.Thepl ainti
ffsued.
Hel d:Althought hef i
rstdefendantwasagr atui
tousagent ,heowedt he
plainti
ffadut yofcar ewhi chobj ectivelycouldbeexpect edofher
undert heci rcumst ancesandt huswasl i
ablesincesheknew t he
plainti
ffwasr el
yingonherexper tise.
Principl
e:A gr atuit
ousagentowesadut yofcar et o exerciset he
degr eeofcar eandski llwhichcoul dr easonablybeexpect edofhi mi n
allt heci rcumst ances,and t hatdegr eeofcar eand ski l
lmustbe
measur edobj ecti
velyandnotsubj ectively.

PerSt uar t-
Smi t
hLJatpp.721and722:" Ihav enodoubtt hat
oneoft her elevantci rcumst ancesi swhet herornott heagent
i
spai d.I fhei s,ther elationshipisacont ract ualoneandt here
maybeexpr esst er msonwhi chthepar tiescanr ely.Mor eov er
,
i
fapai dagentexer cisedanyt r
ade, professi onorcal l
ing,hei s
requir
ed t o exer cise t he degr ee of ski lland di li
gence
reasonabl yt obeexpect edofaper sonexer cisingsucht rade,
professionorcal li
ng, irr
espect i
veoft hedegr eeofski llhemay
possess.Wher et heagenti sunpai d,anydut yofcar ear i
sesi n
tort
.Rel ev antci rcumst anceswoul dbet heact ualski lland
experiencet hattheagenthad, although, ifhehasr epr esent ed
suchski l
landexper i
encet obegr eatert hani tinf actisand
theprinci palhasr eliedonsuchr epr esent ati
on, itseemst ome
tober easonabl et oexpecthi mt oshowt hatst andar dofski l
l
andexper i
encewhi chhecl aimshepossesses.Mor eov er,the
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

f
act

thatpri
nci
palandagentarefri
endsdoesnoti nmyj udgmentaf
fectthe
exist
enceofthedutyofcare,
althoughconceivabl
yitmaybear el
evant
cir
cumstanceinconsi
deri
ngthedegr eeorstandardofcar
e.

"Counselfortheplaintif
fhassubmi tt
edt hatthedut yofcarear i
sesnot
onlybecauseoft her elati
onshipofpr inci
palandagent ,butalsounder
thedoctri
neenunci atedi nHedl eyBy rne&CoLt dvHe/ /er&Par tner
s
Ltd[1963]2Al l
ER575, [
19641AC465.TheHouseofLor dsheldt hata
negli
gent,al
thoughhonest ,misrepresentation,spokenorwr i
tten,may
giveri
set oanact ionf ordamagesf orfinanciallosscausedt hereby,
apartfrom anycont ractorf i
duciaryr elat
ionship,sincet hel aw will
i
mpl yadut yofcar ewhenapar t
yseeki ngi nfor
mat i
onf rom apar t
y
possessedofspeci alski l
ltrust
shi mt oexer ci
secar e,andthatpar t
y
knew,oroughtt ohav eknown,t hatreli
ancewasbei ngpl acedonhi s
ski
llandjudgment .

"Whenconsi deri
ngthequestionofwhet heradutyofcar eari
ses,t
he
relat
ionshi
pbetweent hepart
iesi
smat eri
al.I
ftheyarefr
iends,
thetr
ue
view maybet hattheadviceorrepresentat
ionismadeonapur el
y
socialoccasi
onandt hecir
cumstancesshowt hattherehasnotbeena
voluntar
yassumpt i
onofresponsi
bil
it
y...
.

"Butwher e,asi nt hiscase,t her elat

ionshipofpr incipalandagent
exist
s,such t hata cont r
actcomes i nto existence bet ween t he
pri
ncipalandt hethirdpar t
y,itseemst omet hat
, atthev eryleast,t
hi s
rel
ationshipispower fulevidencet hattheoccasi oni snotapur ely
socialone,but ,to use Lor d Reid's expressi
on,i si n a busi ness
connect i
on.Indeedt her el
ati
onshipbet weent hepar t
iesisonet hati s
equivalenttocontract ,t
ouset hewor dsofLor dDev l
in,saveonl yf or
theabsenceofconsi derat
ion( see[1963]2Al lER575at611,[ 1964]
AC465at530) .

"Itseemst omet hatal lt

henecessar yingredi
entsar eherepr esent.
Thepl aint
if
fclearl
yr el
iedont hef ir
stdef endant'
sskillandjudgment
and, alt
houghitmaynothav ebeengr eat,i
twasgr eaterthanhersand
was qui te suff
ici
entf ort he pur pose ofaski ng t he appropriate
quest i
onsoftheseconddef endant.Thef i
rstdefendantalsoknewt hat
thepl ai
nti
ffwasr elyi
ngonhi m.Indeedhet ol
dhert hatshedi dnot
needt ohav eiti
nspectedbyamechani candshedi dnotdosoont he
strength of hisr ecommendat i
on.I t was clearl
yi n a business
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

connecti
on,becauseheknew t
hatshewasther
eandt hengoi
ngt
o
commi ther
selft
obuyi
ngthecarf
orthr
oughhi
sagency
.

"I
f,asIthink,t
hedut yofcar einthiscasecanequallybesai d
toar i
seundert heHedl eyBy rnepr i
ncipl
e,thenl
ogicall
yt he
standardofcare,orthenat ureandext entoftheduty,should
bet hesameast hatrequir
edofanunpai dagent.Andt hisis
anaddi t
ionalr
easonwhyIpr efertostatethedutyasIhav e,
namel ytotakesuchcar easi sr easonabl
yt obeexpectedof
hi
mi nal
l t
hecir
cumst ances."

Pl
ayboyCl
ubLondonLt
dvBancaNazi
onal
eDel
Lav
oroSpa
[
20141EWHC2613
Fact s:Thet hirdpl ainti
ff,ajointowneroft hefirstpl ai
ntiffclubwi t
ht he
secondpl aintiff,request edar eferencet ooneofi tscust omer s.The
defendantgav ear eferencest atingt hathewascapabl eofmeet inga
fi
nanci alcommi t
mentofupt oLl. 6m aweek.I nr eli
anceont hat
reference, thecust omer '
schequeswer eacceptedandhewasal l
owed
topl ayint hepl aintif
fs'casino.Thechequesbouncedandt hepl ai
ntif
fs
i
ncur redal ossofaboutL1. 25m.Theysuedandt hedef endantar gued
thati tsdut yofcar ewasowedonl ytot het hirdpl ainti
ff,thatt he
referencel etterwaswr it
tenbyi t
sempl oyeewi thoutaut horityandt hat
thepl ai
nt i
ffshadbeennegl i
genti naccept ingcount erfeitcheques.
Hel d:Thepl ainti
ffswer eent itl
edt oassumet hatt hebank' sempl oyee
hadt heaut hor i
tytomaket her eferenceandt hedut yofcar et hebank
owedwasnotonl yt othet hir
dpl ainti
ffbutt othecl ubaswel l.
Principle:Aper sonwhogi vesanunqual i
fiedreferenceknowi ngthatit
willber el
iedonbyt heper sonseeki ngt hereferenceowesadut yof
caret ot hesear cher .

PerJudgeMacki eQCatpar s.49and50:[ 49]"Appli

cat
ionof
theseprinci
plestoamundanesi tuati
ondoesnotr equi
rethe
able and close anal
ysi
s oft he aut hor i
ti
es conducted by
Counseli nthi
scase.Thiswasar outiner equestforabank
refer
encewhi chwasanswer edwi t
hout ,incont r
asttosome
cases,anyat t
empttorestr
ictli
abili
tytot heenqui r
erOfatall.
Thereisnot hingoutoft hewayi napr inci
palhav i
ngt hi
s
requestOfany ot heradmi ni
strati
vet ask carri
ed outby
anothermemberoft hesamegr oupofcompani es.Thereis
nosuggest i
onin
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

theev idencethatt heref erencewoul dnothav ebeengi venor

woul dhav etakenadi fferentf ormi fsoughtbyt heCl ub.The
conceal mentoft heident i
tyoft heCl ubi sf orthebenef i
tof
somepl ayersandnott ohi deunl awf ulori mproperactivi
ty.
Ther eisnobasi sfort reatingt hef inancingoft r
adingina
casinoasbei ngofadi ff
erentor dert ot radi
ngoff i
nancial
acti
v i
ty.Thef actt hatitwasnotknownbyt heBankt hatthe
Clubwoul dactont her eferencewi thoutwhatt heBankcal l
s
'
independentenqui ry
',what ev ert hatmi ghtmean seems
i
rrelevant.Ther ei s,as Hedl ey By rne itselfil
lustr
ates no
reasont orestrictthelegaldut yt ot heper sonactuallymaking
theenqui ry.Appl yi
ngt hel awt ot hef actsIconsi derthatthe
Bankowedadut ynotj ustt oBur li
ngt onbutt ot heClubas
regardst hereference."

[501 "The Bank stated thatMrBar akatwas capable of

meet i
ngaf i
nanci
alcommi tmentofupt oL1.6mil
li
oninany
oneweek.I nfacthehadani lbalanceonhi saccount
.The
Bank makes no admi ssion but i t cannot in those
cir
cumst anceshav eexercisedr easonableskil
landcar ein
prepari
ngt heref
erence.Sot heansweri syes.
"

Cr est signLt dvNat ionalWest minsterBankPl c[ 20141EWHC 3043

Fact s:Thepl ai
nti
ffsent eredi ntodiscussionswi tht hedef endant sfor
refinanci ng.Thedef endant spr oposedf ourdifferentt r
adet ransactions
butdr ew t heplaintif
fs'at tenti
ont ot heir(thedef endants)t ermsof
busi nesswhi chprovidedt hatr eli
ancemi ghtnotbepl acedont hem for
adv iceorr ecommendat ions.Anof fi
ceroft hedef endant slateremai l
ed
thet ermsofbusi nesst ot hepl ai
ntiff
sanddr ewt heiratt
ent i
ont ot he
factt hatt hedef endantsof feredanon- advi
sor ydeal i
ngser vice.The
transact ionswer ecompl etedbutwer eunsuccessf ul.Thedef endant s
broughtanact i
oninnegl igence.
Hel d:Si ncethedef endant si ssuedadi scl
aimer ,theyowednodut yof
car et ot hepl ai
nti
ffs.
Pr i
nci ple:A per sonwhoof f
ersadv i
cet oanot herwi thadi sclai
mer
owesnodut yofcar etotheper sonr eceivi
ngtheadv ice.

PerMr .Ti
m KerrQC( Si
tti
ngasaDeput yJudgeoft heHi gh
Court)atpars.111 — 114:111." I
nthepresentcontext,
though,if Iweret ol eave outof accountt he bank's
documentswhichsoughtt oexcludeadutyofcare,Iwoul d
fi
ndt hatt
herelat
ionshi
pbetweenMrGi ll
ardandMfPar ker
wassuchast o
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

•
100
sati
sfytherequirement ssetoutinLordMor r
is'speechinHedl ey
Byrneat502- 3,quot edabov e.Thedi spari
tyi nknowledgeand
expert
iseandt herespecti
verolesofthet womenwassucht hatit
wasr easonablytobeexpect edthatMrPar kerwoul drel
yonMr
Gil
lar
d'sskillandj udgmentand,asi def rom t hedocument s,it
wouldber easonablef orhimt odoso.Howev er,t
hebankswent
outoft hei
rwayi nthedocument stheypr ov
idedt oMrPar ker,to
ensurethatthedutyIhav efoundwouldar i
se,didnotdoso.

112. "
Thosewer
ethedocument
sthatwer
ethesubj
ectoft
he
debatebetweencounselont hedistinctionbetweenbasisclauses
and exclusi
onclauses,alreadyment ioned.Theaut hori
ti
esar e
manybutt hepri
nci
pleissi mpleenough:y oulookatt hewor ds
usedt oseewhether,understoodint heirpropercont
extfrom the
perspecti
ve ofan imparti
aland r easonable obser
ver( i
.e.the
court)
,theyprev
entar epresentat
ionf rom hav i
ngbeenmade,Of
whether,bycont
rast
,theyexcludeliabil
ityformakingi
t.

113. " Whereadvi

cei sgi ven,t hesamepr i
nci
plesappl y.I fa
contr
actt er
m provi
des t hatno adv i
ce is gi v
en,i tmustbe
construedandmaybeei t
herabasi sclauseoranexcl usionclause,
dependi ngonthewordingandcont ext.I
fadv i
ceisgi venout si
de
thetermsofacont ract,adut yofcar earisesiftheHedl eyBy r
ne
requi
rement sar
emet ,but'anassumpt ionofr esponsibil
itymaybe
negatived byan appropriate disclai
mer '(Hender son vMer r
ett
SyndicatesLtd[
1995]2AC145, perLor dGof fat1810.
114. "
Int
hepr
esentcase,If
indmy
sel
funabl
etor
esi
stt
he
conclusiont hatt hebankssuccessf ull
ydi sclaimedr esponsibi
li
ty
foranyadv icet hatMrGi l
lardmightgiveand( asIhav efound)di
d
give.TheRi skManagementPaperandt het woset soft ermsof
businesswer eunequi vocal;t
heydef i
nedther elati
onshipasonein
whichadv icewasnotbei nggi v
en.Theywer ecl earl
ydrawnt oMr
Parker'sattentionbef oret heswapcont ractwasconcl uded.He
ri
ght l
yunder stood( andhencesoughtcommentf rom MrBransby-
Zachar yont het er
msofbusi ness)thatt heywer enotempt y
wor dsbutwer ei ntended to havel egalef fectaspar tofany
cont r
act.
"

101•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Owner
s—Strat
aPlanNo.61288vBrookf
iel
dsAust
ral
i
a
I
nvest
ment
sLtd(2013)152ConLR206;[
20131NSWCA317
Fact s:Thedefendantwasthebui
lderofan18-stor
eydevel
opmentt hat
tookpl acebetween1997and1999.Thepl ai
nti
ff
sbecamet heowner s
ofpar toft hebuil
dingandsuedt hedefendantfordef
ecti
vebuilding
wor ks.Held:Thedefendantowedtheplai
ntif
fsadutyofcar
eandt hus
wasl i
ablefort
hedef ect
s.
Principle:Abui
lderowesadutyofcaretotheownerofthebuil
ding.

PerBast enJAatpp.244and245, pars.126—129:[ 126]"The

conceptofpr otecti
on agai nstpur e economi cl oss wi th
respectt olatentdef ectsinabui ldingmi ghtbet houghtt o
refert ot het akingoutofi nsurance.Howev er,therei sno
author i
tywhi chi dent i
fiesthisasasi gni f
icantel ementi nthe
conceptof' vulner abil
ity'
.Thati sunder standabl e,becausei t
hasa' chickenandegg'qual i
t ytoi t.Itist ruet hatapr operty
ownermaybeexpect edt ot aker easonabl est epst oobt ain
i
nsur ance, i
fsuchi sreasonabl yavailable,inr espectofi tsown
l
iabili
tiesandanypot ent i
alforunr ecov erabl el oss.Howev er
, i
f
thebui l
derisl iablef orsuchl oss,iti sr easonabl et oexpect
thati twoul d obt ai
n appr opr i
atei nsur ance.The dut y of
selfprotecti
on t hr ough i nsur ance shoul d pr operly be
determi nedaf terident i
f y
ingwher el iabili
tyl ies,r at
hert hanas
partoft heexer ciseofdet er
mi ningwher el iabilityli
es.

[127]" Ont hebasi st hatthebui lderdi doweadut yofcar et o

thedev eloperandt ot hebodycor por ateinwhi cht hecommon
proper t
ywasv estedonr egistr
at i
onoft hestrataplan, thenext
quest i
oni st heext entoft hatli
abi l
ity.Theappel l
antnotbei ng
partyt ot hecont ractbet weent hebui lderandt hedev eloper ,i
t
woul dnotbecor rectt oimposeat ortiousdut yequi valentt o
thecont r
act ualobl i
gat i
onsoft hebui ldertot hedev eloper .For
exampl e,i ft hedev elopercont ract edwi ththebui l
dert ouse
particular mat er
ials or mat erials of a par ticular
durabilityandqual ity,itdoesnotf ol l
ow t hatthedut yofcar e
i
mposedbyl aw woul dext endt osuchmat ters.Ont hev iew
adopt edbyLaFor estJi nWi nnipegCondomi nium,l i
abi l
it
y
extendst odef ectswhi char e'
danger ous' andwhi cht her efore
reasonabl yrequi rer ectif
icati
on' topr ot ectthebodi lyi ntegrit
y
andpr oper tyi nterest soft hei nhabi tantsoft hebui lding':at
[36].Liabi l
ityf orpur eeconomi cl ossi sseenasacor oll
ar yto
thepot ent i
al
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

u102
l
iabil
it
y ofa bui l
derf orphy sicaldamage to per
sons or
propert
y. Once t he latter l
iabil
i
tyi srecogni
sed,iti s
appropri
atetoacceptl iabil
i
tyf oreconomicl
oss,beingt
he
costofstepsreasonablytakent omiti
gatet
heri
skofphysi
cal
damageorper sonali
njury.

[
128] "Thescopeofl iabilitysoi dent if
iedwoul dext endto
defect ivecl addi ngordef ectsi not herpar tsoft hecommon
proper tywhi chcoul dgiveriset oper sonali njury.Itwoul dalso
covert heexpenseofr ectif
y i
ngdef ectswhi chcoul dgiverise
to damage t o pr operty,incl uding t he pr oper tyoft he lot
owner s.Thus, ifwi ndowf r
amesar edef ectiveandt endt ol
eak,
ort her ear epr oblemswi tht hepl umbi ngorot herser vi
ces,
whichmaygi v er iset owat erdamagewi thinthepr operty
,
suchdef ectswoul df allwithint hescopeofl i
abilit
y.Ont his
appr oach,t hel iabili
tyoft hebui lderi nt or ttot heappel lant
woul di ncludet heki nd of' speci alf aults'i dentifi
ed int he
contr actand r eferred to at[ 64]abov e,butmi ghtextend
furt
her .Thus, ifal eakingwi ndowwasl iablet ocausedamage
to car pet sorot herf l
oorcov eri
ngs,t herei sno r easont o
excludesuchadef ectf r
om t hescopeofl i
abi li
ty.

[
129] "Accepti
ngt hatthegener all
awdoesnoti mposea
generaldutyofcar et oav oideconomi closs,andt hatthe
decisi
oni nBr yanvMal oneydoesnoti nt ermsdictatethe
outcomei nt hepr esentcase,t herearesignifi
cantfeat
ures
whichmi li
tateinf avouroft heexist
enceofadut yofcar e
coveri
ngl ossr esult
ingf r
om l atentdef
ectswhi ch(a)wer e
str
uctural
,(b)const i
tutedadangert opersonsorpropertyin,
orinthev i
cini
tyof,theservicedapartments,or(c)madethem
uni
nhabi t
able.Theex i
stenceofadut yexpressedint hose
ter
msshoul dbeaccept ed.
"

Net
workRai
l
wayInf
rast
ruct
ureLt
dvConar
kenGr
oupLt
d[2012]
1All
ER(Comm)692
Facts:Theplainti
ff,ownersoft henationalrail
waynetwork,earnedit
s
revenuefrom char gingt r
aincompani esusi ngit
sr ai
lwaylines.The
plai
nti
ffpaidthecompani eswhent rai
nser v
icesweredisruptedasum
permi nut
eofav eragel at
eness.Thiswasbecausedel ayswer eli
kel
yto
preventpeoplef rom usingt hetrainsandt husthecompani estook
compensat i
onf orthat.Thedefendantscauseddamaget othe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

103•
•
rail
wayl i
nesowi ngtot henegl igenceoft heirdr
iver
s.Thepl ai
nti
ff
andt hedefendantsadmi ttedliabili
tyfort hecostofr epairsbutthe
plaintif
fsoughtt orecov eralsot hecompensat i
ontobepai dtothe
trai
ncompani esforthedel aycausedbyt hedamage.
Hel d:Sinceitwasr easonabl yforeseeablet hatdamaget otherail
way
l
ineswoul dcauset hepl ainti
fflossofr evenue,thedef endantswere
l
iabl eforboththecostoft her epairandt hecompensat i
on.
Pr i
nciple: Loss of r ev enue caused by phy si
cal damage t o
revenuegener at
ing proper tyi sr ecov
er ableifi t was r easonabl
y
foreseeable.

PerPi llLJatp.711,par .68:'Thelossesclai

medsat isf
yt he
requirementofbei ngadi rectconsequenceoft het ort
.The
l
iabilit
yoft her espondentst opaysumst otheTOCsi st he
directconsequenceoft hetortwhichoccasionedt hedamage
tot het r
acks.Howev er,ithasal sotobeconsi deredwhet her
theappel lant
sar eboundbyt heassessmentofdamagesi n
thecont ractsbetweent her espondentsandtheTOCsand,i f
not ,whetherthedamagescl ai
medar ereasonablyforeseeable
(seeThewagonMound( No1)[ 1961]1Al lER404,[1961]AC
388) ."

And atp.713,pars.81 — 83:[81]"Ihave come t

othe
concl
usi
onthatt
heappell
ant
sshouldbeli
abl
eforeachoft
he
headscl
aimed,t
hatisthesoci
etalrat
ecomponentandthe
MREcomponent.

[
82] "
It was r easonably f oreseeable t hat ,i f t he
respondents'appar at
uswasdamaged,t heser vicesoft he
TOCs,andt hei
rv al
uet othepubl i
c,woul dbedi mi nishedand
thatar r
angement s would hav e been puti n place byt he
franchi
singaut hori
tytopenalisetheTOCsf orthedi minution
i
nt hei
rserv i
ces.Two cont ractsar ei nv
olved,t hecont ract
betweent her espondentsandt heTOC,andt hef ranchising
arrangementbet weent hefranchisingauthor i
tyandt heTOC,
butt hecompl exit
ydoesnotr endert heresulti
ngl osst ot he
respondentstoor emotefrom thephy sicaldamage.

[
83] "
The MRE componenti s,in my judgment ,al
so
r
ecoverabl
eint hecircumst
ances.I
tdependsonamedi um t
o
l
ongterm assessmentofpassengerchoicesov
erthenetwork.
Whether the ' t
ippi
ng point
' of deterri
ng potent
ial r
ail
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

passenger
sisreacheddependsnotonl
yont
hedi
srupt
ion
causedbythet
orti
tsel
f

•
•104
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

but, as cl aimed, on an assessment of pot ent

ial
passenger s'f earst hattherewillbef ur
therdisr
uptionsin
thef uture.Pr ov i
dedagenui neat t
empthasbeenmadet o
assessf uturel ossofi ncomef r
om t hi
scause,andont he
evidenceIam sat isfied i
thas,abari snotpl aced on
recov erybyr eli
ance on passengerpsy chol
ogywi thi t
s
fearsofar epeatoft heindexev ent.Thatisenought o
decidet hei ssuei nthiscase."

PerMoor e-Bi ckLJatpp.720and721, par s.100- 102: [100]

"Anyassetofacommer cialnat ur ei scapabl eofbei ng
used t o gener ater ev enue,ei t
herbybei ng putt o use
dir
ect l
ybyt heownerorbybei ngmadeav ailablef oruseby
other sinr etur nf orpay ment .Buildings,l orr i
es,shi psand
air
cr aftar ej ustexampl es ofa t ype whose v ariet yi s
endless.Thati spar tofev er ydayexper ience.Whet heran
ordinarymemberoft hepubl i
ccanbet akent obeawar eof
thepar ticul arar rangement sest ablishedf ort heuseoft he
rai
lnet wor ki si n my v iew i mmat erial,si nce he can
certainlybeexpect edt obeawar et hatt her ailnet wor ki sa
commer cialassetwhi chcanbeusedt ogener ater ev enue
foritsowneri nonewayoranot her.Itmi ghtbebyr unni ng
i
tsownser v i
ces, orbyal lowi ngot herst odosof oraf ee, or
acombi nat i
onoft het wo.Undert hecur rentar r
angement s
Net workRai lgener atesr ev enuebymaki ngt henet wor k
availablet ot heTOCsf oraf eeandanypay menti tisl iable
to make t ot he TOCs i nr espectofper iods when t he
networ ki sunav ailabler epresent sanetl ossofr evenue.I t
i
si mmat er ialf ort hese pur poses whet hert he f ee i s
reducedorsuspendedi nr espectofper iodsdur i
ngwhi ch
the t r
ack i s unav ailable,whet herpar tofi thas t o be
refundedorwhet herpay ment shav et obemadeunder
prov i
sionsbr oadlysi milartoal iquidateddamagescl ause.
Ineachcasei tsuff ersanetl ossofr evenue.

[ "
101]It
hinki
tiscl
ear
,ther
efor
e,t
hatt
wot
ypesofl
oss
fl
ow natural
l
yf rom anydamaget otheinf
rastructurethat
rendersthet r
acki t
selfunav ail
ableforuse:t hecostof
repairandthel ossofrev enueat t
ri
butabl
et ot helossof
avail
abil
it
yoft hetrackitself.Bothareinmyv iew withi
n
thescopeoft hedutyoft hemot ori
st,orindeedany one
else,toexerci
ser easonabl ecarenott ocausephy sical
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
damagetot
heinfr
astr
uctur
e.Subj
ecttothelimit
ati
ons
i
mposedbyt
her
ulesrel
ati
ngtor
emoteness,
ther
efor
e,all

105"
"
Ihe

suchlossisinprinci
plerecov erabl
ef r
om t hepersonwho
causedthedamage.Ther ulesconcerningr emotenessof
damageconf i
net hescopeoft het or
tfeasor'
sliabi
li
tyto
that which was r easonably f oreseeable as t he
consequenceofhi swrongf ulact:seeOv erseasTankship
(UK)LtdvMor t
sDockandEngi neenngCoLt d,Thewagon
Mound( No1)[1961]1Al lER404, 119611AC388.

[ "
102]Fort
heser
easonsIam unabl
eto acceptt
hati
n
princi plet he scope ofNet wor k Rai l'sr ecov erabl el oss
shoul dbel imitedt ot hecost sofr epairst oi t
spr oper t
yand
anyl ossofr ev enuer esultingf rom i nterrupt i
ont oi tsown
passengerorf reightser v i
ces.Net wor k Rai ldoes not
oper at er ailser vicesofanyki nd,butt hatdoesnotpr ovide
agoodr easonf orr ender ingt hef inanciall ossf l
owi ngf r
om
thei nt er ruptionofi t
sabi litytomaket het rackav ailableto
other si rrecov er able.Thef actt hati nt hepr esentcaset he
l
osst ookt hef orm ofal iabili
tyt omakepay ment sunder
the t rack access agr eement s does not r ender i t
i
rrecov erabl e,si ncel i
abilitydependsonl yonf oreseeabi l
ity
oft heki ndofl osssuf feredr at hert hant hemanneri n
whi chi twascaused.I nEhm/ er vHal /[1993]1EGLR137a
cardr iv enbyt hedef endantcr ashedi nt oacarshowr oom
owned by t he pl ai
nt i
ffbutl ett oat hird par ty.The
showr oom became unusabl ef orsev eralweeks,dur ing
whi cht het enantceasedt obel i
ablef orr entunderan
expr esspr ov i
sionoft hel ease.Thi scour thel dt hatt he
plaint i
f fwasent itl
edt or ecov erdamagesi nt heamountof
thel ostr entasf inanciall ossf l
owi ngf rom t hephy sical
damage t ot he bui lding.I tdi d notmat ter t hatt he
def endantmi ghtnothav ef oreseent hatt hel easewoul d
cont ai nacl auseoft hatnat ur e,pr ov i
dedt hathecoul d
foreseef inanci allossofsomeki nd.Ther eisnomat er i
al
distinct i
onbet weent hatcaseandt hepr esent ,t hel ossof
revenuet akingt hef or m ofl ossofr entr athert hant he
pay mentofasum i ncompensat ionf ort heunav ailabili
tyof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
the proper
ty.Applyi
ng t he establi
shed pri
nci
ples t
hat
governcausati
onandr emot enessofdamagei ntor
t,i
tis
dif
fi
culttoseewhythel ossofr evenuerepr
esentedbythe
Sch8pay mentsshoul
dnotber ecoverabl
e."

PerJacksonLJatp.733,
par.145:"Thecommonlawrules
and princi
ples whi
ch r
egulat
et he recover
abi
l
ity and
assessmentofdamagesfor
m av astandri
ppli
ngskei
n,to
whichmany

•
106

j
udgesandj ur
istshav econtr
ibutedov erthel
asttwo
centur
ies. I would not pr esume t o offer a
comprehensi
ver evi
ew oft hatskein.Ido,howev er
,
suggestthatfourprinci
plesrelevantt othepresent
appealcanbediscer
nedf r
om theaut hori
ti
es:

(
i) Economi closswhichflowsdi r
ectl
yandf oreseeablyf r
om
phy sicaldamaget opr oper
tymayber ecov erabl
e.The
thresholdt estoff or
eseeabil
ity does notr equi
ret he
tortfeasor to have any det ai
l
ed knowl edge of t he
claimant '
sbusinessaffair
sorfinancialci
r cumst ances,so
l
ong as t he generalnat ur
e oft he claimant '
sloss is
foreseeable.

(
ii
) One oft he recogni
sed categor
iesofr
ecover
abl
e
economi clossislossofincomef ol
l
owi
ngdamage
torevenuegenerat
ingpr
operty.

(
Il
i)Lossoff ut urebusinessasar esul
tofdamaget o
propert
yi saheadofdamagewhi chliesontheouter
fri
ngeofr ecov
erabil
ity
.Whet hertheclaimantcan
recoverforsucheconomi clossdependsupont he
cir
cumst ances oft he case and the rel
ati
onship
betweent heparti
es.

(i
v)I n choosing the appropriat
e measur e of
damagesf orthepur
posesofassessingr ecoverabl
e
economicl oss,the cour
tseeks t o arri
ve atan
assessment which i s f
air and r easonabl
e as
betweentheclai
mantandt hedefendant."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Spandeck Engi neer i
ng v Def ence Sci ence and Technol ogy
Agency[ 200814LRC61
Fact s:Thepl aintiffunder t
ookacont ractinwhi cht hedef endant
wast hesuper intendingof ficer.Byt het ermsoft hecont ract,
thesuper intendingof f
icerwast ocer ti
fypay ment sbasedon
wor kdone.Thecont ractcont ained anar bit
rati
oncl ausei n
whi chdi sagreement saboutcer tif
icati
onwer etobesubmi tted
to ar bi
tration.The pl ainti
ffal l
eged t hatt he def endanthad
under valuedandunder cert
ifieditswor ksdoneatt hecont ract
sit
ecausi ngi tfi
nanci allossandsuedi nnegl igence.
Held:Ther ewasnosuchpr oximityast oi mposeadut yofcar e
ofthedef endantt ot hepl ai
ntiffandt husthepl ainti
ffmustf ail.
Principle:Tosucceedi nanact ioni nnegl i
gencei nr espectof
pureeconomi cl oss,itisnotenought oallegethatt helosswas
reasonabl yf oreseeabl e;ther emustal sobeacl osepr oximi t
y
suchaswoul dbef ai
rtoi mposeadut y
.
 I
he

PerChanSekKeongCJatpp.91and92,par .77:" Thef i

rst
stageoft het esttobeappl i
edt odet ermi netheexi st enceof
adut yofcar eist hatofpr oximity,i .
e.,thatt heremustbe
suffi
cient l egal pr oximit
y bet ween t he cl aimant and
defendantf oradut yofcar et oar ise.Thef ocusher ei s
necessar ilyont hecl osenessoft her elati
onshipbet weent he
parti
est hemsel ves,asal l
udedt obyBi ngham LJi nt heCour t
ofAppealst ageofCapar oIndustriesp/ cvDi ckman[ 1989]1
AllER798at803,wher ehesai dt hatwhi l
e'[t
]hecont entof
ther equirementofpr oximit
y ,what ev erlanguagei sused,i s
not.capabl eofpr ecisedef i
niti
on'and' [t
]heappr oachwi l
l
varyaccor dingtot hepar ti
cularfact soft hecase.t hef ocus
oft hei nqui ryisont hecl osenessand di r
ect nessoft he
rel
ationshi pbet weent hepar ti
es'(ouremphasi s).Indeed,i n
HedleyBy rne&CoLt dvHel l
er& Ltd[196312Al lER
575i tself,theHouseofLor dsusedl anguagewhi chpoi nt
ed
to t he r elati
onshi p bet ween t he par ti
es as bei ng
determi nativeofdut y."

Atp.93,par s.81and82:[ 81]" I

nourv i
ew,DeaneJ' s
anal y
si sinSut herland'scaset hatpr oximityincludesphy sical,
cir
cumst ant
ialaswel lascausalpr oximi t
y,doespr ovide
subst ancet ot heconceptsi ncei tincludest het wi ncri
teriaof
volunt aryassumpt i
onofr esponsi bil
it
yandr eli
ance,wher e
thef act ssuppor tthem,asessent i
alf actorsinmeet ingt he
testofpr oximity.Wher eAv olunt ari
lyassumesr esponsi bili
ty
forhi sact soromi ssionst owar dsB,andBr eliesoni t
,iti s
onlyf airand j ustt hatt he l aw shoul d hol dA l i
ablef or
negl i
gencei ncausi ngeconomi cl ossorphy sicaldamaget o
B:seePhang,SawandChan[ 2006]Si ngJLS1at47,wher e
theaut horswr ote:'[
B] othper spect iv
esar e,atbot tom,t wo
diff
er ent( yetinext ri
cabl yconnect ed)si desoft hesame
coinandoughtt hereforet obev iewedi nani ntegr at
edand
holisticfashion'(Phang, SawandChan' semphasi s).

[82]"We only need to add,furt

her,thatin determini
ng
proximi
tyasexpoundedbyDeaneJi nSuther
land'scase,t
he
courtshouldapplytheseconceptsf i
rstbyanalogisi
ngthe
factsofthecasefordeci
sionwiththoseofdecidedcases,if
•
110
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
such exist
,butshoul
d notbe const
rai
ned f
rom l
imi
ti
ng
l
iabil
it
yinadeser
vingcaseonl
ybecauseiti
nvol
vesanovel
factsi
tuati
on.
"

Andatp.100,
par
.108:
"Appl
yi
ngt
hef
indi
ngsi
nPaci
fi
c

•
108

Associ atesi nrelationt opr oximityt othepr esentcase,we

wer eoft heopi nionthatt her equirementofpr oximi tywas
notsat i
sf i
ed.The t ri
alj udge st at ed thatt her e was no
assumpt i
onofdi rectresponsi bil
it
ybyt her espondentt ot he
appellant,butdi dnotexpl ainwhyt hi swasso( see[ 2007]1
SLR720at[ 79]).Inv i
ew oft hepr esenceoft hear bitrati
on
clausei nt hecont ract
,i.e.,cl.34(seepar a.[5]abov e) ,i
nt he
presentcase,i twasnotpossi bl
ef orthiscour ttodepar t
from ther easoningi nPaci f
icAssoci at
esandhol dt hatt he
respondenthadadut yofcar et otheappel l
antt ocer t
ifythe
payment sf orwor kdonecor rectl
y.Fort hisr eason,wehel d
thattherewasnol egal proximi t
yforadut yofcar etoar ise.
"

111"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
109e•

BREACHOFDUTY

STANDARDOFCARE

VaughanvMenl
ove[
1835-42]Al
lERRep.156
Facts:Thedef endantconstructedahÅy ri
ckwhichatthetimeof
const ruct
ionwasl i
kelytocatchf ir
e.Hewasnot if
iedaboutt hi
s
buthedi dnothingaboutituntiltheri
ckcaughtfi
reanddestroyed
thepl aint
if
f'
sadj oi
ninghouses.
Held:Thedef endanthadbr eachedt hestandar
doft hedut yof
carer equir
edofhi m andwast husli
able.
Principle:In consideri
ng the question ofnegli
gence and the
standar dofcar er equir
ed,thepr operruletobeappl i
edist he
degr ee ofcaut ion which a man ofor di
naryprudence would
obser ve.

PerTindalCJatp.158:" Thecar et akenbyapr udent

manhasal way sbeent her ulel aiddown;andast ot he
supposeddi f
ficult
yofappl yingit, ajuryhasal way sbeen
abletosay,whet her,takingt hatr uleast heirgui de,there
has been negl igence on t he occasi on i n quest i
on.
Inst
ead,t herefore,of say ing t hat t he l iabili
tyf or
negli
genceshoul dbeco- ext ensivewi tht hej udgmentof
each indi
vidual,whi ch woul d be as v ariable as t he
l
engthoft hef ootofeachi ndivi
dual ,weoughtr at
hert o
adheretother ulewhi chr equi r
esi nallcasesar egardt o
cauti
on such asa man ofor dinarypr udencewoul d
observe.

PerVaughanJatp.159:"Theconductofaprudentman
hasalwaysbeent
hecr i
teri
onforthejur
yinsuchcases

112"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
butitisbynomeansconf i
nedt ot hem.Ini nsurance
cases,wher e a captain has sol d hisv esselaf t
er
damage t oo ext
ensivef orrepairs,the quest i
on has
al
way sbeenwhet herhehaspur suedt hecour sewhich
a prudentman woul d hav e pur sued i
nt he same
ci
rcumstances.Her e,therewasnotasi nglewi t
ness
whose t est
imony di d not go t o establi
sh gr oss
negli
gencein

thedefendant.Hehadr epeat
edwar
ningsofwhatwas
l
ikel
ytooccur ,andthewholecal
ami
tywasoccasi
oned
byhisprocrasti
nat
ion.
"

Bol tonvst one[19511AC850

Fact s:Thepl ai
ntif
fwasst andingont hehi ghwayout si
dehi s
housewhenacr icketballplayedf r
om anear bycri
cketpitchhit
her ,injur
ingher .Thepar kwasf encedwi t
hasev en-foot-
high
fencebutwhi chst oodsev enteenfeetabov ethepitchduet o
slopi ng.Therewasev i
dencet hatball
sr arelywentoverthefence.
Hel d:Ther i
skoft heinjurytot heplai
nt if
fwassor emot ethata
reasonabl emanwoul dnothav eanticipatedthatandt hust he
def endantsdi dnotbreacht heirdutyofcar e.
Princi pl
e:Tobel iableinnegl i
gence,thedamagesuf feredbyt he
plaint i
ff must be r easonably f oreseeabl
e under t he
circumst ances.

PerLordPor t
eratp.858:" Thequest
ionthenarises:
Whatdegr ee ofcare musttheyexer
cise t
o escape
l
iabi
li
tyforanythi
ngwhichmayoccurasaresultofthi
s
i
ntendeduseoft hef
iel
d?

"Undoubtedlytheyknewt hatthehi tti

ngofacr icketball
outoft hegroundwasanev entwhi chmi ghtoccurand,
ther
efore,thatther
ewasaconcei vablepossibil
itythat
someonewoul dbehitbyit.Butsoext remeanobl i
gation
ofcarecannotbei mposedi nallcases.Ifi
twere, noone
couldsafelydri
veamot orcarsi ncethepossibil
ityofan
accidentcould notbe ov erl
ooked and i fitoccur red
somest rangermightwellbei njuredhowev ercarefulthe

113"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
drivermi ghtbe.I ti st ruet hatt hedr i
verdesi r
est odo
ever ythingpossi blet oav oi
danacci dent ,wher east he
hittingofabal loutoft hegr oundi sani ncidenti nt he
gameand, indeed, onewhi chthebat smanwoul dwi sht o
bringabout ;buti nor dert hatt heactmaybenegl igent
ther e mustnotonl ybe a r easonabl e possi bili
tyofi ts
happeni ngbutal soofi nj urybeingcaused.I nt hewor ds
ofLor dThanker toni nBour hi
/ /vYoungt hedut yi st o
exer cise' suchr easonabl ecar easwi llavoidt her i
skof
i
njur yt osuchper sonsashecanr easonabl yf oresee
mi ghtbei njuredbyf ailuret oexer cisesuchr easonabl e
car e',andLor dMacmi ll
anusedwor dst ot hel i
keef fect.So,
also,Lor dWr ighti nGl asgowCor por ationvMui rquot ed
the wel l-
known wor ds ofLor d At kini n Donoghue v
Stev enson:' Youmustt aker easonabl ecar et oav oidact s
oromi ssionswhi chy oucanr easonabl yforeseewoul d
bel i
kelyt oi njurey ournei ghbour '
.Itisnotenought hat
theev entshoul dbesuchascanr easonabl ybef oreseen;
thef urtherr esultt hati njuryisl i
kelyt of ol
lowmustal so
besuchasar easonabl emanwoul dcont empl at e,bef ore
hecanbeconv i
ct ed

ofact i
onablenegli
gence.Noristheremotepossibi
li
tyofinj
ury
occurri
ngenough;t her
emustbesuf f
ici
entprobabil
i
tytoleada
reasonablemant oantici
pateit
.Theexi
stenceofsomer i
skis
anor di
naryinci
dentofli
fe,ev
enwhenallduecarehasbeen,asit
mustbe, taken.

PerLor dOaksayatp.863:Thest andardofcar ei nthel aw of

negligenceist hest andardofanor dinari
l
ycar ef
ulman, buti nmy
opinion an or dinari
lycar efulman doesnott ake precaut i
ons
againstev eryf oreseeabler isk.Hecan,ofcour se,foreseet he
possi bi
l
ityofmanyr isks,butl i
fewoul dbeal mosti mpossi bl
eif
hewer etoattemptt ot akepr ecauti
onsagai nstev er
yriskwhi ch
hecanf or
esee.Het akespr ecauti
onsagai nstriskswhi char e
reasonabl ylikelyt o happen.Many f or
eseeable r i
sks ar e
extremelyunl ikelyt o happenand cannotbeguar ded against
exceptby al mostcompl etei solati
on.The or dinari
ly prudent

114"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
ownerofadogdoesnotkeephi sdogal waysonal eadona
countryhighwayf orfearitmaycausei njurytoapassi ngmot or
cycli
st,nordoest heor di
nar i
l
ypr udentpedestrianavoi
dt heuse
ofthehi ghwayf orf earofski ddi
ngmot orcars.Itmayv er ywell
bet hatafterthisaccidentt heordinari
l
ypr udentcommi tteeman
ofasi milarcricketgroundwoul dt akesomef urt
herprecaution,
butt hati s nott o sayt hathe woul d hav et aken a similar
precauti
onbef oret heaccident.

PerLor dRei datp.864:" MyLor ds,itwasr eadi lyf oreseeabl et hat

anacci dentsuchasbef ellther espondentmi ghtpossi blyoccur
duringoneoft heappel l
ant s'cricketmat ches.Bal lshadbeendr iven
i
ntot hepubl icr oadf rom t imet ot i
meandi twasobv i
oust hat,ifa
personhappenedt obewher eabal lfel
l,thatper sonwoul dr eceive
i
njurieswhi chmi ghtormi ghtnotbeser i
ous.Ont heot herhand,i t
waspl ainthatthechanceoft hathappeni ngwassmal l.Theexact
numberoft i
mesabal lhasbeendr iv
eni ntot her oadi snotknown,
buti tisnotpr ov edt hatt hishashappenedmor et hanaboutsi x
ti
mesi naboutt hir t
yy ears.IfIassumet hati thashappenedont he
averageoncei nt hreeseasonsIshal lbedoi ngnoi njust i
cet ot he
respondent '
sease.Thent her ehast obeconsi der edt hechanceofa
personbei nghi tbyabal lf al
li
ngi nt heroad.Ther oadappear st obe
anor dinarysider oadgi vingaccesst oanumberofpr ivate houses,
andt her eisnoev idencet osuggestt hatthet rafficont hisr oadi s
othert hanwhatonemi ghtexpectonsuéhar oad.Ont hewhol eof
thatpar toft her oadwher eabal lcoul df al
lt her ewoul dof tenbe
nobodyandsel dom anygr eatnumberofpeopl e.I tfoll
owst hatt he
chanceofaper sonev erbei ngst ruckev eni nal ongper iodofy ears
wasv erysmall.
"Thi
scase, theref
ore,rai
sessharplythequest ionwhati s
the nature and extentoft he dutyofa per son who
promot es on hisl and operati
ons whi ch may cause
damaget oper sonsonanadj oini
nghi ghway .Isitthathe
mustnotcar r
youtorper mi tanoper ati
onwhi chhe
knowsoroughtt oknowcl earl
ycancausesuchdamage,
howev eri
mpr obablethatresultmaybe, orisi tthatheis
onlyboundt otakeintoaccountt hepossi bil
ityofsuch
damage i f such damage i sal ikely or pr obable
consequenceofwhathedoesorper mi ts,orifther i
skof

115"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
damageissuchthatareasonabl
eman,caref
ulofthe
saf
ety ofhi
s nei
ghbour
,woul dr egar
dthatri
sk as
mater
ial
?

Andatp.867( afterref erringt osev er alaut hor i

ti
eson
themat ter):" Itwoul dt akeagooddealt omakeme
bel i
ev et hatt he l aw has depar ted so f arf rom t he
standar ds whi ch gui de or dinary car efulpeopl ei n
ordi nar yl i
fe.I nt hecr owdedcondi tionsofmoder nl i
fe
ev en t he mostcar efulper son cannotav oid cr eating
somer i
sksandaccept ingot her s.Whatamanmustnot
do,andwhatIt hinkacar efulmant r
iesnott odo,i st o
creat ear iskwhi chi ssubst antial.Ofcour set her ear e
numer ouscaseswher especi alci r
cumst ancesr equire
thatahi gherst andar dshal lbeobser vedandwher et hat
i
sr ecogni zedbyt hel aw.ButIdonott hinkt hatt hiscase
comeswi thinanysuchspeci alcat egor y .Itwasar gued
thatt hiscasecomeswi t
hint hepr incipl ei nR) '
/andsv
Flet cher ,butIagr eewi thy ourLor dshi pst hatt herei sno
subst ancei nt hisar gument .I nmyj udgmentt het estt o
beappl ied her ei swhet hert her i
skofdamaget oa
per sonont her oadwassosmal lthatar easonabl eman
i
nt heposi tionoft heappel lant s,consi der ingt hemat ter
from t hepoi ntofv i
ew ofsaf ety,woul dhav et houghti t
ri
ghtt or ef rainfrom t akingst epst opr ev entt hedanger ."

Hal
eyvLondonEl
ect
ri
ci
tyBoar
d[19651AC778
Fact s:Thedef endant sexcav at edat r
enchal ongapav ementand
putahammeracr ossittopr ev entpeoplef r
om wal ki
ngoni t.The
plainti
ff,abl indmanwal kedoni twi t
hast ickandhi sst i
ck
mi ssed t he slopping such t hathe t ri
pped and f el
land was
render edalmostdeaf .Hesued.
Hel d:Thedef endant soughtt ohav ef oreseent hatthepeopl e
whousedt hepav ementi ncl udedbl indmenandshoul dhav e
takenst epstopr otectthem t oo.Faili
ngt odosomeantt heyhad
breachedt hei
rdut yofcar eandwer et husliabl
e.
Principle:Thest andar dofcar er equiredofaper sondependson
whatar easonableman,car ef ulofhisnei ghbour'ssafety,would
dohav ingtheknowl edgewhi char easonabl emani ntheposi ti
on
oft hedef endantmustbedeemedt ohav e.
116"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
PerLor dRei datp.791and792:" I
ndeci di
ngwhati s
reasonabl yf oreseeabl e one must hav er egard t o
commonknowl edge.Wear eal laccust omedt omeet i
ng
bli
ndpeopl ewal kingalonewi ththeirwhi testicksonci t
y
pav ement s.Nodoubtt herear emanypl acesopent ot he
publ i
cwher ef oroner easonoranot heronewoul dbe
surpr i
sedt oseeabl indper sonwal kingal one,butaci t
y
pav ementi snotoneoft hem.Andar esident i
alstreet
cannotbedi fferentf rom anyot her.Thebl i
ndpeopl ewe
meetmustl ivesomewher eandmostoft hem pr obably
l
eftt heirhomesunaccompani ed.Itmayseem sur pr
ising
thatbl i
ndpeopl ecanav oidor dinaryobst aclessowel las
theydo, butwemustt akeaccountoft hef acts.Ther eis
evidencei nt hiscaseaboutt henumberofbl indpeopl e
i
nLondonandi tappear sf rom Gov ernmentpubl i
cations
thatt hepr oport i
oni nt hewhol ecount ryi snearonei n
500.Bynomeansal laresuf fi
cientlyski ll
edorconf ident
tov entureoutal onebutt henumberwhohabi t
uallydo
somustbev eryl ar
ge.If indi tqui tei mpossi blet osay
thatitisnotr easonabl yf or eseeabl et hatabl indper son
maypassal ongapar ticularpav ementonapar ti
cular
day .

"Noquest i
oncanar i
sei nthiscaseofanygr eatdi ffi
cult
y
i
n af fording adequat e pr otect i
on f or t
he bl ind.I n
consideringwhati sadequat epr otectionagainonemust
haver egar dtocommonknowl edge.Onei sent i
tl
edt o
expectofabl i
ndper sonahi ghdegr eeofskillandcar e
becausenonebutt hemostf ool hardywoul dv ent ureto
gooutal onewi t
houthav i
ngt hatski l
landexer cisingthat
care.Weknowt hatinf actbl i
ndpeopl edosaf elyavoid
allordinaryobst aclesonpav ement s;therecanbeno
questionofpaddi nglamppost saswassuggest edin
onecase.Butamoment 'sr eflect i
onshowst hatal ow
obstaclei nanunusualpl acei sagr av edanger :ont he
otherhand, itisclearfrom t heev idencei nthi
scaseand
also,Ithink,from commonknowl edget hatqui teal i
ght
fencesomet wof eethighi sanadequat ewarning.Ther e
wouldhav ebeennodi ffi
cultyi npr ov i
dingsuchaf ence
here.The ev i
dence ist hatt he PostOf fi
ce al ways
117"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
providesone,and t hatt herespondentshav esimil
ar
fences whi ch are of
ten used.I ndeed the evi
dence
suggest sthattheonlyreasontherewasnof encehere
wast hattheaccidentoccur r
edbef orethenecessary
fenceshadar ri
ved.Soiftherespondentsaretosucceed
i
tcanonl ybeonthegroundt hatther
ewasnodut ytodo
mor ethansafeguardordinar
yable-bodiedpeopl
e."

Andatpp.793and794:" 1canseenoj usti

ficat ionf orl aving
downanyhar d- and- fastr ulelimi tingt hecl assesofper sonsf or
whom t hosei nter feringwi t
hapav ementmustmakepr ov i
sion.I t
i
ssai dt hati ti si mpossi blet ot ellwhatpr ecaut i
onswi l
lbe
adequat et opr ot ectal lkindsofi nf i
r m pedest ri
ansort hatt aking
suchpr ecaut ionswoul dbeunr easonabl ydi ffi
cul tOfexpensi ve.I
thi
nkt hatsuchf ear sar eexagger at ed, andi tiswor thr ecollecting
thatwhent hecour tssoughtt ol aydownspeci f i
cr ulesast ot he
duties ofoccupi er st he law became so unsat isf actoryt hat
Parliamenthadt ost epi nandpasst heOccupi ers'Li abi l
i
tyAct ,
1957.I tappear st o me t hatt he or dinary pr inci ples oft he
commonl awmustappl yinst reetsaswel lasel sewher e, andt hat
fundament all
yt heydependonwhatar easonabl eman, caref ulof
hisnei ghbour '
ssaf ety ,woul ddohav i
ngt heknowl edgewhi cha
reasonabl e man i nt he posi tion oft he def endantmustbe
deemedt ohav e.Iagr eewi tht hest atementofl awatt heendof
thespeechofLor dSumneri nGl asgow Cor por ationvTay lor.'a
measur eofcar eappr opr i
atet ot hei nabili
tyordi sabi lityoft hose
whoar ei mmat ur eOff eebleinmi ndorbodyi sduef rom ot her s,
who know ofOfoughtt o ant ici patet he pr esence ofsuch
personswi thint hescopeandhazar doft heirownoper ations. 'I
woul dt her eforeal low t hisappeal .Theassessmentofdamages
hasbeen def erred and t he case mustbe r emi tted f orsuch
assessment .
"

PerLor dMor tonofHenr yt

onatp.794and795:" MyLor ds,I
woul danswerthefi
rstquesti
onasfoll
ows.Itistheirdut
yt ot ake
reasonablecarenott oacti nawayl i
kelytoendangerot her
personswhomayr easonablybeexpectedt owal kalongt he
pav ement.Thatdut
yi sowedt obli
ndper sonsi ftheoper ators
foreseeoroughttohav eforeseenthatbl
indper sonsmaywal k
alongt hepavementandi si nnowaydi f
ferentfrom thedut y
118"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
owedt opersonswithsight,t
hought hecar
ryi
ngoutofthedut y
mayinvolveextrapr
ecautionsinthecaseofbli
ndpedestr
ians.I
thi
nkthatevery
oneli
vinginGreaterLondonmusthav
eseen

119"
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

bli
ndper sonswal ki
ngslowlyalongonthepavementand
wavingawhi t
est i
ckinfrontofthem,soastotouchany
obstructi
onwhi chmaybei ntheirway,andIt hi
nkt
hat
therespondent s'workmenoughtt ohaveforeseent
hat
ablindper sonmi ghtwellcomeal ongthepavementin
question.

"Ihav enotf oundi teasyt oanswert hesecondquest ion,

butIhav ecomet ot heconcl usiont hatt hewor kmen
fail
edadequat elyt odi schar get hedut ywhi chIhav e
stated,t houghIwoul dacceptt hef i
ndingoft hel earned
tri
aljudget hat' whatt her espondent sdi dwasadequat e
to gi ver easonabl e and pr operwar ning t o nor mal
pedest r
ians'.Hav ingr egar dt ot heev idencegi venatt hetri
al,
Ithinkt hatt hedut yt obl indper sonswoul dhav ebeen
dischar gedi fthewor kmenhadused( fori nstance)t he
portabl eandext endi bleguar dswhi char eusedbyt he
PostOf ficef orasi mi larpur pose.Ther ewoul dt henhav e
been a f ence ov ert wo f eethi gh rightacr oss the
pavementi nst eadofasl opi ngst i
ckwhi chwasonl ya
few i nchesabov et hegr oundatt hepoi ntwher ethe
appel lantf ellov eri t.Hesai di nev idencet hathewas
carryingawhi test ick, andcont inued:'Asi scust omar y,I
puti toutbef oremeandcr eat edasor tofwav ingofi t,
aswesayi nt hiswor l
d, wat chi ngoutf oranyobst ructi
on
whichmaybebef or eus. 'Iconcl ude, fr
om t hisev i
dence,
thatt hest ickmusthav epassedov ert het opoft he
punneratt hislow poi nt
,wi thoutt ouchingi t,andt hi
s
woul dhav ebeenmostunl ikel yt ohappeni faguar dof
thePostOf ficety pehadbeenused.

PerLor d Evershed atp.797:" Ido notat t

emptany
restatementoft hegeneralpri
ncipl
esdefini
ngt heduty
ofcar esoowed.I ti
ssuf f
ici
enttosaythatt hedut yis
definedbyr eferencetothestandardofreasonabl eness,
byposi ngandanswer i
ngthequest i
on:
whatst epsought
the r espondentboar dr easonablyto havet aken to
protectorwar nper sonsoft hekindthatt heyshoul d
reasonabl yhav ef or
eseenmi ght,asmember soft he
public,beusi ngt hi
sfootpath.
"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
ParisvStepneyBor oughCounci l[
1951]AC367
Facts:Theplainti
ffwasanempl oyeeoft hedefendantandhad
onlyone good ey et ot he knowledge ofthe defendant.The
defendantdidnotpr ovi
depr otecti
vegogglesforhiswor k.Whil
e
remov i
ngar ustybol tint hecourseofhi sduti
es,amet alchi
p
fl
ew whenhehi tthebol twithahammerandhi sgoodey ewas
seri
ouslyinj
ured.

•
•116

Held:Thedef endantwasnegl i
gentinfai
li
ngtopr ov
idepr ot
ect
ive
goggles f ort he plainti
ff
,knowi ng the ri
sk ofgr eaterinj
ury
i
nv olv
edi nthewor k.
Princi
ple:I n determining the standar
d ofcar er equir
ed ofa
person,t hegr eaterri
skofi njur
ymustbeconsi der
edt oseet he
precautionsar easonable,prudentmanwoul dhav et akenunder
thecircumst ances.

PerLor dSi mondsatp.375:" Thei ssue, myLor ds, i

st hus
nar r
owed down and Iwi llsayatoncet hatIdo not
dissentf rom t hev i
ewt hatanempl oyerowesapar ticul
ar
dut yt oeachofhi sempl oyees.Hi sliabili
tyi nt or tar i
ses
from hi sf ailur et otaker easonabl ecar ei nr egar dt ot he
par t
icularempl oyeeandi tiscl eart hat ,ifso,al lthe
circumst ancesr el
evantt othatempl oy eemustbet aken
i
nt oconsi der ation.Iseenov alidr easonf orexcl udingas
i
rrelev antt hegr av i
tyofthedamagewhi cht heempl oyee
wi l
lsuf feri fanacci dentoccur s,andwi thgr eatr espect
tot hej udgment soft heCour tofAppealIcannotaccept
thev iew neat l
ysummar i
zedbyAsqui th,L. J.t hatt he
great err i
skofi njuryis,butther iskofgr eat erinj uryisnot ,
ar elev antci rcumst ance.If indnoaut hor it
yf orsucha
proposi t i
onnordoesi tappeart omet obef oundedon
anyl ogi calpr inciple.
"

PerLor dNor mandatp.380— 382:" Thet estiswhat

precauti
onswoul dtheor dinaryreasonableandpr udent
mant ake?Ther el
evantconsi derati
onsincludeallthose
factswhichcouldaffecttheconductofar easonabl
eand
prudentmanandhi sdeci si
onont heprecaut i
onstobe
taken. Would a r easonabl e and pr udent man be
i
nf l
uenced,notonlybyt hegr eat
erorl esspr obabi
l
ityof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
an acci
dentoccur
ri
ng,butalso byt hegr
avi
tyoft
he
consequencesi
fanacci
dentdoesoccur>

"The cour t'st ask of deci ding what pr ecaut i

ons a
reasonabl e and pr udent man woul d t ake i n t he
cir
cumst ancesofapar t
icularcasemaynotbeeasy .
Nev ertheless t he j udgment of t he reasonabl e and
prudentmanshoul dbeal l
owedi tscommonev eryday
scope,andi tshoul dnotber est rainedf rom consi der i
ng
thef oreseeabl econsequencesofanacci dentandt heir
seri
ousnessf ort heper sont owhom t hedut yofcar eis
owed.Suchar estriction,ifi tmi ghtsomet i
messi mplif
y
thet askoft hej udgeorj ury,woul dbeanundueand
arti
ficialsimpl i
fi
cat ionoft hepr oblem t obesol ved.Ifthe
court swer enowt ot aket henar rowv i
ewpr oposedbyt he
respondent s,thecl eav agebet weent helegalconcept i
on
ofthepr ecaut i
onswhi char easonabl eandpr udentman
woul dt akeandt hepr ecaut i
onswhi chr easonabl eand
prudentmendoi nf actt akewoul dl essent her espect
whicht headmi nist r
at i
onofj usticeoughtt ocommand.
Toguar dagai nstpossi bl
emi sunder standi ngi tmaybe
wellt oaddher et hatt heser iousnessoft hei nj
uryor
damager iskedandt hel ikeli
hoodofi t
sbei ngi nf act
caused may notbe t he onl yr elevantf actors.For
exampl e,Asqui t
h, L.J., i
nDabor nvBat hTr amway sMot or
Co.Ld. ,pointedoutt hati tissomet i
mesnecessar yt o
takeaccountoft heconsequenceofnotassumi ng a
ri
sk."

PerLor dOakseyatpp.384and385:" Thef actt hatt heser vant

hasonl yoneey eifthatf actisknownt ot heempl oyer,andt hatif
hel osesi thewi l
lbebl i
nd,i soneoft heci r
cumst anceswhi ch
mustbe consi der
ed by t he empl oy eri n det er
mi ni
ng what
precautionsi fanyshal lbet akenf ort heser v ant '
ssaf ety
.The
standardofcar ewhi cht hel aw demandsi st hecar ewhi chan
ordinari
lypr udentempl oy erwoul dt akei nal ltheci rcumstances.
Ast heci r
cumst ancesmayv aryinf
initelyitisof t enimpossi blet o
adduceev idenceofwhatcar eanor dinari
lypr udentempl oyer
woul dtake.I nsomecases,ofcour se,iti spossi blet oprovet hat
i
ti stheor dinarypracticef orempl oyerst ot akeornott otakea
certai
npr ecaution,butinsuchacaseast hepr esent , whereaone
-eyedmanhasbeeni njur ed,itisunlikelyt hatsuchev i
dencecan
beadduced.Thecour thas,t herefore,tof or
mi tsownopi nionof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
whatpr ecaut i
onsthenot ionalor dinar i
lypr udentempl oy erwoul d
take.I nt hepr esentcaset hequest i
oni swhet heranor di naril
y
prudentempl oyerwouldsuppl ygoggl est oaone- eyedwor kman
whosej obwast oknockbol tsoutofachassi swi thast eel
hammerwhi lethechassi swasel ev atedonar ampsot hatt he
wor kman' seyewascl oset oandundert hebol t.Inmyopi nion
Lynskey ,J. ,was entitl
ed t o hol dt hatan or dinaril
y pr udent
empl oyerwoul dtake thatpr ecaution The quest i
on was not
whet hert heprecauti
onoughtt ohav ebeent akenwi thor dinary
two- eyedwor kmenandi twasnotnecessar y,inmyopi nion,t hat
Lynskey ,J.,shoulddecidet hatquest i
on—nordi dhepur por tto
decidei t,alt
houghitist ruet hathest atedt hequest i
oni none
sent encet oobroadl
yas' whet hertheempl oyersinadopt ingt his
system andnotpr ovi
dingorr equi r
ingt heuseofgoggl esf ort he
wor kersont hissyst
em wer et akingr easonabl ecar etopr ov idea
suit
abl esy st
em ofworkandt opr ovideasui t
ablepl ant.
'

"Ther iskofspl intersofst eelbreakingof fabol tandi njuri

nga
wor kman' sey eorey esmaybeand,It hink,issl i
ghtandi tist rue
thatthedamaget oat wo-eyedwor kmani fstruckbyaspl int
eri n
theey eorey esmaybeser ious,butiti sf orthej udgeatt het rial
towei ghupt her iskofinjuryandt heex t entoft hedamageandt o
decidewhet her ,inal lt
heci rcumstances,i ncludingt hefactt hat
thewor kmanwasknownt obeone- ey edandmi ghtbecomea
bli
ndmani fhi sey ewasst ruck,anor dinaril
ypr udentempl oyer
woul dsuppl ysuchawor kmanwi t
hgoggl es.Itisasi mpleand
i
nexpensi vepr ecaut i
ontot aketosuppl ygoggl es, andaone- ey ed
manwoul dnotbel i
kely,
asat wo-eyedmanmi ghtbe, torefuset o
weart hegoggl es.Ly nskey,J.,appearst omet ohav eweighedt he
extentoft her i
skandoft hedamaget oaone- eyedmanandIam
ofopini onthathi sj udgmentshoul dber est or
ed. "

PerLordMor t
onofHenr ytonatp.385:"Inconsidering
general
lyt hepr ecaut i
onswhichanempl oyeroughtt o
takefort hepr otecti
onofhi swor kmenitmust ,inmy
view,ber ighttot akei ntoaccountbothelements,t he
l
ikeli
hoodofanacci denthappeni
ngandt hegr avi
tyof
the consequences. I t ake as an exampl e t wo
occupationsinwhi cht heri
skofanaccidenttaki
ngplace
i
sexact lyequal ;ifanacci dentdoesoccuri ntheone
occupation,theconsequencest ot heworkmanwi llbe
compar ati
velytrivi
al;ifanaccidentoccur
si ntheot her
occupationt heconsequencest othewor kmanwi llbe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
deathormut il
ation.Canitbesai dthattheprecaut
ions
whichitist hedut yofanempl oyertotakefort
hesaf et
y
ofhi swor kmenar eexactl
yt hesamei neachoft hese
occupations?MyLor ds,thatisnotmyv i
ew.Ithi
nkthat
themor eser ioust hedamagewhi chwi l
lhappenifan
accidentoccur s,themoret hor ougharetheprecaut
ions
whichanempl oy ermusttake."

Dabor nvBat hTramway[ 1946]2Al lER333

Fact s:Thepl ainti
ffwasdr ivi
ngal eft
-hand-driv
eambul ancewi th
onl yonedr ivi
ngmi rr
oront hel eft-
handsi deat t
achedt ot he
scr een.Thebackoft heambul ancewasshutsucht hatshecoul d
notseeany thi
ngbehi ndher .Thef ol
lowingwar ni
ngnot i
cewas
wr itt
en att he back oft he ambul ance:" Cauti
on—Lef thand
drive—Nosi gnals.
"Whi let urningi ntoal eftlaneont her oad,she
madesi gnalswi t
hherhandi ndicati
ngt hatshewast urning.A
col l
ision howev eroccur red bet ween the ambul ance and an
omni buswhi chwasbehi ndherandwhosedr i
verattempt edt o
ov ertakeher .
Hel d:Thedr i
veroft heomni buswasnegl igentbutt hedr i
v erof
the ambul ance was notsi nce she had gi ven the necessar y
signal sbef oreattempt i
ngt ot ur n.
Princi ple:In consi deri
ng whet herr easonabl e care has been
obser v ed,i tis necessar yt o bal ance t he r i
sk againstt he
consequencesofnotassumi ngt hatri
sk.

119•
PerMor tonLJatpp.335and336:" 1donott hinkIneeddev elop
thequest i
onoft hisdef endant 'snegli
gence,becauset hejudge
has deal twi thi tv eryf ull
y.Iwoul d onl y say t his:he was
approachi ngat urningwhi chheknewt obequi teabusyt urning
offtother ight
.Hewasdr i
vingbehi ndav ehicl
ewhi chheknew
hadal ef t-
handdr ive.Hegotf rom thatv ehicl
et hesi gnalswhi ch
hewoul dexpect .Hehasadmi t
tedhimsel fthatt hesaf et
hingt o
doundert hoseci r
cumst anceswast odr i
veatsuchadi st
ance
behindt hev ehi
clet hat ,
ifitdidt urntothef ight,hecoul dgoov er
tohislef tandgobehi nditor ,alter
nati
vely,stop.That , hehimself
says,wast hesaf et hingt odo.Wel l
,hedi dnotdoi t.Her ani nto
theVehi cleinfrontofhi m, havinghadal lthesewar ni ngs.Iwoul d
addt his.Ient irelyagr eewi tht hejudget hatift hismanwas
i
ntendingt oov ertake,asIt hinkhewasandasheadmi tted
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
short
lyaft
ertheacci
denttooneofthewit
nesses,t
her
ewasno
excuseatall
forhi
m notsoundi
nghi
shor
n.

"Ther eisoneot hersuggestionIoughtt oment ion.Counself or

thedef endant ssuggestedthattheonlysafet hingf ort heplai
ntiff
todowast opul li
ntot henearsideoft her oad, stop,sli
dealong
from herl eft-
handdrivi
ngseatandl ookdownt her oad,andthen
getbacki ntothedriv
ingseat, st
artupagainandt urnrounddown
Hudswel lLane.I am by no means sat isfied,i n allt he
circumst ances,that
,hav i
ngregardt othetraffi
cont hisroad,that
cour seofact ionwoul dhav ebeenanysaf ert hanwhatshedi d,
butIdonott hinkIneedpur suet hatmatterf urther,becausef or
mypar tIam sat i
sfi
edt hatshegav ethepr opersi gnals,which
wer et horoughlyunderstood,andt hatshewasnotgui l
tyofany
negligenceatal l.
"

PerAsqui t
hLJatp.336:" Indet ermi ni
ngwhet herapar tyis
negli
gent ,the st andar d ofr easonable car ei sthatwhi ch is
reasonablyt obedemandedi nt heci rcumst ances.A r el
evant
cir
cumst ancet ot akei ntoaccountmaybet hei mportanceoft he
endt obeser v
edbybehav i
ngi nthiswayori nt hat.Ashasof ten
beenpoi ntedout ,ifallthetrainsi nthiscount rywer erestri
ctedto
aspeedof5mi lesanhour ,therewoul dbef eweracci dents,but
ournationall i
fewoul dbei nt oler
ablysl oweddown.Thepur pose
tobeser ved,ifsuf fi
cientlyimpor tant,justif
iest heassumpt ionof
abnormalr isk.Ther elevanceoft hisappl i
edt ot hepresentcase
i
st hi
s:dur i
ngt hewarwhi chwas, atthemat er
ial t
ime,inprogress,
i
twasnecessar yformanyhi ghlyimpor tantoper ati
onst o

becarriedoutbymeansofmot orv ehicleswi thlef

t-hand
dri
ves,noot hersbei ngav ail
able.Sof arast hiswast he
case,itwasi mpossi blef orthedr i
v ersofsuchcar sto
givethe war ni
ng si gnals which coul d ot herwi
se be
properl
ydemandedoft hem.Meanwhi le,itwasessent i
al
thattheambul anceser viceshoul d bemai ntai
ned.I t
seems t o me,i nt hose ci r
cumst ances,i twoul d be
demandi ngt oohi ghandanunr easonabl estandar dof
carefrom thedr iversofsuchcar st osayt othem:'Eit
her
you mustgi ve signals whi ch t he st ructure ofy our
vehicl
er endersimpossi bleoryoumustnotdr i
veatal l
.'
..
.
Ithi
nkt hepl ai
ntiffdidal lthatint heci rcumst ancesshe
couldr easonabl yber equir
edt o do i fy oui ncl
udei n
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
those circumst ances,as It hink you shoul d:( i
)t he
necessityint i
meofnat i
onalemer gencyofempl oyi
ngal l
transportresour ceswhi chwer eav ai
lable,and( i
i)the
i
nher entlimitati
onsandi ncapaci t
iesoft hispar t
icular
form oft r
anspor t.Inconsider i
ngwhet herr easonabl e
care hasbeen obser ved,one mustbal ance t he ri
sk
againstt heconsequencesofnotassumi ngt hatrisk,
andi nthepr esentinstancethiscalculati
onseemst ome
towor kouti nfav ouroftheplainti
ff
."

Wat
tvHer
tfor
dshi
reCount
yCounci
l[1954]2Al
lER368
Fact s:Af ir
est ati
onundert hecar eoft hedef endantsusedaj ack
thatwasnotf it
tedf orthatpar ti
cularv ehiclesucht hati twas
l
oosei ni t.Whi l
eat tendi
ngt oanemer gencyt osaveawoman
trappedunderaheav yv ehicle,thedr iversuddenlyappl iedt he
brakesandt hej ackmov edi nsidet hev ehicleandi njuredt he
plainti
ff.
Hel d:Sincet heriskwasonet hatwoul dnor mallyhavebeent aken
byaf i
reman, andwasnotundul ygreatascompar edtotheendt o
beachi ev ed,thedef endantswer enotliable.
Pr i
nciple:Indet erminingt hest andardoft hedut yofcar eowed,
theendt obeachi evedmustbebal ancedwi t
ht heri
sktaken.

PerSingletonLJatp.370:" Thepur poset obeser v

edi n
thi
scasewast hesav i
ngofl i
fe.Themenwer epr
epar ed
totakethatrisk.Theywer enot,inmyv i
ew,call
edont o
takeanyr iskotherthant hatwhi chnor mall
ymi ghtbe
encounteredinthisservi
ce.Iagreewi thBar r
yJthat ,on
thewholeoft heev i
dencewhi chwasgi ven,i
twouldnot
berighttof i
ndt hatthedefendant sasempl oyer
swer e
guil
tyofanyf ail
ureofthedutywhi cht heyowedt ot hei
r
workmen.I nmyopi ni
on,theappeal shouldbedismissed.

121•
•

PerDenni ng LJ atp.371:" I
tiswel lset
tled thatin
measuringduecar eonemustbal ancetheriskagainst
themeasur esnecessar
yt oeli
minatetherisk.Tot hat
proposi
tion t
hereoughtt o beadded thi
s:Onemust
balancetheriskagai
nsttheendt obeachiev ed.Ift
his
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
accidenthad occur red in a commer cialent erpr
ise
withoutanyemer gency ,ther
ecoul dbenodoubtt hatthe
servantwoul d succeed.Butt he commer cialend t o
makepr ofi
tisv er
ydi f
ferentfr
om t hehumanendt osav e
l
ifeorl i
mb.Thesav ingofl if
eorl imbj usti
fiestaking
consider
ablerisk,andIam gl adt osayt her ehavenev er
beenwant i
ngi nt hi
scount r
ymenofcour ager eadyt o
takethoseri
sks, notablyinthefireserv
ice.

"I
nt hi
scaset heriskinv
olvedi nsendingoutt helorry
wasnotsogr eatastoprohibitt
heattempttosav el
ife.I
quit
eagreethatf i
reengines,ambulancesanddoct ors'
carsshouldnotshootpastt hetraff
icli
ghtswhent hey
showar edli
ght.Thati
sbecauset her i
skistoogreatto
warrantthe i
ncurri
ng oft he danger.Itis alwaysa
questi
onofbalanci
ngther i
skagainsttheend."

Lat
imervA.
E.C.Lt
d[19531AC643
Facts:Owi ngt ot hemi xt
ureofoi landr ai
nwaterwhi chentered
the def endant s'pr emises,t he floor became slipper
y .The
defendantcov er edt hefloorwi thsawdustbutsomepor ti
ons
wer eleftuncov ered.Thepl aint
if
f,whil
eat tempti
ngt ol oada
barrelon at rolleyatsomepor ti
onsoft heuncov ered parts,
sli
ppedandi njuredhi sankle.
Held:Thedef endant ,havi
ngt akenreasonablecaretoensur ethe
safetyofitswor kerswasnotl iabl
e.
Princi
ple:Wher et her i
skoft heinjur
yismi nimal
,thest andard
requir
edi slow.

PerLor dPor t
eratp.653:" Upont hei ssueofcommon
l
aw negl i
genceasnow pr esentedt hedi rect i
onwhi ch
shouldbegi veni snoti ndoubt .Itisthatt hedut yoft he
tri
bunalistodet er mi
newhatact i
onint hecircumst ances
which have been pr oved a r easonably pr udentman
wouldhav etaken.Thepr obabil
ityofawor kmansl ipping
i
sonemat terwhi chmustbebor neinmi ndbuti tmust
ber emember edt hatnooneel sedidso.Nordoest he
possibil
i
tyseem t ohav eoccur r
edt oany oneatt het i
me.
Itistruethataf t ertheev entMr .Milne,oneoft he
respondents'wit nesses,expr essedt heopi ni ont hathe
wouldnothav egoneont ot hef l
oorint hecondi tionin
whichitwasandt hatitwoul dbet oodanger oust odoso.
Butthiswasaf ter
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

the ev ent ,and t hough he was t he r espondent s'saf ety

engineerandwaspr esentunt i
l l
atet hatnight ,
itseemsnev er
tohav eoccur redt ohimt hatt herewasanydangerOft hat
anyf urtherst epst hant hoseact uall
yt akenwer epossi bleor
requiredf orthesaf etyoft heempl oyees.Theser iousnessof
shuttingdownt hewor ksandsendi ngt heni ghtshi fthome
andt hei mpor tanceofcar ryingont hewor kuponwhi cht he
factory was engaged ar e al laddi ti
onalel ement sf or
consi derati
onandwi t
houtadequat ei nformat i
onont hese
mat tersi tisi mpossi blet o expr ess any f i
nalopi ni
on.
Mor eov er,owi ngt ot hecour set akenatt het ri
alt herei sno
mat erialforenabl i
ngonet oj udgewhet herapar ti
alcl osing
oft he f actorywas possi ble ort he ex tentt o whi ch t he
cessat ionoft her espondent s' activi
tieswoul dhav eret arded
thewhol eoft hewor kbeingcar ri
edon.I nmyv iew,int hese
cir
cumst ances,t he appel lanthas notest abli
shed t hata
reasonabl ycar efulempl oy erwoul d hav e shutdown t he
worksort hatt he r espondent soughtt o havet aken t he
drasticst epofcl osingt hef act ory.
"

PerLor dOaksayatpp.655and656:" Ont hequest i

onof
common l aw negl igence Ihav e come t ot he concl usion,
thoughnotwi thoutdoubt ,thatt hejudgmentoft heCour tof
Appealoughtt obeaf fi
rmed.Whati snegl igencei s,i nmy
opinion,aquest ionoff actt obedeci dedbyt het r
ibunalof
fact.Int hepr esentcase,al thoughPi lcherJ. ,whot ri
edt he
case, didnot ,i
nt erms, saythathewasappl yingt hest andard
ofcar ewhi chanor dinary,pr
udentempl oyerwoul dhav etaken
i
nal ltheci rcumst ances,therei s, i
nmyv iew, nodoubtt hathe
i
nt endedt oappl yt hatst andar d.I fhedi d,andi ft her ewas
admi ssibleev i
denceuponwhi chhemi ghtbasehi sf inding,
thatfindingoughtonl ytobesetasi dewher eiti scl eart hathe
waswr ong.Ther ewassuchev idencei nt hepr esentcase,
sincet her espondent sthemsel v espr ovedt hatt hef l
oodi ngof
theirfactor ywasunpr ecedent ed;t hat,owi ngt ot hei rsy st
em
ofpar tiall
yopen ' my st
ic'drains,oi linsuchci rcumst ances
woul danddi descapeov ert hef act
oryf loor;t hati nv i
ew of
thisstat eofaf fairst heyput40menonspeci allyt olaydown
allthesawdustt heyhadont hef loorsandpassages; thatthey
kept24v olunteer sont ocont inuet hewor kofcl eaningt he
fl
oor sandpassagesbutt hattheydi dnotst opt hewor koft he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
fact
orybutallowedt henightshi f
tt ocomeondut y.Now,
alt
hough itistrue thatno questions were putin cross-
examinati
ontot herespondents'witnessessuggesti
ngt hat
theyoughttohaveclosedthefactory,t
hepoi ntwasr
aisedby
thejudgeduri
ngt heargumentandnoappl i
cat i
onwasmade
foranadjour
nmentorf oranamendmentoft he

123"
pleadings.Thef acts,indeed,wer eadmi t
tedandt hepr i
ncipal
quest i
onont heissueofcommonl aw negli
gencewaswhet her
suchf actsamount edtonegl igence.I tdoesnotseem t omet hat
i
faj uryhadf oundi nsuchci rcumst ancest hattherespondent s
hadbeennegl i
gentt heCour tofAppealcoul dproperl
yhav eset
asidet hei
rv er
dict.Butnodoubtaj udge' sfi
ndingisnotentit
ledt o
thesamef inal
it
yandIt hink,onthewhol e,t
hatsincetheev i
dence
ast ot hecondi ti
onoft hef l
oorsandpassagesatt het i
met he
nightshi f
tcameonwasv er
ymeagr eandt hatpracti
call
ytheonl y
evidence oft heirsl i
pper ycondi t
ion was t he accidenttot he
appel l
ant,Icome t ot he concl usion thatt he conductoft he
respondent scan,att hehi ghest,besai dtohav ebeenaner r
orof
j
udgmenti ncircumst ancesofdi fficul
ty,andsuchaner rorof
j
udgmentdoesnot ,i
nmyopi nion,amountt onegl i
gence."

PerLordTuckeratp.659:' 'I
nt hepr esentcaset her espondent s
were f aced wi t
h an unpr ecedent ed si t
uati
on f ollowing a
phenomenalr ainstorm.Theyset40ment owor koncl eaningup
thefactorywhent hefloodsubsi dedandusedal ltheav ail
able
supplyofsawdust ,whi chwasappr oximat el
yt hreet ons.The
j
udgehasf oundt hattheytookev eryst epwhi chcoul dreasonabl y
havebeent akent o dealwi tht hecondi t
ionswhi chpr evai
led
beforetheni ghtshi f
tcameondut y,andhehasnegat iv edevery
specif
icallegat i
onofnegl i
genceaspl eaded,buthehashel dt he
respondentsl i
ablebecauset heydi dnotcl osedownt hef actory
,
orthepar toft hefactor
ywher et heacci dentoccur r
ed, bef orethe
commencementoft henightshift
.

"MyLor ds,Idonotquest ionthatsuchadr asti

cstepmaybe
requir
edont hepar
tofar easonablyprudentemployeriftheper i
l
tohisempl oyeesi
ssuff
icient
lygrave,andtot hi
sext entitmust
alwaysbeaquest ionofdegr ee,buti nmyv i
ew therewasno
evidenceint hepr
esentcasewhi chcouldj ust
ifyaf i
nding of
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
negligenceforfailureont hepar toft herespondent stot aket hi
s
step.Thi squestionwasnev ercanv assedi nev i
dence,norwas
suffici
entevidencegi v
enast othecondi ti
onoft hef actoryasa
whol et oenableasat isfactoryconcl usiont ober eached.The
l
ear nedjudgeseemst ohav eaccept edt her easoningofcounsel
fort heplainti
fftot heef f
ectt hatt hef loorwassl i
ppery,that
sli
pper i
nessisapot entialdanger ,thatthedef endant smustbe
taken to have been awar e oft his,thati nt he circumst ances
nothingcouldhav ebeendonet oremedyt heslipperiness, t
hatthe
defendantsal l
owedwor kt o proceed,t hatanacci dentduet o
sli
pper i
nessoccur red,andt hatthedef endant saret herefore

l
i
abl
e.

"Thisi s nott he correctappr oach.The pr oblem i s

perfectl
ysimpl e.Theonl yquest i
onwas:Hasi tbeen
prov ed t
hatt he fl
oorwasso sl ipperyt hat
,r emedi al
stepsnotbei ngpossible,areasonabl yprudentempl oyer
woul dhav ecloseddownt hef actoryr atherthanal l
ow
hisempl oyeest or unt herisksi nvolv
edi ncontinuing
wor k?Thel earnedjudgedoesnotseem t omet ohav e
posedt hisquest i
ontohi mself,norwast heresuffici
ent
evidence before him to hav ej usti
fi
ed an af fi
rmative
answer .
"

PerLor dAsqui thofBi shopstoneatp.662:" Int hese

cir
cumst ances I agr ee wi th t he obser vat
ions of
SingletonL. J. :'
I
ft hetestis,asIbel i
eve,whatwoul da
reasonabl eempl oyerhavedonei nt hosecircumst ances,
Ifailtoseet hattheempl oyerscommi ttedanybreachof
thedut ywhi cht heyowed,andIf ai
lt osee,too,any
evidenceonwhi cht obaseaf indingt hattheempl oyers
wer enegl igentinnotcl osingdown. 'Whatev i
dencet he
l
ear nedj udgehadbef orehi m suggest st omymi ndt hat
thedegr eeofr iskwast oosmal lt ojusti
fy,l
etal one
require,closingdown. "

RoevMi
nist
erof
Heal
th[
1954]2Al
lER131
Facts:The plainti
ff
s were anaest
hetised wit
h Nuper
cai
ne to
undergoasur gery.Aft
erthesurgery,t
heybecameper manentl
y
paraly
sedfr
om t hewai stdownward.Thecauseoft heparal
ysi
s
wasf oundt
obet heNupercainewhi
chhadbeencont ami
natedby
phenolinwhicht heNuper cai
newasi mmer sedbef
oreuse.The
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
phenolhadper colat
edt hedr ugthr
oughi nvi
sibl
ecracksint he
ampoul eswhi chcont ainedtheNuper caine.Thecourtfoundthat
att hedat eoft hesur geryper col
ati
onthroughtheampoul eswas
notappr eciat
edbycompet entanaestheti
stsingener
al.
Held:Hav ingregar dtothest andardofknowledgeatthetime,the
anaest hetistdidnotbr eachanydut yofcar e.
Principle:The st andard ofcar e mustbe measur ed wi t
ht he
prev ai
li
ngknowl edgeandt hegener all
yapprovedpracti
ceatt he
ti
me.

PerDeningMRatpp.138and139:' '
Theonl yquesti
oni s
whetheront hef act
sasnow ascer t
ainedany onewas
negl
igent.Leadi
ngcounself
ortheplainti
ff
ssaidthatthe
staf
fwerenegl i
gentint
wor espect
s:(i)i
nnotcol ouri
ng
thephenol wi
thadeepdye;(
ii)i
ncrackingtheampoul es.

"Iwi l
ltake them in order
:(i)The deep t
inti
ng.I fthe
anaesthet
istshadforeseent
hattheampoul
esmi ghtget
cracked wit
h cracks thatcoul
d notbe detected on
i
nspectiontheywould,nodoubt,

125•
•

hav edy edt hephenoladeepbl ue;andt hiswoul dhav eexposedt h

cont ami nat i
on.ButIdonott hinkt heirf ail
uret of oresee t hisw
negligence.I tissoeasyt obewi seaf tertheev entandt ocondemn
negligencet hatwhi chwasonl yami sadv enture.Weoughtal way s
beonourguar dagai nstit,especi al
lyin-casesagai nsthospi t
al san
doct or
s.Medi calsciencehasconf err
edgr eatbenef i
tsonmanki nd, b
these benef i
ts are at tended byconsi der abler isks.Ev erysur gic
oper at
ioni sat tendedbyr isks.Wecannott aket hebenef i
tswi tho
takingt her i
sks.Ev eryadv ancei nt echniquei sal soat tendedbyr isk
Doct ors, l
iket herestofus, hav etol earnbyexper i
ence; andexper i
en
oftent eachesi nahar dway .Somet hinggoeswr ongandshowsup
weakness, andt heni tisputf i
ght .Thati sjustwhathappenedher e.
Graham soughtt oescapet hedangerofi nfectionbydi si
nfectingt h
ampoul e.I nescapi ngt hatknowndangerhe,unf ortunat ely
,ran
i
ntoanot herdanger .Hedi dnotknowt hatt herecoul dbeundet ectab
cracks, buti twasnotnegl igentf orhi m nott oknowi tatt hatti
me.W
mustnotl ookatt he1947acci dentwi t
h1954spect acl es.Thej udg
acqui t
tedDrGr aham ofnegl igenceandweshoul duphol dhi sdecisi o
(i
i)Thecr acks.Incr ackingt heampoul es,theremust ,Ifear,havebee
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
somecar elessnessbysomeonei nt hehospi tal
.Theampoul eswe
quitest rongandt hesi sterssai dt hatt heyshoul dnotgetcr acked
propercar ewasusedi nhandl ingt hem.Theymusthav ebeenj ol t
ed
somewaybysomeone.Thi srai sesani nteresti
ngpoi ntofl aw.Th
carelessnesswas,i nasense,oneoft hecausesoft hedi saster ;b
theper sonwhoj oltedt heampoul ecannotpossi bl
yhav ef oresee
whatdi r
econsequenceswoul dfol low.Ther ewer esomanyi nterv enin
oppor tuniti
esofi nspect ionthatshemi ghtr easonablythinkthat ,ifth
j
oltingcausedacr ack,itwoul dbedi scov eredlongbef oreanyhar
came ofi t.As Somer vellLJ has poi nted out ,she her sel
fwou
probabl yexami net heampoul ef oracr ack,andseei ngnone,wou
returnitt ot hejar.Theanaest het isthi msel fdid,infact,exami nei tf
cracks, and, fi
ndingnone, usedi t.Thet roubl ewast hatnobodyr ealise
thatt heremi ghtbeacr ackwhi chy oucoul dnotdet ectonor dina
exami nat i
on.What ,then,isthel egal posi ti
on? "

PerMor r
isLJatp.141:" Ifapat i
enti n1947ent eredav olunt
a
hospit
alf oranoper ati
onitmi ghtbet hatift
heoper ati
onwast o
perfor
medbyav i
sit
ingsurgeonthehospi t
alwouldnotundertake
farasconcer nedtheactualsurger
yitselft
odomor ethantomaket
necessary arrangementst o securet he ser
vices ofa ski
ll
ed a
compet entsurgeon.Thefactsand

features of each par t

icul ar case woul d r equire
i
nv esti
gat ion.Butahospi talmi ghti nanyev enthav e
under t
akent o pr ovi
deal lt henecessar yf acili
tiesand
equipmentf ortheoper ati
onandt heobl i
gat i
onofnur sing
andal sot heobl igationofanaest hetising apat ieht• f
or
his oper at i
on.The quest i
on i nt he pr esentcase i s
whet hert hehospi talunder tookt heseobl igations.I nmy
j
udgment ,t heydi d.Ther ecanbeno doubtt hatt hey
under t
ook t o nur se the pl ai nti
ffs and t o pr ov ide t he
necessar yf acil
it
iesandequi pmentf ort heoper at i
ons.I
thi
nkt heyf urtherunder tookt oanaest het i
set hepl ai nti
ffs.
Thear rangement smadebet weent hehospi talandDr
PoolerandDrGr aham,t oget herwi t
ht hear rangement s
bywhi char esidentanaest het istwasempl oyed,hadt he
resultt hatt hehospi talprov i
dedaconst ant l
yav ai l
able
anaest heticser vicet ocov eral ltypesofcases.I ti st rue
thatDrPool erandDrGr aham coul dar rangebet ween
themsel v
esast owhent heywoul dr espect i
v elybeon
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
dutyatt hehospi t al,andeachwasf reet odopr ivat ewor k.
Butthesef actsdonotnegat i
v ethev iew, towhi chal lthe
cir
cumst ancespoi nt, t
hatt hehospi t
alwasassumi ngt he
obli
gat i
on of anaest het i
sing t he pl ainti
ffsf or t heir
operations.Iconsi der t hat t he anaest hetists wer e
member soft he' organi sat ion'oft hehospi t
al:t heywer e
member soft hest affengagedbyt hehospi talt odowhat
thehospi tali tsel
fwasunder takingt odo.Thewor kwhi ch
DrGr aham wasempl oy edbyt hehospi t
alt odowaswor k
ofahi ghlyski ll
edandspeci ali
sednat ure,butt hisf act
doesnotav oidtheappl icat ionoft her uleof' respondent
superior'
.I fDrGr aham wasnegl igenti ndoi nghi swor kI
considert hatt hehospi t alwoul dbej ustasr esponsi ble
aswer et hedef endant si nGol dvEssexCount yCounci l
forthenegl igenceoft her adi ographeroraswer et he
defendant si n Cassi dy v Mi nistry ofHeal th.Ihav e
approachedt hepr esentcase, t
her efore, onthebasi sthat
thedef endant swoul dbel i
abl ei ft hepl ai
ntiffs'i nj
ur ies
werecausedbyt henegl igenceei therofDrGr aham orby
the negl igence ofsomeone on t he st affwho was
concer nedwi tht heoper ationort hepr epar ati
onf ori t
.On
thi
sbasi si fnegligencecoul dbeest ablishedagai nstone
ormor eoft hosef orwhom t hehospi t
alwasr esponsi ble
i
twoul dnotmat teri ft hepl aint i
ffscoul dnotpoi ntt ot he
exactper sonorper sonswhohadbeennegl i
gent ."

wel
l
svCooper[
1958]2QB265
Facts:Thedefendant ,anamateurcarpent
erofsomeexper i
ence,
fi
xedt hehandleofhi sdoor.Whent heplaint
if
f,ani
nvi
teeofthe
defendant,
wasl eavingandwhenhehel dthehandl
eandpull
edit,
i
tremov edandhef ellandsustai
nedinjur
ies.Thedef
endanthad
usedthree-
quarter-
inchscrews

127=•
tof ixthehandl ewhi chmadei tnott oost r
ongt owi thholdthe
force,al t
houghhehadbel iev
edt hatt heywer eadequat e.The
plainti
ffsuedcont endingthatt hedef endantwasnegl igentin
usingt hethree-
quarteri
nchscr
ewsi nst
eadofone-inchscr ews.
Held:Si ncet hedefendant,ar easonablycompet entcarpenter
,
wasdoi nghisbesttomaket hehandl esecure,hehaddi scharged
hisdut yofcar e unlesshisbel i
eft hatthe three-quart
er-i
nch
screwswer eadequat ewassounr easonablethatnor easonable
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
compet entcarpenterwouldsohol
d.
Princi
ple:The st andard ofcare expected ofa person who
undertakesaski l
ledjobistobemeasur ednotaccordi
ngtohis
own compet ence but accordi
ng t ot he competence of a
reasonablyskil
ledperson.

PerJenki nsLJatp.271:" Asabov er elated, t

hedef endantdi d
thewor khi msel f
.Wedonott hinkt hemer ef actt hathedi dit
himsel fi nst eadofempl oy ingapr ofessi onalcar pentertodoi t
const i
tut edabr eachofhi sdut yofcar e.Nodoubtsomeki nds
ofwor ki nv olv
esuchhi ghl yspeci ali
zedski llandknowl edge,
andcr eat esuchser iousdanger si fnotpr oper lydone,t hatan
ordinar yoccupi erowi ngadut yofcar et oot her si nregardt o
thesaf etyofpr emiseswoul df ailint hatdut yi fheunder t
ook
suchwor khi msel fi nsteadofempl oy ingexper tstodoi tfor
him.SeeHasel di
nevC.A.Daw&SonLt d. ,perScot tLJ.But
thewor kher ei nquest ionwasnotoft hator der.Itwasa
tri
fl
ingdomest i
cr eplacementwel lwithint hecompet enceofa
househol deraccust omedt o doi ngsmal lcar penteri
ngj obs
abouthi shome,andofaki ndwhi chmustbedoneev eryday
by hundr eds ofhousehol der s up and down t he country.
Accor dingl y,we t hink t hat t he def endant di d not hi
ng
unreasonabl einunder takingt hewor khi msel f.Buti tbehoved
him,i fhewast odi schar gehi sdut yofcar et oper sonssuch
ast hepl ai nti
ff,todot hewor kwi thr easonabl ecar eandski ll
,
andwet hinkt hedegr eeofcar eandski llrequi r
edofhi m must
bemeasur ednotbyr eferencet ot hedegr eeofcompet encei n
suchmat ter swhi chheper sonal lyhappenedt opossess,but
by r efer ence t ot he degr ee of car e and ski llwhi ch a
reasonabl ycompet entcar pent ermi ghtbeexpect edt oappl y
tot he wor ki n quest ion.Ot her wise,t he ext ent of the
protect iont hatani nv it
eecoul dcl aimi nr elationt owor kdone
byt hei nv itorhi msel fwoul dv aryaccor dingt ot hecapaci t
yof
thei nv itor,whocoul df reehi msel ff rom l i
abi l
itymer elyby
showi ngt hathehaddonet hebestofwhi chhewascapabl e,
howev ergood, badori ndi fferentt hatbestmi ghtbe.

"Accordingl
y,wet hi
nkthest andardofcar eandskil
lto
bedemandedoft hedef endantinordertodischar
gehis
dutyofcar etot heplainti
ffinthef ixi
ngoft henew
handleint hepresentcasemustbet hedegreeofcare
and skillto beexpected ofar easonablycompetent
carpenterdoingt hewor ki nquestion.Thisdoesnot
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
meant hatthedegreeofcar eandskil
lrequi r
edi stobe
measur edbyr efer
encet othecontr
actualobligati
onsas
tot hequalityofhi swor kassumedbyapr ofessi
onal
carpenterwor ki
ngf orr
ewar d,whi
chwoul d,i
nourv i
ew,
sett hestandardtoohigh.Thequest i
oni ssimpl ywhat
stepswoul dar easonablycompetentcar penterwishing
tof i
xahandl esuchast hissecur
elytoadoorsuchas
thishav et
akenwi t
hav iewt oachi
evi
ngt hatobject."

And atp.273:" Inr elati

on t o at ri
fling and per fectly
simpl eoper ati
onsuchast hef i
xi
ngoft henewhandl ewe
think t hat t he def endant '
s exper i
ence of domest ic
car pent ryi s suf ficientt oj usti
fyhi si ncl usion i nt he
cat egor y of r easonabl y compet ent car pent ers.The
mat tert henst andst hus.Thedef endant ,ar easonabl y
compet entcar pent er,used t hree- quar ter-i
nch scr ews,
bel ievingt hem t obeadequat ef ort hepur poseoff i
xing
thehandl e.Ther ei snodoubtt hathewasdoi nghi sbest
tomaket hehandl esecur eandbel i
ev edt hathehad
done so.Accor dingly,he must be t aken t o hav e
dischar gedhi sdut yofr easonabl ecar e, unlesst hebel ief
thatt hr ee-quar ter-inchscr ewswoul dbeadequat ewas
one whi ch no r easonabl ycompet entcar pentercoul d
reasonabl y ent er tain,or ,i n otherwor ds,an obv ious
blunderwhi chshoul datoncehav ebeenappar entt ohi m
as a r easonabl y compet entcar pent er.The ev i
dence
adducedont hepl aintif
f'ssidef ailed,int hej udge'sv i
ew,
tomaket hatout .Hesawandhear dt hewi tnesses,and
haddemonst ratedt ohi mt hest rengt hofat t
achment
pr ov i
ded by t hr ee- quar t
eri nch scr ews.We see no
suf ficientr eason f ordi fferi
ng f rom hi s concl usion.
Indeed,t hef actt hatt hehandl er emai nedsecur edur i
ng
theper i
odoff ourorf i
vemont hsbet weent het i
mei twas
fixedandt hedat eoft heacci dent ,althoughnodoubti n
const antuse t hr oughoutt hatper i
od,makes i tv ery
diff i
cul tt oacceptt hev i
ew t hatt hei nadequacyoft he
thr ee-quar t
erinchscr ewsshoul dhav ebeenobv ioust o
thedef endantatt het i
mewhenhedeci dedt ouset hem. "

CondorvBasi [
1985]2Al lER453;[
198511WLR866
Facts:Thedefendanttackledt
heplai
nti
ffi
naf oot
bal
l
matchinsuchawayt hatthepl
aint
if
fbrokehi
sleg.
Held:Sincethedef endant'
stackl
ehadbeenmadei nr
eckl
ess
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
disregardofthepl
aint
if
f'
ssafety
,thedefendantwasli
abl
e.
Principl
e:Apersoninagameorspor twhoact sinamannerthat
thot herpar
tycannotreasonabl
ybeex pectedtohav
econsented
orf ai
lsto

129•
•
exerci
sethedegreeofcareappr
opr
iat
eundert
heci
rcumst
ances
tothesportorgameisli
ablei
nnegl
i
gence.

PerSi rJohnDonal dsonMRatp.454:" Formypar tI

woul dpref ertheapproachofKi ttoJ,butIdonotthinkit
makest hesl i
ghtestdif
ferenceint heendifi
tisfoundby
thet r
ibunaloff actthatthedef endantfai
ledtoexercise
thatdegr eeofcar ewhi chwasappr opri
ateinallt he
circumst ances,ort hatheact edi nawayt owhicht he
plaint
iffcannotbeexpect edt ohav econsented.I
neither
event,ther eisli
abil
it
y.

"Hav i
ngsetoutt het est,whichist hetestwhi chIt hinkwas
appliedbyt hecount ycour tj
udge, ioughttoturnbr ieflytothe
facts,addingbefor eIdosot hatitwassubmi tt
edbycounsel
onbehal foft hedef endantt hatt hestandardofcar ewas
subjecti
vet othedef endantandnotobj ect
ive,andi fhewasa
whol l
yi ncompet entf ootbal
lpl ayer,he coul d do t hings
without riskofl iabili
tywhi chacompet entf oot ballplayer
could notdo.Formypar tIr ejectthatgubmi ssi on.The
standardi s objective,butobj ect i
vein a di f
ferenc setof
cir
cumst ances.Thust herewi l
lofcour sebeahi gherdegr ee
ofcar erequiredofapl ayerinaFi rstDivi
sionfoot ballmat ch
thanofapl ay
erinal ocal l
eaguef ootbal
lmat ch."

Andatp.455:Thej udge'sf i
nalconclusionwas:' I
tisnot
formeint hiscourttoattemptt odef i
neexhaust ivelythe
dutyofcarebet weenpl ayersinasoccerf ootballgame.
Nor,inmyj udgment,ist hereanyneedbecauset here
washer esuchanobv iousbr eachoft hedef endant '
s
dutyofcar etowardst hepl ai
ntif
f.Hewascl earlyguilty
,
asIf i
ndt hef act
s,ofser iousanddanger ousf oulpl ay
which showed a r eckless disregard oft he plainti
ff'
s
safet
yandwhi chfellf arbelow t hest andardswhi ch
mightreasonabl ybeexpect edi nanyonepur suingt he
game.'
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
"FormypartIcannotseehow t hatconcl
usioncanbe
faul
tedonit
sf act
s,andont helaw Idonotseehow i
t
can possi
bly be saidthatthe defendantwas not
negli
gent
.Accordi
nglyIwoul
ddismisstheappeal
.
"

Net
tl
eshi
pvWest
on[
1971]2QB691
Fact s:Thepl aintif
fagr eedt ogi v
et hedef endantsomedr i
ving
l
essons.Ononesuchoccasi onwhent hedef endantwasdr i
ving
and t he plainti
ffsatbyheras an i nstr
uct or,the defendant
negl i
gentlydr ovet hecarandst r
uckal amppost ,causingt he
plainti
fftosust aininjuri
es.
Held:Thedut yofcar eowedbyal earnerdrivertoapassenger
i
nst ructoristhesameobj ecti
v estandardast hatowedbyev ery
drivert o passenger s and t he generalpubl i
c and thus t he
defendantwasl iableirr
espect i
veoft heplaintif
f'
sknowl edgeof
hi
si nexper i
ence.
Principl
e:Thest andar dofcareexpect edofal earnerdriveristhe
sameast hatexpect edofev erydri
ver.

PerLor dDenni ngMRatp.699:" Mr s.West oni scl ear l

y
l
iablef ort hedamaget ot hel amppost .Int heci villawi f
adr ivergoesof ft heroadont ot hepav ementandi njur es
a pedest ri
an,ordamages pr oper ty
,he i s Pr i
maf acie
l
iable,l ikewi sei fhegoesont ot hewr ongsi deoft he
road.I ti snoanswerf orhi mt osay :'
Iwasal ear nerdr iver
underi nst ructi
on.Iwasdoi ngmybestandcoul dnot
helpi t.'Theci villawper mitsnosuchexcuseI tr equi res
ofhi mt hesamest andar dofcar easofanyot herdr i
v er
.
'
Itel i
mi natest heper sonalequat i
onandi si ndependent
oft he i diosyncr asi
esoft he par t
icularper son whose
conducti si nquest ion'
:seeGl asgowCor porationvMui r
[1943]A. C.448,457 byLor d Macmi l
lan.Thel ear ner
drivermaybedoi nghi sbest ,buthisi ncompet entbesti s
notgoodenough.Hemustdr iveinasgoodamanneras
adr i
verofski ll,experienceandcar e,whoi ssoundi n
mi ndandl imb,whomakesnoer r
orsofj udgment ,has
goodey esi ghtandhear i
ng, andi sfreef r
om anyi nfirmi ty
:
seeRi ch/ ey( Hender son)vFaul l
.Richly,ThirdPar r[ 1965]
1W. L.R.1454andWat sonvThomasS.Whi t
ney&Co.
Ltd.[1966]1W. L.R.
57.
"

Andatpp.700and701:"
Itakei
ttobecl
eart
hati
fa
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
dri
verhasapassengeri nt hecarheowesadut yofcar e
tohim.Butwhati st hest andar dofcar erequiredoft he
dri
ver?I si ta l owerst andar dt han he orshe owes
towardsapedest ri
anont hepav ement ?Ishoul dhav e
thoughtnot .But,supposet hatt hedriv erhasnev erdri
ven
acarbef or e,orhast akent oomucht odr i
nk, orhaspoor
eyesightorhear ing:and, fur thermore, thatthepassenger
knowsi tandy etaccept sal iftfrom him.Doest hatmake
anydi f
ference?Di xonJ.t houghti tdi d.InTheI nsurance
Commi ssionervJoy ce( 1948)77C. L.R.39.56,hesai d:
'
Ifamanaccept sal iftfr
om acardr iverwhom heknows
tohav el ostal imboraney eort obedeaf ,hecannot
compl ainifhedoesnotexhi bittheski llandcompet ence
ofadr iverwhosuf fersfr om nodef ect ..Ifheknowi ngly
acceptst hev oluntaryser v icesofadr iveraffectedby
dri
nk,hecannotcompl ainofi mproperdr i
v i
ngcausedby
hiscondi t
ion, becausei tinv olvesnobr eachofdut y.
'

"
Thatv
iewofDi
xonJ.seemst
ohav
ebeenf
oll
owedi
nSout
h

131•
Aust r
ali
a:seeWal kervTurton-
Sai
nsbur
y[1952]S.A.S.R.159;but
i
nt heSupr emeCour tofCanadaRandJ.didnotagreewi t
hit:see
CarandGener a/Insur
anceCo.vSey mourandMal oney(1956)2
D.L.R.(2d)369,375.

"Wehav eallthegr eat

estr espectf orSirOwenDi xon,butf oronc
cannotagr ee wi t
h him.The dr iv
erowes a dut yofcar et o ev
passengerint hecar ,j
ustashedoest oev er
ypedest rianont hero
andhemustat t
ainthesamest andar dofcar einrespectofeach.I f
driv
erwer etobeexcusedaccor dingt otheknowl edgeoft hepasseng
i
t woul dr esulti n endless conf usion and i nj
ust i
ce.One of
passengersmayknowt hatt hel earnerdriverisamer enov ice.Anot
passengermaybel iev
e hi m t o be ent ir
elycompet ent .One of
passengersmaybel i
evet hedr i
vertohav ehadonl ytwodr inks.Anot h
passengermayknowt hathehashadadozen.I stheonepassenge
recoverandt heot hernot ?Rat hert hanembar konsuchi nquiri
es,
l
aw hol dsthatt hedr i
vermustat tainthesamest andar dofcar e
passengersasf orpedest r
ians.Theknowl edgeoft hepassengerm
go to show t hathe was gui l
tyofcont ri
butorynegl igence i ne
accepti
ngt helif
t-andt husr educehi sdamages-buti tdoesnott
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
awaythedutyofcare,nordoesitdi
minishthestandardofcarewh
thel
aw requi
resofthedriv
er:seeDannv .Hamil
ton[ 1939]1K.B.5
andSl
atervCrossCo.Ltd.[
1956]2Q.B.264,270.

"Iwoul donl yaddt hi

s:I ftheknowledgeoft hepassengerwer ehel
takeawayt hedut yofcar e,itwoul
dmeant hatwewoul donceagai
applyi
ng themaxi m:Sci entinon fitinjur
ia.That maxi
m
decisi
v el
yr eject
edbyt heHouseofLor dsi ncasesbet weenempl
and wor kmen;see Smi th vBaker& Sons [ 1891]A. C.325:and
Parli
amenti ncasesbet weenoccupi erandv isit
or:seesect i
on2( 4
theOccupi ers'Li
abili
tyAct1957, overrul
ingLondonGr av
ingDockCo.
vHor ton[1951]A. C.737.Weshoul dnotal lowi ttobei ntr
oducedto
i
nmot orcarcasesev ent houghitwasbackedbySi rOwenDi xon.
thatwasi n1948.Hemi ghtthinkdi
fferentl
ytoday .
...
"Seeingt hatthel aw laysdown,f oral ldr i
versofmot orcar s,a
standar dofcar et owhi challmustconf orm,It hi
nkt hatev ena
l
ear nerdr i
ver
,so¯ longashei st hesol edr iver,mustat taint he
samest andardt owar dsal lpassenger si nt hecar ,includingan
i
nst ructor.Butt hei nstructormaybedebar redf r
om cl ai
mi ngfora
reasonpecul i
art ohi mself.Hemaybedebar redbecausehehas
volunt ari
lyagreedt owai v eanycl ai
mf oranyi njur
yt hatmay
befallhi m.Other wisehei snotdebar r
ed.Hemay ,ofcour se,be
guilt
yofcont ribut orynegligenceandhav ehi sdamagesr educed
ont hataccount .Hemay ,forinstance,hav elett helear nertake
cont roltoosoon,hemaynothav ebeenqui ckenought ocor rect
his er ror
s,orhe mayhav e parti
cipated int he negligentact
himsel f:seeSf ap/ eyvGy psum Mi nesLt d.[ 1953]A. C.663.But ,
apar tf r
om cont r
ibutor ynegligence,hei snotexcl udedunl essi t
bet hathehasv olunt ari
lyagreedtoi ncurt her i
sk."

YachukvOl
i
verBl
ais[
1949]AC386
Fact s:The9-year-
oldplaint i
ffandhi s7- year-oldsi bli
ngwentt o
thedef endant
'sgasoli
nest ati
onandr epresent edt ot heattendant
thatt heyneededgasol inef orthei
rmot her'
smot orwhi chwas
stuck.Theyi nfactneededi tforagame.Theat tendantsol dthe
gasol i
net othem andt hepl ai
nti
fflightedabul rushwhi chhe
dipped int hegasoline,t hecont ainercont aining t hegasol ine
caughtf ir
eandt heplaintiffwassev er el
ybur ned.Hebr oughtan
actioninnegli
gence.
Held:Thedef endant'
sat tendanthadbeennegl igenti nplacingin
thehandsofachi l
dhighlyf lammabl esubst ance.
Principl
e:Toputahi ghlyi nflammabl esubst ancei nt hehandsof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
asmal lboywast osubjecthimtotempt
ati
onandt heri
skof
i
njur
y,andthatwasnol esstr
ueift
heboyhadresor
tedt
odecei
t
t
oov er
comet hesuppl
i
er '
sscr
upl
es.

PerLordduPar qatpp.394and395:" Thenegl igenceof

ther espondentconsi stedi nput ti
ngint ot hehandsofasmal l
boyadanger oussubst ancewi t
h whi ch ar easdnabl eman,
taki
ng t hought ,woul dhav efor eseent hatt hechi ldwasl ikely
todohi mselfani njury.Thef actt hattheboyt oldanunt ruthi n
ordert opersuadeBl ackt ogi v ehimt hegasol ine,af acton
whicht herespondent '
scounselmuchr elied,cannotav ailt he
respondenti nv iew oft hel earnedj udge' sf indingt hatBl ack's
doubtsast othepr oprietyoft hesal ewer ejustified.To
putahi ghlyinflammabl esubst ancei ntot hehandsofasmal l
boyi st osubj ecthi mt ot empt at i
onandt her iskofi njur y,and
thi
si snol esst r
uei ftheboyhasr esortedt odecei tinor dert o
overcomet hesuppl i
ers'scr uples.Thechi ld'sdecei tcanaf ford
noexcuset ot hesuppl ierwheni tisf oundt hatt hest or yt old
Wassuchast oar ouse, rathert hanallay ,suspi cioni nt hemi nd
ofar easonableman.I nt heci r
cumst ances,t herefor e,t heir
Lordshi psthinkt hatMcRuerJ. A.wasr ighti nappl y i
ngt ot his
caset hepr i
nci plest atedbyLor dDenmanC.J.i nI :
y nchv
Nurdi n:'The mostbl ameabl e car el
essness oft his ser vant
havingt emptedt hechi ld, he[the

133•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
defendant]oughtnottor epr
oacht hechildwithyieldi
ngtothat
temptati
on.He has been t he realand onl y cause oft he
mischief.Hehasbeen def ici
enti n or
dinarycar e:thechild,
acti
ngwi thoutpr
udenceort hought,has,howev er,shownthese
quali
ti
esi n asgreatadegr eeashecoul d beexpect ed to
possesst hem.Hismi sconductbear snopr oporti
ont othatof
the defendantwhi ch produced it.
'The negl i
gence oft he
respondent'sserv
anti nt hepresentcasemaycal lforless
severecondemnat i
ont hanthesewor dsexpress:t hepri
nci
ple
whichtheyembodyi snonet helessapplicabl
e."

GoughvThor ne[1966]3Al lER398; [

1966]1WLR1387
Fact s:Thepl ai
ntiff
, agedt hirteenandhal f,wantedt oCf OSSar oadwi th
hert wo br others.A l orr
ydr iverst opped att heplaceand,wi t
h his
outst r
et chedhand,beckonedot hercar st ost op.Het hensi gnall
edt he
plaintiffandhi sbrot herst ocr oss.Butwhent heyhadal mostf i
nished
crossi ng,thedef endantdr i
v erwhowasdr i
vi
ngatt opspeedandhad
fail
edt onot i
cethehandoft heoor rydr i
v erknockedt heplaint
iffdown
andshesust ai
nedi njur i
es.Thet r i
alcour theldt hattheplainti
ff
'sfaili
ng
to pause and checkwhet hert here was an on- comi ng vehi
cle was
cont ri
but orynegligence.
Held:At hi
rteen-yearoldcoul dnotber easonabl yexpect edtopauseand
wat cht her oadwhenshehadbeensi gnalledbyadr ivertocr ossand
thuswasnotl i
ableincont r
ibut orynegl i
gence.
Principle:Thedegr eeofcar eexpect edofanadul ti shigherthant hat
expect edofachi ld.

PerLor dDenni ngMRatp.399:" 1am afr

aidthatIcannotagree
witht he j udge.A v er
yy oung chil
d cannotbe gui l
ty of
contributor ynegligence.Anol derchi
ldmaybe;buti tdepends
ont heci rcumst ances.Aj udgeshouldonlyfi
ndachi l
dguil
tyof
contributor ynegligencei fheorshei sofsuch an ageas
reasonabl yt obeexpect edt otakeprecauti
onsf orhisorher
ownsaf ety:andt henheorshei sonl ytobef oundguilt
yif
blameshoul dbeat tachedtohi m orher.Achi ldhasnott he
roadsenseort heexper i
enceofhisorherel ders.Heorshei s
nott obef oundgui lt
yunlessheorshei sblamewor t
hy.

"Inthis parti
cul
ar case Ihav e no doubt that t
here was no
blameworthi
nesstobeat t
ri
butedtotheplai
nti
ffatal
l
.Her eshewas
withherel
derbrothercr
ossingaroad.Theyhadbeenbeckonedonby
thelor
rydriver
.Whatmor ecouldy ouexpectthechi
ldtodot hanto
crossinpursuanceofthebeckoning?Iti
ssaidbythejudgethatshe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
oughtt
o
•
•134
haveleantfor
wardandl ookedt oseewhet heranythi
ngwas
coming.Thati
ndeedmightber easonabl
yexpectedofagrown-
uppersonwithafull
ydevelopedroadsense,butnotofachil
d
of131/2.
"

PerSal monLJatp.400:" Thequest i

onast o whet hert he
plaintiffcan be sai dt o hav e been gui lt
y ofcont ri
butory
negl i
gencedependsonwhet heranyor dinarychildof13 1/ 2
coul dbeexpect edt ohav edoneanymor ethant hischi lddid.I
say ,'anyor dinarychi l
d'.Idonotmeanapar agonofpr udence;
nordoImeanascat ter-brai
nedchi ld;butt heor dinar ygirlof
131/ 2.It hinkt hatanyor dinarychildof131/ 2,seeingal orry
stopt olethercr ossandt hel or
rydr i
ver,agr own-upper soni n
whom shenodoubthassomeconf idence,beckoni nghert o
crosst heroadwoul dnat urall
ygost raighton, noonei nmyv i
ew
coul dbl ameherf ordoi ngso.Iagr eet hati fshehadbeena
good dealol derand har dened byexper i
ence and per haps
consequent lywi t
hl essconf idencei nadul ts,shemi ghthav e
saidt oher self:'Iwonderi fthatmanhasgi vent hepropersi gnal
tot rafficcomi ngup?Iwonderi fthatt raff
ichasheededi t?I
wonderi fheoughtt ohav ebeckonedmeacr osswhenhedi d
andwhet herhel ookedbehi ndhi m beforedoi ngso? 'Shemi ght
nothav egonepastt hef rontoft hel orr
ywi thoutv erifyi
ngf or
hersel fthatitwassaf et odoso;buti twoul dbequi t
ewr ongt o
1
holdt hatachi l
dof13/ 2i snegligentbecauseshef ail
st ogo
throught hosement alpr ocessesandr el
iesunquest ioninglyon
thel orrydriver'ssignal."

Gor elyvCodd[ 1966]3Al lER891

Fact s:Thei nfantdef endantnegligentlyshott hei nfantplaint
if
fint he
head dur ing a game of' lar
king out'.The pl aint
iffsued t he i
nfant
defendantandhi sfatherforall
owingt hesont ouseanai rr i
ffl
ewithout
super vi
sion.Theev idenceshowedt heinfantdef endantwasamember
of hi s schoolcadet cor ps wher ef i
rearms wer e per mitt
ed and
i
nst ructi
onsgi ven.Hewasper fectl
ynor malexceptt hathewasment all
y
retarded int erms of academi cs.Hi sf at
her gav e him adequat e
i
nst ructi
onswhenheacqui redtheriffl
eandt hepl acewher etheaccident
tookpl acewasaspar selypopulat
edpl ace.
Hel d:Sincet hei nf
antdef endantwasnor malandt hefatherhadgi ven
him adequat ei nstructi
onsont heuseoft her iffl
e,thefatherwasnot
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
negl
igentfort he i
nfantdef
endant'
s usi
ng t
he r
if
fl
ein a spar
sel
y
populat
edplacewit
houtsuper
visi
on.

PerNiel
dJatpp.895and896:"AsIsay,Ihav
econsi
der
edt
he
l
egalposi
ti
on,
thest
andar
dofcar
e,ofcour
se,
bei
ngt
o
135z•
takereasonablecare,t
hest
andardofcareimposedont hedefendants,
andIhav econsideredt
heaut
hori
ti
esandt heActof1962,soast ohav e
asmuchassi stanceasIcanindet er
mini
ngtheirdut
yunderthisAct .I
rei
ter
atethatitdependsont
hefactsandthosefact
sImustnowf ind...
.
"Letmeconsi dert hent heposi t
ionoft headul tdef endantt oseewhet her
i
tist hecaset hathemustbehel dresponsi bleinhav i
ngfail
edinhi sdut y
ofcar eint hismat ter.Iobser vet hef irstal legationmadeagai nstt he
adultdef endanti st hathef ailedt ogi vehi ssonpr operorsuf fi
cient
i
nst r
uct i
oni nt heuseoft heai rrifl
e:Iam sat i
sfiedaf fi
rmativ
elyt hathe
gaveper fect l
ypr operandsuf f
icientinst ruction.Iti snextsai dt hathe
all
owedt hesont ouset heai rrifl
ewi thoutanysuchi nstr
uctionsand
withoutanysuper vision,Ihav edeal twi tht hei nstructi
onsandIam of
the opi nion t hati twas notnecessar y,hav i
ng r egardt o al lt he
cir
cumst ances, thatt hesonshoul dbesuper vi
sed.Ont hisaspectoft he
casecounself ort hepl ainti
ffsv erynat ur all
y,ifImaysayso,seekst o
rel
yont heev idenceofMrBeaneyatt heconcl usionofhi stest i
mony ,
whenhei ndi cat edt hati nsomeci rcumst ancesaboyoft hisageshoul d
besuper visedi ff irear mswer et obedi schar ged.It hinkcounself ort he
defendanti sr ightandt hathewasr eal
lyr eferringtot heschoolact i
vi
ties
andcer t
ai nr egul at ionsr elat
ingt ot hem;ear l
ieronhehadsai dt hatt he
i
nfantdef endantwoul dnotr equiresuper vision,andt hatwast het rue
position.

"I
tisal sosubmi t t
edoral l
egedt hattheadul tdefendantf ailedtopoi nt
outtohi ssont hedanger si nv ol
ved:Ifindt hathedi dpoi ntthem out .
Fi
nally,itissaid,andt hi
si sper hapsav eryi mportantaspectoft he
al
legation,t
hatt hef atherallowedt heson,whowast ohi sknowl edgeof
subnormali ntel
ligenceandpr onet ov i
olence,t opossessandt ousea
dangerousweapon, thatistosayt heairrif
le.Itisquit
ecl earasamat ter
ofprincipl
et hataper sonwhoent r
ustsaf irearmt oanot hermustbe
caref
ult oseet hatheent rust sittosomebodywhoi scompet ent,and
nottosomeonewhoi snotr esponsibl
ebyr easonofment alil
l
nessor
other
wi se maybe sai dt o be i ncompet ent.Howev er,int hi
s case,
al
thought hereist hisretardationinbookl earninginthei nfantdef endant,
Iam qui t
esat i
sfiedonMrBeaney '
sev i
dencet hatthatinnowayaf fects
hi
sr esponsibili
tyi not herdirect i
onsandt hatf orthepur posesoft his
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
casehewasaper f
ectl
ynormalboy .I
twillnot
,Ihope,bemisunderst
ood
whenIsaythat,
butIhavealr
eadyrecall
edMrBeaney '
sevidenceabouti
t
anditamountstothi
s,t
hatinactiv
iti
esotherthanbooklearni
ngheisin
eff
ectasgoodasanyoneelse...
.
"ThusIreacht heconcl usiont hattheplainti
ffshav efai
l
edt o
showanyf aultintheadultdef endant,who,asIsay ,i
mpressed
measar esponsibleper
sonandanaccept ablewitness.Hesaid
quit
eboldly,whenhewasaskedabouti t
,t hathewoul dentr
ust
tothatboyofsi xteenandahal fthatweapon,hav ingregardto
allthecir
cumst ances.Int hoseci r
cumstancesi tmustbet he
casethattheplainti
ff
sfailagainsttheadultdefendant."

Bol
am vFr
ier
nHospi
tal
ManagementCommi
tt
ee[
195712Al
lER
118
Fact s:Thepl ainti
ffunder wentanel ectr
o-conv ulsivet reatmentatt he
defendant '
shospi t
alandsust ainedf r
actures.Theev i
denceshowedt hat
thepr obabi l
it
yofaf ractureresul t
ingf r
om sucht reat mentwasonei na
thousandbutt hedef endantdi dnotwar nthepl aint i
ffaboutsuchar isk.
Theev idenceal soshowedt hati frelaxantdr ugshadbeenusedt here
woul dhav ebeennor i
skofi njury.Butt hatther ewer edi verseopinions
amongmedi calpr ofessionalsast ot heuseofr elaxantdr ugs.Whi l
e
someusedi tonl yinextremecasesofwhi cht hepl aintif
f'scasewasnot
one,ot her susedi tanyt i
met heyadmi nist
er edanel ectro-convul
si v
e
treatment .Ther e were al so diverse opi ni
ons among pr ofessi
onals
whet herapat i
entshoul dbewar nedoft her i
skoff r actureornot .
Hel d:Si ncethedef endant sact edi naccor dancewi tht heaccept able
pract i
ceamongmedi calprofessionals,theywer enotl i
abl e.
Pr i
nciple:Adoct orisnotnegl i
genti fheact si naccor dancewi t
ht he
accept ablepract i
cebyar esponsi blebodyofmedi calmenski ll
edinthat
area, al
thoughanot hercompet entbodymayt akeadi fferentv i
ew.

PerMcNai rJatpp.121and122( i
nsummi ngupt othejury)
:
"BeforeIt urntot hat ,Imustexpl ai
nwhati nlaw wemeanby
'
negligence'.Int heor di
narycasewhi chdoesnoti nvol
veany
specialskill
,negligencei nl aw meanst hi
s:Somef ail
uretodo
someactwhi char easonabl emanint hecircumst anceswoul d
do,or doi ng some act whi ch a r easonable man i nt he
cir
cumst anceswoul dnotdo;andi fthatfail
ureordoi ngofthat
actresultsininjury,thent herei
sacauseofact ion.Howdoy ou
testwhethert hi
sactorf ail
ureisnegl
igent?Inanor dinarycase
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

137•
i
ti sgener allysai d, thaty ouj udget hatbyt heact i
onoft hemani nt hest ree
Hei st heor dinar yman.I nonecasei thasbeensai dt haty ouj udgei tbyt h
conductoft hemanont het opofaCl apham omni bus.Hei st he
ordi nar yman.Butwher ey ougetasi tuat i
onwhi chi nv olv est heuseofsom
speci alski llorcompet ence, thent het estwhet hert her ehasbeennegl i
genc
ornoti snott het estoft hemanont het opofaCl apham omni bus,becaus
hehasnotgott hisspeci alski ll.Thet esti st hest andar doft heor di na
skilledmanexer cisingandpr ofessi ngt ohav et hatspeci alski l
l.Amannee
notpossesst hehi ghestexper tski llatt her iskofbei ngf oundnegl igent .It
wel lest abl i
shedl awt hati ti ssuf fi
ci enti fheexer cisest heor dinar yski llofa
ordi nar ycompet entmanexer cisingt hatpar t
icul arar t .Idonott hinkt hat
quar relmuchwi thanyoft hesubmi ssi onsi nlawwhi chhav ebeenputbef o
youbycounsel .Counsel f ort hepl aint i
f fputi tint hi sway ,t hati nthecaseof
medi calman negl igence means f ailur et o acti n accor dance wi t
ht h
standar dsofr easonabl ycompet entmedi calmenatt het ime.Thati s
per fect l
yaccur atest atement ,asl ongasi tisr emember edt hatt her emayb
oneormor eper f
ect l
ypr operst andar ds;andi famedi calmanconf or mswi t
oneoft hosepr operst andar dst henhei snotnegl i
gent .Counself ort he
plaint if
fwasal sor i
ght ,inmyj udgment , i
nsay i
ngt hatamer eper sonalbel i
e
thatapar ticulart echni quei sbesti snodef enceunl esst hatbel i
efi sbasedo
reasonabl egr ounds.Thatagai ni sunexcept i
onabl e.Butt heemphasi swhi c
i
sl aidbycounself ort hedef endant si sont hisaspectofnegl igence:H
submi t
tedt oy out hatt her ealquest iononwhi chy ouhav et omakeupy ou
mi ndoneachoft het hr eemaj orpoi nt st obeconsi der edi swhet hert h
def endant s, i
nact i
ngi nt hewayi nwhi cht heydi d, wer eact i
ngi naccor danc
wi t
hapr act iceofcompet entr espect edpr ofessi onalopi nion.Counself ort h
def endant ssubmi tted t hati fy ou ar esat i
sfied t hatt heywer eact ing
accor dancewi thapr act i
ceofacompet entbodyofpr of essi onal opi nion, the
i
twoul dbewr ongf ory out ohol dt hatnegl i
gencewasest abl ished.Ir ef erre
bef or eIst artedt heseobser vations,t oast atementwhi chi scont ainedi n
recentScot ti
shcase,Hunt ervHanl ey( [1955]SLT213atp217) ,whi chdea
wi t
hmedi calmat ter s, wher et heLor dPr esident( Lor dCl y de)sai dt his:' I
nt h
realm ofdi agnosi s and t reatmentt her ei s ampl e scope f orgenui n
differ enceofopi ni on,andonemancl ear l
yi snotnegl i
gentmer elybecaus
hisconcl usi ondi ffer sf rom t hatofot herpr ofessi onalmen,norbecauseh
hasdi spl ay edl essski llorknowl edget hanot her swoul dhav eshown.Th
true
t estf orest abl ishi ngnegl igencei ndi agnosi sort reat rnentont he
par tofadoct ori swhet herhehasbeenpr ov edt obegui l
tyof
suchf ailureasnodoct orofor dinar yski l
lwoul dbegui ltyofi f
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
act
ingwi
thor
dinar
ycar
e.'

"Ifthatst atementoft het ruetesti squal ifi

edbyt hewor ds' inall
theci rcumst ances',counself ort hepl aintif
fwoul dnotseekt o
sayt hatt hatexpr essionofopi niondoesnotaccor dwithEngl i
sh
l
aw.I ti sj ustaquest i
onofexpr essi on.Imy selfwoul dpr eferto
puti tt hisway :Adoct ori snotgui lt
yofnegl i
gencei fhehas
act edi naccor dancewi t
hapr act i
ceaccept edaspr operbya
responsi bl ebodyofmedi calmenski l
ledi nt hatparticularar t
.I
do nott hinkt herei smuchdi fferencei nsense.I ti sj usta
differentwayofexpr essingt hesamet hought .Put ti
ngi tt he
otherwayr ound,adoct orisnotnegl igent,i fhei sact i
ngi n
accor dancewi thsuchapr actice,mer elybecauset herei sa
bodyofopi niont hattakesacont r
ar yv iew.Att hesamet i
me,
thatdoesnotmeant hatamedi calmancanobst inatelyandpi g-
headedl ycar ryonwi thsomeol dt echniquei fithasbeenpr oved
to be cont r
ar yto whati sreal lysubst ant i
all
yt he whol e of
i
nf or medmedi calopinion.Ot her wisey oumi ghtgetment oday
say ing:' Idon' tbelievei n anaest hetics.Idon' tbel i
ev ei n
ant isept i
cs.Iam goi ngt ocont inuet odomysur geryi ntheway
i
twasdonei nt heei ghteenthcent ury'
.Thatcl earlywoul dbe
wr ong.

"BeforeIdealwi t
ht hedet ai
lsoft hecase,iti sfi
ghttosayt hi s,
thatitisnotessentialfory out odecidewhi choft wopr actices
i
st hebetterpracti
ce,asl ongasy ouacceptt hatwhatDrAl l
fr ey
didwasi naccor dancewi thapr act
iceaccept edbyr esponsibl e
persons;butiftheresultoft heev i
denceisthaty ouaresat i
sfied
thathispr act
iceisbet tert hant hepracti
cespokenofont he
otherside,thenitisast r
ongercase.Fi nall
y ,bearthisinmi nd,
thaty ou are now consi der i
ng whetheri twas negl igentf or
certai
nactiontobet akeni nAugust ,1954,noti nFebruary,1957;
andi noneoft hewel l-
knowncasesont hist opi
ci thasbeen
saidy ou mustnotl ook t hrough 1957 spect acles atwhat
happenedi n1954."

Gl
asgowCor
por
ati
onvMui
r[1943]2Al
lER44
Facts:Some chur ch members wer e carryi
ng a tea ur
ni ntothe
defendant'
stearoom thr
oughanar row passagewithacount erwhere
severalchi
ldr
enwer ebuyi
ngsweet sandi ces.Thehandl
ersletoffthe
handleoftheurnandt heteaescapedinjuri
ng6chil
dren.Thepl ai
nti
ff
s
suedallegi
ngthat
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
139•
•
thedefendanthadbeennegl i
gentinthatheoughtt ohav eknownt hati
f
theteaescaped,t hechi
ldrenwoul dbei njuredandt husshoul dhave
removedt hechi l
drenf
rom t
herebeforethecar ri
age.
Held:Thedef endantwasnotnegl i
gentsincear easonableper sonwould
nothaveant i
cipatedanydangertothechildren.
Pri
ncipl
e:Aper sondoesnotbr eachthest andardofcar eifheact sina
wayar easonabl emanwouldhav eactedundert hecircumst ances.

PerThanker t
onatp.47:''
Inmyopi ni
on,ithaslongbeenheldin
Scotl
andt hatal
lthatapersoncanbehel dboundtoforeseeare
thereasonableandpr obableconsequencesoft hefail
ureto
takecare,judgedbyt hest andardoftheor di
naryreasonabl
e
man.Iam unabl et o agree with Lord Carmontt hatthe
appel
lantscouldbemadel iable:

'
...ev eni
fitwerepr
ovedthattheactualdamagetotheinvi
tee
happenedthrought
heteaurnbeingspil
tinawaythatcouldnot
reasonabl
yhavebeenanti
cipat
ed."
'

Andatpp.47and48:" Thegr oundoft hemaj orityjudges,asI

under stand i t,i st hatMr s Al exander ,whi l
e aut hor i
sing t he
tr
anspor toft het eaur nthrought heent rancepassage,wher et he
sweet sandi ceswer ebeingsol dt oal argenumberofchi ldren,
omi t
tedt oremov et hechi ldrenal togetherf rom t hepassageway ,
soast oav oidadangerwhi chshoul dhav ebeenobv ioust oher .In
myopi nion,t hisist oturnMr sAl exanderi ntosomet hingl ikean
i
nsur eragai nstanyr i
skofdangerf rom t he t ea ur n.On t he
evi
dence,i ti s est abli
shed,as Ihav e al readyst ated,t hat,i f
carefull
ycar ri
ed, t
her ewasnoel ementofdangert ober easonabl y
anti
cipat edf rom t heoper ationofcar ryi
ngt heur n.Di f
fer i
ngf r
om
LordCar mont ,Iam cl earlyofopi niont hatt hest andar dofcar e
owedbyt het woper sonsi nchar geoft heur ntot hechi l
drenwas
atleastashi ghast hatowedbyMr sAlexander ;theywer eev en
mor e cogni santt han Mr s Al exanderoft he posi ti
on i nt he
passagewaywhent heyent eredi twi tht heur n;Mr sAl exander
knewnot hi
ngt hatt heydi dnotknow,andt hepoi ntt akenbyLor d
Carmontt hatt heyhadnoaut hor i
tyt omaket hechi ldrenst and
asi
de appear st o me t o be i mmat eri
al,as,on f ailure oft he
chi
ldrent ost andasi de,theyhadonl yt oaskMr sAl exandert o
att
endt oi t,andt oputdownt heur nunt i
lsuf f
icientspacewas
cl
eared.Ont heev idenceoft hepur suers'wi tnessTay lor,theydi d
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
askt hechi ldrent ost andasi deandt hechi l
drenhadcl eai •ed
sufficientspacet oenabl ehim t ogetcomf ortablypastt hem.
Ther ei snoev idencet hatitwasanywantofcar eont hepar tof
McDonal dt hatcausedt heacci dentort hatt hechi ldr
enhust led
him andcausedhi mt ol etgo.Ther emayhav ebeensomecause,
suchasaphy sicalf ail
ur eonMcDonal d'spar t
,whi chhe—andst il
l
l
essMr sAl exandercoul dnotpossi blyhav ef oreseen.Iam not
prepar edt of i
ndt hatt hecar efulcar ri
ageoft het eaur npastt he
dozenorsoofchi l
dreni nthewi derendoft hepassagei nv olved
suchanobv iousdangeraswoul dhav ebeenf oreseenasanat ur al
and pr obable consequence ofsuch car ri
age by an or dinar y
reasonabl eper sonwhi chwoul dl eadhi mt ocl eart hechildrenout
ofthepassage.But ,further,l
etmemakei tquitecl earthat ,ev en
ont hecont r
aryv i
ew, Iwoul dhol dt hatt hepur suersmustf ailher e,
ast heyhav enotpr ov edwhatt heev entwast hatcausedt he
accident .Ifthet ruthwer ethatt heacci dentwascausedbysome
unexpect edphy si
calf ailureonMcDonal d'
spar t,itisnotenough
forthepur suerst osayt hat
, i
fthechi l
dr enhadbeenr emov ed, the
accidentcoul dnothav ehappened.Thatwoul dbet omakeMr s
Alexander ,onbehal foft heappellant s,ani nsurer."

PerLor dMacmi l
l
anp.48:' '
MyLor ds,t hedegr eeofcar efort he
safet yofot herswhi chthel awr equi r
eshumanbei ngst oobser vei n
theconductoft hei raff
airsv ariesaccor dingt ot heci rcumst ances.
Ther ei snoabsol ut estandar d,buti tmaybesai dgener al
lythatt he
degr eeofcar er equi r
edv ar i
esdi rectlywi t
ht her i
ski nvolved.Those
who engage i n oper ations i nher ently danger ous must t ake
precaut ions whi ch ar e notr equi r
ed ofper sons engaged i nt he
ordinar yr outineofdai l
yl ife.I ti snodoubtt ruet hati nev eryact
whichani ndiv i
dualper f
ormst her eispr esentapot entiali
tyofi njury
to ot hers.Al lt hings ar e possi ble and,i ndeed,i thas become
prover bialt hatt he unex pect ed al way s happens.Butwhi let he
precept al terum non l aeder e r equir es us t o abst ain f r
om
i
ntent ional l
yi njuringot her s,itdoesnoti mposel i
abilit
yf orev ery
i
njurywhi chourconductmayoccasi on.I nScot l
and,atanyr ate,it
hasnev erbeenamaxi m oft hel aw t hatamanact sathi sper i
l
.
Legall iabili
tyi sl i
mi tedtot hoseconsequencesofouract swhi cha
reasonabl emanofor dinar yi ntelli
genceandexper i
encesoact i
ng
woul dhav ei ncont emplati
on.AsIessay edt of ormul ateitinBour hi l
/
vYoung, atp104:

'
Thedutyt
otakecar
eisthedutyt
oavoi
ddoingoromitt
ingt
odo
any
thi
ng t
he doi
ng oromit
ti
ng t
o do whi
ch may hav
e as i
ts
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
reasonabl
eandprobableconsequenceinj
urytoother
s,andthedut
y
i
sowedt othosetowhom i nj
urymayr easonabl
yandpr obabl
ybe
anti
cipat
edift
hedutyisnotobserved.
'
141n
"
This,i
nmyopini
on,expr
essesthel
awofScot
landandIappr
ehend
t
hatiti
sal
sothelawofEngland.

"Thest andardoff or
esightoft her easonabl emani sinonesensean
i
mper sonal test .It elimi nates t he per sonal equat ion and i s
i
ndependentoft heidiosy ncrasiesoft hepar ti
cularper sonwhose
conducti sinquest i
on.Someper sonsar ebynat ureundul ytimor ous
andi magi neev erypathbesetwi t
hl i
ons;ot hers,ofmor er obust
temper ament ,failt
of or
eseeornonchal antlydi sregardevent hemost
obv i
ousdanger s.Ther easonabl emani spr esumedt obef reebot h
from ov erapprehensionand f rom ov er-conf i
dence.Butt herei sa
sensei nwhi cht hestandar dofcar eoft her easonabl emani nvolves
i
ni tsappl i
cationasubj ectiveel ement .Itisst il
llefttot hej udget o
decide whati nt he circumst ances oft he par ti
cularcase t he
reasonable man woul d hav e had i n cont empl at
ion and what
accordinglyt he par ty soughtt o be made l i
able oughtt o hav e
foreseen.Her et hereisr oom f ordi versityofv i
ew,as,i ndeed,i swell
i
llustr
atedi nthepr esentcase.Whatt oonej udgemayseem f ar-
fetchedmayseem t oanot herbot hnat uralandpr obable."

(
Addi
ti
onal
Cases)
PheevJamesGor donandNi ddryCast leGolfCl ub[ 2013]SCLR687
Facts:Thepl ai
ntif
f,ani nexper
iencedgol ferwhoj oinedi nagol fgame,
washi tbythegol fballwheni twaspl ay edbyt hef i
rstdefendant .Asa
resul
t,helosthisleftey e.Hesuedt hef i
rstdefendantf ortheinjur
iesand
theseconddef endant,t hegol fclub,fort hebreachofi tsdut yasan
occupier
.
Held:Thef i
rstdef endantbr eachedhi sdut yofcarei nf ai
li
ngt oensur e
thattheplai
ntiffandot her swereawar eofhi si
ntent i
onaswel lasfail
i
ng
togiveawar ningshout .

PerLordHodgeatp.694, par.35:"
Inourviewt heLordOrdi
narywas
enti
tl
edt oholdthatMfGor donfail
edi nhisdut yofcar etot he
pursuerindri
vi
nghisbal
lfrom the18thtee.MrPheeandhi sfriends
werewell wi
thi
nMrGordon'srangeandnotf aroffhi
star
getli
ne.Had
themat t
erbeenopentothiscourtt
odecideofnew, wet hi
nkthathis
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
f
ailur
etoensurethat
,beforeheplay
edhisshot
,thepursuerandhis
f
riendswereawareofhisint
ent
iontodr
iveandt
huswereal er
ttothe
r
iskandt oanywar ningshoutamountedt oaf ai
l
uretoexer ci
se
r
easonablecar
e."

RossFr
enchvSt
rat
hcl
ydeFi
reBoar
d[2013]SCLR224
Fact s:Thepl ainti
fff irefight
er swer einjuredwhi lefightingfirewhena
wal lcollapsedont hem.Thei njuryoccur redwhi lethef i
ref i
ghterswer e
actingont hei nstructionsoft hef ir
ecommander ,andt hef i
rstplai
ntif
f
hadat t
empt edr emov i
ngadoort ogai naccesst othef ir
e.Thebr ickwall
ont opoft hedoorcol l
apsedonbot hplainti
ffs.Theev idenceshowed
thati twoul dhav ebeenpossi blet of i
ghtt hef i
ret hrought hewi ndow
withoutf or
cingopent hedoor .
Held:Si ncet hef i
recommanderdi dnotexer ci
set hest andar dofcar e
expect edofaski ll
edf ir
ef i
ght er,hebr eachedt hedut yofcar eowedt o
thepl aintif
fsandt hust hedef endant swer eli
able.
Principle:Thest andar dofcar er equiredofaski ll
edper soni stoexercise
aspeci allev elofski llandcar et hatdiff
er sfr
om t heor dinaryman.The
resul tto be achi ev ed mustbe bal anced wi tht he r i
sk involved in
under takingt heact .

PerLor dDr ummondYoungatpp.239—241, par s.40—43:[ 40]

"I
nr elati
ontot hest andar dofcar e,itisnecessar yt o bal ancet he
l
ikeli
hoodofcol lapseagai nstt headv ant agest hatcoul dbegai ned
by f orci
ng the f rontdooroft he gar age.I n my opi nion t he
advant agesoff orcingt hedoorwer ev er yli
mi ted; i
nsohol dingIr el
y
essent i
all
yont heev idenceofDrDennet t.Thef i
rewasnotl i
kel
yt o
spreadt oanyadj acentpr operty.Nol i
v eswer eatr i
sk.Thecont ents
oft hegar agewer eal readydest royedOfser iousl ydamaged,Of
werel ikelytobedest royedOfser i
ousl ydamagedbef oret hef ir
e
couldbeext i
nguished.Thef irecouldbebr oughtundercont r
oland
'
knockeddown'bydepl oyi
nghoser eelst hr ought hesi dewi ndow
andt hrought hegapundert hef r
ontdoor .Thati showt hefirewas
ult
imat elyexti
ngui shed.Ther esul
tist hatt her iskt ot hepur suers
broughtaboutbyor der i
ngt hem intoposi tionsi mmedi at
elyunder
thegabl ewasunnecessar y
,andi nmyopi nion, r
elyingonceagai non
theev idenceofDrDennet t
,t hatshoul dhav ebeenappar entt oa
skil
ledf i
refi
ghteri nt hepositionofWat chCommanderCl ark.

[41]"Theapplicabl
estandar
dofcar eisinmyopini
onthatofa
skil
led firefi
ghterexerci
sing r
easonabl
e car
e.In counsel'
s
submi ssionstherewassomedi scussi
on asto whet
hert he
appropriatest
andardwast hatofanor di
naryemploy
erora
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
versi
onoft het estf orpr ofessionalnegli
gencelaid downi n
HuntervHanl ey.I nmyopi ni
ont hereisnoshar pdivi
dingl i
ne
betweentheset ests;t her
ei sr atheraspectrum ofsituat
ions
rangi
ngf r
om acasewher et heper sonresponsi
bleforsaf et
y
hasclearprofessional ortechnicalquali
fi
cati
onstocaseswher e
he

143"
hasnopar ticularqual ifi
cat ionsbuti sunderanor di
narycommonl aw
dutyofcar e.Theext entt owhi chspeci alistexper t i
semustbebr oughtt o
bearwi llvar yaccor dingt ot heci rcumst ancesoft hepar ticularcase.I n
thepr esentcaseIam ofopi ni
ont hatWat chCommanderCl arkwas
requiredt odemonst rat et hest andar dofcar et obeexpect edofaski l
led
andt rainedf iref i
ght er.Thati snotapr of essi onalqual if
ication,and
accor dinglyt heHunt ervHanl eyt estdoesnotappl yinit
sor dinar yf or m.
Nev erthelesst hisst andar ddoesr equi r
et heof f
iceri nchar get oexhi bita
speciall ev elofski llandcar e,whi chdi ffersf rom t hatofanor di nary
empl oy er.Counself ort he def endersuggest ed t hat,i fi tcoul d be
establishedt hatanot herski ll
edf iref i
ght erexer cisi
ngr easonabl ecar e
mighthav eadopt edt hecour set akenbyWat chCommanderCl ark,t hat
excludedanypossi bi l
ityofnegl igence.I nt hisconnect i
on,her eliedon
theev idenceofGr oupManagerBoddyandFi ref ighterMcKel v i
e, bot hof
whom sai dt hatt heywoul dhav ef oughtt hef ire..
.int hemanner
adopt edbyWat chCommanderCl ar k.Thepr obl em wi ththatar gumenti s
i
nmyopi ni
ont hatt heev idenceofGr oupManagerBoddyandFi ref ighter
McKel vieont hi
smat tercl earlypr oceededont hehy pot hesist hatt he
proper tyint hegar agehadnotbeendest roy edori r
recoverabl ydamaged;
Ihav er eject edt hatpr oposi ti
on.I naddi ti
on,If ormedacl eari mpr essi on
thattheev idenceoft hedef ender s' wi t
nessesont hismat terwasbased
fi
rml yont hepr oposi tiont hatopeni ngt hemai ndoorwast hest andar d
met hodoff ighti
nggar agef ir
es.Idonotdoubtt hatt hatisso, andt hatit
i
sanent i
relypr operwayt opr oceedi nt hest andar dcase.I nt hiscase,
howev er,thedooroft hegar agewoul dnotopen;i tist hatspeci fi
c
sit
uat i
on t hatconf ront ed Wat ch CommanderCl ar
k,and i ti st hat
sit
uat i
on t hatmustbe addr essed byt he cour t.In myopi nion t he
evidenceoft hedef ender s'wi tnessesdi dnott akesuf fi
cientaccountof
thecl earandspeci ficr i
skpr esent edbyt heunsuppor tedgabl ewal l,nor
ofthef actt hatther ewasnosi gni ficantbenef itt obeobt ai nedi nf ight ing
thef i
ret hrought hemai ndoor .

42] "
[ Inassessi
ngthestandar
dofcare,i
tisther
eforenecessar
yto
t
akei
ntoaccountbot
ht heseri
ousr
iskpresent
edbyt heunsupport
ed
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
gablewal landt hel ackofanysi gnifi
cantadv antageinopeningthe
main garagedoor .Ther iskpr esented byt hegabl ewallinvol
ved
consider
ationbot hoft hepossibil
it
yofcol l
apseandt heseri
ousness
oftheconsequencesi ftherewer eacol lapse.Itisal
sonecessaryto
bearinmi ndthatt heexer cisecar r
iedoutbyt heoff
iceri
nchar ge,
Watch Commander Cl ar
k,was car r
ied out under severet i
me
constrai
nts;sevenmi nutes
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

elapsedbet weent hear ri

valofthefirecrewsandt hecollapse.
Itwasal socar r
iedouti ndar kness.Nev erthel
ess,ev ent aking
thesef act orsint o account ,Iam ofopi nion thataski ll
ed
officerinchar gei nt hisposi ti
on,exercisingr easonablecar e,
woul dhav er ealisedt hedangerpr esent edbyt hegabl ewal l
andal sot hedangerpr esentedbyt heuseofaHal li
gant oolin
anat t
emptt oforceent ry.Againstthat,hewoul dsett hel ack
ofsi gnificantadv antagesi nf orci
ngent ry,i
nt hepar ti
cular
circumst ancesoft hecase.I nmyopi niont heact i
ngsoft he
officer in char ge f ell short of t hat st andar d. In t he
circumst ancesheshoul dnothav eor deredt hepur suerst o
fi
ghtt hef i
r einaposi tionadjacentt othedoorandundert he
gabl ewal l.Iaccor dinglyf indthatthedef ender sar einbr each
oft heircommonl awdut yofcare.

[
43] "Iwasr efer redt oanumberoff urthercasesi nt hisar ea
oft hel aw,buti tseemedt omet hatt hesewer eal lcasest hat
turnedessent i
al lyont heirownf act s.I nev erycaset hel egal
princi plesappl iedwer econsi stentwi tht hoset hatIhav esought
toappl yi nt hepr esentcase.I nWat tvHer tfordshi reCount y
Counci li
twaspoi nt edoutt hatther iskmustbebal ancedagai nst
theendt obeachi ev ed, andwhent hisi nvolvessav inghumanl i
fe
andl imbconsi der abl er isksar ej ustifi
ed.Thati sclear lycor rect .
Int hiscase,howev er ,Imayconsi dert hatt her ewasnot hing,or
veryl ittle,tobesav ed.Consequent lyr iskswer enotj ust if
ied.I n
KingvSussexAmbul anceSer viceitwashel d( HaleLJatpar a21)
thatpubl icser v ant s( int hatcasei nt heambul anceser vice)
acceptt her i
skswhi char ei nherenti nt hei rwor kbutnott her isks
whi cht heexer ciseofr easonabl ecar ecoul d av oid.Thusan
empl oy eri nsuchacasei sobl i
gedt ot aker easonabl ecar et o
prov idesaf eequi pmentandasaf esy stem ofwor k.Thati s
exact lyt het estt hatIhav esoughtt oappl y.Thecr iti
calpoi nti s
thatt her ewasnoneedt oat temptt of or cet hegar agedoor ,and
the r isks wer et her efore unj ustif
iabl e.I nt he recentcase of
Maci nty revMi ni str yofDef enceitispoi ntedout( bySpencerJat
par as69—71)t hatt hel i
kel i
hoodofi njur y
, t
heser i
ousnessoft he
i
njur ywhi chmi ghtoccur ,andt hesoci alv alueoft heact ivit
y
givingr i
set ot her iskandcostofpr ev ent ativ
emeasur esmustal l
bebal anced.It hi nkt hatt hati sclear ;t hebal ancingexer cisei s
cruci al.Fi nal
ly,inI CLTechvJohnst onOi lsLt di tispoi ntedout
(byLor d Hodge atpar as [ 21]and [ 23])t hatt he l aw must
recogni set hatdi ff i
cul tdeci sionsmayhav et obemade, andt hat
thepr inciplespondetper iti
am ar ti
si snotconf i
nedt or ecogni sed
prof essi ons.Iagr eeent i
relywi thbot hoft hosepr oposi tions.The
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

di
ff
icul
tyofthesi
tuat
ionconfronti
ngtheoff
iceri
nchar
gei
nthe
pr
esentcaseiscl
earl
ymat er
ial.Thestat
ementthatev
ent
hose
whodonot
145•
•
belong t oar ecognised professi
on must di splay a
standardofcar eandski llappr
opriat
etothei
rtrainingand
responsibil
i
tiesisi nmyv i
ew cl
earl
ycorrect
;iti nvolv
es
recognit
ion oft he factt hatthereis a spect rum of
possibil
i
tiesr unning fr
om t heclassicHuntervHanl ey
sit
uationononehandt oor di
naryemployer'
sliabili
tyon
theother."

Wi
l
li
amsvBer
mudaHospi
tal
sBoar
d(2014)84WI
R155
Fact s:Thepl aintif
fwasadmi ttedwi t
hsev ereabdomi nalpai ns.
Owi ngt odelaysi nor deringaCTscanandget t
ingt her esul t
s,
surger ytookpl acealmost11hour safteradmission.Thepl ai
nt i
ff
was f ound t o hav e a per forated appendix whi ch r uptured
progr essiv
ely witht ime.He l aterdev eloped adhesions as a
compl i
cati
ont otheper forati
on.
Held:Si ncethet imet akeni norder i
ngt heCTscanandget ti
ngt he
resultswasnotaccept edaspr oper ,thedefendantsbreachedt heir
dutyofcar eowedt ot hepl ai
nti
ff.
Principle:Foranactwhi chisinaccor dancewithapr acti
cet o
behel dnottobeabr eachofdut y,i
tmustbeaccept edaspr oper .

PerWar dJAatpp.161-162,par s.43-46:[ 43]'TheBHB

had cross-
appealed againstthe all
eged failure ofthe
j
udget oconsiderwhet herthetimet akeninobt aini
nga
surgi
calconsult
ationfort heplai
nti
ffwasr easonabl ein
theviewofar easonablebodyofmedi calopinionandby
otherhospi
tal
s.

[44" Inpar a[108]thelear

nedj udgef oundthattheBHB
hasbr eacheditsdutyofcar ebyt hemanneri nwhi chit
treatedt hepat i
entand,impli
edlystated,thatnomat ter
whatmi ghthappeni notherhospi t
als,thestandardof
car ereachedont hi
soccasionwasnotsat i
sfact
ory.Abad
ex ampl eshouldneverbefol
lowed.

[
45] "Iwoul
donlyobser
veinpassi
ngthatt
he'Bol
am test
'
(
Bol
am vFri
ernHospit
alManagementCommi t
tee[1957]
2Al
lER118,[
1957]1WLR582)whi chwasappli
edinthat
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

casewasacti
nginaccor dancewithapracti
ceaccepted
asproperbyaresponsibl
ebodyofmedi calopi
nion.The
RootCauseAnal
ysispreparedbytheBHBconcludedthat
whatwasdonewasnotaccept edasproper
.

[
46] "
Thereis no meri
tint he cr
oss-
appealand i
tis
accor
dingl
ydismi
ssedwithcost
s."

Pr
ober
t(byherl
i
tigat
ionf
ri
end)vMor
e[2012]EWHC2324
Fact
s:Theplaint
if
f,athi
rt
eenandhalfyearoldgi
rlwaswal
ki
ng
homealonealongaroadandli
steni
ngtomusicwit
hanear
phone.
Theroad
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
wasnar r
ow anddar kwi thnost r
eetlighti
ngandnomar ki
ngs.The
speedl i
mi tont heroadwast henat i
onal60mphbutt hedefendant
wasdr ivingatsomet hingmor ethan50mph.Thepl ai
nti
ffcolli
ded
witht hev ehicl
edr i
venbyt hedefendant.Inanact i
onbyt heplaintif
f
i
nnegl igence,t hedef endantpleadedcont ri
butorynegli
gence,t hat
thepl aintiffshouldnothav ebeenwal kingalonebyt hatr
oadsi deat
thet imeandt hatsheshoul dhav ewor nr efl
ector
sandnotused
earphones.
Held:Thest andardofcar eexpectedoft hepl ai
nti
ffwast hatofa
thi
rteen- year -
oldgirlandsi ncesuchaper soncoul dnotbeexpect ed
totaket hesamepr ecautionsasanadul t
,therewasnocont ributory
negligenceont hepar tofthegirl
.
Pri
nci ple: Thest andardofdut yexpectedofachi l
dislowerthant hat
expect edofaf ull
ygrownadul t.

PerDav
idPi
tt
away(
sit
ti
ngasadeput
yJudgeoft
heHi
gh
Cour t
)atpar s.45—49:[ 45]" Insummar yt hecaseagai nst
Bet hanyi sthatsheshoul dnothav ebeenwal kingal ongt he
roadat5. 00pm on3December2009.Sheshoul dhav e
wai tedf orhermot hert ocol lectherf rom t hest ablesas
arranged oraccept ed l i
ftf rom Mr s Wal ker ,par t
icularl
y
wher e she knew oroughtt o have known t here was
i
nsuf f
ici
entgr ass v erge forhert o wal k on.I fitwas
necessar yforhert owal khome,sheshoul dhav ebeen
wear i
ngahi ghv i
si bili
tyjacketorot herref l
ect i
vemar kings
befor eset t
ingof ft owal kalongt her oad.I nstead,shewas
wear i
ngdar kcl ot hingandusi ngear phoneswhi chwoul d
hav ei mpairedherabi l
itytohearappr oachi ngt r
affi
cont he
road.Shewaswal kingont hesamesi deoft her oadas
vehi cl
esappr oachi ngf r
om behi ndher.Shepai di nsuf f
ici
ent
attentiont ov ehi clesont her oadpar ti
cularl
yshewasnot
wat ching, listeni ng, st epping up ont o t he v erge as
necessar yort urningr oundf r
equent ly.Asaconsequenceof
Bet hanynotseei ngMrMoor ebef oret heacci dentandnot
hav inghear dhi sappr oacht hecol li
sionoccur red.

[
46] "
Itiscommongr oundbet weent heexpertsthatthegr ass
vergesont hesect
ionoft heroadwheret heaccidentoccurr
edwer e
unsuitableforwal
kingalong.Iti
salsoagr eed,asdemonst rat
edby
thephot ogr
aphs,t
hatBethanywaswal kingalongt hecorr
ectsideof
theroadwhent heaccidentoccurredbecauseoft hepresenceof
vegetati
oni nthehedgerow ont heothersideandanappr oaching
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
bend.The exper t
s are al
so agr
eed that the sound of t
he
approachi
ngtraf
fi
cwouldhavemaskedthesoundofthecarbehi
nd
herwhethershehadbeenusi
ngherear
phonesornot.

147•
•
[
47] "I
nmyv i
ewt heclai
m ofcontr
ibutor
ynegligenceint
hiscase
i
snotmadeout .Assetoutabovethestandardtobeappl i
edisthe
object
ivest
andardofanordinar
y13-year
oldchil
d.Therewasaf ei
nt
att
emptbyMrChi ppindal
ltointr
oduceev i
denceaboutBet hany'
s
charact
erfrom thecondit
ionandpr ognosisreportfi
ledwiththe
parti
cul
arsofcl
aim whichwasnotpursued.

[
48] "MrPur chassay st hatBethanywasent i
tl
edt ouset heroad
atthatoranyt i
meoft hedayorni ght.Her el i
esuponanumberof
oldcaseswhen,per haps,t herewer emor epedest ri
ansandl ess
vehiculart raf f
icont her oads.I nthemoder nage,apr udentadul t
walking al ong a nar row count ryr oad att hatt ime ofdaymay
considerwear ingahi ghv i
sibili
tyj
acketorot herr eflecti
vemar ki
ngs
orcar r
y i
ngat orchtosi gni fypresenceont her oad.I twasaccept ed
i
nev i
dencet hatthehor se-ri
dersfrom t hest ablesal way sworehi gh
visi
bil
it
yj acket sandcy clistswor esi milarjacketsorcar r
iedli
ght s.
Thequest i
onofwhet heranadul twoul dbeatf aultfornott aking
thosepr ecaut ionsisnott hei ssueIhav etodet ermi ne.Simil
arly,a
prudentpar entadv isingachi ldofBet hany 'sageaboutwal king
homemayadv i
sehert owai tuntilshewascol lectedorsi milarly
weardi stinct i
veclot hing.Agai nthati snott hei ssueIhav et o
determi ne.

[
49] "How doest histranslatet o a 131/ 2y earol d chil
d who
decidest owal khomeonherown?Al thought herewasnoev idence
fr
om Bet hany ,oneexpl anationcoul dbeshet houghtshewoul d
meethermot hercomi ngi nt heopposi tedi r
ectionwhi l
stwal ki
ng
home.Ther easonf orherdecisionwi ll
, howev er,
remai nunknown.I t
seems t o me t hatan or di
nary13 1/ 2y earol d shoul d notbe
expectedt oconsi dertakingt hesamel ev elofpr ecautionsasan
adult.Itwoul dbeaski ngtoomuchofhert osayt hatsheshoul dnot
hav estartedt owal khomeatal l
, waitedf orhermot heroraccept ed
l
ift,orshoul dnothav est art
edt owal khomewi thoutbor rowinga
highv i
sibili
tyjacket,refl
ectivemar kingsort orchf rom thest ables.
Inmyv i
ewt hoseact ionsf orachi l
dofheragewoul dhav ebeena
paragonofpr udence.Onceshehadst artedoutont her oadIam
satisfi
edt hatshecl earl
ydi dtakest epsf orherownsaf ety.Shegot
outoft hewayofv ehi
clest ravell
i
ngal ongt her oad.Mr sMann' s
evidencewast hatsheobser vedBet hanycl imbont othev ergeas
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
sheapproachedandt henbackontotheroadaf t
ershepassed.Iam
sati
sfi
edt hatshedidnotcl i
mbont othegr assvergeort ur
nround
whenMrMoor e'
scarapproachedfrom behindherbecauseshewas
notawar eofi tspresence.Nor,inmyv i
ew,di dBethany'suseof
earphones,ont hefactsoft hi
scase,makeamat er
ialdif
fer
ence,
becauseoft henoiseoftheapproachi
ngv ehicl
es."

JonesvWhi ppey[ 2009]EWCACi v452

Facts:Thepl ai
ntiff
,anexper iencedrunner,wasr unningal onga
footpath on a r iverside when he had an encount erwi t
ht he
defendant '
sdog.Hef el ldownasl opet otheriv erandbr okehis
ankle.Thedoghadbeenl etofftheleadbythedef endant .Thecourt
foundt hatthatpar t
icularspeci esofdogswasgent l
einnat ur eand
hadnot endencyt oj umpatpeopl eal t
hought heycoul dbev er
y
i
ntimidatingattimes.
Held:Ther ewasnotpr obabil
ityofphy si
calinj
uryoccur ringbyt he
dogmaki ngcont actwi t hthepl aint
if
fandt hust hedef endanthad
notbreachedhi sdut yofcar e.
Princi
ple:Aper sondoesnotbr eachhisdutyofcar eifheact si
na
wayar easonablemani nhisposi ti
onwouldhav eact edundert he
cir
cumst ances.

PerAi kensLJatpar s.12— 16:[ 12]"I

faper sonAi stobe
heldliabl etoBi nnegl igenceforpersonalinjury,general ly
speaki ngt hejudgehast odeterminefourprincipalmat ter s
i
nf avourofB.Thef i
rstisthatAowedBadut yofcar e.
Secondl y,t
hej udgemustf i
ndthatAact ednegl i
gentlywi th
regardt other elevantact soromi ssi
ons.Thirdl
y ,thejudge
musthol dthatt hosenegl i
gentactsoromi ssionscaused
theper sonalinjur ytoBofwhi chhecompl ains.Last l
y,t he
j
udgemustf i
ndt hattheinjur
ywasnotsounf oreseeabl eas
tobet oor emot et ober ecover
able,al
thought heext entof
theper sonalinjur ysufferedneednoti tsel
fber easonabl y
foreseeabl e.

[13]"I
nthiscase,MrWhippeyclearl
yowedadut yofcaret o
MrJones wi t
hr egar
dt ot he wayMrWhi ppeyhandl ed
Hectorinthepubl i
cparkinLeedst hataft
ernoonandt he
j
udgesof ound.Itisal
soclearfr
om thejudge'
sf i
ndingsthat
t
heencount erbetweenHectorandMrJonesdi r
ectl
ycaused
t
hei nj
uri
est hatMrJonessuf fer
edand,obv i
ously,t
hose
i
njur
ieswer enottooremot etober ecover
ableasamat ter
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
ofl
aw.Sot heonlyi
ssueonwhi chtherecanbear gumentis
whether t
he judge was correct to conclude that Mr
Whippey'
sconducti
nhandli
ngHect orthatdayfel
lbelowthe
st
andardtobeexpectedofareasonablehandler

149"
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
"
lhe

ofHect
ori
ntheci
rcumst
ancesoft
hataf
ter
noon.

14] "
[ Theeffectoft hejudgmenti sthatthejudgef oundt hatMr
Whippeyhadf ailedtotakesufficientcaretoensur ethattherewere
noot herpeopleaboutbef orehel etHectoroffthel ead.Hef ound
that
,asar esult
,int hecircumst ancesexisti
ngt hatafternoon,Mr
Whippeyhad,ont hatoneoccasi on,fal
lenbelowt hestandar dtobe
expectedofar easonablehandlerofHect or
.

[15] " Theonl yonepar toft hej udgmentt hatcanbeat t

ackedi n
thiscourti
s,Ithink,t
hest atementofl awi nthefir
stsent enceofpar a
17oft hejudgment .Thej udget heresetoutt hetestf ort
hest andard
ofcar etobeexpect edofar easonable'carer
'ofadogwi t
ht he
characteri
sti
csofHect orintheci rcumstancesinwhi chMrWhi ppey
foundhi mselfthatafternoon.Thej udgesaid:ther esponsiblecarer
mustensur e,andt aker easonabl ecar etoensur e,thatadogdoes
not put peopl ei n a posi ti
on wher et hey mi ght reasonably
foreseeab/ysuffersomesor tofinjury.
'

[16] " Didt he j udge there correctly statet he l egalt est? The
quest ionofwhet heraper sonhasact ednegl igentlyisnotanswer ed
simpl ybyanal ysingwhathedi dOfdi dnotdoi nt hecircumst ances
thatpr ev ai
ledatt hetimei nquestionandt hent est i
ngitagainstan
obj ecti
v est andardof' reasonablebehav i
our '
.Bef or eholdingt hata
per son'sst andar dofcar ehasf al
lenbel ow theobj ecti
vest andar d
expect edandsof indi
ngt hatheact ednegl i
gent l
y, thecourtmustbe
sat i
sfiedt hatar easonableper soni ntheposi t
ionoft heDef endant
(iet heper sonwhocausedt heinci dent)woul dcont empl atet hat
i
nj uryisl i
kelytof ollowfrom hisactsoromi ssions.Nori stheremot e
possi bil
ityofi nj
ur yenough;t heremustbeasuf ficientprobabilit
yof
i
nj uryt oleadar easonabl eperson( intheposi ti
onoft heDef endant )
toant icipateit."
Andatpar s.18and19:[ 18]"Inmyj udgment, t
hetestthatthejudge
appli
edint hef ir
stsentenceofpar a17ofhi sjudgmentdoesnot
accurat
elyreflectthosest at
ementsoft hel aw.Thej udgedi dnot
placesuffi
cientemphasi sont heneedt oest abl
ishthattherewas
suchapr obabi l
i
tyofphy si
calinj
uryoccurri
ngt oanotherpar kuser
,
suchasMrJones, byHectormakingphysicalcontactwit
hhi m ashe

•
160
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
di
d,thatMrWhi ppey
,acti
ngasar easonabl
edoghandl
eri
nthe
ci
rcumstances,
oughttohaveant
ici
patedthatwhen

deci
dingt
oletHect
orof
fthel
ead.

[19]" In my opi ni
on,had t he judge posed t he cor r
ect
quest ion,hecoul donl yhav econcluded,ont hef act sfound
andont heunchal l
engedev i
denceofMrWhi ppey ,thata
reasonabl e man i n Mr Whi ppey'
s posi tion woul d not
anticipatet hatphysicalinjur
yt oanot heradul tpar kuser
suchasMrJoneswoul dbecausedbyHect orphy sicall
y
cont acting hi m.As al r
eadynot ed,t he judge had f ound
expr esslyt hatHectorhadnot endencyt oj umpupatot her
peopl e;att hemosthest oppedandbar kedatpeopl esome
fiv
eort enf eetaway .Therewasnor easonwhyMrWhi ppey ,
asar easonabl edoghandl erinthepar k,shouldt herefore
haveant ici
patedthati fHect orwasl etof fthel eadwhen
someot heradultwasabout ,physicalhar mt ot hatadul t
woul d r esultfrom Hect or boundi ng up t o hi m and
cont actinghi m."

O'
Nei
l
lvDunnesSt
ores[
2010]I
ESC53
Fact s:Thepl aint
if
fwasi njuredwhi leassistingasecur i
tyof f
icerin
the def endant '
sst oret o arresta shopl i
fter.Att he ti
me oft he
i
nci dent,t herewasonl yonesecur i
tyoff
iceri ntheent irest oreand
therewasnomeansofcommuni cati
onbet weent hest affandt he
secur i
tyof f
icerapartfrom mobi l
ephones.Thei njuryoccur redwhen
acompani onoft heshopl if
terswungabi cy clechainacr osst hef ace
ofthepl ainti
ff.
Held:Thedef endant'
ssecur i
tydetailhadfallenshor tofthatr equired
ofast or eoft henat ureoft hedef endant'
s,andt hust hedef endant
hadbr eachedt hedut yofcar eowedt othepl aint
if
f.
Principle:Aper sonbr eachest hedutyofcar eheowesi fheact sor
fai
lst oacti nawayt hatar easonabl emanexer ci
singr easonabl e
carewoul dnothav edone.

PerO' Donnel
lJ:"
Hereitcouldbesai
dwi t
hsomefor cethat
therewasnoev i
dencefrom anywit
nessast owhet heror
notitwasnor maltohavetwoormoresecuri
tymenondut y
forl ate ni
ghtshopping i
n a store wi
ththe size and
throughputofDunnesSt oresinThurl
es.Whil
ether ewas
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
referenceincr ossexami nationt oapr otocolpr oducedby
Dunnes,onlyapor t
ionofwhi chMrBy rnecoul dr emember ,
thedocumenti tselfwasnotputi nev i
dence.I nt heev ent
there are significant dif
ficulti
es witht reating t hi
s as
evidenceofgener alpracti
cef r
om whichnegl i
gencecanbe
deduced.First,itis,stri
ctl
yspeaki ng,onlyt heev idenceof
Dunnes'own pr acti
ce and nott he gener alpr act i
ce of
reasonablestoreowner s.Second,t heev idencei tselfwas
somewhatequi vocal.Evenifi twasacceptedt hatMrBy rne
151•
•

wasout number ed— andhemai ntainedheonl ywentaf terone

culprit
,Al exanderColvil
le—hi smemor yoft hepr otocolwast hathe
wasnott oacti fhef elti twasout sidehi scapaci ties.Thet est
thereforewasasomewhatsubj ectiveoneandwasnotobv i
ousl y
breached.Al loft hi
sill
ust rateswhatwasmi ssingi nt heplaintiff'
s
case.Gi vent heratherdramat i
canddanger oussituat i
onwhi char ose,
thef actthatnoot herDunnesSt oresempl oyeewasabl etocomet o
MfBy rne'sassistanceandt hef actt hatitseemshi ghlyprobablet hat
l
at enightopeni ngonThur sdayi satl eastasbusyandpossi blymor e
troublesomet handayt imeshoppi ng,i tseemsl ikelyt hataper son
wi t
hev enbasi cexper i
encewoul dbeabl et opoi ntt oaser i
esof
fl
awsi nt hemanneri nwhi cht hesy stem operatedont hateveni ng
and coul d hav e compar ed itunf avourably with bestpr act i
ce.
Howev er,noev i
denceoft hatnat urewasgi ven,andIdonott hink
thatacour twoul dbej ustifiedi ndet erminingofi tsownknowl edge
thatitwas,f orexample,f ollyorev enunr easonable,forDunnesonl y
tohav ehadonesecur i
tyguar donl at enightshoppi ngi nJuly2002or
fora secur ityguar dto conf rontoneoratbestt wo juvenile,if
somewhatt roublesome,shopl i
fters,orwhenoner anof f,tohav e
pursuedhi m.

"I
ndeedi nthisr egard,Iwouldbev eryslow t oi mposethr ought he
l
aw ofnegl igencesomei nfl
exibl
er ulethatt heremustal way sbea
minimum oft wosecur i
tyguardsinanyst or e,atleastont helimited
evidenceprof f
eredi nthiscase.Iwoul dbeev enmor er eluct
antt o
sti
gmat i
se as negl i
gent,the act s of the secur i
ty guar d who
confront
ed,chasedanddet ai
nedashopl if
ter— especi al
lyonewho
appearedunr uly
, i
ntoxi
catedandgi ventov iolence.Iti
sonet hingfor
prudence t o suggest caut i
on r ather than cour age i n cer t
ain
ci
rcumst ances;i tis quit
e anothert hatt he l aw should demand
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
caut
ionandpenal
i
secour
age.

"Howev er,therei samor enar r

ow basi sf ort heconcl usiont hatin
thiscaseDunnesSt or
esf ailedtoadher etoanappr opriatestandard
ofcar e.Per haps the mostt elli
ng piece ofev i
dence was t hat
volunteeredbyMrBy r
nei ncr oss-examinationt hati twascompl etel
y
againstpr oceduret oi
nv ol
v eamemberoft hepubl i
c.MrBy rnegav e
thatev idence whi l
e deny ing thathe had r equest ed MrO' Neill
'
s
assist
ance, butthetri
aljudgef oundt hatMrBy rnehadi ndeedasked
MrO' Neillforhelpandont heev idence,thatconcl usionwasent i
rel
y
appropriateandcannotnow bechal lengedont hisappeal .Onone
view,itmi ghtbesai dthatinv ol
vingamemberoft hepubl i
cinbr each
ofcertainpr oceduresmakesMrBy rnenegligent ,andDunnesSt or
es

vicar i
ousl yl i
ablef orhi sdef aul t.Howev er,It hi nkt hatt hat
anal ysiswoul dbemor et hanal ittl
ear tifi
cial:Iam notsur e
thati tcanbesai dt hatanysecur ityguar d( nomor et hanany
citi
zen) ,canbesai dt ooweadut yofcar et omember sof
thepubl i
cnott oi nv olvet hem byaski ngt hem f orhel pt o
det ainasuspect .ItisIt hinkpr ef erablet oseet hatev i
dence
ast hecl earestpossi blei ndicat iont hati ft her ewasany
syst em i npl aceont heev eni ng,i thadgonebadl ywr ong.I n
theabsenceofev idenceofcommonpr act i
cei tmaynotbe
possi bl et osaywi thcer taintyt hatt hereoughtt ohav ebeen
anot hersecur it
yguar dt oassi stMrBy rne, butt her ecer tai
nly
oughtt ohav ebeensomeoneav ai
lablet oassi sthi m.The
i
mageoft het wo- wayr adi owhi chwasusel essbecause
ther ewasnoonet ocommuni catewi th,isitsel ftelli
ng.I tis
cleart hatt herewer emanager sondut y ,(i
ndeedMrBy rne
saidt hatheaskedMsSt apl etont ogett hem)andt hatsuch
manager scoul dhav eassi stedMrBy r
nei fal ertedt ot he
situat i
on.I tseemscl eart hatt her eoughtt ohav ebeena
mor eef fecti
veandi mmedi at emet hodofcommuni cation
withmanager st hanhav ingt or esor ttoaski ngapassi ng
cleani ngl adyt ocal lthem.I tdoesnotappeart hatt herewas
anysy st em inpl acewher et het wo- wayr adiocoul dbehel d
byanot herper sonf ort heev eningoranyar rangementf or
MrBy rnet obeabl et ocommuni cat ewi t
hanyot hermember
ofst aff.Ev enont hel i
mi tedev identialr ecor dt her efore,I
consi dert hatt he t ri
alj udge i s ent i
tled t o come t ot he
concl usi ont hatthisst ateofaf fairswasunr easonabl eand,
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
i
fnecessary,amount
ed t
othetypeof'fol
ly
'whi
ch Lor
d
Dunedi
nidenti
fi
edmoret
han100y
earsago.
"

Imbr eeMcNei ll
y[ 2009]1LRC518; [2008]HCA40
Fact s:Thepl aint i
ff,whileint hepossessi onofacompanyv ehicle,
permi tt
edt hedef endant,a16- year -
oldunlicensedper sont odrivethe
caronagr avelr oadwhi leher emai nedapassenger .Thedef endant
l
ostcont rol ofthecarandi tover tur
ned, causingspi nali
njuri
est othe
plainti
ffwhi chrender edhimt etraplegic.Hesued.
Held:Thedef endanthadbr eachedt hedut yofcar eowedt ot he
plainti
ffsi ncehi sconducthadf all
enshor toft hatofar easonable
compet entdr iver.
Principle:Thest andar dofcar er equiredofal earnerdriv
erwast hat
requi r
edofanyot herdriveront her oad,namel yt otaker easonable
caret oav oi dinjuryt oothers.

PerGleesonCJatp.527,
par.10:'
Todescr
ibeacaseasspeci
al,
orexcepti
onal
,i
mpli
esexi
stenceofapr
inci
plebywhi
ch

153•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
tcanber ecogni sed,anddi st i
ngui shedf rom t heor di nar y .The
pluralityr easonsi nCookvCookaccept edt hat ,asagener alrul e,
thest andar dofcar eowedbyadr ivert osomeonewhomi ght
foreseeabl y be i njured by l ack of car ei s obj ect ive and
i
mper sonal ,andi snotmodi f
iedbyt heper sonalat tribut esoft he
driver,whi ch mi ghti nclude age,ski l
l,al ertness,phy sicalOf
ment alheal th,sobr i
etyorev enaspect soft emper ament ,some
ofwhi ch,i nt hecaseoft heonedr iv er,mayal ter ,per hapsov era
shor tt i
me.Thi si s so because t he car et hati sr easonabl y
requir edoft hedr iverofacari sapr oductoft hehar mt hatcan
resultf r
om f ailuret oexer ci
secar e,andbecauset heal ternat ive
woul d be an i nfinitelyv ari
abl e st andar d,r espondi ng t ot he
particul arcombi nat ionofat tribut espossessedbyadr iv eratany
givent i
me( seeJosl ynvBer ry man[ 2003]HCA34,( 2003)214
CLR552at[ 30]perMcHughJ) .Itwasconcl udedi nCookvCook
(1986)162CLR376at384t hat , becauset heabsenceofski l
l,or
exper ience, wast her easonf ort hei nstructionorsuper v isiont hat
wasunder taken,i twasi rr
ationalt oi mposeast andar dofcar e
owedbyt hedr ivert othei nst r
uct ororsuper visort hatwasnot
modi f iedt ot akeaccountoft hel ackofski llorexper i
ence.That ,
withr espect ,i snotatal lobv ious.Thef act or sdescr ibedas
speci almaybesi gni fi
cant ,i
nagi vencase, f ori ssuessuchast he
existenceofadut yofcar e,cont ri
but orynegl igence,v olunt ary
assumpt ion ofr isk,orcausat ion.Gi ven,howev er,t hati ti s
accept edt hatt hedr i
verowesadut yt ot hesuper visort ot ake
reasonabl e car ef ort he super v i
sor 's saf et y;gi v en t he wi de
variabi li
tyindegr eesofi nexper ience; andgi vent hei nt er act ionof
exper ience,orl ackofi t
,wi t
hot herper sonalat t ribut est hatbear
upon saf edr i
ving,i tisnoti r
r ationalt oi mposean obj ective
standar dofcar er at herthant oat temptt oadj ustt hest andar dof
caret ot hel ev elofexper ienceofani ndividual dr i
v er .
"

PerGummow,Hay ne,KiefelJJatp.358,par s.53and54:[ 53]

"Thebasicconsi derat
ionsofpr i
ncipl
emaybest atedasf oll
ows.
Fir
st,the inquiryis aboutt he appli
cable st andard ofcar e.
Secondly,t
hest andardtobeappl iedisobjective.Itdoesnotv ary
withthepar t
icul
arapt i
tudeort emperamentoft hei ndivi
dual.
Thirdl
y,i
tis,andmustbe, acceptedthatal earnerdr iverowesal l
otherroaduser sadut yofcar ethatrequi
rest hel earnertomeet
thesamest andardofcar easanyot herdriveront her oad.The
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
l
earnermayhav et odisplay'L-
plat
es'foral
lot
herroadusersto
see,butt
hatlearnerwil
lbehel dtothesamestandardofcareas
anyotherdri
verinfulf
ill
i
ngt helearner
'sdut
ytotakereasonabl
e
caretoavoi
dinjuri
ngotherroaduser s.

"
154
Fourt
hly,itwasnotsuggestedinargument ,andt her
eisnothing
i
nCookvCookt hatwouldsuggest,thatalearnercfri
verowesa
l
esserst andardofcaretoanypassengeri nthev ehi
cleexcept
theli
censeddr i
verwhositsintheadj oi
ningseat.Inparti
cul
ar,i
t
wasnotsuggest edthatanyknowl edgeofanot herpassenger
thatthedr i
verwasinexperi
encedaf fect
st hestandardofcar e
thatthe dr i
vermustobser vet o av oi
di nj
uryt ot hatother
passenger.

[54]" Knowl edgeofi nexper i

encecant husprovidenosuf fi
cient
foundat i
onf orappl y
ingdi ff
er entst andardsofcar ei ndeci ding
whet heral ear nerdr i
verisl i
abl et oonepassengerr atherthan
anot her,ori ndeci di
ngwhet hert hatl earnerdri
verisl i
ablet oa
personout sidet hecarr atherthanonewhowasseat edint hecar,
i
nt headj oiningseat .Theot herpassengerwi l
lordinaril
yknow
thatt hedr iveri sal earnerdr iver
;t her oaduserout sidet hecar
canseet heL- plates.Yetitisnotdi sput edthatthelearnerdr i
ver
oweseachoft hoseper sonsast andar dofcaredet erminedby
referencet ot her easonabl edriver.
"

Andatpp.545and546:" Actualknowl edgeofadef endant's

i
nabil
ityt or each a standard ofr easonabl e care maybe a
necessar y
,buti twoul d notbe a suf ficient,step towar ds a
conclusionaboutv olunt
aryassumpt ionofr isk.Andbot hwhata
pl
aintif
fact ual
lyknows,andwhatt hatplaintif
foughtreasonabl y
tohav eknown,wi l
lberelevanttoani nqui ryaboutcont r
ibutory
negli
gence.The answer st o bot h quest i
ons (aboutwhata
pl
aintif
fknewandwhatapl ainti
ffoughttohav eknown)wi llbear
uponwhet hertheplaint
if
ffailedtotaker easonabl ecareforhi s
orherownsaf ety
.

"Standi
ngalone,howev er
,apl aint
if
f'
sactualknowledgeofgood
reasonstothinkthatthedef endantmaynotmeett hestandard
oft her
easonablepersonpr ovidesnosuffi
cientorcert
ainbasis
forconcludi
ngthatsomel essery etobj
ecti
v est
andardofcar e
should be appli
ed.Itpr ovides no suffi
cientbasisf orthat
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
conclusion becauset her eisan unar t
iculated middlest ep in
reasoningf r
om apl ainti
ff'sknowledget hatadef endantmaynot
user easonablecare,t oappl yi
ngt other esolutionofacl aimf or
damages f ornegligence an obj ect
ive,and t hus generali
sed,
standardofcar ewhichr educest herequi r
edst andardofcar eby
refer
encet osomeknownat tri
buteofthedef endant.Thatmi ddle
stepcanbedescr i
bedi nanumberofdi fferentway s.Usingt he
l
anguageofDi xonJi nJoy ce(1948)77CLR39at57, itcouldbe
described as a st ep t hatdef i
nes ori dent i
fi
es the relevant
'
relat
ions,juxtaposi
tions, si
tuati
onsorconductor

155.

activ
iti
es'oforbet weent hepar ties.Alternati
vely
,itcouldbe
described as a st ep of i dentif
ying t he r el
evant
characteri
sticsoft hehy pothesisedr easonableact orwhose
conductset st hestandar dofcar et hatisbeingappl i
ed.Itis
notnecessar yt o choosebet weent hosedescr ipti
onsf or
theyar enoti ntendedt obedi f
f erenti ntheiroperati
on.But
withoutf i
rstidenti
fyi
nghowt hatmi ddlestepi stobet aken,
the st ate of t he plaint i
ff
's act ual knowl edge of t he
defendant '
s defici
encies pr ovi
des no cer t
ain basisf ora
conclusionaboutwhati st herelev antstandardofcar e."

Oukhel
l
ouvLi
tt
on[
2014]EWHC2303
Fact s:Thepl aintif
funder wentakneer eplacementsur geryandwas
dischar ged subj ectt or ev i
ews.The oper ating doct or'
sr egi
strar
conduct edarev iewandr ecommendedt hatnof urthertreatmentwas
needed.He,howev er,suf feredani nfectionandwast akenbyan
ambul ancet ot hehospi tal.Hesuedt hatt hedef endantshadbeen
negl igenti nconduct i
ngt her ev
iewandt hatacar efulanalysi
swoul d
hav eshownt hatheoughtt ohav ebeenadmi tted.
Hel d:Ont hedayoft her eview,nor easonabl ycompet entor t
hopaedic
surgeonwoul dhav er ecommendedf urthertr eatmentoradmi ssion
and t hus since t he def endants had act ed as a r easonable
prof essi onalwoul dhav edone, theywer enotl iable.
Princi ple:Aper sondoesnotbr eacht hest andar dofcar eifheactsas
ar easonabl ecompet entper sonwoul dhav eact edal thoughhet akes
amor econser vat i
veappr oach.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
PerJudgeSi mpki ssatpar .77:" Inmyj udgmentt hi sclaimi s
broughtwi t
hasi gnificantel ementofhi ndsi ght .Bot ht he
Claimant '
s exper ts hav e appr oached t he mat teri nt he
knowl edget hatift her ehadbeenasur gicaldebr idementand
then t reat mentwi th aggr essiv e ant ibiotics t he i nfect i
on
woul d hav e been pr ev ented and t he need f orr ev i
sion
av oided.MrCannonagr eeswi tht his.Wi t
hhi ndsi ght,t hi s
woul dhav ehappenedi fMrApsi nghihadadv isedt hiscour se
on4June2008, al thought hef i
naldeci sionwoul dhav ebeen
MrManj ure's.Thati snott hei ssuei nt hiscase,whi chi s
whet herMrApsi nghi fel lbelowt her elev antst andar dofcar e.
In myj udgmenthe di d not .Iam notsat isfied t hatno
reasonabl y compet entor t
hopaedi c sur geon woul d hav e
deal twi tht hecasei nt hewayi nwhi chMrApsi nghidi d.I t
wasnotnegl igentt ot aket hemor econser v
at iv eappr oach.
Ther ewer er isksat tachedt osur gicali nterv ent ionandno
clinicalsi gnswhi chi ndi catedaneedt ot akesuchst eps. "
Or angevChi efConst abl eofWestYor kshi rePol ice[ 2002]QB
347Fact s:Thepl aint i
f f
'shusbandwasar rest edf orbei ng
drunkanddi sorder lyandpl acedi npol i
cecust ody .Hewas
allowedt okeepal lhi scl othingi ncludi nghi sbel t.Thecel l
wher ehewaskepthadagat ewi thahor i
zont ali ronbar .The
pol i
cehadassessedt hedeceasedandconcl udedt hathe
wasnotasui cider isk.Hewasmoni toredbyCCTV and
regul arv isit
sev er y30mi nutes.TheCCTVcoul dnotshow
thebarbuthewasseenoni tmov i
ngf reel yi nt hecel land
notbei ngi ndi st
ress.Whenadeci si
onwast akent or elease
him aboutf ourhour sl at er,theyf oundt hathehadhanged
himsel fwi tht hebel tont hehor izontalbar .Thepl ai nti
ffsued
thatt hedef endant sbr eachedt heirdut yt oensur et hesaf et y
oft hedeceasedi nt hei rcust odyi nal lowi nghi mt okeephi s
bel t
.
Held:Si ncet hepol i
ceassessedhi m andf oundhi m nott obea
sui
cider isk,t her ewasnobr eachofdut yinal l
owi nghi mt okeephi s
bel
t.Pr inci ple:Thescopeoft hedut yoft hepol i
cet ot aker easonabl e
caref ort heheal thandsaf etyofaper soni nt hei rcust odymustbe
consider edi nt hecont extofani ncreasedr iskofsui cidewhi chgi ves
ri
set oagr eat erobl igat iont oensur etheheal thandsaf etyoft he
pri
soner .

PerLatham LJatp.361and362,pars.41-43:41"We
acceptt
hegener
alpr
oposi
ti
ont
hatt
hereisani
ncr
easedr
isk
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
ofsui cideamongstt hosei ncust odyasagai nstthosei nt he
communi ty.Wef ur theracceptf rom t hemat eri
albef or
eus
thatt her ei sasi gnifi
canti ncreasei nt hatr i
ski ncer tain
categor iesofpr isoner s.I tisnot ewor thy,howev er,thatt he
maj orityoft he mat erialr elat
es t o suici de orat tempt ed
suicidei npr ison,ei t
heronr emandoraf t erconv i
ction.The
onlymat eri
alspeci f i
ct odeat hsinpol icecust odyi sapaper
from t heHomeOf f
icePol iceResear chGr oupdat edJul y
1998,whi chsi gnificant l
ypostdat est heev entswithwhi ch
we ar e concer ned.Thi s descr ibes such deat hs as 'rare'
.
Fur t
her ,t her
ei s no ev idence whi ch suggest st hatt hose
arrestedf orbei ngdr unkanddi sor derlyf or m acat egoryof
prisoneri nr espectofwhi ch t herei s any si gnifi
cant l
y
i
ncr eased r i
sk ofsui cide.Mor e par ti
cularly,therei s no
mat erialbef oreuswhi chsuggest sthatt herehadbeenany
previousi nci
dent sofsui ci
deorsel f-
har mi ntheBr i
dewel lof
anyr elev ancet ot hispar ti
cularcase.I tseemst oust hatitis
i
nt hiscont extt hatt hescopeoft hedut yofcar et o an
i
ndi vi
dual suchast hedeceasedi nt hepr esentcasehast obe
consi dered.

42" TheconsequenceofMrOwen' sargumenti sthatev ery

persontakenintocust ody,whet herpol
icecust odyort he
custodyofthePr i
sonSer vi
ce,ist obetreatedasasui cide
ri
sk.Wedonotconsi derthatthatistheappropri
ateresponse
ofthecourttothemat eri
albeforeus.Thereisnodoubtt hat
a

157.
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
"
Ibe

custodianowesadut yofcar etothoset akeni nt

ocust ody.As
wehav esai d,t hedut yi st otaker easonabl ecar efort hat
person'sheal thandsaf ety .Indet ermini ngtheextentoft hat
duty,itisclear lyrelevantt otakei nt
oaccountt hef actt hat
thereisani ncr easedr i
skofsui cideamongstsuchpr isoners.
Butt hatdoesnotmeant hatsuici deisaf oreseeabler i
ski n
rel
ationt oeverypr isoner.AsLor dHopesai dinReev es'scase
[
2000]1AC 360,378,sui cidecanbebot hunf oreseenand
unforeseeable.Nordoweconsi dert hati twouldbef ai
r,just
andr easonabl etoi mposeuponei thert hepol i
ceOft hepr i
son
authorit
iesagener alobligat iontot reatev erypri
sonerasi fhe
orshewer easui cider isk.Theconsequencewoul dbean
unaccept abl
el ev elofcont rolandpr ecaut i
on,notonl yasan
obli
gat i
on pl aced upon t he aut hor i
ties,butal so as an
i
mposi tionont hei ndivi
dual pri
soner .

43" I
tseems t o us t hatt he rightbal ance i s st ruck by
recogni sing,asLor dHof fmanndi dinReev es'scase,atp368,
i
nt hepassagewehav ealreadyci ted,that' adut yt opr otecta
per sonoff ullunder st
andingf r
om causi nghar mt ohi mselfi s
veryr arei ndeed' .Lor dHopesai dmucht hesame,atp379H,
agai ni n a passage whi ch we hav e already ci ted.I n my
j
udgment ,thei ncreasedr iskofsui ci
deamongstpr isoner scan
proper lybesai dt ogi v
er i
set oanobl i
gation, withint hegener al
dut yofcar et hecust odianhasf orthepr i
soner 'sheal t
hand
saf ety,tot aker easonabl est epst oident i
fywhet herornota
prisonerpr esents a sui cide risk.The obl igation t ot ake
reasonabl ecar et opr eventapr i
sonerf rom t akinghi sownl i
fe
deliberatelyonl yar iseswher ethecust odianknowsoroughtt o
knowt hatt heindi vidualprisonerpr esentsasui cider i
sk.Inour
view Lor dHof fmannandLor dHopewhenadv er ti
ngt ot he
gener alr i
skofsui cideinpr isonandt her elati
onshi pbet ween
thecust odianandt hepr i
sonwer edoi ngsoi nor dert oexpl ain
whyt hev eryunusual dutyar oseatal l
.Wedonotconsi dert hat
Lor dHof fmanni ntendedt hedut yt oappl yt oal lpr isoner s.
Lor dHope,i nourv i
ew,clear lyintendedt hatt hedut yshoul d
onlybeowedwher et heriskofsui ci
dei nt hei ndiv i
dualcase
j
ust if
iedi mposi ngi t
."

•
170
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Bl
akevGal
l
oway[
200413Al
lER315
Facts:Thepl ai
nti
ffandt hedef endantwer eengagedi nhor sepl
ay.
Whent hedefendantt hrewabar kchippingattheplai
ntif
f,itst
ruckhi
s
eyecausingsigni
ficantinj
uryalt
hought hedefendanthadnotai medat
theplai
ntif
f'
seye.Thedef endantpleadedconsent.
Held:Sincethedef endantdidnotactr eckl
esslyorgrosslycarel
essl
y,
hehadnotbr eachedt hedutyofcareowed.

Principle:A def
endantinagamewhi chispl ay
edaccor
dingtothe
accept edconventi
ondoesnotbr
eachthedutyofcar
eowedtoanot
her
playerunl esshisactamountstoreckl
essnessorahighdegreeof
carelessness.

PerDy sonLJatpp.321and322,par s.13— 17:[ 13]" I

nt he
presentcase,t hehor sepl ayi nwhi cht hef ivey outhswer e
engagedwasnotar egul atedspor torgamepl ayedaccor ding
toexpl i
ci trules,norwasi tor gani sedi nanyf ormalsense.
Rat her,itwasi nt henat ureofi nformalpl ay ,whi chwasbei ng
conduct ed i n accor dance wi th cer tai
n t acitl
y agr eed
under standi ngs or conv entions. These wer e obj ectivel
y
ascer tai
nabl ebyt hecl aimant ,sincehecoul dseet henat ureof
thehor seplayi nwhi chhi sf ri
endswer ei ndul gingbef orehe
j
oi nedi n.Theunder st andingsorconv entionswer et hatt he
obj ect
st hatwer ebeingt hrownwer er estr
ictedt ot wigs, pieces
ofbar kand ot hersimi larr elati
v elyhar ml essmat erialthat
happenedt obel yingar oundont hegr ound;t heywer ebei ng
thrown i nt he gener aldi rection oft he par ticipantsi na
somewhatr andom f ashi on,and notbei ng ai med atany
par ti
cularpar tsoft heirbodi es;andt heywer ebei ngt hrowni n
agood- nat uredway ,wi thoutanyi nt enti
onofcausi nghar m.
Thenat ur eoft heobj ectsandt hef orcewi thwhi cht heywer e
bei ngthr ownwer esucht hatther iskofi njury( almostcer tainl
y
l
imi tedt oi njur yt othef ace)wasv erysmal l
.Ther ewasno
expect ationt hatski llorj udgmentwoul dbeexer cised,any
mor ethant her ewoul dbebypar ti
ci pant sinasnowbal li
ngf i
ght.
These wer et he char acteristi
cs oft he game i n whi ch the
claimantdeci dedt opar ti
cipate.

[141"Theoff
endingbl
owwascausedbyapi eceofbarkwhich
wast hrowninaccordancewit
hthetaci
tunderstandi
ngsor
conventi
onsofthegamei nwhi
chthecl
aimantpart
ici
pated.I
t
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
wast hr
owninthegeneraldi
rect
ionoft heclai
mant,wit
hno
i
ntenti
onofcausi
ngharm,andint hesamehigh-spi
ri
tedgood
natur
easall
theotherobj
ect
shadbeent hrown.

[
15] "Irecognisethatt hepar ti
cipantsi nthehor seplay
owedeachot heradutytot aker easonablecar enott ocause
i
njury.Whatdoest hatmeani nthecont extofpl ayofthiskind?
Noaut hor
ityhasbeenci tedt ousdeal ingwithnegl i
gencei n
rel
ati
on t oi njur
y caused int he cour se ofhor seplay,as
opposedt oaf ormalsportorgame.Iconsi derthatthereisa
suffi
cientl
ycl oseanalogybet weenor ganisedandr egulated
sportorgamesandt hehorseplayi nwhi chthesey outhswer e
engagedf ort heguidancegi venbyt heaut horiti
estowhi chI
haver efer
redt obeofv al
uei nther esoluti
onoft hiscase.The
onlyreal
159•
•

diff
erenceisthatt herewerenof ormal rul
esf orthehor sepl ay
.
ButIdonotconsi dert hatthi
sisasi gnifi
cantdi sti
nction.The
commonf eaturesbet weenhor seplayoft hiskindandf ormal
sporti nv
ol v
ing v igorous physicalact i
v i
ty aret hat bot h
i
nv ol
ved consensualpar t
ici
pati
on i n an activity( i
)whi ch
i
nv ol
vesphy sicalcontactoratleastt heriskofi t,(i
i)i
nwhi ch
decisi
onsar eusual lyexpectedtobemadequi cklyandof ten
asani nst
inctiveresponset otheact sofot herpar t
ici
pant s,so
that(iü)thev erynat ureoft heact i
vit
ymakesi tdi f
ficultto
avoidtheriskofphy si
calharm.

[
16] "Iwoul d,ther
efore,applythe guidance giv
en by
DiplockLJi nWool dri
dgevSumner[ 1962]2Al lER978,[1963]
2QB43, althoughinaslightl
yexpandedfor m,andholdthati
n
acasesuchast hepresentt her
eisabr eachoft hedutyof
careowedbypar t
ici
pantA t opart
ici
pantBonl ywhereA' s
conductamount st orecklessnessorav eryhighdegreeof
carelessness.

[
17] "I
ft hedefendanti nthepr esentcasehaddepar ted
from t
het acitunderstandingsorconv ent
ionsoftheplayand,
for exampl e,had t hrown a st one at t he clai
mant,or
deli
berat
elyai medt hepi eceofbar katt heclai
mant '
shead,
thentheremi ghthav ebeenabr eachoft hedutyofcare.But
whathappenedher ewas,ati t
shighest ,'
anerrorofjudgment
orlapseofski l
l'(
toquot ef r
om Di plockLJ),andt hatisnot
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
suffi
cientt oamountt oaf ailuretot akereasonablecar eint he
cir
cumst ances ofhor seplaysuch as t hatin whi ch t hese
youthswer eengaged.I nmy v iew,t hedefendant '
sconduct
camenowher enearr ecklessnessorav er
yhi ghdegr eeof
carelessness.I tist ruethatt hisgamewasnotbei ngpl ay edi n
amannert hatwascl oselyanal ogoust othefastandf ur i
ous
condi t
ionsofagameoff ootballora hor serace,wher e,i n
determi ningwhatr easonabl ecar er equir
es,accounthast obe
takenoft hefactt hatdeci si onsar etakenint hehéatoft he
moment .Butt hesey outhswer ei ndulgi
nginhor seplayaf ter
spendi ngt hemor ningi ndoor s.Theywer ehi ghspiri
tedand
havingf un,andnodoubtt hegamewasconduct edatsome
speedandi naf airlyvigor ousf ashion.Itwasi mpl i
citt hat
nobodywasexpect edt ot akecar et oaimt heobj ectsatany
parti
cul arpar toft hebody .Theywer esimplyai medi nt he
gener aldirecti
onoft heintended' v i
ctim'.
"

Kusum Shar
mavBat
raHospi
tal
andMedi
cal
Cent
re[
201015
LRC70
Facts:Thepl
aint
if
funder
wentsurger
yatt hedef
endanthospi
talto
removeamali
gnantabdominalt
umour.Shewasdi
schargedandlat
er
brought
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

back t ot he hospitalwher e she di ed.The pl aint i

ffs sued
all
egi ngthatthedef endanthadbeennegl igenti nper forming
thesur gery;t
hatheoughtt ohav eusedt hepost eriorappr oach
i
nst eadoft heanteri
orappr oachused.
Held:Thef actthatt hedef endant'
sconcl usiondi fferedf r
om
other sdidnotmakei tnegli
gentandt husoncet heappr oach
usedwasanaccept edappr oachi nthemedi calfield,therewas
nonegl igence.
Principl
e:A pr ofessionaldoct or is not negl igent mer el
y
because hi s conclusion differ
sf r
om ot hers,pr ovided the
cour seheadopt sisacceptabletot hemedi calprofession.

PerDal veerBhandar iJatpp.87and88, pars.75—80:

[75]"Ther atioofBol am i st hati tisenoughf ort he
defendantt oshow t hatt hest andar dofcar eandt he
skil
lat tained was t hatoft he or di
nar y compet ent
medi calpr actit
ionerexer cisi
nganor dinarydegr eeof
professional skil
l.Thef actthatt her espondentchar ged
withnegl igenceact edi naccor dancewi ththegener al
andappr ov edpr acticei senought ocl earhi m oft he
charge.Twot hingsar eper t
inentt obenot ed.Fi r
stly,
thest andar dofcar e,whenassessi ngt hepr act
iceas
adopt ed,isjudgedi nt hel ightofknowl edgeav ail
abl
eat
thet i
me( oft hei ncident )andnotatt hedat eoftrial.
Secondl y,whent hechar geofnegl i
gencear isesoutof
the failuret o use some par ticul
arequi pment ,t he
chargewoul dfailift heequi pmentwasnotgener ally
avail
abl eatt hatpoi ntoft i
meonwhi chi tissuggest ed
i
tshoul dhav ebeenused.

76]"
[ Amer edevi
ati
onfrom nor
malpr
ofessi
onalpr
act
ice
i
snotnecessar
il
yevi
denceofnegl
i
gence.

77]"
[ I
nJacobMat hewt hi
scour tobser
vedt hatthehigher
the acuteness i
nt he emer gencyand t he highert he
complicati
on,thegreaterarethechancesofaner r
orof
j
udgment .Thecour tfurt
herobserved((2005)6SCC1at
[25]
):'Att imes,the pr of
essionalis confronted with
makingachoi cebet weenthedev i
landt hedeepseaand
174•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

he has t o choose t he l esser ev i

l. The medi cal
professionali sof tencal l
edupont oadoptapr ocedur e
which i nvolves hi gherel ementofr i
sk,butwhi ch he
honest l
y bel ieves as pr ov i
ding gr eater chances of
successf orthepat i
entrathert hanapr ocedureinvolving
l
esserr iskbuthi gherchancesoff ail
ure.Whichcour sei s
mor eappr opriatet ofoll
ow,woul ddependont hef acts
andci rcumst ancesofagi v encase.Theusualpr actice
prevalentnowaday si st o obt aint he consentoft he
pati
entoroft heper soni nchar geoft hepatientift he
pati
enti s noti n a posi tion t o give consentbef ore
adoptingagi v enpr ocedur e.Sol ongasi tcanbef ound
thatthepr ocedur ewhi chwasi nf actadopt edwasone
whichwasaccept abletomedi cal sci
enceasont hatdat e,
themedi calpr acti
tionercannotbehel dnegligentmer ely
because he chose t of ollow one pr ocedur e and not
anotherandt her esultwasaf ailure.'

78]"
[ Adoct orfacedwi thanemer gencyordinari
lytrieshis
bestt oredeem t hepat ientoutofhi ssufferi
ng.Hedoes
notgai n any thi
ng by act ing wi th negl
igence orby
omit t
ingt odoanact .Obv i
ously,theref
ore,itwillbef or
thecompl ainanttoclearlymakeoutacaseofnegl igence
before a medi cal practit
ioner is char ged wi th or
proceeded agai nst cr i
minall
y .Thi s courti n Jacob
Mat hew v eryapt l
yobser vedt hatasur geonwi t
hshaky
hands underf earofl egalact ion cannotper form a
successf uloper ati
onandaqui ver
ingphy si
ciancannot
admi nist
ert heend-doseofmedi cinetohispat i
ent.

[
791"Doct
orsincompli
cat
edcaseshav
etot
akechancesev
en
i
fther
ateofsurv
ival
isl
ow.

[80]"Thepr ofessionalshoul
dbehel dli
ableforhi sactOf
omission,ifnegligent,i
stomakel i
fesaferandtoel i
minate
thepossibili
tyofr ecurr
enceofnegli
gencei nfut
ure.But,at
thesamet ime, courtshavetobeextr
emel ycar
efultoensure
thatprofessionalsarenotharassedunnecessaril
yandt hat
theyareabl et ocar r
youttheirpr
ofessi
onaldutieswithout
fear.
"

175•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

Andatpp.91and92,par s.94and95:[ 94]"Onscruti

nyof
theleadi
ngcasesofmedi calnegl
igence,bothinourcountry
andot hercount
ri
es,especiall
ytheUni t
edKi ngdom,some
basi
cpr i
ncipl
esemergeindealingwiththecasesofmedi cal
negl
igence.Whil
edecidi
ngwhet herthemedicalprof
essional
i
sgui lt
yofmedi calnegligence the f
oll
owing well
-known
pri
ncipl
esmustbekeptinv iew:

I
.Negli
genceist hebreachofadut yexerci
sedbyomissi(to
dosomet hingwhi char easonabl
eman,gui dedbyt ho
consider
ati
ons whi ch ordi
nari
lyregulat
ethe conduct
human af f
air
s,woul d do,Ofdoi ng somet
hing which
prudentandreasonablemanwoul dnotdo.

I
l.Negl
igenceisanessentialingr
edientoftheof fence.T
negli
gencetobeestabli
shedbyt heprosecut
ionmust
culpabl
eOfgrossandnotthenegli
gencemerel
ybaf

uponaner
rorofj
udgment
.

111. The medi cal professi

onal is expect
ed to bri
ng a
reasonabl
e degr ee ofski l
land knowledge and must
exerci
sear easonabledegreeofcar e.Neit
herthev er
y
highestnorav erylow degreeofcareandcompet ence
judgedinthelightoftheparti
cul
arcir
cumstancesofeach
caseiswhatt helawr equi
res.

I
V. A medicalpracti
ti
onerwoul dbel i
ableonl
ywher ehis
conductfel
lbelowt hatoft
hestandardsofareasonabl
y
competentpracti
ti
onerinhi
sfiel
d.

V. Inther eal
m ofdi agnosi
sandt reat
mentt her
eisscope
foragenui nediff
erenceofopinionandonepr of
essi
onal
doctor is clearl
y notnegligentmer el
y because hi
s
conclusion dif
fersfrom thatofanot herpr of
essi
onal
doctor.

VI
. Themedi calpr
ofessi
onali
sof t
encall
edupontoadopta
procedur
e which inv
olves hi
gherelementofrisk,but
whichhehonest l
ybeli
evesaspr ov
idi
nggreat
erchances
176•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

ofsuccess f orthe pat

ientr atherthan a pr ocedure
i
nv ol
vi
nglesserr i
skbuthigherchancesoff ailure.Just
becauseapr ofessi
onall
ookingt othegr av
ityofi l
lness
hastakenahi gherel
ementofr isktoredeem t hepat i
ent
outofhis/hersuffer
ingwhichdi dnoty i
eldt hedesi red
resul
tmaynotamountt onegligence.

VI
I. Negligencecannotbeat tr
ibut
edt oadoct orsolongashe
perf
or ms hi s dut ies wi t
h r easonable ski l
l and
compet ence.Mer elybecauset hedoct orchoosesone
courseofact i
oni nprefer
encetot heotheroneav ail
abl
e,
hewoul dnotbel i
ableifthecourseofact ionchosenby
hi
m wasaccept abletothemedical pr
ofession.

Vl
l
l.I
twouldnotbeconduci
vetot heef
fi
ciencyofthemedical
pr
ofessi
on i
f no doctor coul
d admi ni
ster medi
cine
wi
thoutahal
terr
oundhi
sneck.

I
X. Iti
sourboundendut yandtheobli
gati
onofcivi
lsociet
y
to ensur e that medical pr
ofessional
s ar e not
unnecessari
lyhar
assedorhumil
iatedsot hattheycan
perf
orm t hei
r pr
ofessi
onaldut
ies wi t
hout f
ear and
apprehensi
on.

X. Medi calpracti
ti
onersattimesal sohavetobesav edfrom
such a cl ass ofcompl ai
nants who use t he cr
iminal
process as a t ool f or pressuri
sing the medi cal
professionals/hospit
als,parti
cular
lypriv
atehospital
sor
cli
nics,forext r
acti
nguncal ledf orcompensation.Such
maliciouspr oceedi
ngsdeser v
et obedi scar
dedagai nst
themedi calpracti
ti
oners.

XI
. Medicalprofessi
onalsareentitl
edt ogetpr otecti
onso
l
ongast heyper f
ormt hei
rdut i
eswi t
hr easonableskil
l
andcompet enceandi ntheinterestofthepatients.The
i
nterestandwelfareofthepati
entshavet obepar amount
formedicalprof
essional
s.

[95]"In ourconsider
ed v
iew,the af
orement
ioned
princi
plesmustbekeptinvi
ew whi
ledecidi
ngcases
ofmedi calnegl
i
gence.Weshoul
dnotbeunderstood

177•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

tohaveheldt hatdoctorscannev erbeprosecutedfor

medical negl i
gence. As long as doct ors have
perf
ormed t heirdut i
es and exercised an ordi
nary
degree ofpr ofessi
onalskil
land compet ence,they
cannotbe hel d guilt
yofmedi calnegligence.Itis
i
mper at
ivethatdoct orsmustbeabl et operfor
mt hei
r
prof
essionaldutieswithfr
eemi nds."

THERESULTANTDAMAGE
Rot hwel lvChemi cal&I nsulati
ngCo.Lt d[2007]4Al lER1047
Fact s: The cl ai
mant s had been negl i
gent l
y ex posed t o
asbest osi nt hecour seoft heirempl oyment sanddev eloped
pleur alpl aques,whi chwer eareasoff ibroust hickeni ngoft he
pleur almembr anesur roundingt hel ungs.Pl euralpl aquesdi d
notnor mally cause sy mpt oms and di d notcause ot her
asbest os-relateddi seasesbutt heyi ndicatedt hepr esencei n
the l ungs and pl eura of asbest os f ibres whi ch coul d
i
ndependent l
ycausel i
fe-t
hreateningorf ataldi seasessuchas
asbest osisormesot helioma.Theysuedt hedef endantast hei
r
empl oyer sal l
egingasdamagesuf fer edt hepl euralpl aques
andanxi etyaboutf ut ureriskofcont ractingdi seases.
Held:Asy mpt omlesspl aqueandf earoff uturei nj
urywer enot
damagef ort hepur posesofanact i
oni nnegl igenceandt hus
thepl aint i
ffsmustf ail.
Princi ple:Tosucceedi nanact ioni nnegl igenceagai nstan
empl oyer ,the plaint if
fmustpr ovet hathe has suf fered a
recogni sedinjury.

PerLor
dHoff
mannatpp.1046and1047,par
s.1and2:
[
1]''
MyLor
ds,t
hequest
ioni
swhethersomeonewho

•
164
hasbeennegl
i
gent
lyexposedtoasbestosinthecourseofhis
employ
mentcansuehisemployerfordamagesont heground
thathehasdevel
opedpleuralplaques.Theseareareasof

178•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

fi
broust hickeningoft hepleuralmembr anewhi chsur r
ounds
the l
ungs.Sav einv eryexcept i
onalcases,t heycause no
symptoms.Nordot heycauseot herasbestosr
elateddi seases.
Butt hey signalt he presence int he l
ungs and pl eur a of
asbestos f i
bres whi ch may i ndependent
ly cause l i
fe-
thr
eatening or f atal diseases such as asbest osis or
mesot hel
ioma.I nconsequence,adi agnosi
sofpl euralplaques
maycauset hepat i
enttocont emplat
ehisfutur
ewi thanxi et
yor
evensuf f
ercl i
nical
depression.

[
2]" Proofofdamagei sanessent ialelementi nacl aimi n
negl igenceandi nmyopi niont hesy mpt oml esspl aquesar enot
compensat abl edamage.Nei therdot heriskoff uturei l
lnessor
anxi etyaboutt hepossi bili
tyoft hatr iskmat er i
ali
singamount
to damagef ort hepur poseofcr eat i
ng a causeofact ion,
although t he l aw al lows bot hto be t aken i nto accounti n
comput i
ngt hel osssuf f eredbysomeone whohasact ually
suf feredsomecompensat ablephy sicalinj uryandt herefore
hasacauseofact i
on.I nt heabsenceofsuchcompensat able
i
nj ury,howev er ,ther ei s no cause ofact i
on underwhi ch
damagesmaybecl aimedandt heref or
enocomput ationof
l
ossi nwhi cht her i
skandanxi et
ymaybet akeni ntoaccount .It
followst hati nmyopi niont hedev elopmentofpl euralpl aques,
whet herornotassoci atedwi thther iskoff ut urediseaseand
anxi etyaboutt hef utur e,i snotact i
onabl ei njur y.Thesamei s
trueev eniftheanxi etycausesar ecogni sedpsy chiatrici l
lness
suchascl inicaldepr essi on.Ther ightt opr otectionagai nst
psy chiatri
cillnessi sl imi tedanddoesnotext endt oani l
lness
whi ch woul d be suf fer ed onl y by an unusual l
yv ulnerable
per sonbecauseofappr ehensi ont hathemaysuf f
erat or t
ious
i
nj ury.Ther iskoft hef ut ur
edi seasei snotact i
onabl eand
nei t
heri sapsy chiatrici l
lnesscausedbycont empl at i
onoft hat
ri
sk. "

Andatpp.56and57,par s.7— 9:[

7]"Somecausesofact i
on
ari
se wit
houtproofofdamage.Tr espass and breach of
contr
actareexamples.Proofofthet respassorbreachof
contr
actisenoughtof oundacauseofact ion.I
fnoactual

179•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

damagei sprov ed,t

heclaimantisent i
tl
edtonomi naldamages.
Butacl ai
mi nt ortbasedonnegl i
genceisi ncomplet
ewithout
proofofdamage.Damagei nthissensei sanabst r
actconcept
of being wor se of f
,phy si
call
y or economi cal
ly,so that
compensation i san appropriat
er emedy .Itdoesnotmean
si
mpl yaphy sicalchange,whichisconsistentwithmakingone
bett
er,asint hecaseofasuccessf uloperati
on,orwithbeing
neutr
al,having no per cept
ible eff
ectupon one' s heal
th or
capabil
it
y.

8]"
[ How much wor se of fmustone be?An act ion f or
compensat i
onshoul dnotbeseti nmot i
ononaccountofa
triv i
ali njury.Demi ni
mi snoncur at/ ex.Butwhet heran
i
nj ur yi s suf fi
ci ently ser ious t o f ound a cl aim f or
compensat i
on ort oo t ri
vialt oj ustifya r emedy i sa
quest i
onofdegr ee.Becausepeopl edonotof tengot othe
troubl eofbr ingi ngact ionst or ecov erdamagesf ort ri
v i
al
i
nj ur i
es,t hequest ionofhow t rivi
ali st ri
vialhassel dom
ar isendi rectly.I thashowev erar iseni nconnect ionwi th
theLi mi t
ationAct1980,underwhi cht hepr imar yr ulei s
thatt imer unsf r om t hedat eonwhi cht hecauseofact i
on
accr ues.I nanact i
onf ornegl igence,t hatmeanst hedat e
uponwhi cht hecl aimantsuf f
er eddamagewhi chcannot
bechar acterisedast rivi
al.Toi dent if
yt hatmomentwas
thev it
alquest ioni nCar t/
edgevEJopl i
ng& sonsLt d
[1963]1 Al lER 341,[ 1963]. AC 758,i n whi ch t he
empl oyees had suf f
er ed deat h orser ious i njuryf r
om
damaget ot heirl ungscausedbyexposur et of ragment ed
silica.Atadat eear l
iert hant hecommencementoft he
l
imi tationper iodt heirl ungshadsuf f
ereddamagewhi ch
woul d hav e been v isible upon an X- ray exami nation,
reducedt heirl ungcapaci tyi nawaywhi chwoul dshow
i
t sel fincasesofunusualexer t ion,mi ghtadv ancewi thout
fur ther i nhalation, made t hem mor e v ulner able t o
tuber culosisorbr onchi tisandr educedt heirexpect ati
onof
l
if e.Buti nnor mall ifet hedamagepr oducednosy mpt oms
andt heywer eunawar eofi t.TheHouseofLor dsaf fi
rmed
thev iewoft het rialjudgeandt heCour tofAppeal ([1961]3
Al lER482,[ 1962]1QB189)t hatacauseofact i
onhad
ar isenandt hecl aims( asthel awt henst ood)wer est atute-

180•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

bar
red.

9]"
[ Themember softheCour tofAppealandt heHouseof
Lordsusedsl i
ghtl
ydifferentwordst oexpressthedegree
ofinjurywhi chmusthav ebeensuf fered.I
nt heCourtof
AppealHar manLJspoke( [
1961]3Al lER 482at487,
[1962]1QB 189at199)ofl ossordamage' notbeing
i
nsignificant
'andPear sonLJsai d( [
196113Al lER482at
492,[ 1962]1QB 189at208)t hatthecauseofact ion
accrueswhen' theplai
nt i
ff

•
166

181•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

concer nedhassuf f
eredser i
oushar m'.Int heHouseofLor dsLor d
Reidsai d( [1963]1Al lER341at343,[ 1963]AC758at771—772)
thatthe cause ofact ion accrues when t he wr ongf ulacthas
causedper sonal injury'beyondwhatcanber egardedasnegl i
gible'
.
LordEv ershed( [1963]1Al lER341at344,[ 1963]AC758at774)
spokeof' r
ealdamageasdi st
inctf r
om pur elymi ni maldamage' .
LordPear ce( withwhom al lther estoftheirLordshi psagr eed)sai d
(1963]1Al lER341at349,[ 1963]AC758at779) :'Itisf oraj udge
orjuryt odeci dewhet heramanhassuf feredanyact ionablehar m
and in bor der -
li
necasesi ti saquest ion ofdegr ee. ...Iti sa
questionoff actineachcasewhet heramanhassuf f eredmat eri
al
damagebyanyphy sicalchangesi nhi sbody .Evidencet hatt hose
changesar enotf eltbyhi m andmaynev erbef el
ttel lsinf avourof
thedamagecomi ngwi thi
nt hepr i
ncipleofdemi nimi snoncur at
[ex.Ont heot herhandev i
dencet hatinunusualexer ti
onoratt he
onslaughtofdi seasehemaysuf f
erf r
om hi shiddeni mpai rment
tell
sinf avouroft hedamagebei ngsubst ant i
al.
"'

PerLor dHopeofCr aigheadatpp.1063and1064, par s.38and39:

[38]" Thepr obl em int hepr esentcasesi sadi f
ferentone.The
claimant s wer e negl igentl
y exposed t o asbest os dust .They
dev elopedpl eur alplaquesasadi r
ectandf oreseeabl eresultof
thatexposur e.Thepat hologi
calpr ocessthatgi vesr i
set othem i s
sucht hatpleur alplaquesmaybedescr i
bedasadi seaseoran
i
nj ury.Buttheydonotnor mal lygiveri
setoanyphy sicalsy mptoms.
Theymaybecomemor eextensive.Buttheydonoti nt hemselves
giver iseto,ori ncreaset heriskofdev eloping,anyot herasbest os
i
nducedcondi tions.Theappear anceoft hepl eurai sal t
ered.But
thisi sdetectabl eonlybywayofchestX- rayorCTscanor ,after
deat h,byaut opsy .Ther ei snocosmet i
cdef icit
.Thei rphysical
effectscannot ,inanynor malsenseoft hewor d,bedescr i
bedas
har mf ul
.Inessence, t
heyar eonl yindi
cators.Theydonomor ethan
evidenceexposur etoasbest os.

[39]"Thequest i
ont heni swhet heranal t
erat
ioni naclaimant'
s
physicalcondit
ionoft hiskindi sactionabl
e.Ift healt
erati
onis
takenbyi t
selftherecanbeonl yoneanswert ot hisquesti
on.As
LordRei dputiti nCart/edge'
scase[ 1963]1Al lER341at343,
[1963]AC758at771- 772,acauseofact i
onaccruesassoonasa
wrongfulacthas caused per sonalinjur
ybey ond whatcan be
regardedasnegligibl
e.Idonott hi
nkthatiti
sanabuseofl anguage
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
t
odescr
ibe

167•
•

pleuralplaquesasani njury
.Thequest ionwhet hertheycanal so
bedescr ibedasadi seaseislesseasyt oanswer.Butt heuseof
thesedescr i
ptionsdoesnotaddr esst hequest i
onofl aw,whi chis
whet heraphy sicalchangeoft hi
ski ndisactionable.Ther emust
ber ealdamage, asdi st
inctfr
om damagewhi chispur el
ymi ni
mal:
[196311Al lER 341at344,[ 1963]AC 758at774_ perLor d
Evershed.Wher et hatelementisl acki
ng,asi tplainlyi sint he
caseofpl euralplaques,thephysicalchangewhi chtheyr epresent
i
snotbyi t
selfacti
onable."

Andatpar .59:"Ishar et her egr etexpr essedbySmi thLJt hat

thecl ai
mant s,whoar eatr iskofdev elopingahar mfuldisease
andhav eent irel
ygenui nef eelingsofanxi et
yast owhatt hey
mayf acei nt hef uture,shoul dbedeni edar emedy .Butt hey
havenoty etsust ainedani njuryf orwhi chthel aw cangi ve
them ar emedyi ndamages.Thequest ionwhet herempl oyees
mighthav ear emedyagai nstt heirempl oyersincont r
acthas
notbeenexpl oredi nt hepr esentcont ext,asmynobl eand
l
ear nedf ri
endLor dScot tofFoscot epoi nt sout.Theremaybe
room f ordev elopmentoft hecommonl awi nthisarea.Inthat
connect ion iti s worth not i
ng a r ecentassessmentoft he
potent i
alf ort he dev elopmentofcont ract
ualr emedies for
empl oyees agai nst t heir empl oy ers by Mat t
hew Boy le,
'
Cont ractual Remedi es of Empl oy ees at Common Law:
Explor i
ngt heBoundar ies'[2007]JR145.But ,forthereasons
LordScot tgives,itwoul dnotbeappr opr i
atetoat t
emptsucha
diff
icultanduncer tai
nexer cisei nthesecases. "

(Foll
owi ngthi
sdeci sionbyt heHouseofLor ds,t
heScot ti
sh
Parli
ament passeda l aw t hat madepl eural
plaque a
recognisableinj
uryf orthepurposeoft hetortofnegligence.
The pr opri
etyoft he law was chal l
enged in AXA Gener al
I
nsur ance Ltd vHM Adv ocat
e[ 2012]1 AC 868 as bei ng
unreasonablebutthe
UKSupr emeCour tupheldthevali
dityof
thel
aw. )

CAUSATI
ONI
NFACTANDREMOTENESSOFDAMAGE
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
BarnettvChelseaHospit
alManagementCommi tt
ee[ 1969]1QB428
Facts:The deceased r
eported t
ot he casual
ty departmentoft he
defendant
'shospit
alcomplaini
ng ofv omit
ing af
tert aking t
ea.The
nurserepor
tedittothemedicaloff
icerondutywhoi nstruct
edt hathe
shouldgohomeandsl eepandcallhisowndoctor.Fivehoursaf t
erthe
deceased

"
168

l
eft,hedi edfrom poi
soningofar senicwhichhadcont aminatedthetea.
Itwaspr ovedthathewoul dhav ediedany wayev enifhehadbeen
admi ttedt othehospit
alandt reatedatthetimehewentt here.
Held:Si ncehewoul dhav ediedany wayeveni fhehadbeenadmi t
ted
andt reated, t
hecauseoft hedeat hwasnott hedefendant'
snegligence
andt hust heacti
onmustf ail
.
Pri
nci ple:Tosucceedi nanact i
oni nnegl
igence,itmustbepr ov
edt hat
theinjur ycompl ai
nedofr esul
tedf rom t
henegl i
genceofthedef endant
orthatt hei nj
urywouldnothav ehappenedbutf orthenegli
genceoft he
defendant .

PerNi el
dJatp.438and439:" Ther ehasbeenputbef or
emea
ti
met ablewhi chIt hinkisofmuchi mpor t
ance.Thedeceased
attendedatt hecasual tydepartmentatf i
v eor10mi nutespast
ei
ghti nt hemor ni
ng.I fthecasual tyof fi
cerhadgotupand
dressedandcomet oseet het hr
eemenandexami nedthem
and deci ded to admi tthem,t hedeceased ( and Dr.Locket t
agreedwi t
ht hi
s)coul dnothav ebeeni nbedi nawar dbefore
11a. m.IacceptDr .Goul di
ng'sev i
dencet hatani ntravenous
drip woul d nothav e been setup bef ore 12 noon,and i f
potassium l oss was suspect ed it could not hav e been
discoveredunt i
l12. 30p.m.Dr .Lockett,deali
ngwi t
ht hi
s,said:
'
Ift hi
s man had notbeen t reat
ed unt i
laf t
er12 noon t he
chancesofsur vi
valwer enotgood. '

"Withoutgoi ng in detailint
ot he considerabl
ev ol
ume of
technicalevidencewhi chhasbeenputbef oreme,i tseemsto
met o bet hecaset hatwhen deathr esult
sf rom arseni
cal
poisoningi tisbr oughtaboutbyt wocondi t
ions:ont heone
handdehy drati
onandont heotherdi
sturbanceoft heenzyme
processes.I ft he pr i
nci
palcondi t
ion is one of enzy me
distur
bance— asIam oft heviewitwasher e— t hentheonly
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
met hodoftreat
mentwhi chisli
kelytosucceedi stheuseoft he
specifi
cantidot
ewhi chi scommonl ycalledB.A.L.Dr.Goulding
saidint hecourseofhi sev i
dence:'Theonl ywayt odealwi th
thisistousethespecificB.A.L.Iseenor easonableprospectof
thedeceasedbei nggi venB. A.L.befor
et het i
meatwhi chhe
died'—andatal aterpointinhisev i
dence—' Ifeelthatevenif
fl
uidlosshadbeendi scovereddeat hwoul dhavebeencaused
byt heenzymedisturbance.Deat hmighthav eoccurr
edlater.
'

"Iregardthatev
idenceasv erymoderat
e,anditmightbeatr
ue
assessmentofthesituat
iontosaythatt
herewasnochanceof
B.A.L.bei
ngadminist
eredbeforet
hedeathoft
hedeceased.

169•
of

"Forthose reasons,If i
nd t
hatt he plai
nti
ffhas f
ail
ed t
o
establ
ish,onthebalanceofprobabil
i
ties,t
hatthedef
endant
s'
negli
gencecausedt hedeat
hofthedeceased."

BakervWi ll
ougby[ 1970]AC467
Fact s:Thepl ainti
ffsuf feredinj
uri
est ohislegwhenhewasst ruckby
thedef endant '
scarunderci rcumstancesinwhi chthej udgef oundj oint
culpabi li
tyandappor t
ionedl i
abi
li
ty.Butbef orethet r
ial
,thepl aintif
f
wasshoti nthesamel egdur i
nganar medr obberyandt hel
eghadt obe
amput ated.Int heassessmentofdamages,t het r
ialjudger efusedt o
takei ntoconsi der ati
ont heamput ati
onoft heleg.Thi swasr eversedby
theCour tofAppealbutt heCour tofAppealdeci si
onwasr eversedon
furtherappeal totheHouseofLor ds.
Held:Si ncet heamput ati
onoft hel egwasat t
ri
but abletoadi fferent
cause,t he tri
alj udge had been r i
ghtt or efuse t ot ake i ti nto
consi derationint heassessmentofdamages.
Principle:Anyl ossf orwhi chdamagescanbegi venmustbeal oss
causedbyt hedef endant 'snegli
gentact.

PerLordRei datp.492:" I
fitweret hecaset hatintheey eof
the law an effectcoul d onl y have one cause t hen the
respondentmightber ight.I
tisalway snecessarytoprov et
hat
anylossf orwhichdamagescanbegi venwascausedbyt he
defendant'
snegligentact.Butiti
sacommonpl acethatthelaw
regardsmanyev ent
sashav i
ng two causes:t hathappens
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
whenev erther
ei scontri
butor
ynegligencefort henthelaw
saysthattheinjur
ywascausedbot hbyt henegli
genceofthe
defendantandbyt henegl
igenceoftheplai
nti
ff
.Andgenerall
y
i
tdoesnotmat terwhichnegli
genceoccurr
edf i
rstinpoi
ntof
ti
me."

Andatp.493:" Wewer er ef
erredt oanumberofshi pping
caseswher ethequest i
onwaswhomustpayf ordemur r
ageor
l
ossofpr ofitwhenav esseldamagedbyt womi shapswasi n
dockt ohav ebot hset sofdamager epai redatt hesamet i
me.I t
woul dseem t hatmuchdependsonwhi chmi shapr ender edt he
vessel unseawor t
hyornol ongerapr ofi
t-earni ngmachi ne.Iget
nohel pf rom t hesecasesbecausel iabili
tyf orper sonali njury
cannot depend on whi ch mi shap r ender s t he man
'
unseawor thy 'or ' not a pr of
it-
ear ning machi ne'.I f any
assistancei st o begot ,itisIt hinkf rom TheHav er sham
Grange[ 1905]P.307 wher eneithercol l
ision render ed t he
vesselunseawor t
hy.Thedamagef rom t hef irstcolli
siont ook
l
ongert or epai rthanthedamagef rom t hesecondandi twas
heldthatt hev esselresponsibl
efor

•
170
thesecondcol li
siondi dnothav etocont ri
but et owardspay ment
fortimel ostinrepair s.Inmyv i
ewt helat t
erwoul dhav ehadt opay
foranyt imeaf tert her epairsf r
om t hef i
rstdamagehadbeen
compl etedbecauset hatt imecoul dnotbecl ai
medf rom thef ir
st
wrongdoer .Thef i
rstwr ongdoermustpayf oral ldamagecaused
byhi m butnomor e.Thesecondi snotl i
ablef oranydamage
causedbyt hef ir
stwr ongdoerbutmustpayf oranyaddi ti
onal
damage caused byhi m.Thatwas t he gr ound ofdeci sion in
PerformanceCar sLt d.vAbr aham [1962]1Q. B.33.Ther eacar
sustainedt woslightcol l
isions:thefirstnecessi tatedrespiri
ngov er
awi dear eawhi chi ncludedt hepl acedamagedbyt hesecond
coll
ision.Sor epair
ingt hedamagecausedbyt hef ir
stcoll
isi
onal so
repairedthedamagedonebyt hesecond.Thepl aint
if
fwasunabl e
torecov erfrom theper sonr esponsiblef orthef i
rstcol l
i
sionandhe
thensuedt heper sonr esponsi bl
ef ort hesecond.Buthi saction
fai
led.The second wr ongdoerhi ta carwhi ch was al ready
damagedandhi sf aul tcausednoaddi t
ionallosst otheplaint
iff:so
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
hehadnot
hingt
opay
.

"Thesecasesexempl if
yt hegeneralrulethatawr ongdoermust
taketheplainti
ff(orhispropert
y)ashef i
ndshim:t hatmaybet o
hisadvantageordi sadvantage.Inthepresentcaset her obberis
notresponsibleorli
ableforthedamagecausedbyt herespondent:
hewoul donl yhavet opayf oraddit
ionallosstotheappel lantby
reasonofhisnowhav i
nganar ti
fi
ciall
imbinsteadofast i
ffleg."

PerLor dDonov anatp.496:" It hinkasol uti

onoft het heor eti
cal
probl em can be f ound in cases such as t his by t aking a
compr ehensiveand uni taryv iew oft hedamagecaused byt he
originalacci dent .I
temisati
onoft hedamagesbydi vidingt hem i nto
headsandsub- headsi soft
enconv enient ,butisnotessent i
al.Int he
endj udgmenti sgivenforasi ngl el umpsum ofdamagesandnot
forat otalofi temssetoutunderheadsand subheads.I ft he
super v ening ev enti sat ort,t he second t ortfeasorshoul d be
responsi blef ort he addit
ionaldev aluat i
on caused The or igi
nal
acci dentcausedwhatmaybecal leda' devaluation'oft hepl ainti
ff
,
i
nt hesenset hatitproducedagener alr eductionofhi scapaci tyto
dot hings,t oear nmoneyandt oenj oyl ife.Fort hatdev aluationt he
originalt ort
feasorshoul dbeandr emai nr esponsi blet ot hef ul
l
extent ,unl essbef oretheassessmentof t hedamagessomet hing
hashappenedwhi cheitherdimi nishest hedev aluat i
on( e.g.ift here
i
sanunexpect edrecoveryfrom someoft headv erseef fectsoft he
acci dent )orbyshor t
eningt heexpect ationofl i
fedi minishest he
per i
odov erwhi cht he

171"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
pl
aint
if
fwi
l
lsuf
ferf
rom t
hedev
aluat
ionbyhi
m."

McGheevNat
ional
coal
Boar
d[197213Al
lER1008
Fact s:Thepl aintif
f,ast hedef endants'empl oyee,wassentt o
cleanabr ickkiln.Thepl ai
nt if
fwasexposedt obrickdustbut
noadequat ewashi ngf acil
iti
eswer epr ov i
ded.Asar esult
,the
plainti
f fhadt or i
dehomeonabi cy cleaf terwor ktowash
himsel f.Hedev elopedder mat i
ti
sandsued.Ev idenceshowed
thatt her i
dingoft hebi cyclehomewi tht hebr ickdusthad
cont ri
butedt ocauset hedi sease.Thet rialjudgehel dt hatthe
defendant swer enotl iablesi ncet hepl ainti
ffcoul dnotpr ove
thatt he fail
ure oft he def endantt o pr ovide the washi ng
facili
ti
eshadcausedt hedi sease.
Held:On t hef actst hef ailureoft hedef endantt o provide
adequat ewashi ngfaci l
itieshadcont ribut edmat er
iall
ytocause
thedi seaseandt hust hedef endantswer el i
able.
Principle:Aper soni sl iabl
ei nnegl i
gencei ft hebr eachofhi s
duty causes orcont ri
butes mat eriallyt o cause t he inj
ury
suffered byt hepl aintiffnot wit
hstandi ng t hatt heremaybe
othercauses.

PerLor dRei datpp.1010and1011:" I

thasal way sbeen
thelawt hatapur suersucceedsi fhecanshewt hatf ault
oft hedef endercausedormat eriall
ycont ri
but edt ohi s
i
njury .Theremayhav ebeent wosepar atecausesbuti tis
enough i foneoft hecausesar osef r
om f aultoft he
defender .Thepur suerdoesnothav et opr ov ethatt his
causewoul dofi tselfhav ebeenenought ocausehi m
i
njury .Thati s wel li l
lustr
at ed byt he deci sion oft his
Housei nBonni ngt onCast ingsLt dvWar dlaw.Ther et he
pursuer '
sdi sease wascaused byan accumul ation of
noxiousdusti nhi sl ungs.Thedustwhi chhehadi nhaled
overaper iodcamef r om twosour ces.Thedef ender s
wer enotr esponsi bl ef oronesour cebutt heycoul dand
oughtt ohav epr ev entedt heot her .Thedustf rom t he
l
at t
ersour cewasnoti nitsel
fsuf f
ici entt ocauset he
diseasebutt hepur suersucceededbecausei tmadea
mat erialcontributiont ohi si nj
ury.Ther espondent sseek
todi sti
nguishWar dl aw'scasebyar gui ngt hatt heni twas
provedt hatev erypar t
icleofdusti nhal edpl ay edi t
spar tin
causi ngtheonsetoft hedi seasewher easi nt hiscasei tis
notpr ovedt hatev er ymi norabrasi onpl ay edi tspar t.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
"In t he pr esent case t he evidence does not
shew—per hapsnooneknows—j usthow dermati
tisof
thist ypebegi ns.Itsuggeststomet hatther
earet wo
possi ble way s.Itmaybe t hatan accumulat
ion of
mi norabr asions oft he horny l
ayerofski ni sa
necessar ypr econdi
ti
onf ortheonsetoft hedi
sease.
Ori tmaybet hatthediseasestar
tsatoneparticular
abr asionandt hen

•
172
spreads,so that mul
ti
pli
cati
on of abrasi
ons merel
y
i
ncreasesthenumberofpl aceswherethediseasecan
startandi
nthatwayi
ncr
easesther
iskofit
soccurr
ence.

"
Iam i ncli
nedt ot hinkt hatt heev idencepoi ntst ot he
formerv i
ew.Buti naf i
eldwher esol i
tt
leappear st obe
knownwi thcer t
aintyIcoul dnotsayt hatthati sprov ed.Ifit
weret hen t hi s case woul d be i ndisti
ngui shabl efrom
War d/aw' scase.ButIt hinkthati ncasesl iket hi
swemust
takeabr oaderv i
ewofcausat i
on.Themedi calev i
dencei s
totheef f
ectt hatt hef actt hatt hemanhadt ocyclehome
cakedwi thgr imeandsweataddedmat eriallytot her i
sk
thatthi sdi seasemi ghtdev elop.I tdoesnotandcoul dnot
explainj ustwhyt hatisso.Butexper i
enceshewst hatitis
so.Pl ainlyt hatmustbebecausewhathappenswhi l
et he
man r emai ns unwashed can hav e a causat ive effect,
alt
houghj usthowt hecauseoper atesi suncer tai
n.Icannot
acceptt hev iew expr essedi nt heI nnerHouset hatonce
themanl ef tthebr ickki l
nhel eftbehi ndt hecauseswhi ch
madehi ml i
abl etodev elopder matiti
s.Thatseemst ome
quit
ei nconsi stentwi th a pr operi nt er
pr etati
on oft he
medi calev idence.NorcanIacceptt hedi st i
ncti
ondr awn
bytheLor dOr di
narybet weenmat eri
allyincr easi
ngt her i
sk
that t he di sease wi lloccur and maki ng a mat erial
contribut i
ont oitsoccur rence. "

PerLordSal monatp.1017:" I,ofcourse,acceptthatt

he
burdenr estsont heappell
antt oprove,onabal anceof
probabil
iti
es,acausalconnectionbetweenhi sinj
uryand
therespondents'negl
igence.I
tisnotnecessar y
,however,
topr ov
e,t hattherespondent
s'negligencewast heonly
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
causeofi nj
ury
.Af act
or,byi t
self,maynotbesuf fi
cientto
cause injur
y but if,wi t
h ot her f actor
s,it materi
all
y
contri
butestocausinginj
ury,itisclear l
yacauseofinjury
.
Everyt
hing in the pr esent case depends on what
consti
tutesacause.Iv enturet or epeatwhat1sai di n
Alphace//Lt
dvWoodwar d( [
1972]2Al lER475at489,490,
[1972]2WLR1320at1334, 1335) :

'
Thenat ur
eofcausat ionhasbeendi scussed bymany
eminentphi l
osophersandal sobyanumberofl earned
j
udgesi nthepast .Iconsider,however,t
hatwhatorwho
has caused a cer t
ain eventt o occuris essenti
all
ya
practicalquesti
onoff actwhi chcanbestbeanswer edby
ordinarycommonsenser atherthanabstr
actmetaphysical
theory .
'

"I
nt hecir
cumst
ancesofthepresentcasei
tseemsto me
unreal
i
sti
candcont
rar
ytoordi
nar
ycommonsensetohol
dthat
173u
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
t
he negli
gence whi
ch materi
all
yincr
eased the r
isk of
i
njur
ydidnotmateri
all
ycont
ri
butetocausi
ngtheinj
ury.
"

RePol emis[ 192113KB560

Facts:Thechar terer
schar t
er edtheowner 'sshipf orav oyage
andi nthecour seoft hev oy age,pet rolvapourl eakedi ntot he
holdoft heshi p.Ar opet hatwasbei ngusedt ohoi stasl ing
brokeowi ngt othenegl i
genceoft heser vant soft hechar ter
er s
andcausedaboar dt of allint othehol d.Theboar dcamei nt o
contactwi t
hsomesubst ancei nthehol dandi gnited,causi ng
fi
rewhi chdamagedt heshi p.Thechar t
erer sdeni edl i
abi l
it
yf or
thelossoft heshi pongr oundst hatt hespar kcausedbyt he
fal
li
ngboar dwasnotr easonabl yf oreseeabl eal thoughsome
damaget ot heshi pcoul dhav ebeenant icipated.
Held:Thechar t
ererswer el i
abl eforallthedi rectconsequences
ofthenegl igentactoft heirser vant sandt huswer eliablef or
thelossoft heshi p.Principle:Aper soni sliableforal lthedi rect
consequencesofhi snegl igentactev eni fthoseconsequences
couldnothav ereasonabl ybeenant i
cipated.

PerBankesLJatpp.571and572:" Inthepr esentcase

thear bi
tratorshav ef oundasaf actt hatt hef all
ingof
theplankwasduet ot henegl igenceoft hedef endant s'
servants.Thef ireappear st omet ohav ebeendi r ectl
y
caused by t he f alli
ng oft he pl ank.Undert hese
cir
cumst ancesIconsi dert hati tisi mmat erialt hatt he
causingoft hespar kbyt hef alli
ngoft hepl ankcoul d
nothav ebeenr easonabl yant icipat ed.Theappel lants'
j
uniorcounselsoughtt odraw adi sti
nctionbet ween
theant i
cipationoft heext entofdamager esul ti
ngf r
om
anegl i
gentact ,andt heant i
cipat ionoft het ypeof
damager esul ti
ngf rom suchanact .Headmi ttedt hati t
couldnotl ieint hemout hofaper sonwhosenegl igent
acthad caused damage t o sayt hathe coul d not
reasonabl yhav ef oreseent heext entoft hedamage, buthe
contendedt hatt henegl igentper sonwasent i
tl
edt o
rel
yupont hef actt hathecoul dnotr easonabl yhav e
anti
cipatedt het ypeofdamagewhi chr esultedf r
om hi s
negli
gentact .Idonott hi
nkt hatt hedi sti
nct ioncanbe
admi t
ted.Gi vent hebr eachofdut ywhi chconst itutes
thenegl i
gence, andgi v ent hedamageasadi r ectresul t
oft hatnegl igence,t he ant i
cipat ions oft he per son
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
whosenegli
gentacthasproducedthedamageappear
tomet obei rr
elev
ant.Iconsiderthatt
hedamages
cl
aimedarenottooremote.
"

PerWar ringt onLJatpp.574and575:" Thepr esence

Ofabsence ofr easonabl e anti
cipation ofdamage
determi nest hel egalqualit
yoft heactasnegl i
gentor
i
nnocent .Ifitbet husdet erminedtobenegl i
gent ,t
hen
the quest ion whet her par ti
cular damages ar e
recoverabl e depends onl y on t he answer t ot he
questionwhet hert heyar et hedirectconsequenceof
theact ..I nt hepr esentcasei tiscl earthatt heact
causingt hepl ankt of al
lwasi nlaw anegl i
gentact,
becausesomedamaget ot heshipmi ghtreasonably
beant icipat ed.I ft hi
si ssot hent heappel lantsare
l
iablef ort heact ualloss,thatbeingont hefindingsof
thearbi tr
at orst hedi r
ectresultofthef all
i
ngboar d:see
perLor dSumneri nWel d-
BlundellvSt ephens."

PerScr ut tonLJatp.577:" I
nt hiscase,howev er,the
probl em i ssi mpl er
.Todet ermi newhet heranacti s
negligent ,i ti sr elevantt o det ermi ne whet herany
reasonabl eper sonwoul df oreseet hatt heactwoul d
causedamage; ifhewoul dnot ,t
heacti snotnegl igent.
Buti ft heactwoul dormi ghtpr obabl ycausedamage,
thef actt hatt hedamagei ti nf actcausesi snott he
exactki ndofdamageonewoul dexpecti simmat eri
al,
sol ongast hedamagei sinf actdi rectl
yt r
aceabl eto
the negl i
gentact ,and notdue t ot he oper ation of
i
ndependentcauses hav i
ng no connect i
on wi tht he
negligentact ,exceptt hatt heycoul d notav oi di t
s
results.Oncet heacti snegligent ,thef actt hatit
sexact
oper ationwasnotf oreseeni simmat eri
al.Thi si sthe
disti
nct ionl aiddownbyt hemaj orit
yoft heExchequer
Chamberi nSmi t hvLondonandSout hWest ernRy .Co.,
andbyt hemaj orit
yoft heCour tinBanci nRi gbyv
Hewi t tandGr eenl andvChapl i
n, andappr ov edrecent l
y
byLor dSumneri nWel d-Blundel lvSt ephensandSi r
SamuelEv ansi nH. M. S.London.I nthepr esentcasei t
wasnegl igenti ndi schargingcar got oknockdownt he
planksoft het empor aryst aging,f ort heymi ghteasi l
y
causesomedamageei thert owor kmen,orcar go,or
theshi p.Thef actt hatt heydi ddi rectlypr oducean
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
unexpectedresult
,aspar kinanatmospher
eofpetrol
vapourwhichcausedaf i
re,
doesnotrel
i
evetheper
son
who was negl igent from the damage which his
negli
gentactdir
ectlycaused."

BanqueFi
nanci
eredel
aCi
teSAvWest
gat
eInsur
anceCo.
Ltd[
199012ER947
Facts:Thepl ai
ntiffbanksgr antedal
oanwhichwasguar ant eed
by the def endant.The agr eementexcl
uded li
abi
li
ty oft he
defendantf orclaimsar i
singoutoffraudorattemptedf raud.
Thebor rower sdef aultedandi twasfoundthatani nsurance
brokerwhosecur edt het ransacti
onhadmadesomef raudul ent
representati
ons.Thepl aintif
fmountedanactioninnegl i
gence
ont hegr oundst hatt hedef endantowedthem adutyofcar e.
Held:Sincet hel ossessuf f
eredbytheplai
ntif
fwerenott he
consequenceofanybr eachofdut yowedbyt hedef endant s,
theywer enotliable.

175.
Pri
ncipl
e:Adefendantisonl
yliabl
einnegli
gencei
fthei
njur
y
suff
eredisaconsequenceofthebreachofadutyheowesto
theplai
nti
ff
.

PerLor dTemplemanatp.955:" Thesecondobst acl

e
whichconfrontsthebanksont hisappealisthatthe
l
osses suf fer
ed by t he banks wer e not t he
consequencesofanybr eachofdut yont hepartof
Hodget odiscl
osetothebankst hemisconductofMr
Lee.Thebanksdidnotsufferanylossbyreasonofthe
factthatt
heywerenotinformedoft hemisconductof
MrLee.Thi sobjecti
onappl i
esbot htothecl ai
mi n
negli
gence and t
ot he cl
aim based on the dut
yof
i
nsurerstoactwit
htheutmostgoodf ai
th.

"Thebanksadducedev idencethati
ftheyhadknownof
themisconductofMrLeei nconnecti
onwiththef i
rst
andsecondexcessl ay
erst henthebankswouldhav e
madenomor eloansatt hebehestofMrBal l
estero.
Butthebanksdi dnotloset he104375m Swissfrancs
advancedt oUltronatt hedateoft headvance.The
banksl ostthe 104375m Swi ssf r
ancsand interest
whichUltronshouldhavepaid.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
"Whent hebanksadv anced10•4375m Swi ssf rancsin
Sept ember1980t hebanksacqui redt hreeasset sin
consi derati
onoft headv ance.Thebanksacqui redthe
ri
ghtt oreceivefrom Ul t
ron104375m Swi ssf rancson
10 Febr uary 1982 and t or ecei
vei nter esti nt he
meant i
mepl usther ightt otheproceedsofsal eoft he
gemst ones,sof arast hi
swasnecessar yt or ei
mbur se
thebanks,andt her i
ghtt oclaim anydef iciencyf r
om
thei nsurers.Thef ailureofMfDungat et odi scl
oset he
mi sconductofMrLeedi dnotdepr ivethebanksoft he
ri
ghtt or eceiv
e10• 4375m Swi ssfrancsandi nter
est
from Ul tronanddi dnotdepr i
vethebanksoft her i
ght
tot hepr oceedsoft hesal eofthegemst ones.

"Liabil
it
yanddamagesatl aw f
orbreachofdut yare
conf i
nedt otheforeseeabl
econsequencesoft heact
or omi ssi
on which const i
tut
es the breach: see
Ov erseas Tankship ( UK)
Ltd v Mor ts Dock and
Engineer i
ng Co Lt
d and Thewagon Mound ( NO 1)
[1961]1Al lER404,[1961]AC388."

Andatp.959:" Int heci r

cumst ancesi ti
snotnecessar y
to considerwhet herHodge wer e undera dut yt o
discloset hemi sconductofMrLeebyr easonoft he
obligati
onofani nsurertodealwi tht hepr oposerof
i
nsur ancewi ththeut mostgoodf aith.I
fHodgewer ein
breachoft hatdut ynodamagef lowedf rom thebr each
fort her easonsIhav ealreadygi ven.Buti tmaybe
helpfultoobser vet hatIagreewi ththeCour tofAppeal
thata br each oft he obl
igation does notsound i n
damages.Theonl yremedyopent ot hei nsuredi sto
rescind t he policy and r ecov ert he premi um.The
authorit
iesci t
edandt hecogentr easonsadv ancedby
Slade LJ ar et o be f ound i nt he report of t he
proceedingsi ntheCour tofAppeal( see[1989]2Al lER
952at991- 997,[1990]QB665at773- 781)."
TheWagonMound[
19611AC388
Facts:The def
endants wereloading furnace oiluntot hei
r
vesselwhenthroughthenegli
genceoft heirser
vants,alarge
quantit
yoftheoilspil
l
edintot
hehar bour .Theoilwascar ri
ed
bywi ndandti
debeneat ht
heplai
ntiff
s'whar f.Apieceofcloth
fl
oatedontheoi landwhenamol tenmet alfel
lonitfrom the
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
whar fitwassetonf ir
eanddamagedt hewhar fandashi pthe
plainti
ff'
swer ebui ldi
ngont hewhar f
.Thepl ainti
ff
ssued.The
cour tfoundt hatt hedef endantsdidnotknow andcoul dnot
hav er easonably been expect ed to know t hatt he oi
lwas
capabl eofbeingsetonf irewhenfloati
ngonwat er.
Held:Si ncethedef endantscoul dnotreasonablyhav efor
eseen
thedamage, theywer enotl i
able.
Principl
e:A per son is notl iabl
ei n negli
gence unless the
damage whi ch is caused by hi s negli
gentactcoul d have
reasonabl ybeenf oreseen.

PerVi scountSi mondsatpp.422and423:" Enoughhas

beensai dt oshow t hatt heaut hor i
tyofPol emi shas
beensev erelyshakent houghl ip-
ser vicehasf rom t i
me
tot i
mebeenpai dt oi t
.I nt heirLor dshi
ps'opi ni onit
shoul d no l ongerbe r egarded as good l aw.I ti s not
probabl et hatmanycaseswi l
lfort hatr easonhav ea
diff
erentr esul t
,t houghi tishopedt hatt helaw wi llbe
therebysi mpl i
fied,andt hati nsomecases,atl east,
palpablei njusticewi l
lbeav oided.Fori tdoesnotseem
consonantwi thcur r
enti deasofj usticeormor alitythat
foranactofnegl igence, howev ersl i
ghtorv eni al,whi ch
resultsinsomet rivi
alf oreseeabl edamaget heact or
shoul d be l i
abl e f or al l consequences howev er
unforeseeabl eandhowev ergr ave,sol ongast heycan
be sai dt obe' direct'
.Iti sapr incipleofci v illiabili
ty,
subjectonl yt oqual ifi
cationswhi chhav enopr esent
rel
ev ance,t hata man mustbe consi dered t o be
responsi blef ort hepr obabl econsequencesofhi sact .
Todemandmor eofhi mi st oohar shar ule,todemand
l
ess i st oi gnor et hatci vil
ised or derr equi res t he
obser vanceofami nimum st andar dofbehav i
our ."

Andatpp.425and426:
"Iti
s,nodoubt
,pr
operwhen

177"
consi
dering t
ort
ious l
i
abi
li
tyf ornegli
gence t
o analyse i
ts
elementsandtosaythatt
hepl ai
nti
ffmustprov
eadut yowed
tohim bythedef
endant
,abreachofthatdut
ybythedefendant
,
andconsequentdamage.Buttherecanbenol i
abi
li
tyunti
lthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
damagehasbeendone.I tisnott heactbutt heconsequences
onwhi chtortiousl i
abili
tyisf ounded.Justas( asi thasbeen
said)thereisnosucht hingasnegl igencei nt heair,sot hereis
nosucht hingasl iabili
tyint heai r.Supposeanact ionbr ought
byAf ordamagecausedbyt hecar elessness( aneut r
alwor d)
ofB, forexampl e,af ir
ecausedbyt hecar el
essspi l
lageofoi l.I
t
may ,ofcour se,becomer elevantt oknowwhatdut yBowedt o
A,butt heonl yl iabili
tyt hati si nquest i
oni st hel i
abil
ityfor
damagebyf ir
e.I tisv aint oisolatet hel i
abil
ityfrom i t
scont ext
andt osayt hatBi sori snotl i
able,andt hent oaskf orwhat
damagehei sliable.Forhi sl i
abil
ityi si nrespectoft hatdamage
andnoot her.I f,asadmi ttedlyi ti s,B' sliabili
ty( culpabil
ity
)
dependsont her easonabl ef oreseeabi l
it
yoft heconsequent
damage,how i st hat t o be det ermined except by t he
foreseeabil
ityoft hedamagewhi ch i nf acthappened -t he
damagei nsui t?And,i fthatdamagei sunfor eseeabl esoast o
displaceli
abili
tyatl arge,howcant hel iabil
i
tyber estoredsoas
tomakecompensat ionpay able?

"But ,i
tissai d, adifferentposi ti
onar i
sesi fB' scar el
essacthas
beenshownt obenegl igentandhascausedsomef or eseeabl e
damaget oA.Thei rLor dshipshav eal readyobser vedt hatt o
holdB l iablef orconsequenceshowev erunf or eseeabl eofa
carelessact ,if,butonl yi f,hei satt hesamet i
mel iablef or
some ot herdamage howev ert riv
ial,appear st o be nei ther
l
ogi calnorj ust .Thisbecomesmor ecl eari fitissupposedt hat
simi l
arunf oreseeabl edamagei ssuf f
er edbyAandCbutot her
foreseeabl edamage,f orwhi chBi sl iabl e,byAonl y.Asy stem
oflawwhi chwoul dhol dBl iabl etoAbutnott oCf ort hesi mi l
ar
damagesuf feredbyeachoft hem coul dnoteasi l
ybedef ended.
For t
unat ely,t heat tempti snotnecessar y .Fort hesamef allacy
i
satt her ootoft hepr oposi t
ion.I tisi rrelev anttot hequest ion
whet herBi sl i
ablef orunf oreseeabl edamaget hathei sliable
forf oreseeabl edamage,asi rrelevantaswoul dthef actt hathe
hadt r
espassedonWhi teacrebet ot hequest ionwhet herhehas
trespassed on Bl ackacr e.Agai n,supposea cl aim byA f or
damagebyf i
r ebyt hecar elessactofB.Ofwhatr elevancei sit
tot hatclai mt hathehasanot herclaim ar isingoutoft hesame
carelessact ?I twoul dsur el
ynotpr ejudi cehi sclaimi ft hatot her
claimf ai
led:i tcannotassi sti tifi tsucceeds.Eachoft hem
restsoni tsownbot t
om, andwi llf
ailifitcanbeest ablishedt hat
thedamagecoul dnotr easonabl ybef or eseen.Wehav ecome
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
backt otheplai
ncommonsensest at
edbyLor dRussel lof
Kil
loweninBour hi
//vYoung.AsDenningL. J.saidinKi ngv
Phill
i
ps:'
Therecanbenodoubtsi nceBourhi
//vYoungt hatthe
testofli
abil
it
yforshockisf or
eseeabi
l
ityofinjur
ybyshock. '
TheirLordshi
ps substi
tut
et he word' f
ir
e'f or'shock'and
endorset
hisstat
ementofthelaw.

"TheirLor dshi psconcl udet hi spar toft hecasewi th

somegener alobser vat ions.Theyhav ebeenconcer ned
primar i
ly t o di spl ace t he pr oposi t
ion t hat
unforeseeabi l
it
yi si r
r elev anti fdamagei s" direct.
"I n
doingsot heyhav einev itabl yi nsi stedt hatt heessent i
al
factorindet ermi ningl iabi lityi swhet hert hedamagei s
ofsuchaki ndast her easonabl emanshoul dhav e
foreseen.Thi s accor ds wi t ht he gener alv iew thus
statedbyLor dAt kini nDonoghuevSt ev enson:' The
l
iabili
tyf ornegl igence,whet hery oust yl
ei tsuchor
treatitasi not hersy st emsasaspeci esof" culpa",is
nodoubtbaseduponagener alpubl i
csent imentof
mor alwr ongdoi ngf orwhi cht heof f
endermustpay .
'It
i
sadepar turef rom t hi ssov er eignpr inciplei fl i
abil
it
yi s
madet odependsol elyont hedamagebei ngt he'dir
ect'
or' natural'consequenceoft hepr ecedentact .Who
knowsorcanbeassumedt oknowal lthepr ocessesof
nature?Buti fitwoul dbewr ongt hatamanshoul dbe
heldl i
ablef ordamageunpr edi ct ablebyar easonabl e
manbecausei twas' di rect ' or' nat ural'equal l
yi twoul d
be wr ong t hathe shoul d escape l i
abi li
ty ,howev er
'
indirect'thedamage, ifhef or esaworcoul dr easonabl y
foreseet hei nterveni ngev ent swhi chl edt oi tsbeing
done: cf . Woods v . Duncan. Thus f oreseeabi li
ty
becomest heef fect iv
et est .Inr easser t
ingt hi spr i
nciple
theirLordshi psconcei vet hatt heydonotdepar tfrom,
butf oll
ow anddev el
op,t hel aw ofnegl i
genceasl aid
downbyBar onAl der soni nBl y t
h
v
.Bi
rmi
ngham Wat
env
orksCo.
"

ThewagonMound(
No.2)[
196711AC617
Facts:Ont hesamef act
sasabov e,t
hepl ai
nti
ff
sher ei
n,who
hadt wov esselsonthewhar fgut
tedbyfi
re,al
sosued.
Held:Si nce a r easonable man witht he knowledge and
experienceoft hedefendant'
smanagerwoul dhaveknownt hat
ther
ewasar ealr
iskoft heoilonthewat ercat
chi
ngf ir
et he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
def
endant
swer
eli
abl
eal
thought
hatr
iskwassmal
l
.

PerLordReidatpp.640and641:' '
I
tisnownecessary
toturnt otherespondents'submissi
onthatt
het ri
al
j
udgewaswr onginholdi
ngt hatdamagefr
om f
irewas
notreasonabl
y

179•
foreseeabl e.InTheWagonMound( No.1) 31t hef indingon
whicht heBoar dpr oceededwast hatoft het r
ialj udge:'the
defendantdi dnotknowandcoul dnotr easonablybeexpect ed
tohav eknownt hat[ t
heoi l]wascapabl eofbei ngsetaf i
rewhen
spreadonwat er.
'Int hepr esentcaset heev i
dencel edwas
subst ant ial
lydi ffer
entf rom t heev i
dencel ed in TheWagon
Mound( No.1)andt hef indingsofWal shJ.ar esi gni f
icantl
y
diff
er ent .Thati snotduet other ehav i
ngbeenanyf ailurebyt he
plaintif
fsi n The Wagon Mound ( No.1)i n prepar i
ng and
present ing t heircase.The pl aint
iffst here wer e no doubt
embar rassedbyadi ffi
cultywhi chdoesnotaf f
ectt hepr esent
plaintif
fs.Theout breakoft hefirewasconsequentont heactof
themanageroft hepl ai
nt i
ffsi nTheWagonMound( No.1)i n
resumi ngoxy -acetylenewel dingandcut ti
ngwhi l
et hewhar f
wassur roundedbyt hisoi l.Soi fthepl ai
ntif
fsi nthef ormer
case had setoutt o pr ov et hatitwas f oreseeabl e byt he
engi neer soft heWagonMoundt hatthisoi lcouldbesetal ight,
theymi ghthav ehaddi ffi
cultyi npar ryingt her eplyt hatt hi
s
mustal sohav ebeenf oreseeabl ebyt heirmanager .Thent here
woul d hav e been cont ributorynegl i
gence and att hatt i
me
cont ri
but orynegl igencewasacompl etedef encei nNewSout h
Wal es.

"Thecruci
al f
indi
ngofWal shJ.int hiscasei sinfinding( 5):t
hat
the damage was ' notreasonabl yf oreseeable byt hose for
whoseact sthedef endantwoul dber esponsible'.Thati snota
pri
mar yfi
ndingoff actbutani nferencef rom t
heot herf i
ndi
ngs,
anditisclearfr
om t helear
nedj udge'sj udgmentt hatindr awing
thi
sinfer
encehewast oal ar
geext enti nfl
uencedbyhi sv i
ewof
thelaw.Thev i
talpartsoft hef indingsoff actwhi chhav e
alr
eadybeensetouti nf ul
lar e( 1)t hattheof f
icersoft he
WagonMound31' wouldr egardf urnaceoi lasv erydi ffi
cultto
i
gnite upon wat er'— nott hatt hey woul dr egar dt his as
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
i
mpossi bl
e;(2)t
hattheirexperiencewoul dpr obablyhav ebeen
'
thatthishadveryrar
elyhappened' —nott hattheywoul dnever
haveheardofacasewher ei thadhappened,and( 3)t hatthey
wouldhav eregardeditasa' possibi
lit
y,butonewhi chcoul d
becomeanact uali
tyonl
yinv eryexceptional ci
rcumstances' not,
asinTheWagonMound( No.1) ,thattheycoul dnotreasonabl y
beexpect edtohaveknownt hatt hi
soilwascapabl eofbei ng
setafir
ewhenspr eadonwat er.Thequest ionwhi chmustnow
be determined is whethert hese di f
ferences bet ween t he
fi
ndingsinthetwocasesdoordonotl eadt odif
ferentr esul
ts
i
nlaw. "

Andatpp.643and644:" I
nt hepresentcaset
herewasno
j
ust
if
icat
ionwhat
everf
ordi
schargi
ngtheoil
int
oSydney

Harbour.Notonlywasi tanoffencetodoso, butitinv

olv
ed
considerabl
elossf i
nanciall
y.Ift heship'
sengi neerhad
thoughtaboutt he mat t
er,there could have been no
questionofbalanci
ngt headv antagesanddi sadvant
ages.
From ev erypoi
ntofv iew i
twasbot hhi sdut yandhi s
i
nteresttostopthedischargeimmedi at
ely.

"Itfol
lowst hatintheirLor dships'viewt heonl yquest i
oni s
whet hera r easonable man hav i
ng t he knowl edge and
exper i
encet obeexpect edoft hechi efengi neeroft he
WagonMoundwoul dhav eknownt hatther ewasar ealr i
sk
oft heoilont hewat ercat chingf i
rei nsomeway :ifitdi d,
seriousdamaget oshi psorot herpr oper t
ywasnotonl y
foreseeablebutv erylikely.TheirLor dshipsdonotdi ssent
from t hev i
ew oft het rialjudget hatt hepossi bi l
i
tiesof
damage" mustbesi gnificantenoughi napr actical senset o
requirear easonablemant oguar dagai nstt hem"butt hey
thinkthathemayhav emi sdirect
edhi msel finsay ing:

'
Theredoesseem tobear ealpr
acti
caldif
fi
cult
y,assuming
thatsomeriskoffir
edamagewasf oreseeabl
e,butnota
highone,i
nmaki ngafactualj
udgmentast owhet hert
his
ri
skwassuf f
ici
entto at
tractli
abi
li
tyifdamageshoul d
occur.
'

"
Inthis di
ffi
cul
tchapt
erofthe l
aw decisi
ons ar
e not
i
nfr
equentl
ytakent
oapplyt
ocir
cumstancesfarremoved
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
from t
hef act
swhichgaveri
setothem andi
twouldseem
thatheret oomuchr el
i
ancehasbeenpl acedonsome
observat
ionsinBolt
onvStoneandsimil
arobser
vat
ionsi
n
othercases.

"IntheirLor dshi ps' viewapr operlyquali

fi
edandal ertchi ef
engineerwoul dhav er eali
sedt herewasar ealri
skher eand
theydo notunder stand Wal sh J.to denyt hat .Buthe
appear st ohav ehel dt hati far ealri
skcanpr oper l
ybe
described as r emot ei tmustt hen be hel dt o be not
reasonabl yf oreseeabl e.Thati sapossiblei nter
pr etationof
someoft heaut horities.Butt hisissti
llanopenquest i
on
andonpr i
nci plet heirLor dshipscannotacceptt hisv i
ew.I f
ar ealr iski sonewhi chwoul doccurt ot hemi ndofa
reasonabl emani nt heposi t
ionoft hedef endant '
sser v
ant
andwhi chhewoul dnotbr ushasi deasf ar-f
etched,andi f
thecr i
terioni stobewhatt hatreasonablemanwoul dhav e
done i nt he ci rcumst ances,t hen surely he woul d not
neglectsuchar iski fact i
ont oelimi
natei tpr esent edno
diff
icult
y ,i nv ol
v ed no di sadvantage,and r equi red no
expense.

181•
•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"Int hepr esentcaset heev idenceshowst hatt he

dischar geofsomuchoi lont ot hewat ermusthav e
taken a consi der ablet ime,and a v igil
antshi p's
engineerwoul dhav enot i
cedt hedi schar geatan
earlyst age.Thef i
ndingsshowt hatheoughtt ohav e
knownt hatitispossi blet oignitet hi
ski ndofoi lon
wat er,andt hatt heshi p'sengi neerpr obabl youghtt o
haveknownt hatt hishadi nf acthappenedbef or e.
Themostt hatcanbesai dt ojust i
fyinactionist hat
hewoul dhav eknownt hatt hiscoul donl yhappeni n
veryexcept i
onalci r
cumst ances.Butt hatdoesnot
meant hatar easonabl emanwoul ddi smi sssucha
ri
skf rom hi smi ndanddonot hingwheni twasso
easyt opr eventi t
.I fiti scl eart hatther easonabl e
manwoul dhav erealisedorf oreseenandpr evented
ther i
sk,t heni tmustf oll
ow t hatt heappel l
anti s
l
iablei ndamages.Thel earnedj udgef oundt hisa
diff
icul tcase:hesay st hatt hismat teri s38 'one
uponwhi chdi f
ferentmi ndswoul dcomet odi f
ferent
concl usions'.

"Takingaratherdif
ferentvi
ew oft
helaw f
rom that
oft hejudge,theirLordshi
psmusthol dthatt he
respondent
sar eenti
tl
edtosucceedonthi
sissue.
"

Smi
thvLeechBr
ain&Co.Lt
d[1962]2QB405
Facts:The pl aint
if
f'
s husband oper at
ed a cr ane i nt he
defendant '
scompanywhi chheusedt ol owerar ticlesinto
moltenmet al
.Ashi eldwasprovidedtopr otecthimf rom the
spatter
ing mol ten metal
.On t hedayoft heacci dent,he
tur
nedt ol ookatwhathewasdoi ngsucht hathisheadwas
outsi
det heshi el
dandapi eceofmol t
enmet alstruckhi m on
the lowerl i
p causing a burn.The bur n promot ed t he
developmentofcanceratt hesamepl acefrom whi chhedi ed
somet hreey earslater
.Althought hecancerdev elopedi n
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ti
ssueswhi ch al r
eadyhad a pr e-malignantcondit
ion,t he
evidenceshowedt hatt hecancermi ghtnothav edev el
oped
withoutthebur nalt
houghi tmighthav edonesosomet i
mei n
hislif
e.
Held:Sincethebur nresulti
ngf r
om thedef endant
s'breachof
dutywasr easonablyf oreseeableandt hecancerwasj ustan
extensionofthebur n,theywerel i
abl
e.
Princi
ple:Thet estforl i
abil
i
tyfornegligencei swhethert he
defendantcoul dreasonablyhav eforeseent hety
peofi nj
ury
sufferedandnotwhet hertheconsequenceoft heinj
ur ywas
reasonablyforeseeable.

PerLordPar kerCJatp.413:" Accordingly

,Ifi
ndt hat
the burn was t he promoting agency ofcanceri n
ti
ssueswhi chalreadyhadapr e-malignantcondi
tion.In
those ci
rcumst ances,itis cleart hatt he pl
aint
iff
's
husband,butf orthebur n,wouldnotnecessar il
yev er
havedevelopedcancer .Ontheot her

u182
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

hand,havingregardtothenumberofmat t
erswhi ch
can be pr omoti
ng agenci
es,there was a strong
l
ikel
ihood thatatsomest agein hislif
ehewoul d
developcancer.Butt
hatthebur
ndi dcontr
ibut
eto,or
causeinpar t
,atanyrat
e,thecancerandthedeat h,I
havenodoubt .
"
Andatpp.414and415:" Formypar t,Iam qui te
sati
sfi
edt hatt heJudici
alCommi tt
eei nt heWagon
Moundcasedi dnothav ewhatImaycal l
,loosely,the
thi
nskullcasesi nmind.Ithasal waysbeent hel awof
thi
scount rythatat ort
feasort akeshi sv i
ctim ashe
fi
ndshim.I tisunnecessar ytodomor ethanr eferto
theshortpassagei nt hedeci sionofKennedyJ.i n
Du/i
euvWhi te&Sons,wher ehesai d:'I
famani s
negli
gentl
yr unoverorot herwi
senegl igentl
yi njuredin
hisbody,iti snoanswert ot hesuf ferer'
scl aimf or
damagest hathewoul dhav esufferedlessinjury ,
orno
i
njuryatall
,ifhehadnothadanunusual l
ythinskul lor
anunusuallyweakhear t
.'

"Tothesameef fectisapassagei nt hej udgmentof

Scrut
tonL.J.inTheAr pad.Butquiteapar tfrom t hose
two refer
ences,asi swel lknown,t hewor koft he
court
sf oryearsandy earshasgoneonont hatbasi s.
Thereisnotadayt hatgoesbywher esomet r
ialjudge
doesnotadoptt hatpr i
ncipl
e,thatthetortfeasort akes
hisvi
ctim ashef i
ndshi m.Ift heJudicialCommi t
tee
had any intenti
on ofmaki ng an i nroad i ntot hat
doctr
ine,Iam quit
esat isf
iedthattheywoul dhav esaid
so.

"I
tist r
uethatifthewor
dingintheadvi
cegivenby
LordSimondsint heWagonMoundcasei sappli
ed
str
ict
lytosuchacaseast
his,
itcoul
dbesai
dthatt
hey
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

weredeal ingwi ththispoi nt.But,asIhav esai d,iti

st o
mymi ndqui t
eimpossi blet oconcei vet hatt heywer e
and,indeed,i thasbeenpoi ntedoutt hatt heydi sclose
thedi st i
nct i
onbet weensuchacaseast hisandt he
onet heywer econsi deringwhent heycommenton
Smi thvLondon&Sout hWest ernRai l
wayCompany .
LordSi monds,i ndeal ingwi t
ht hatcasesai d:' Three
thi
ngsmaybenot edaboutt hiscase:t hef i
rst,thatf or
thesweepi ngpr opositionl aiddownnoaut horitywas
cit
ed;t hesecond,t hatt hepoi ntt owhi cht hecour t
dir
ect edi tsmi ndwasnotunf oreseeabl edamageofa
dif
ferentki ndfrom thatwhi chwasf or eseen, butmor e
extensi vedamageoft hesameki nd.'Inot herwor ds,
LordSi mondsi sclear lyther edr awingadi sti
nction
betweent hequest i
onwhet heramancoul dr easonabl y
antici
pat eat ypeofi njury,andt hequest ionwhet hera
mancoul dr easonablyant icipatetheext entofi njuryof
thet y
pewhi chcouldbef oreseen.

183•
•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"TheJudi cialCommi tt
eewere,Ithi
nk, disagreeingwith
thedeci si oni nt hePol emiscaset hatamani sno
l
ongerl iabl eforthety peofdamagewhi chhecoul dnot
reasonabl yant i
cipate.TheJudi ci
alCommi tteewer e
not,It hink,say i
ngt hatamani sonl yliablef orthe
ex t
entofdamagewhi chhecoul dant i
cipate,always
assumi ng t he t ype of i nj
ury coul d hav e been
antici
pat ed.It hi
nkt hatv i
ewisreallysuppor tedbyt he
wayi nwhi chcasesoft hissor
thav ebeendeal twi
thin
Scot l
and.Scot l
and has nev er,so f aras Iknow,
adopt edt hepr i
ncipl
el ai
ddowni nPol emi s,andy etI
am qui te sat isfi
ed t hat they hav e t hroughout
proceededont hebasi sthatthet ortf
easort akesthe
victi
m ashef i
ndshi m.

"Inthosecircumst ances,itseemst omet hatt hisi s

plai
nlyacasewhi chcomeswi thi
nt heol dpr i
nciple.
The t est i
s not whet her these empl oyers could
reasonablyhav ef oreseen thatabur n woul d cause
cancerandt hathewoul ddie.Thequest ioniswhet her
theseempl oyerscoul dreasonablyf oreseet hety peof
i
njury he suffered,namel y
,t he burn.What ,int he
parti
cularcase,i stheamountofdamagewhi chhe
suffer
sasar esultoft hatburn dependsupon t he
character
isti
csandconst i
tuti
onoft hev icti
m. "

Br
adf
ordvRobi
nsonRent
alsLt
d[1967]1Al
lER267
Facts:The57- year-
oldplaintif
fwasi nstructedbythedef
endant ,
his empl oyer,to undertake a j ourney ofabout500 mi les
i
nvolvingalmost20hour sofdr iv
ingtochanget heol
dv anofa
coll
eaguei nasev ereweat her.Bothv answer eunheatedand
theradiatorint heoldvanwasdef ecti
v e.Hepr ot
est
edbutt he
defendantdi dnotheed.Asar esultofthej our
neyandthecol d,
hesuf feredinjurybyfrost bit
ewhi chwasunusuali nEngland.
Held:Althought hepart
icularinjurysufferedwasunusual,i
twas
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

for
eseeableinj
uryandthusthedefendantswer el
iabl
e.
Pri
nci
ple:Liabi
li
tyfornegl
igenceisnotdependentonwhet her
t
he precise natur
e oft he inj
ury suffered was reasonably
for
eseeable,butwhetherthet ypeofi njurycouldhavebeen
for
eseeninagener al
way .

PerReesJatp.269:" Sof arast hepr inciplesofl aw

applicabl
et othiscasear econcer ned,t heymaybe
shor t
ly stated.The def endants,as t he pl aint
if
f's
empl oyers,wereunderadut yatcommonl aw t otake
reasonabl estepst oav oidexposi ngt hepl aintifftoa
reasonabl yforeseeabler i
skofi njury.Itwasst rongly
arguedonbehal fofthedef endantsthati njur ytohi s
healthsuf f
eredbyt heplaintif
finthiscaseby' frostbit
e'
orcol dinjurywasnotr easonablyf oreseeabl e.There
wasnoev idencet hatbef orethepl ai
nt i
ffst ar tedthe
j
our neyei t
hert heplainti
ffhi msel
fort hedef endant's
servants,MrJonesorMr

•
184
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

Buer ,act ual lycont empl ated t hatt hepl aintiffmi ght
suf ferf rom ' fr
ost bite'ifhewer er equiredt ocar ryout
the j our ney . Howev er, I am sat isfied t hat any
reasonabl eempl oy eri npossessi onofal lt hef acts
knownt oMrJonesandMrBueron8Januar y1963,
woul dhav er eal
ised—andMrJonesandMrBuermust
hav er eal ised—t hati fthepl aintiffwasr equi r
edt ocar ry
outt hej our neyhewoul dcer t
ainlybesubj ect edt oa
realr i
skofsomei njur yt o hi sheal th ar ising f rom
prol ongedexposur et oanexcept ionaldegr eeofcol d.
Nodoubtt heki ndsofi njuryt oheal thduet opr olonged
exposur et o an except ionaldegr ee of col d ar e
commonl yt houghtt oi nclude,f orex ampl e,t hatt he
victim mi ghtsuf ferf rom acommoncol dori nasev ere
casef rom pneumoni a,ort hathemi ghtsuf ferf rom
chilblainsonhi shandsandf eet.Thequest ionwhi chI
hav e t o consi der i s whet her t he pl aint iff has
est ablishedt hatt hei njuryt ohi sheal thby' f rostbite'
(and Iuset hel ayt er m f orconv enience) ,whi chi s
admi ttedlyunusuali nt hiscount ry,isnev erthel essof
the t ype and ki nd ofi njurywhi ch was r easonabl y
foreseeabl e.Thel awdoesnotr equiret hatt hepr ecise
nat ureoft hei njurymustber easonabl yf oreseeabl e
bef orel iabi li
tyfori tsconsequencesi sat tri
but ed.The
poi ntist husdeal twi thi naconv enientwayi nSal mond
OnTor ts( 14t hEdn)atp719: '(
i)Ty peofdamagemust
bef oreseen.I thasbeenmadepl aint hatt hepr ecise
det ailsoft heacci dent ,ort heexactconcat enat ionof
circumst ances,neednotbef oreseen.I ti ssuf ficienti f
thet ype,ki ng,degr eeoror derofhar m coul dhav e
beenf oreseeni nagener alway .Thequest ioni s,was
theacci dentav ar iantoft heper il
sor i
gi nallybr ought
aboutby t he def endant 's negl i
gence? The l aw of
negl igencehasnotbeenf r
agment edi nt oanumberof
dist i
nctt or ts."'

Andatp.270:"
Inal
ltheseci
rcumst
ancesIhol
dthat
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

thedef endantsdid, bysendi ngthepl ai

nti
ffoutont his
j
ourney ,exposehi mt oar easonabl
yf oreseeablerisk
ofinj ur
yar i
singf rom exposur eto sev erecol dand
fat
igue.Thi sbr eachofdut ycausedt hepl ai
ntif
ft o
sufferf rom 'fr
ost bit
e'orcol dinjury with seri
ous
consequences.Ev eni fther ehadbeen— andt her
ei s
not ev idence t hat t he pl ai
nti
ff was abnor mal l
y
suscept i
blet o'frostbite'as opposed t ot he mor e
common sequel sofpr ol
onged exposur et o severe
coldandf ati
gue,hewoul dbeent it
ledtosucceedon
thegr oundthatat ortfeasormustt akehi svict
im ashe
fi
ndshi m (seet hej udgmentofLor d ParkerCJ i n
Smit hvLeechBr ain&CoLt d)."

185•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Robi
nsonvPostof
fi
ce[
1974]2Al
lER737
Fact s:Thepl aintiff
,anempl oyeeoft hedef endant,slippedandf el
l
from al adderduet ooi lthathadbeennegl igentl
yallowedt oleakont o
thel adderf rom apump.Hesust ainedawoundonhi schi nandwas
givenanant i-t
etanusser um ( ATS).Hehadal r
eadyt akenATSsome
year sear lierandf orsuchpat ients,atestr unwast obeadmi nist
er ed
30 mi nutes bef oret he f ulldose was admi ni
stered.The doct or
howev erdidt het estr unf oronl yonemi nut eandadmi nisteredt hef ul
l
dose.The pl aintif
fl aterdev el
oped encephal i
ti
s and l aterbr ain
damageasar esult.Thecour thowev erf oundoutt hatt hepl aintif
f
woul dnothav er eactedt ot heATSev eni ft hedoct orhadwai tedf or
the30mi nut esandt hust hedoct orwasnotnegl i
gent .Inanact ion
agai nstt hedef endant ,theycl aimedt hatt hei nj
urycompl ainedofwas
nota ki nd t hatcoul d hav e been f oreseen t or esul tf rom t he
admi nistrati
onoft heATS.
Hel d:Si ncei twasf oreseeabl ethatwhenoi li
sallowedt ol eakont o
thel adderawor kmanmi ghtsust aini njuryandsuchi njurymi ght
requi re medi calt reatment ,t he defendant s wer el iablef or t he
consequencesoft hemedi cal t
reatment .
Pr i
nci ple:At or tf
easormustt akehi svictim ashef indshi m andt hus
thef actt hatapl aintif
f'scondi t
ionmi ghthav econtri
but edt othei njury
i
snoexcuse.

PerOr rLJatp.750: "Inthepr esentcaset hejudgehel dt hatit

waspl ainlyf oreseeable( 1)thatifoilwasnegl i
gent l
yal l
owed
toescapeont oal adderawor kmanwasl ikelytosl i
pand
sust ainthet ypeofwoundi nquest ion; and(2)thatsuchi njury
mightwel lrequiremedi caltreatment ;andont hisbasi salone
he was pr epared t o hol d t he def endant s liable f or
encephal i
tis, buthehel dinaddi ti
ont hat ,
havingr egardt ot he
natur eoft hepl ainti
ff'
swor kandt hear eainwhi chhewas
wor king,i twasal so foreseeabl et hatsomef orm ofant i
-
tetanus pr ophy l
actic woul d be deemed necessar y.Int he
result he concl uded t hat ev ery r el
evant mat ter was
foreseeabl eexceptt het erri
bleextentoft heinjurywhi chwas
duet othepl aint
if
f'sall
ergyt oaseconddoseofATS, i
nwhi ch
respectt hePostOf f
icemustt aket hei rvi
cti
m ast heyf ound
him.

"Onthi
sappealcounself
orthePostOf
fi
cedidnotchal
lenge
the corr
ect
ness of Lor d Par
ker CJ'
s reasoni
ng and
concl
usi
onintheLeechBr ai
ncaseandaccept
edthatsome
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
atleastoft hesubsequentdeci
sionsfel
lwi
thi
nthesame
pr
incipl
e,buthecl
aimedthatanessenti
all
i
nkwhi
chwas

—•
186

missingi nt hepr esentcasewast hati twasnotf oreseeabl e

thatadmi nistrati
onofaf orm ofant i-
tetanuspr ophy l
axi swoul d
i
tselfgi ver ise toar are ser ious ill
nesS.I n ourj udgment ,
howev er,t
her ewasnomi ssingl i
nkandt hecasei sgov ernedby
thepr i
nciplet hatt hePostOf f
icehadt ot aket heirv ictim as
theyfoundhi m,int hiscasewi thanal lergyt o aseconddose
ofATS.On t hi
sbasi st hej udge,in ourv i
ew,wasr ighti n
concludingt hatt hef i
rsttwoofhi sfindings,abov eref erredt o,
weresuf f
icientt oi mposel iabili
tyont hePostOf f
ice,anda
fort
ioriwasr i
ghti ncomi ngt ot hesameconcl usiononhi s
additi
onalt hirdf i
ndingwhi chweconsi dert ohav ebeenf ul
ly
j
ustifi
edont heev idence.I nourj udgmentt hepr i
nciplet hata
defendantmustt aket hepl ainti
ffashef i
ndshi mi nvolv est hat
i
fawr ongdoeroughtr easonabl ytof oreseet hatasar esultof
hiswrongf ul actthev i
ctim mayr equiremedi caltreatmenthei s,
subjecttot hepr i
ncipleofnov usact usi nterveniens,l iablef or
theconsequencesoft het reat mentappl i
edal thoughhecoul d
notreasonabl yforeseet hoseconsequencesort hatt heycoul d
beser i
ous."

Wi
l
shervEssexAr
eaHeal
thAut
hor
it
y[1988]AC1074
Facts:Whi l
eadmi nist
eri
ngoxy gent othepl aint
if
fwhowasbor nprematurely
,
aj uni
ordoct oroft hedef endantmi stakenlyinsertedthecatheteri
ntot he
umbi l
icalvei
ninsteadoft heumbi li
calartery.Thisaffect
edthemoni t
ori
ngof
thebloodoxy genv essel
s.Hel aterdevelopedar et
rolent
alf
ibr
oplasi
aswhi ch
result
edi nbli
ndness.Hesued.
Held:Si ncet her
ewasconf li
cti
ngexper tev i
denceonwhet hert he
defendant '
s actcaused orcont ri
buted materi
all
yto cause t he
plainti
ff'sconditi
onandt het ri
aljudgef ai
l
edtomakeaf indi
ngoff act
ont hat,t hemat terwoul d ber emi t
ted f
orretri
alonthei ssueof
causat ion.
Principle:Tosucceedi nanact i
oni nnegli
gence,theplai
nti
ffmust
prov et hatt henegligenceoft hedef endantcausedorcont ri
buted
mat eriall
yt ocausetheinjurysuffered.

PerLordBri
dgeofHarwichatpp.190and191:"
Inthepresent
casethequesti
onisdi
ff
erent
.Thereareanumberofdif
ferent
agent
swhi chcoul
dhav ecausedtheRLF.Excessoxy gen
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
wasoneoft hem.Thedef endantsfai
l
edt otakereasonable
precauti
onstopr eventoneoft hepossibl
ecausati
veagent s
(e.
g.excessoxy gen)fr
om causingRLF.Butnoonecant el
lin
thi
scasewhet herexcessoxy gendidordi dnotcauseor
contri
butet
ot heRLFsuf f
eredbyt hepl
aint
if
f.Thepl
aint
if
f '
s

187"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

RLFmayhav ebeencausedbysomecompl etelydi ff

erentagentor
agents,e.g.hy percarbi
a,i ntr
aventri
cul arhaemor rhage,apnoea or
patentductus ar teri
osus.I n additi
on t o oxy gen,each oft hose
conditi
onshasbeeni mpl i
catedasapossi blecauseofRLF.Thi sbaby
suffer
edfrom eachoft hosecondi ti
onsatv ari
oust i
mesi nthef i
rst
twomont hsofhi sl i
fe.Therei snosat isf actoryev idencet hatexcess
oxygenismor elikelythananyoft hoseot herf ourcandi datest ohav e
causedRLFi nthisbaby .Tomymi nd,theoccur r
enceofRLFf oll
owing
af ail
uretotakeanecessar ypr ecautiont opr ev entexcessoxy gen
causingRLFpr ovidesnoev idenceandr aisesnopr esumpt i
ont hatit
wasexcessoxy genr atherthanoneormor eoft hef ourot herpossible
agentswhichcausedOfcont ri
butedtoRLFi nt hi
scase.

"Theposi ti
on, tomymi nd, i
swhol l
ydifferentfrom thatint heMcGhee
[1973]1W. L.R.1,casewher et herewasonl yonecandi date(brick
dust)whi chcoul dhav ecausedt heder mat it
is,
andt hefailuretotakea
precautionagai nstbrickdustcausi ngder matiti
swasf oll
owedby
dermat i
tiscausedbybr ickdust .Insuchacase, Icanseet hecommon
sense,i fnott helogi
c,ofhol dingt hat,int heabsenceofanyot her
evidence,t hef ail
uretot akethepr ecautioncausedorcont ri
butedt o
thedermat iti
s.Tot heext entt hatcer tai
nmember soft heHouseof
Lords deci ded t he quest i
on on i nferences f r
om ev i
dence or
presumpt ions, Idonotconsi dert hatthepr esentcasef all
swi thi
ntheir
reasoning.Af ail
uretotakepr ev entati
v emeasur esagai nstoneoutof
fi
vepossi blecausesi snoev i
denceast owhi choft hosef ivecaused
theinj
ur y.

"Si
nce, ont hisv i
ew, t
heappealmust ,i
nanyev ent,beal lowed, itisnot
stri
ctlynecessar yt o decidewhet heritwasopent ot heCour tof
Appealt or esolveoneoft heconf l
ict
sbet weent heexper tswhi cht he
j
udgel eftunr esolv edandt of i
ndt hattheoxy genadmi nisteredt o
Mar ti
ni nconsequenceoft hemi sl
eadingP02l evelsder ivedf rom t he
misplaced cat heterwas capabl e ofhav i
ng caused ormat eri
all
y
contributed to hisRLF.Iv erywel lunderstand t heanxi et yoft he
major i
tyt oav oidt henecessi tyfororderi
ngar etr
iali fthatwasatal l
possible:Buthav ingaccept ed,asy ourLordshi psandcounselhav e
hadt oaccept ,t
hatt hepr i
mar yconfli
ctofopinionbet weent heexper ts
ast owhet herexcessi veoxy geni nthefir
sttwoday sofl i
f epr obably
didcauseormat eriall
ycont r
ibutetoMar ti
n'
sRLFcannotber esolved
byr eadingt het ranscript
,Idoubt ,withallrespect ,iftheCour tof
Appealwer eent itledtot ryt oresolvethesecondar yconf li
ctast o
whetheri tcoul dhav edoneso.Wher eexpertwi t
nessesar er adicall
y
atissueaboutcompl extechnicalquesti
onswi t
hint heirownf ieldand
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

areexami nedandcr oss-examinedatl engthaboutt heirconflict

ing
theor i
es,Ibel iev et hatthej udge'
sadv antagei nseei ng them and
hearingt hem isscar celylessimportantt hanwhenhehast or esolve
some conf li
ctofpr imaryf actbet ween l ay wi t
nesses i n pur el
y
mundanemat ter s.Soher e,intheabsenceofr el
evantf i
ndingsoff act
byt hej udge,ther ewasr eall
ynoalternativet oar etr
ial.Atallev ents,
thej udgewhor etri
est hei ssueofcausat ionshoul dappr oachi twi t
h
anent i
relyopenmi nduni nfl
uencedbyanyv iew ofthef actsbear ing
uponcausat i
onexpr essedi ntheCourtofAppeal .
"

JoblingvAssoci atedDai r
ies[19881AC837
Facts:Thepl ai
nt i
ffhadsuf f
eredanacci dentatwor kwhi chlef thim
withacont inuingbackpai nwhi chwassomewhatdi sabli
ng.Thr ee
yearsaf tertheacci dent,andbef orethetrialofhisclaimi nnegligence
againstt he def endanti nr espectoft he accident,he suf fered a
condi t
ioncal ledmy elopathywhichwasunconnect edwi t
ht heacci dent.
Thecour tf oundt hatatt hetimeoft heacci dent,thatconditionhad
beendor mantbutwoul dhavemani festedatt hetimeoft het r
ial.Itfel
l
todeci det hequest i
onoft heassessmentofdamages.
Held:The l oss ofear nings which the pl ai
ntif
fsuf fered mustbe
reducedbyt hef urtherdisabil
it
yar i
singfrom t hemy elopathysincehe
woul dhav esuf feredi tanywaywi thouttheacci dent.
Principle: In assessi ng damages t he cour t must t ake i nto
consider ati
onanysuper veni
ngcondi t
iont hatdidnotar i
sef r
om t he
negligenceoft hedef endantt oreducet hedamages.

PerLor dWi l
ber forceatpp.803and804:" Inthepr esent ,and
i
n ot heri ndust r
iali njur
y cases,t here seems t o me no
j
ust i
ficationfordi sregar di
ngt hef actthatt hei njuredman' s
empl oyeri si nsur ed — i ndeed si nce 1972 compul soril
y
i
nsur ed— agai nstl iabili
tytohi sempl oyees.Thest atehas
decided,i not herwor ds,onaspr eadi ngofr i
sk.Ther eseems
tomenomor ej ust i
ficati
onf ordi sregardi
ngt hef actt hatthe
plai
ntiff— pr esumabl y,wehav enotbeent ol
dot herwi se i s
entit
ledt osicknessandi nvali
ditybenef itinr espectofhi s
my el
opat hy the amount of whi ch may depend on hi s
contributionrecor d,whi chi nturnmayhav ebeenaf fectedby
hisacci dent.Sowehav enomeansofknowi ngwhet hert he
plai
ntiffwoul dbeov er -
compensat edi fhewer e,inaddi ti
on,to
receivet heassesseddamagesf rom hi sempl oyer ,orwhet her
hewoul dbeunder -compensat edif
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

189•
l
ef tt ohi sbenef i
t.I tisnoteasyt oacceptasol utionbywhi cha
partiall
yi ncapaci t
atedmanbecomeswor seof fint ermsofdamages
and benef itthr ough a gr eat erdegr ee ofi ncapaci ty.Many ot her
i
ngr edient s,ofwei ghti nei therdi rect i
on,mayent eri ntoi ndi vi
dual
cases.Wi thoutanysat isfact ionIdr aw f rom t hi
st heconcl usiont hat
nogener al,logical,oruni v ersal l
yf airr ulescanbest at edwhi chwi ll
cov er,in a mannerconsi stentwi thj ustice,casesofsuper vening
event s whet herdue t ot ortious,par ti
allyt orti
ous,non- culpabl e or
whol lyacci dent alev ent s.Thecour tscanonl ydealwi theachcaseas
bestt heycani namannersoast opr ov i
dej ustandsuf ficientbutnot
excessi vecompensat i
on,t akingal lfact orsi ntoaccount .It hinkt hat
thisiswhatBakervWi ll
oughbydi d— andi ndeedt hatLor dPear son
reachedhi sdeci sioni nt hi
sway :t
her ationalisationoft hedeci sionas
towhi chIatl easthav edoubt s,needandshoul dnotbeappl i
edt o
othercases.I nt hepr esentcaset heCour tofAppealr eachedt he
unanswer ableconcl usiont hatt oappl yBakervWi l
l
oughbyt ot hef acts
ofthepr esentcasewoul dpr oduceanunj ustr esult,andIam wi lli
ngt o
acceptt hecor ol l
ar ythatj ustice,sof arasi tcanbeper cei ved,liest he
otherway and t hatt he super vening my elopathy shoul d notbe
disregar ded.I fr ationalisat i
oni sneeded,Iam wi l
lingt oacceptt he
'
v i
cissitudes'ar gumentast hebestav ail
able.Ishoul dbemor ef i
rml y
conv incedoft hemer itsoft heconcl usioni ft hewhol epat ternof
benef it
shadbeenconsi der ed, inhowev ergener alaway .Ther esul tof
thepr esentcasemaybel acki ngi npr ecisionandr at i
onalj ustification,
butsol ongaswear econt entt ol i
vei namansi onofsomanydi f f
erent
architectur es,thisi sinev it
abl e."

PerLor d Edmund- Daviesatpp.806 and 807:" MyLor ds,Imust

respectful
lydeclinetof oll
owt herouteadoptedbyt hemaj orit
yoftheir
LordshipsinBakervWi ll
oughby.Fort hedecisi
oni nHanvoodvWy ken
Colli
eryCo.[ 1913]2K. B.158,wi thitsdiff
erentfactsrequiri
ngtobe
consideredsolelyinthel ightofanel aborat
estatutoryschemehav i
ng
no count erparti nt he common l aw,was t here appli
ed wi t
hout
quali
ficati
onordi f
ferentiati
ont othecommonl aw clai
mt henunder
considerati
on.I nmar kedcont r
astwast hespeechofLor dPear son,
who made no r eference t o Har wood and who descr ibed as
'
formidable' the ar gument of def endant'
s counsel t hat the
consequence oft he originalaccidenthad been submer ged and
obli
teratedbyt hesuper veningevent.Henev ert
helessadded,
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
"
lhe

atp.495:' Butitmustnotbe al lowed to succeed,

becauseitproducesmani festi
njustice.Thesupervening
eventhasnotmadet hepl ai
ntif
fl essl amenorl ess
disabled norless depriv
ed ofameni ti
es.Ithas not
shortenedtheperiodov erwhichhewi l
lbesufferi
ng.It
hasmadehi m morelame, moredisabl ed,moredeprived
ofameni ti
es.Heshouldnothav el essdamagest hr
ough
beingwor seofft
hanmi ghthavebeenexpect ed.
'

"Ihav et o sayr espect f

ullyt hatIf ind this appr oach
unrealistic.I ti
nv olvesawar dingdamagesont hebasi sof
pain and suf feri
ng whi ch t he pl aint
iff woul d hav e
sufferedi ft heamput ationhadnott akenpl ace,andi t
compensat eshi mf orthatwhi chnol ongerexi sts.Nori s
i
tcor rectt ocompensat ehi mf orl ossofear ningswhen
thev eryst atewhi chhaspr oducedt hatl ossofear ni
ngs
hasceased.Thel ossofear ningssust ainedaf tert he
amput ationoft hel egwascausedbyt heamput ati
on,
not by t he f irst accident .And t he ef fect of t he
amput ation was t o obl i
terate compl etely al lt he
const i
tuent s (pai n and suf fering, r educed ear ning
capaci ty
,andl ossofameni ti
es)oft hedamagest obe
awar ded f ort hei njurysust ained asa r esul toft hat
accident ."Thekey ,asIt hink,t othecont raryconcl usion
arr
ivedatbyLor dPear soni st obef oundi nt hewor ds
whi chf ollowedi mmedi atelyupont hepassagequot ed
abov e:

'
Thenat ureoftheinj
ust
icebecomesappar entifthe
superv
eningev
entistr
eat
edasat or
t(asi
ndeeditwas)
andifoneenvi
sagestheplai
nti
ffsui
ngtherobber
swho
shothim.
Andatp.809:" Butwhati sclearisthatwhere,asi nthe
presentappeal ,t he questi
on ini ssue rel
ates tot he
assessmentofdamages when,a t orthav i
ng been
commi tted,the v ict
im is overt
aken beforet r
ialbya
whollyunconnect edanddi sabli
ngill
ness,thedecisionin
BakervWi ll
oughby[ 1970]A.
C.467hasnoappl i
cati
on.
YourLor dshi
psar et heref
oreuntrammel l
edbypr ecedent
.
Theef fectoftheCour tofAppeal'
sdeci si
oni sthatno
considerati
onsofpol i
cywarrantthei mposit
ionont he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
respondentofl iabili
tyforthel ossofear ningsaf terthe
emer genceofmy elopathy.Thati si naccor dancewi t
h
thelongest abl
ishedandemi nentlyreasonabl eprincipl
e
thatt heonsetoremer genceofi ll
nessisoneoft he
vici
ssitudes of l if
er elevant tot he assessment of
damages.Andi ti sofsomei nteresttonot et hatt hi
s
view was ev i
dent l
y shared atal lstages by l earned
counself orthepl ai
ntif
finBakervWi l
loughbyi t
self,and
hadbeenant i
cipatedasl ongagoas1961byGl anv il
l
e
Wi l
l
iams
(
[1961]C.
L.J.62,
76)
.Ibel
i
evet
heCour
tofAppeal
deci
si
on

191"
wasent
ir
elycor
rect
,andIwoul
ddi
smi
sst
heappeal
."

PerLor dRussellofKillowenatpp.809and810:" MyLor ds, i

t
i
s wel lest abli
shed thati n assessi ng compensat i
on f or
damagecausedt oapl aintif
fbyat or t
feasoramongot her
considerati
onsist heconsequentl ossorr educt
ioninear ning
capacityint hewor kingl ifeoft hepl ainti
ff
.Iti sal
sowel l
establi
shedt hatitisappr opriat
e,inar r
ivingatanest i
mat ed
fi
gureundert hathead,t hatsomeal lowanceordi scount
shouldbemadef ortheor dinaryvicissitudesofl i
fe.I
tisal so
wellest abl
ishedt hati fbyt het imeoft r
ialfactsemer ge
whichmakeknownav i
cissit
udeofl i
f easappl icabl
etot he
plai
ntif
f,thatknowl edgeshoul dr eplacet hatwhi chwoul d
have been onl y an est i
mat e:wher et hereis knowl edge
esti
mat i
onhasnopar t
.

"Oneoft hesevici
ssi t
udesi sthatapl aint
iffmightt hereaft
er
succumbt o adisease( unconnect edwi t
ht het ort)whi ch
woul dabbr evi
atet hepl aintif
f'
swor ki
ngl i
fe.Commonl ythe
discountf orsuchapossi bili
tymightwel lbesmal l
:buti tis
nott o be i gnored.I fbef oret rialt he plai
nt i
ffdoes so
succumb,i n myopi nion t he evidence ofi t
sabbr eviat
ing
effectmustt ake t he place ofest i
mat e,and r educe t he
amountofcompensat ionf orthetor ti
ousdamageundert hat
head.I nt he instant case t he plai nt
if
f succumbed t o
spondy l
ot i
c my el
opat hy whi ch by 1976,bef or
et he tri
al,
terminatedhiswor kingl i
fe, which,hadi tslengthremai nedas
atthedat eofthet ort,woul dhav econt inued(albeitatal ower
wage ear ni
ng capaci ty)f orsev er almor ey ears.Fort he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
plai
nti
ffappel l
antitwascont endedthatsincetheev i
dence
didnotshow t hatthiscondi
ti
onwasl atentanddormantat
thedat eofthet ort
iousinj
ury
,it
semer gencecouldnotserve
toreducet heamountofcompensat ionbasedonanest imate
ofwor kingli
fe.Butitwasconcededt hatift
hecondit
ionwas
i
nsomedegr eepr esentatthedateoft hetortthecontr
ary
viewshoul dprevail
."

PerLor dKei t
hofKi nkelatpp.814and815:" Itisimplici
ti n
thatdecisi onthatthescopeoft he" vi
cissitudes"pr i
ncipl
ei s
l
imitedt osuper v
eningev entsofsuchanat ureasei thert o
reducet hedi sabil
it
iesr esult
ingf rom t
heacci dentorel set o
shortent heper i
oddur i
ngwhi cht heywil
lbesuf fered.Iam of
opini
on t hatf ai
lur
et o consi derorev en adv ertt ot his
i
mpl i
cationweakenst heaut hori
tyoft her ati
odeci dendiof
thecase,andmustl eadt ot heconclusi ont hatini tsf ul
l
breadthiti snotaccept able.Theassessmentofdamagesf or
personali njur
iesinvol
v esapr ocessofr estitut
ioini nt
egrum.
Theobj ecti s

toplacet hei njuredpl aintiffinasgoodaposi tionashe

wouldhav ebeeni nbutf ort heacci dent .Hei snott obe
placed in a bet terposi ti
on.The pr ocess i nv olves a
compar ison bet ween t he pl ai
nt i
ff'
s ci rcumst ances as
regardscapaci tyt oenj oyt heameni tiesofl i
f eandt o
earnal ivi
ngast heywoul dhav ebeeni ft heacci denthad
notoccur red and hi s act ualci rcumst ances i nt hose
respectsf ollowing t he acci dent .In consi der ing how
mat t
ersmi ghthav ebeenexpect edt ot urnouti ft here
hadbeennoacci dent ,the' vi
cissitudes'pr inci plesay s
thatitisri
ghtt ot akei nt oaccountev ents, suchasi l
lness,
whichnotuncommonl yoccuri nt heor dinarycour seof
humanl i
fe.Ifsuchev ent sar enott akeni nt oaccount ,the
damages may be gr eater t han ar e r equi r
ed t o
compensat et hepl aintifff ortheef f
ectsoft heacci dent,
andt hatresultwoul dbeunf airtot hedef endant .Counsel
fortheappel l
antsoughtt odr aw adi stinctionbet ween
thecasewher et hepl aint i
ff,att het i
meoft het ortious
i
njury,i s alr
eady suf fering f r
om a l at entundet ect ed
conditi
onwhi chl aterdev el
opsi ntoadi sablingi l
lness,
andt hecasewher et hei ncept i
onoft hei ll
nessoccur s
whollyatal aterdat e.I nt hef or mercase,soi twas
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
mai ntained,t hei l
lnesswoul dproperlyfalltobet aken
i
nt o account i n diminuti
on of damages,upon t he
principlethatt het ortf
easortakeshisv i
cti
m ashef i
nds
hi
m,buti nt helattercaseitwouldnot .Thereisnot r
ace
oft hesuggest eddi sti
nct
ioninanyoft heauthori
ti
es,and
i
nmyopi ni
oni tisunsoundandaptt oleadt ogr eat
practical di f
ficult
ies, provi
ding ampl e scope f or
disput ati
on among medi calmen.Whatwoul d bet he
posi t
ion,i tmi ghtbeasked,ofani ndivi
dualhav i
nga
const i
t ut
ionalweaknessmaki nghim speciall
ypr onet o
i
ll
ness gener ally
,oran her edi
tar
yt endencyt o some
specificdi sease.

"Iam t hereforeofopi niont hatt hemaj orityi nBaker v

Wi l
l
oughbywer emi stakeni nappr oachi ngt hepr obl
ems
commont othecaseofasuper veningt ortiousactandt o
thatofsuper veningi l
lnesswhol l
yf rom t hepoi ntofv iew
ofcausat i
on.Whi l
ei tisl ogi call
ycor rectt osayt hatin
bothcasest heor iginaltor tandt hesuper v eningev ent
maybeconcur rentcausesofi ncapaci ty,thatdoesnot
necessar il
y,i
nmyv iew,pr ov idet hecor rectsol ut i
on.In
thecaseofsuper veningillness,i tisappr opr i
atet okeep
i
nv iewt hatthisisoneoft heor dinar yvicissitudesofl i
fe,
andwhenonei scompar ingt hesi tuati
onr esultingf r
om
the acci dentwi tht he si tuat i
on had t her e been no
accident,t or ecogni se t hatt he i ll
ness woul d hav e
overtakent heplaintiffi
nanyev ent,sot hati tcannotbe
disregardedi narri
v i
ngatpr opercompensat ion,andno
mor ethanpr opercompensat ion. "

193•
Per Lor d Br i
dge of Har wi
ch at p. 820:" The
vi
cissit
udespr i
nci
pleit
self
,itseemst ome,st ems
fr
om t hef undamentalproposit
ionofl aw thatt he
objectofev eryawardofdamagesf ormonet ar
yl oss
i
st oputt hepar t
ywrongedsof araspossibleint he
sameposi ti
on,nobett
erandnowor se,ashewoul d
bei nifhehadnotsuf feredthewr onginrespectof
whichhecl ai
ms.Toassumet hatani nj
uredplai
nt i
ff
,
i
fnoti njured,wouldhavecontinuedt oearnhisf ul
l
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
wagesf oraf ullwor kingl if
e,isv erypr obablyt oov er-
compensat ehi m.Toappl yadi scount ,inrespectof
possiblef uturel oss of ear nings,ar ising f rom
i
ndependentcauses,maybet ounder -
compensat e
him.When conf ront ed byf uture uncer tainty,t he
courtassessest hepr ospect sandst rikesabal ance
betweent heseopposi tedanger sasbesti tcan.But
whent hesuper veni ngi llnessori njurywhi chi st he
i
ndependentcauseofl ossofear ningcapaci t
yhas
mani fested i tself bef or e t ri
al,t he ev ent has
demonst rat
edt hat ,ev eni ft hepl aintiffhadnev er
sustainedt het ortiousi njur y,hisearningswoul dnow
ber educedorext i
ngui shed.Tohol dt het or t
feasor ,
i
nt hissi t
uation,liablet opaydamagesf oranot ional
continuing l oss of ear nings at tri
but ablet ot he
tort
ious i nj
ur y,ist o putt he plaintiffi n a bet ter
positionthanhewoul dbei nifhehadnev ersuf fered
thet orti
ousi njury .Putmor eshor tly,appl yingwel l
-
established pr i
nci ples f or t he assessment of
damagesatcommonl aw, whenapl aintiffinjuredby
thedef endant '
st or ti swhol lyincapaci t
at ed from
earningbysuper v eningi ll
nessoracci dentali njury,
thelaw wi l
lnol ongert reatt het ortasacont i
nui ng
causeofanyl ossofear ningcapaci ty."

HughesvLor
dAdv
ocat
e[19631AC837
Fact:ThePostOf fi
ceopenedamanhol eunderi tsstat
ut ory
power sf or t he purposes of mai ntaining under ground
tel
ephoneequi pment .Itwascov ered bya t entonl yand
surroundedbyl ampsi ntheev ening.nhewor kmenl efti t
unguardedi ntheev eningandt hepl ainti
ff,an8- yearoldboy ,
entered thet entand l owered oneoft hel ampsi ntot he
manhol e.Anexpl osionoccurredandhef ellintothemanhol e
andwassev erelyinj
ured.Hesued.
Held:Al t
hought hei nj
urywasunpr edict
abl e,sinceitwasa
reasonableandf or
eseeableconsequenceoft henegl i
gent
actoft heservantsofthedef endant, t
heyar el i
able.
Princi
ple:A def endant isl iablef or a r easonable and
foreseeableinjuryeveni fi
tisgr eaterthancoul dreasonabl y
hav ebeenforeseen.

PerLordReidatp.845:"Theappell
ant
'sinjuri
esweremainly
causedbyburns,
anditcannotbesai
dthatinjur
iesf
rom bur
ns
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

wer eunf oreseeable.Asawar ni

ngt ot r
affict hewor kmen
hadsetl ightedr edlampsr oundt het entwhi chcov ered
themanhol e,andi fboysdi dentert hedar kt entitwas
verylikelyt hattheywoul dt akeoneoft hesel ampswi th
them.I fthel ampf el
landbr okeitwasnotatal lunli
kely
thatt heboywoul dbebur nedandt hebur nsmi ghtwell
beser i
ous.Nodoubti twasnott obeexpect edt hatthe
i
njurieswoul dbeasser i
ousast hosewhi cht heappel l
ant
i
nf actsust ained.Butadef endantisl i
abl e,althought he
damagemaybeagooddealgr eaterinex tentthanwas
foreseeabl e.Hecanonl yescapel i
abili
tyi ft hedamage
can ber egar ded asdi ffering i
n kind f rom whatwas
foreseeabl e."

PerLor dJenki nsatpp.850and851:" Itist ruet hatt he

dutyofcar eexpect edi ncasesoft hi
ssor tisconf i
nedt o
reasonably f oreseeabl e danger s, but i t does not
necessaril
yf ollow t hatliabil
ityi sescapedbecauset he
dangeract uallymat eri
ali
singi snoti denticalwi tht he
dangerr easonabl yf oreseenandguar dedagai nst .Each
casemuch dependson i tsown par t i
cularf acts.For
exampl e(aspoi ntedouti ntheopi ni
ons) ,int hepr esent
case the par affin didt he mi schiefbyexpl odi ng,not
burning,andi tissai dthatwhi leapar affinf ire( caused,
forexampl e,byt heupset t
ing oft hel i
ght ed l amp or
otherwise all
owi ng i t
s cont ent st ol eak out )was a
reasonablyfor eseeabl erisksosoonast hepur suergot
accesst othel amp, anexpl osionwasnot .

"Tomymi nd,thedistinct
iondr awnbet weenbur ni
ngand
explosi
oni stoof i
net owar rantaccept ance.Supposi
ng
thepur suerhadont hedayi nquest i
ongonet othesit
e
andt akenoneoft hel amps,andupseti toverhimsel
f,
thus set t
ing hi s clothes alight,t he person to be
consideredr esponsibleforpr otect
ingchi l
drenfrom t
he
dangerst obef oundt her
ewoul dpresumabl yhavebeen
l
iable.Ont heot herhand, i
fthel amp,whent heboyupset
i
t,explodedi nhisf ace,hewoul dhav ehadnor emedy
becauset heexpl osionwasanev entwhi chcouldnot
reasonablybef or
eseen.Thi sdoesnotseem t omet obe
ri
ght.

"
Ithi
nk t
hati
nthese i
magi
nar
y ci
rcumst
ances t
he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
dangerwoul d bea dangeroff ireofsomeki nd,for
exampl e,sett
ingal i
ghtt ohisclothesorcausi nghim
bodil
yhur t
.Ifthereisariskofsuchaf i
reasthat
, Idonot
thi
nk t he duty of car e prescr
ibed in Donoghue v
Stevensoni spr ev
entedf r
om comi ngint
ooper ati
onby
the presence oft he remote possibi
li
ty ofthe mor e
seri
ousev entofanexplosion."

PerLor
dMor
ri
sofBor
th-
y-Gestatp.853:
"MyLor
ds,
in

195•
•

my v i
ew,t here was a dut y owed by the defenderst o
safeguar
dt hepursueragainstthet
y peorki
ndofoccur rence
whichinfacthappenedandwhi chr
esult
edinhisinjur
ies,and
thedefendersar enotabsol vedfr
om liabi
l
itybecauset hey
didnotenvisage't
hepreciseconcatenat
ionofci
rcumst ances
whichledupt otheacci
dent '
.
"

PerLor dGuestatpp.855and856:" Inor dert oest abl isha

coher entchai n ofcausat ion itisnotnecessar yt hatt he
preci sedet ailsl eadi ngupt ot heacci dentshoul dhav ebeen
reasonabl yf oreseeabl e:i tissuf fi
cienti ftheacci dentwhi ch
occur redi sofat ypewhi chshoul dhav ebeenf oreseeabl eby
ar easonabl ycar efulper son (Mi l
lervSout h ofScot land
Elect ricityBoar d,Lor dKei thofAv onhol m;Har veyvSi nger
Manuf act uri
ngCo.Lt d.,Lor dPat ri
ck)orasLor dMacki nt osh
expr essedi tintheHar v eycase, thepr eci seconcat enat i
onof
circumst ancesneed notbeenv i
saged.Concent r
ationhas
beenpl acedi nt hecour tsbel ow ont heexpl osionwhi ch,it
wassai d,coul d nothav ebeen f or eseen becausei twas
caused i n a uni que f ashi on byt he par affi
nf ormi ng i nto
vapourandbei ngi gnitedbyt henakedf lameoft hewi ck.But
this,inmyOpi nion,i st oconcent rateonwhati sr eall
yanon-
essent ialel ementi nt hedanger oussi tuationcr eat edbyt he
all
ur ement .The t estmi ghtbet t
erbe putt hus:Was t he
i
gni ti
ng of par affin out side the l amp by t he f lame a
foreseeabl e consequence oft he br each ofdut y ?I nt he
circumst ances,t here was a combi nat i
on of pot ent i
all
y
danger ousci rcumst ancesagai nstwhi cht hePostOf ficehad
topr ot ectt heappel l
ant .I fthesef ormedanal lurementt o
childr eni tmi ghthav ebeenf oreseent hatt heywoul dpl ay
witht hel amp,t hati tmi ghttipov er,t hati tmi ghtbebr oken,
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
andt hatwhenbr okent hepar affinmi ghtspi l
landbei gnited
bythef lame.Al lt hesest epsi nt hechai nofcausat i
onseem
tohav ebeenaccept edbyal lt hej udgesi nt hecour tsbel ow
asf oreseeabl e.Butbecauset heexpl osi onwast heagent
whichcausedt hebur ningandwasunf oreseeable,t herefore
the acci dent ,accor ding t o t hem,was not r easonabl y
for
eseeabl e.Inmyopi nion,thi sr easoningi sfallacious.An
explosioni sonl yonewayi nwhi chbur ningcanbecaused.
Burningcanal sobecausedbyt hecont actbet weenl iquid
paraffi
nandanakedf lame.I nt heonecasepar af fi
nv apour
andi ntheot hercasel iqui dpar affi
ni signitedbyf i
re.Icannot
seet hatt hesear et wodi f
ferentt y pesofacci dent .Theyar e
bothbur ningacci dent sandi nbot hcasest heinjurieswoul d
bebur ningi njuries.Upont hisv i
ew t heexpl osionwasan
i
mmat erialev enti nthechai nofcausat ion.Itwassi mpl yone
wayi nwhi chbur ningmi ghtbecausedbyt hepot ent i
all
y
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

dangerouspar af
fi
nlamp.Iadopt ,wit
hr espect
,LordCar mont'
s
observat
ion i
nt hepresentcase:'Thedefendercannot,Ithink,
escape li
abil
i
tybycont endi
ng thathe did notforesee al
lthe
possibi
li
ti
esoft hemannerinwhi chall
urements— t hemanhole
andthelanter
n—woul dactuponthechil
dishmind."
'

PerLor dPear ceatp.857and858:" Thedef ender sar et her efore

l
iablef oral lt hef or eseeabl econsequencesoft hei rnegl ect .Whenan
accidenti sofadi fferentt y peandki ndf rom any thingt hatadef ender
coul dhav ef or eseenhei snotl iablefori t( seeTheWagonMound) .But
todemandt oogr eatpr ecisioni nthet estoff or eseeabi li
tywoul dbe
unfairt ot hepur suersi ncet hef acetsofmi sadv ent urear ei nnumer able
(see Mi l
lervSout h ofScot l
and El ect ri
ci tyBoar d;Har veyvSi nger
Manuf act uringCo.Lt d) .Int hecaseofanal l
ur ementt ochi ldr eni tis
particul ar l
yhar dt of oreseewi th preci sion t heexactshapeoft he
disast er t hat wi l
lar i
se.The al l
ur ement i nt hi s case was t he
combi nat ionofar edpar affinlamp, al adder ,apar t i
allycl osedt ent, and
acav ernoushol ewi thini t
,aset t i
ngwel lf ittedt oi nspi resomej uveni l
e
adv ent ur et hatmi ghtendi ncal amity.Theobv iousr iskswer ebur ning
and conf lagr at i
on and a f al l
. Allt hese i n f act occur red,but
unexpect edl yt hemi shandl ed l amp i nst ead ofcausi ng an or dinar y
conf l
agr at i
onpr oducedav i
olentexpl osi on.Di dt heexpl osi oncr eatean
accidentanddamageofadi fferentt y pef rom t hemi sadv ent ureand
damage t hatcoul d be f oreseen?I n myj udgmenti tdi d not .The
accidentwasbutav ar i
antoft hef or eseeabl e.I twas,t oquot et he
wor dsofDenni ngL. J.i nRoevMi nist erofHeal th,' wi t
hi nt her i
sk
created by t he negl igence' .No unf oreseeabl e,ext raneous,i ni t
ial
occur rencef ir
edt het rain.Thechi l
dr en' sent ryi ntot het entwi tht he
l
adder ,thedescenti nt ot hehol e, andt hemi shandl ingoft hel ampwer e
allfor eseeabl e.Thegr eat erpar toft hepat ht oi njur yhadt husbeen
trodden, andt hemi shandl edl ampwasqui tel i
kel yatt hatst aget ospi l
l
and cause a conf lagr ation.I nstead,by some cur ious chance of
combust i
on,i tex pl odedandnoconf lagr at ionoccur red,i twoul dseem,
untilaf tert heexpl osi on.Ther ewast husanunexpect edmani f estat i
on
oft heappr ehendedphy sicaldanger s.Buti twoul dbe,It hi nk,t oo
narrow av iew t ohol dt hatt hosewhocr eat edt her i
skoff irear e
excusedf rom t hel iabi li
tyf ort hedamagebyf i
rebecausei t cameby
wayofexpl osi vecombust i
on.Ther esul tingdamage,t houghsev ere,
wasnotgr eatert hanordi fferenti nki ndf rom t hatwhi chmi ghthav e
beenpr oducedhadt hel ampspi l
l
edandpr oducedamor enor mal
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
conf
lagr
ati
oni
nthehol
e."

197"
Ownersof
DredgerLi
esboschvOwner
sofSt
eamshi
pEdi
son
[
1933]AC449
Fact s:Thedef endant snegl igentlysankt hepl aint
iffs'dredger.Att he
ti
meoft heacci dent ,thepl aintif
fshadaconst ructioncont r
actunder
whi chadr edgerwasnecessar yandtheywer eusi ngthedr edgerf orthat
purpose.Thatcont racti ncludedpenal t
yf ordel ayi ncompl etionand
cancel lati
on f orpr olonged del ayand si nce t he pl ai
nti
ffs coul d not
purchaseanew one,t heyhi r edanotherdr edgeraf terabout6mont hs
butt hatdr edgerwasmor eexpensi vet ouset hant hef ir
st.Theycoul d
hav esecur edoneonanear l
ierdat ebuthadnothadf undst odot hat.
Held: Thedamagesf ort heplai nti
ff
sshouldi ncludedamagesf ort he
l
ossi ncurredduet ot helossoft heship;i.
e.,ther easonabl ecostatt he
ti
meoft hel ossandt hecosti nv olv
edinsecur i
ngar eplacement ,butnot
thecostoft hedel ayinsecur ingt henewdr edger ,asthatwasduet othe
plaintiff
'sowncr editunwor thiness.
Principle:Wher eav esselisi napr ofi
tableempl oyment ,atthet i
meof
l
oss,t helossi ncur r
edasar esul tofthenegl igencemustbet akeni nto
consi derationint heassessmentofdamages.

PerLor dWr ightatpp.459—461:" Beforeconsi deri

ngwhati s
i
nv olv edi nthiscont ention,It hinki tdesi rabletoexami net he
claim madebyt heappel l
ant s,whi chf oundf avourwi tht he
Regi strarandLangt onJ. ,andwhi chinef fectist hatal ltheir
circumst ances,inparticulartheirwantofmeans, mustbet aken
i
nt oaccountandhencet hedamagesmustbebasedont heir
act ualloss,pr ovidedonl yt hat,ast heRegi str
arandt hej udge
hav e f ound, they act ed r easonabl y i n t he unf ortunat e
predi camenti nwhi cht heywer epl aced,ev ent houghbutf or
theirf i
nancialembar r
assmentt heycoul dhav er epl
acedt he
Liesboschatamoder atepr i
ceandwi thcompar ati
velyshor t
delay .Inmyj udgmentt heappel lant sarenotent itl
edtor ecov er
damagesont hi
sbasi s.Ther espondent s't ort
iousacti nvolv ed
thephy si
callossoft hedr edger ;t hatlossmustsomehow be
reducedt otermsofmoney .Butt heappel lants'actuallossi nso
faras i twas due t ot heiri mpecuni osi ty arose from t hat
i
mpecuni osity-
asasepar ateandconcur rentcause, extraneous
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
toanddi st i
nctincharacterfr
om t hetor
t;t
hei mpecuniositywas
nottraceabl et otherespondent s'act
s,andi nmyopi ni
onwas
outsi
det hel egalpurvi
ew oft heconsequencesoft heseact s.
The law cannott ake accountofev eryt
hing thatf ol
lows a
wrongf ulact;i tr
egardssomesubsequentmat t
ersasout si
de
thescopeofi t
sselect
ion,because' i
twereinfi
nit
ef orthelawto
j
udget hecauseofcauses' ,oreonsequencesofconsequences.
Thust hel ossofashi pbycol l
i
sionduet otheotherv essel'
s
77ae

solefaul t
,mayf orcet heshi powneri ntobankr uptcyandt hatagai n
may i nvolve hisf ami lyi n suf feri
ng,l oss of educat ion or
opport unit
iesinli
fe,butnosuchl osscoul dber ecoveredf rom t he
wrongdoer .Inthev ar i
edwebofaf f
airs,t hel aw mustabst ract
someconsequencesasr elevant ,notper hapsongr oundsofpur e
l
ogi cbutsi mplyforpr act i
calr easons.I nt hepr esentcasei ft he
appellants'f i
nancialembar r
assmenti st o be r egar ded as a
consequenceoft her espondent s'tort,Ithinki tistoor emot e,butI
prefert oregarditasani ndependentcause,t houghi tsoper ative
effectwascondi t
ionedbyt hel ossoft hedr edger .Thequest i
onof
remot enessofdamagehasbeenconsi deredi nmanyaut hori
ties
and fr om manyaspect s,butno case has been ci ted toy our
Lordshi pswhichwoul dj ustifytheappel lants' cl
aim."

Atpp.463— 465:" Thet ruer ul

eseemst obet hatthemeasur eof
damagesi nsuchcasesi sthev alueoft heshi pt oherownerasa
goingconcer natt het imeandpl aceoft hel oss.I nassessi ngt hat
value,regardmustnat urall
ybehadt oherpendi ngengagement s,
eitherpr ofi
tabl
e ort he rev erse.The r ul
e,howev er ,obv iously
requiressomecar eini tsappl i
cat ion;t hef igureofdamagesi st o
representt hecapi t
alizedv alueoft hev esselasapr of
it
-ear ning
machi ne,notintheabst ractbuti nv i
ewoft heact ual circumst ances.
Thev alueofprospect i
vef reight scannotsi mpl ybeaddedt ot he
mar ketv al
ue butoughtt o be t aken int o accounti n ordert o
ascer t
ainthet otalv aluef orpur poseofassessi ngt hedamage,
sincei fiti
smer elyaddedt othemar ketv alueofaf reeshi p,t he
ownerwi l
lbeget t
ingpr otantohi sdamagest wiceov er.Thev essel
cannotbeear ni
ngi nt heopenmar ket,whi lefulfi
ll
ingt hependi ng
char t
erorchar t
ers.Agai n,thepr esentv aluat i
onofaf uturechar ter
becomesamat terofdi ff
icult
yi nt hecaseev enofsuccessi ve
char t
ers,sti
llmorei nt hecaseofl ongchar ter
s,suchf orinstance
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
ast hatintheLor dSt rat
hconaSt eamshi pCo.vDomi nionCoalCo. ,
whi chwasf ort enSt .Lawr enceseasons,wi thextensionatt he
char t
erers'
opt i
onf orfurt
herei ghtseasons.Theassessmentoft he
valueofsuchav esselatt het imeofl oss,withherengagement s,
mayseem t opr esentanext remel ycompl icat
edandspecul ati
ve
problem.Butdi f
ferentconsi derat i
onsappl ytothesimpl ecaseofa
shipsunkbycol li
sionwhenf reeofal lengagement s,eitherbeing
l
aidupi nportorbei ngaseeki ngshi pinballast,
thoughi ntendedfor
empl oyment ,ifitcanbeobt ai ned,underchar terorot herwise.In
suchacaset hef ai
rmeasur eofdamagewi llbesimplyt hemar ket
value,onwhi chwi l
lbecal cul atedinterestatandf rom t hedat eof
l
oss, tocompensat efordelayi npay i
ng
199=•

forthel oss.Batthecont rastedcasesofat rampunderchar t

er
oraseeki ngtrampdonotexhaustal lthepossi blepr oblemsi n
which mustbesoughtan answert ot hequest i
on whati s
i
nv olvedi nthepr incipleofr estit
uti
oi ni ntegrum.Ihav eonly
here ment i
oned such cases as a st ep to consi dering the
problem i nthepresentcase.Many ,variedandcompl exar ethe
typesofv esselsandt hemodesofempl oymenti nwhi cht hei
r
owner smayuset hem.Hencet hedi f
ficulti
esconst antlyf el
tin
defini
ng r ules as t ot he measur e ofdamages.It hink i
t
i
mpossi bletolaydownanyuni versalformul a.Ashi pofwar ,a
supply shi p,a light shi
p,a dr edgerempl oyed by a publ i
c
author i
ty,apassengerl iner,atrawler,acabl eshi p,at ugboat
(tot ake a f ew i nstances),al lmay r aise qui t
e di ffer
ent
questionsbef orethei rtr
uev aluecanbeascer t
ained."

Fi
tzger
aldvLane[
1989]AC328
Facts:Theplainti
ffwascr ossi
ngar oadwhent hetraff
icli
ghtsshowed
green.He was st r
uck bya cardr i
ven byt he f
irstdefendantand
propell
edint
ot heroad.Asar esult
,anothercardr i
venbyt hesecond
defendantstruckhi m.The cour tf ound thatboth defendants wer
e
negli
gentbutthattheplainti
ffhadalsobeennegl i
gent.
Held:Theappor ti
onmentofcont ributi
onbet weenthedefendantsmust
bekeptseparatef r
om thatbetweent heplai
ntif
fandthedefendants.

PerLor
dAckneratp.399:"Al
lthedeci
sionsr
efer
redtoabove
ar
emadeint hemainact i
on.Apporti
onmentofliabi
l
ityi
na
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
case of cont r
ibutory negl i
gence bet ween pl aint
iff and
defendants mustbe keptsepar atef rom appor t
ionmentof
contri
buti
onbet weent hedefendant si nt
erse.Al t
hought he
defendantsareeachl iabletotheplaintifff
ort hewholeamount
forwhichhehasobt ainedjudgment ,thepr oporti
onsinwhi ch,
as bet ween themsel v es the defendant s must meet t he
plai
ntif
f'
scl ai
m,do nothav eanydi rectr elati
onshiptot he
extenttowhi chthet ot aldamageshav ebeenr educedbyt he
contri
butorynegligence,althoughthef act
sofanygi v
encase
mayj usti
fythepropor t
ionsbeingthesame. "

Atpp.339and340:' '
Thejudge,inmyjudgment ,misdi
rect
ed
himselfbyt hinki
ng intri
parti
teterms,i
nstead ofpur sui
ng
separatel
ythetwost ages—phase1:wast heplaint
if
fguilt
yof
contr
ibutorynegli
genceand,ifso,towhatext entshouldthe
recover
abledamagesber educed,i
ssueswhi
chconcer nedthe
plai
nti
ffontheonehand
77ae

andt hedefendantsjoint
lyontheot herhand;andphase2:t he
amountoft he contri
buti
on recoverabl
e betsveen the two
defendantshav i
ngr egardtotheext entoftheirresponsi
bil
it
y
fort hedamager ecoveredbyt hepl ai
nti
ff ani ssuewhich
affectedonl
yt hedefendant
sinterseandi nnowayi nvol
vedthe
plainti
ff
."

(
Addi
ti
onal
Cases)

Wi
l
li
amsvBer
mudaHospi
tal
sBoar
d(2(
)14)84WI
R155
Facts: Thepl
ainti
ffwasadmi ttedwi t
hsev er eabdomi nal pains.Owingto
delaysi nor
deringaCTscanandget tingther esult
s, surgerytookplace
almost11hour safteradmi ssi
on.Thepl aint
iffwasf oundt ohavea
perforatedappendi xwhi chr upturespr ogressivelywi tht i
me.Hel at
er
developedadhesi onsasacompl icat
iont otheper forati
on.
Held:Si ncethedel aysi n ordering thescan and i n perfor
ming the
surgerycontri
butedt ocauset hepl ainti
ff'
si nj
ury,thedef endantswer e
l
iable.
Pr
inci
ple:A personisli
ableinnegl
igenceifhi
sact
scauseOfcont
ri
but
es
mater
iall
ytocausethei
njur
ytothepl
aint
iff
.
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
PerWardJAatpp.158and159, par
s.22-24:
[221"Havi
ngconsider
ed
the f
actualmat r
ix,Iask myselfwhethert
he BHB omi t
ted t
o do
anyt
hingwhichitoughtt
ohavedoneandasar esul
tofwhichomissi
on
thepati
entsuf
fereddamage

23]"
[ Theanswercomesbackwi
thr
esoundi
ngcl
ari
tyt
hati
tdi
d.

24]"
[ The numer ous del aysi ndiv
idually and coll
ecti
v el
y were
contri
butingf actorst ot hedamageul ti
matelysuffered.There
were del ay s bet ween ar r
ival
,admi ssion,exami nation,the
orderi
ng,t akingandr eadingoft heCTscanandt hesurgery.And
when v iewed agai nstt he backgr ound oft he physicalsigns
exhibi
tedbyt heappel l
antonhi sarr i
valattheKEMH,hi stossi
ng
andscr eami ng, Ifi
ndt hedelaytobei nordinat
e."

Andatpp.160and161,par s.35— 42:[35]"Inhisreportof7

December 2012 Dr Leit
man expr essed the v i
ew t hatthe
negl
igentdel
aywast hecauseoft hecomplicat
ionssuf f
eredby
thepati
ent.However
,inparas[ 114]and[116]ofhi sjudgment
thel
earKedjudgedi
dnotembr acethatfi
rm conclusi
onbut

201"
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana

expr
esseduncert
aint
yastot hecauseofthecompl
icat
ions
and wentont o hol
dther
eforethattheappel
l
anthad not
prov
edhiscase.

[
36] "Asr egardst hatf i
nding,wehol dthatthelearned
j
udgewasi ner r
orbyr ai
singthebarunat tai
nabl
yhigh.The
propertestofcausat i
onwasnotwhet herthenegli
gentdelay
andi nadequatesy stem causedt heinjur
ytot heappel
lantbut
ratherwhet hert he br eaches ofdut y by BHB contri
buted
mat eri
all
ytot heinjury.Thatt hosebreachesdidcontr
ibuteis
bey ondargument .

[
37] "Origi
nall
ywher ecausati
onwasal legedi twasfor
theclai
mantt oestabli
shthatthedefendantowedhi m aduty
ofcare,thatthedefendantwasi nbreachoft hatdutyandthat
thebreachoft hatdutycausedthedamageorl ossofwhich
theclai
mantcompl ained.I
twasf orthepl ai
nt i
fftoprove'
the
realsubstantial
,dir
ectoreffecti
vecause'.St apleyvGypsum
MinesLt d[ 1953]2Al lER478at489- 490,[1953]AC663at
687perLor dAsqui t
h.

[38] "Morer ecentl

yt heboundar i
esoft orti
ousl iabil
ity
hav ebeenexpandedand, asexpl ainedinCl er4andLi ndsel lon
Tor t
s( 19th edn,2006)par a 2—69,t he ' butf f)F't esti s
somet i
mesr elaxed to enableacl aimantt o ov ercomet he
causat ion hurdlewhen i tmi ghtot herwi seseem unj ustt o
requiret heclai
mantt oprov etheimpossi ble.Itwasdescr ibed
i
nBar kervCor us( UK)Ltd[ 2006]UKHL20, [
2006]3Al l ER785,
[200612AC572at[ 32]quot ingf r
om Fai rchil
dvGl enhav en
Funer alSer v
icesLt d[2002]UKHL22,[ 2002]3Al lER 305,
[2003]1 AC 32 as a di ffer
entand l ess st r
ingentt estof
causat ion.I
nFai rchil
dadef endantwhohadcr eatedamat erial
riskofmesot helioma( adiseasecont ractedf r
om i nhalingdust
from asbest os f ibr
es)was deemed t o hav e caused or
mat eriall
ycontributedtothecont ractionoft hedi sease.

[39] "I
nBailey(byherfatherandli
ti
gati
onfiend)vMi nistr
y
ofDef ence[2008]EWCACi v883,(2008)103BMLR134t he
'
butf or'rul
ewasmodi fi
edandt hecor r
ectquest i
onwas
whethert henegligencehadcausedormat er
iall
ycont ri
buted
tothei njur
yandi f'butfor'thecontri
buti
onoft het ort
ious
cause t he i
njur
y woul d probably nothav e occurred,t he
clai
mantwoul dhav edischargedtheburdenofpr oof.

[
40] "
Counself
ort
he BHB r
efer
red t
o Gr
egg vScot
t
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
[
2005]

"
202
7he

UKHL2,[ 2005]4Al lER812,12005]2AC176_ whichwas

acl aim f ordamagesf orlossofexpect ati
onofl i
fein
whicht herewasawr ongdi agnosisofal umpunderan
arm andasar esultofwhi chtreatmentwasdel ayedfor
ninemont hsandt hechancesofacur ewer ereducedf r
om
42%t o250/ 0.I
twashel dbyamaj ori
tythattherewasnot
asuf ficientcausallinkbet weent hedefendant'sconduct
andt hecl ai
mant '
si nj
ury.Butther eweret wodi ssenti
ng
opinions and t wo st atements by Lor d Hof f
mann ar e
i
nstruct i
v enamelyt hatforlosst ober ecoverableitmust
beshownt hatthedamagei nquest i
onwasat tr
ibut
ableto
the def endant's wr ongfulactand t here mustbe a
suffi
cientcausall i
nkbet weent hedef endant'
sconduct
andt hecl aimant'
sinjury.
"

[ "
41]Iti
snol
ongeraquest
ionofal
lornot
hingbutoneof
suf
fi
ciency
.

[ "
42]In myv
iew i
nthe case atbarcausalorcausat
ivel
i
nks
bet
weentheinor
dinat
edelay
scoupl
edwit
hthedefect
ivesy
stem
whi
chtoget
hercontri
but
edt ot
heappel
l
ant'
sinj
urywereclear
ly
est
abl
i
shed.
"

Hussai
nvBr
adf
ordTeachi
ngHospi
tal
NHSFoundat
ion
[
20111EWHC2914
Facts:Thepl aint
ifffellwhi l
epreparingforabat handwasr ushed
byanambul ancet ot hedef endanthospital
.Intheear l
yhour sof
thefollowingmor ning, hedev el
opedCausaEqui naSy ndr
ome( CES)
whichr oset oCausaEqui naSy ndromewi thRet ent
ion(CESR)by
noon.Anemer gencysur gerywasper formedont heplaint
ifftwo
daysl aterbuthi scondi t
ioncouldnotbei mpr ovedandhewas
paraly
sed f rom wai stdownwar ds and was r endered sexuall
y
i
mpot ent .Hesuedt hedef endantforthedelayint hesurgery.The
courtf oundt hatwhenhi sconditi
onr eachedCESR,i tbecame
i
mpossi blet
omakeagood
r
ecov
ery
.
Hel
d:Si
ncet
hedel
ayi
nthedel
ayi
nthesur
ger
yhadnotcausedt
he
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
CESRorr enderiti
rr
eversi
ble,
thedefendantswerenotli
able.
Princi
ple:
Tosucceedi nanactionf
ornegligence,
theplai
ntif
fmust
provethattheinjur
ysuf f
eredwasther esultofthenegli
genceof
thedefendant.

PerCoulsonJatpar .51:"
Incasesofthiskind,
thecourtis
try
ingtodeci dewhatwoul dhav ehappenedi fanev ent
which,bydef i
nit
ion,di
dnotoccur,hadinfactoccur
red:see,
forexampl e,Bolit
hovCi tyandHackneyHeal thAuthorit
y
[
1998]AC232at239F,[ 1997]4AllER771,39BMLRI .The
bestguidance

203•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

onthi
selementofcausationcanbef oundinthejudgmentof
Ott
onLJinTahirvHaringeyHeal thAut hoHt
y[1998]3Lloyd'
s
RepMed104.There,hesai d:
'I
nr eachingmyconclusionsI
st
artwi
ththefol
lowi
ngpr oposit
ionsofl aw:

'
(1)Thebur
denofpr
ovi
ngcausat
ionwasupont
hePl
aint
if
f.
'
(2)Causat
ionisaquestionofpastfact
,tobedeci
dedona
bal
anceofpr obabi
l
iti
es:seeMallet
/vMcMonag/ e[1970]
AC166.

'
(3)Ifhepr ov
esthatt henegl igencewast hesolecause,ora
substantial
cause,orthati tmaterial
lycont
ri
butedtot hedamage,
hewi l
lsucceedinfull
:seeBonni ngtonCasti
ngsvWar d/aw[1956]
AC613_ andMcGheevNat ionalCOW Board[1973]1WLR1. (
4)If
hef ail
st o cr
osst hist hresholdt henhef ail
stor ecoverany
damages: see Bar nett v Chel sea & Kensington Hospi t
al
ManagementCommi ttee11969]1QB428.( 5)APlaintiffcannot
recoverdamagesf orthel ossofachanceofacompl eteorbetter
recovery:seeHotsonvEastBer kshir
eDistl
i
ctHea/th[ 1987]AC
750."'

Andatpar s.95— 100:[ 95]"Forthereasonssetouti ns7. 2

abov e,Ifind that,when t he Clai
mantwas admi tt
ed to
BradfordI
nfir
mar yat10.30pm on27August2006, hedidnot
haveanddi dnotpr esentanyspecifi
csy mptomsofCES.I
fi
ndt hatt
heCESdev elopedintheearlyhour softhemor ni
ng
of28August andi tsonsetwassor api
dt hatCESR was
achievedatabout7am ort her
eabouts.I thadcertai
nlybeen
reachedatthelatestbynoonont he28t h.

[
96] "
Fort hereasonssetouti ns6.2abov e,Iconcl
ude
thattheFirstDefendantwasnegl i
gentinit
st r
eatmentoft he
Claimant.Itisalwaysunaccept abl
ewhenaf ami l
ymember
hast ogoi nsearchofanur sei nordertotryandobt ai
nt he
appropri
ate t r
eatment for t he patient
, and such
i
ndi f
fer
encei smadef arworsewheni tbecomescl earthat
the famil
ymemberwas r i
ghtt o be concerned and t
hat,
through negli
gence,the pati
entwas notget ti
ng the r
ight
treatment,
orindeedanyt r
eatmentatall.

[
97] "
Forthereasonssetoutins6. 3above,Ifindthat
,
asadi r
ectresul
toft heFirstDefendant'
snegligence,the
Cl
aimant'
ssurger
ywasdel ayedfor48hour s.I
tshoul dhave
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

t
akenpl
acel
ateon28Augustårear
lyon29August
,not

•
204
The

l
ateon30August
.

[ "
98]Fort
her
easonssetouti
ns7.
3abov
e,If
indt
hatt
he
expertev i
dencepointsov erwhelmi ngl
ytot heconclusi
on
thattheculpabledelaydi dnotcauseCESRorpr eventit
s
reverse;onthecontrary,theev i
dencei splaint
hat,onthe
balanceofpr obabi
lit
ies,theCl aimantwoul dneverhave
madeagoodr ecoveryf oll
owingt heonsetofCESR.The
delayinsurgerywast hereforeimmat eri
al.

[ "
99]Fort
her
easonssetouti
ns7.
4abov
e,If
indt
hat—
evenifaf all
-backcasei sopent ot heCl aimant— ittoo
mustfail.Thedelayinsur ger
ymayhav el eftt
heClaimant
i
nawor secondi ti
onthanhewoul dot herwisehavebeen
i
n,butt heev idenceissov agueandspecul at
ivethatI
cannotfind,ont hebal anceofpr obabili
ti
es,thatsucha
casehasbeenpr oved.Indeed,t hewei ghtoft heexpert
evi
dencesuppor tsMrMacf arl
ane'sconcl usionthat,on
thebalanceofpr obabili
ties,nomeasur ableimprovement
wouldhav ebeenachi evedbysur geryper f
ormedl at
eon
28August .

[
100] "
The cl
aim fordamages agai
nstt he Fi
rst
Defendantt
her
efor
efai
lsonthegr
oundsofcausati
on."

LessvHussai n( 2012)130BMLR51
Facts:Thepl ainti
ffwhohadahi storyofmedi calandobst et
ric
problems,i ncluding fibr
oids and deep v eint hrombosis( DVT),
soughtadv i
cef rom thedefendantaboutwhet heri twouldbesaf e
to pr oceed with a pr egnancy.The def endantadv i
sed thata
pregnancywaspossi bleprovi
dedshesoughtear lyantenatalcare.
Thepl ai
nti
ffwentaheadt oconcei veandf ol
lowi ngapai nfuland
di
fficultpregnancyasar esultoft hefibr
oid,shegav ebirtht oa
sti
ll
bor n child. The pl aint
iff sued f or t he phy si
cal and
psychol ogi
calpai n.Thecour tfoundt hatthedef endanthadbeen
negligentinnotdi scussi
ngt heresul tofascanwi t
ht heplainti
ff
andnoti nf
ormingheraboutt herisksinvol
vedi nt hepregnancy .
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Held:Si nce the pl

ainti
ff woul
d have gone ahead wi
tht he
pregnancyev enifshehadbeent oldoftheri
sks,thedef
endant
wasnotl iabl
e.
Principl
e:Tosucceedinanact i
oninnegl
i
gence,t
heplai
nti
ffmust
provet hattheinjur
ywoul dnothav ebeencausedbutf orthe
negligenceofthedefendant
.

PerJudgeCot t
er,QCatpp.75and76,pars.139— 144:
[
139]'Tti s my opini
on t
hatthe under
standable but
powerf
ulinf
luenceofhi
ndsi
ghthasbeenatplay.I
tis,
asI
havesetout

205•
i
not hercases,unforgivi
nganddoesnotaf f
ordthel at
itudeoft he
tr
ulybal anced consider
ati
on ofcompeting opti
onswhi ch isa
normalandessent ialpartofever
ydayl
if
e.Wi t
ht heperf ectvision
ofhindsightiti
salltooeasytopercei
vemat t
ersaremor ecer tain,
eventsthatoccur r
edt ohavebeenmor epredict
able,thani nf act
wasact uall
ythecase.

140] "
[ MsLesshadt wo chi
ldren:Luke,aged13. 5y earsand
Lati
fa,
aged12. 5year
s.Shehadbeeni nalovi
ngrelat
ionshipsince
2000.MrCarterwascl ear
lykeenerwithi
nthepartner
shipont hem
havi
ng a fur
therchild;butt he mutualdesire was,as Ihav e
i
ndicat
ed,astrongone.
[141] "MsLesshadsuf fer edDVTandapul monar yemboli
sm.
Shehad' terr
ibl
e'morningsi cknessinherfi
rstpregnancyuptofi
ve
orsi xmonths.Shegott hroughi tandproceededt ohaveasecond
child.Chil
dbirt
hitsel
fisofcour senottobeunder est
imat
edasa
painfulexperi
ence.Thest rongi mpressi
onIformedofMsLessi s
thatsheisast oicandstrong- wil
ledi
ndivi
dual.

142] "
[ Alsounl
iket
heposit
ionaf
terLui
s'deat
hMsLessandMr
Car
terwerebothhappyandful
lyf
ocusedonbuildi
ngaf
ami
lyl
i
fe
asat2006.

143] "
[ Sowhatwoul
dshehav
edonei
fgi
venpr
operadv
ice?

[1441"Fortheavoi
danceofdoubtIshoul
daddint
hisregardthatI
havenodoubtt hatMrsHussainwoul dhavebeenposi t
iveas
regar
dspr egnancy
.Hadshei denti
fi
edallt
herel
evantrisksshe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wouldhav ehadacl eartendencyt ounder playrathert hanov erplay

orhighlightt hem.Howev er,asIhav esetout ,giv
ent heobl igation
torefert ot heri
skst hathav ebeensetoutbyt heex per tstherei s
acknowl edged t o bear angeofconcl uding pr esent ati
onsand
emphasi s. Howev er,I t ake as my st arti
ng poi nt f or t he
considerat i
onoft hecausat i
onissuetheadopt ionbyar easonabl e
gynaecol ogistofaneut ralapproachonceal lther iskshadbeen
properl
yi denti
fi
ed.I notherwor dsIhav eassumedaconsul tant
givi
ngcl earadv i
ceandf ull
yset t
ingoutal lther iskswi thint he
consultationbuti nconcl usionnotact ivelyseeki ngt oencour age
ordiscour ageMsLessf rom t ry
ingt oconcei v
e."

Andatpp.77and78,pars.149-154:[
149]"Myfindi
ngoff
acton
t
hisi
ssuealsogai
nssupportfr
om t
heevidenceaslhe

regards the meet i

ngs wi tht he two consul tantsi n 2007 and
2009/ 10.Indeedinmyj udgmentt hesemeet ingspr ovi
det hekey
toassessi ngjusthowkeenMsLessandMrCar t
erwer et ot r
yf or
anotherchi l
d.Thesemeet ingswer eaf t
ert het er
riblepaindur i
ng
pregnancyandl ossofLui s,yetsuchwast hedesi reforachi ld
thatseriousconsiderationwasobv iouslybei nggi vent oaf urt
her
pregnancy .Thereisnoot herexplanat i
onf ort hepr ocedur ei n
2007.I nMar ch2010anddespi t
eheri ncreasedageandt her i
sks
associatedwi thDVT andpul monar yembol ism,t hei nt
entwas
clearl
ysetout .Inmyj udgmentt hedesi ref orachi ldhasal way s
beenmuchst r
ongerthant heev i
denceofMsLesshassuggest ed.
Ifindthatforittobeov ercomet herewoul dhav ehadt ohav ebeen
adv i
ceast osuchser i
ousandv er
ysi gnif
icantr i
skst oei therher
healthorthatofherbabyt hatsheshoul dnotpr oceed.

150] "
[ Ofcour set hemostl i
kelyr i
sks,t hoseofmi scar r
iageand
ofRedDegener at
ionwoul dcer tainlyhav econcer nedMsLess.
Howev er,
asIhav eindi catedshesuf f
er edillnessbywayofsev ere
mor ningsicknessdur ingherf irstpr egnancyy etwentont ohav ea
secondpr egnancy .Shor noft hepr efectv isionofhi ndsight,itis
my j udgment t hat t he r isk of mi scarriage and r easonably
art
iculatedr i
skofpai n,ev enoft her el ati
velysmal lr i
skofsuch
si
gni f
icant pai n and di scomf ortt hat she r equired hospi t
al
tr
eat ment,woul dnothav eputherof f.Ofcour se,hadshebeen
advisedofav erysi gnifi
cantr i
skoft het y
peofunusual l
ysev ere
painshedi dexper i
encet hatwoul dhav ebeenmor elikelytohav e
causedsi gnifi
cantlymor eandanxi ousr ef
lection.Howev erinmy
j
udgmentshewoul dnothav ebeensoadv isedbyMr sHussai nat
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

anyst ageandwoulditwouldnothav ebeennecessar yforany

reasonabl
ycompetentconsul
tantinherposi
ti
ontohav eadv i
sed
herassuch.Whathappenedwast hatasararecomplicat
ionMs
Lesshadparti
cul
arl
yseverepainfr
om RedDegenerat
ion.

151] "
[ I
tisalsomyj udgmentthatadvi
ceast ot hev er
yseri
ous
ri
skswer eshenott oconti
nuewi t
hant i
-coagulantswouldnot
havesoconcer nedherast odi v
ertherform awi shtohavea
fur
therchil
d.Shehadf acedari
skofthisnaturebeforeduri
ngher
twopregnanciesandIseenoreasontobeli
ev ethatshewouldnot
havetrust
edherselft
obecompliantwit
hmedi cati
on.

152] "
[ As for t
he other ri
sks whil
st they amounted toa
f
or mi
dabl
ebatter
yonpaperwhent heclai
mantsf i
rstsawthem i
n
NirWood'
sreport
,whenreasonabl
yexpl
ainedI

donotbel i
evethatt heywouldhaveweighedsuff
icient
ly
toalterthecour seMsLessandMrCar terwantedto
adopt.Age-rel
atedr iskswoul
dnoti nmyopi ni
onhav e
deter
redherandi twasonl yafterthespri
ngbutatOf
befor
et hesummerof2010t hainanormaltshehad
for
medt hev i
ewt hatshewasnowt oool
d.

[153] "I
ndeed Iam oft he v iew t hatev en ift he
consultanthad,aft
inaff
ferpr operlyset ti
ngoutt her isks,
soughtt oact i
vel
ydi scourageMsLessf rom t r
ylngt o
conceivewi ththereasoningadv ancedt hatsheal ready
hadbeenbl essedwitht wochi l
dren,t hatt hiswoul dnot
hav estoppedher.Whatshewant ed,butnev ergotwas
balanced and compr ehensive adv ice.She woul dt hen
hav etakent i
mewi thMrCar t
ertor eachadeci si
on.Buti n
theendIf avourMrdeBono' ssubmi ssi
ont hatwhatwas
reall
yrequir
edt ostopt hem taki
ngt hest epwasnot hing
shortofadv i
cethattheycoul dnotormustnott ryf or
anotherchil
d.

[154] "SoIam sat

isf
iedonbalanceofprobabi
li
ti
es
thatMsLesswoul dhav econti
nuedtopregnancy.Of
coursethi
smeansthattheclai
mantshavenotsati
sfi
ed
theburdenupont
hem ofest
abli
shi
ngcausat
ion.
"

ClementsvClements[2013]1LRC718
Facts:
Thecoupletrav
elledonamotorcy
cledri
venbythehusband.
Themot or
cyclewasov erl
oadedandanailhadpunct
uredtherear
ty
re,afacttheydidnotknow.Thehusbandaccelerat
edov erthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

speedl imitandt het yredef latedandt hemot orcyclecr ashed,

causing t raumat i
c br aini njuryt othe wi f
e.She sued and t he
husbandadmi ttednegl igencei ndr i
vi
nganov erl
oadedmot orcycle
atanexcessi vespeedbuthedeni edthathi snegl igencecaused
theacci dent .Hear guedt hatduet othepunct urebyt henai l
,the
accident woul d hav e happened any way ev en wi thout hi s
negligence.
Held:Si ncet het r
ialjudgeappl i
edthe" butf or"testbutcoul dnot
say whet hert he injury woul d nothav e occur red butf ort he
husband' snegl i
gence, ar etri
al mustbeor dered.
Pri
nci ple:Thegener alt estf orcausat ioni swhet hert hei nj
ury
woul dnothav eoccur r
edbutf orthenegl igenceoft hedef endant;
howev er,insomeexcept i
onalcaseswher eiti si mpossi blet o
determi newhi chofanumberofnegl i
gentact scausedt hei njury
,
the testi s whet hert he def endant's negl i
gentactcont ributed
mat eriall
ytocauset hei njury
.

PerMcLachl
i
nCJ(Deschamps,Fi
sh,Abell
a,Cromwell
,
Moldav
erandKar
akat
sanisJJconcurr
ing)atp.723,
pars.8and9:[ 8]'Thet estforshowingcausat i
oni st he'
but
for'test.Thepl ainti
ffmustshowonabal anceofpr obabili
ti
es
that' butfor'thedef endant'snegli
gentact ,thei nj
urywoul d
nothav eoccur red.I nherentinthephr ase' butfor 'isthe
requirementt hatt hedef endant'
snegligencewasnecessar y
tobr ingaboutt hei njury—inotherwordst hatthei njurywould
nothav eoccurredwi thoutthedefendant'
snegl igence.Thisis
af act uali
nquiry .I
ft hepl ai
nti
ffdoesnotest abl i
sht hisona
balanceofpr obabi l
it
ies,hav i
ngregardtoal lt
heev i
dence,her
actionagai nstthedef endantfai
ls.

[9]"The' butf
or'causationtestmustbeappl i
edinar obust
commonsense f ashion.Ther eis no need f orscient
if
ic
evidence of t he pr ecise cont
ri
bution the defendant
's
negligencemadet otheinjury
.SeeWilshervEssexAHA

[
1988]1Al
lER871at881perLor
dBr
idgeandSnel
lv

[
1990]2SCR311.
"

Atpp.724and725,par s.13— 16:[13]"Tor ecap,thebasic

rul
e ofrecov
eryfornegl i
gence isthatt he plai
nti
ffmust
establ
i
shonabal anceofpr obabi
li
tiesthatthedef endant
causedtheplai
nti
ff'
sinjur
yont he'butfor'test.Thi
si sa
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

factualdet erminati
on.Except ionally,howev er,court
s hav e
accept edt hatapl aint
iffmaybeabl etor ecoveronthebasi s
of'mat erialcont ri
butiontor iskofi njury'
,withoutshowi ng
factual'butf or'causati
on.Aswi llbediscussedi nmoredet ail
below,t hiscan occuri n caseswher ei tisimpossi bl
et o
determi newhi chofanumberofnegl igentact sbymul ti
ple
actorsi nf actcausedt heinjury,buti ti
sest abli
shedthatone
ormor eoft hem di dinfactcausei t
.Inthesecases, t
hegoal s
oft ortl aw andt heunder lyi
ngt heoryofcor r
ecti
vej ust
ice
requiret hatt hedef endantnotbeper mitt
edt oescapeliabi
lit
y
bypoi nting t hef i
ngeratanot herwr ongdoer .Court
shav e
therefore hel dt he defendantl i
able on the basist hathe
mat eri
al l
ycont ri
butedtother i
skoft heinjury
.

[14] ' "Butfor

'causationandl iabi
l
ityont hebasi sofmat eri
al
contributiontori
skar etwodiffer
entbeasts.'Butfor'causati
oni s
af actuali nqui
ryi nto what likel
y happened. The mat eri
al
contribution t
or i
skt estremov est he r
equirementof' butfor'
causat ionandsubst i
tutesproofofmat eri
alcontributi
ont or i
sk.
AssetoutbySmi thJAi nMacDonal dvGoer tz2009BCCA358at
[17]
: '.."materi
alcontri
buti
on"doesnotsignifyatestofcausat i
on
atall;ratheri
tisapolicy-
dri
venruleoflawdesigned

209"
toper mi tplai
nti
ffstorecoverinsuchcasesdespi tet heirfai
lur
et
provecausat i
on.Insuchcases,pl aint
iff
sar epermitt
edt o" j
umpt h
evidentiarygap":see"Lordsa'leapingevidenti
arygaps'
" ,(
2002)Tor t
Law Jour nal276,and" Cause-
in-Factandt heScopeofLi abil
it
yfo
Consequences: ',(2003)119 L. Q.R.388,bot h by ProfessorJan
Stapleton.Thatisbecauset odenyliabi
lit
y"wouldoffendbasicnot i
on
offairnessandj usti
ce"
:HankevResmf iceCorp.,par
a.25. '

[15] " Whilethecasesandschol arshav esomet i

messpokenof
'
mat erialcontri
butiontothei nj
ury'
insteadof' materialcontri
buti
on
torisk'
, t
helatteristhemor eaccur
atef ormulati
on.Aswi ll
become
clearerwhenwedi scusst hecases,'mat er
ialcont ri
buti
on'asa
subst i
tutefort heusualr equir
ementof' butfor 'causationonl y
applieswher ei ti
si mpossibletosayt hataparticulardefendant's
negligentacti nf actcausedt hei njury.Itimposesl i
abili
tynot
becauset heevidenceest abli
shesthatt hedefendant '
sactcaused
thei nj
ury,butbecauset heactcont ri
butedt other iskthatinjury
woul doccur .Thust hi
scour ti
nSnel landResur ftcecor pvHanke
2007SCC7,[ 200711SCR333r ai
sedt hepossibili
tyofamat eri
al
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

cont
ri
buti
ontor i
skapproach.TheEngl
i
shl
aw t
akest
hesame
appr
oach,asdi
scussedbel
ow.

[16] " El
imi nati
on ofpr oofofcausat i
on as an el ementof
negligencei sar adicalst epthatgoesagai nstt hef undament al
principl
est atedbyDi plockLJi nBrowningvWarOf f
ice[ 1962]3Al l
ER1089at1094- 1095:' [a]defendanti
nanact i
oni nnegl igenceis
notawr ongdoeratl ar
ge;hei sawr ongdoeronlyi nr espectoft he
damage whi ch he act ual l
ycauses tot he plaintiff'
:Mooneyv
Briti
shCol umbi a( A-
G)( 2004)31BCLR( 4th)61at[ 157]perSmi th
JA, concurringint heresul t.Fort
hatreason,recourset oamat erial
cont r
ibuti
ont ori
skappr oachi snecessari
lyrareandj ustifi
edonl y
wher eitisrequiredbyf ai rnessandconf or
mst othepr incipl
esthat
groundr ecov eryintort.
"
Atpp.729and730,par s.35,39:[35]"Thei dearunni
ngt hr
ough
thejuri
sprudencethattoapplythemat er i
alcont
ri
buti
onapproach
i
tmustbe ' impossibl
e'f or the plainti
ffto provet hatt he
defendant'
snegligencecausedt heplainti
ff'
sinj
uryuslngthe'but
for
'testhasproduceduncer t
aint
yinthiscaseandel sewhere.

[39]"Whatt henar et hecasesr eferr

ingtowhent heysayt hati t
mustbe' impossi bl
e'toprove'butf or
'causat i
onasapr econdi tion
toamat eri
alcont r
ibuti
ontor i
skappr oach?Theansweremer ges
from thefactsoft hecasest hathav eadopt edsuchanappr oach.
Ty pi
call
y,therear eanumberoft ort
feasors.Allareatf ault,and
oneormor ehasi nfactcausedt hepl ai
nti
ff'sinjur
y.Thepl aintif
f
would nothav ebeeni nj
ured 'butfor'theirnegl i
gence,v i
ewed
globall
y.Howev er
,becauseeachcanpoi ntt hefingerattheot her
,
i
ti simpossi blef ort he pl
ainti
fft o show on a bal ance of
probabil
iti
est hatanyoneoft hem infactcausedheri nj
ury.Thi sis
the impossi bil
it
y ofwhi ch Cook and t he mul t
ipl
e empl oyer
mesot heli
omacasesspeak. "

Andatp.732,par.46:"
Thefor
egoi
ngdi
scussi
onleads
metot hef
oll
owingconcl
usi
onsastot
hepresentst
ate
oft
helawinCanada:

"(1)Asagener alrul
e,aplainti
ffcannotsucceedunl ess
sheshowsasamat teroffactt hatshewoul dnothav e
suffer
edtheloss'butfor
'thenegl igentactoractsoft he
defendant
.At r
ialj
udgeistot akear obustandpragmat i
c
approachto determini
ngi fapl ainti
ffhasestabli
shed
that the defendant'
s negligence caused her l oss.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Sci
ent
if
icpr
oofofcausat
ioni
snotr
equi
red.

"(2)Except i
onal l
y,apl aintif
fmaysucceedbyshowi ng
thatthedef endant 'sconductmat eriallycont r
ibutedt o
ri
skoft hepl ai
ntif
f'si njury,where( a)t hepl aintif
fhas
establi
shedt hatherl osswoul dnothav eoccur red'but
for'the negl i
gence oft wo ormor et ortfeasors,each
possiblyi nf actr esponsi blef orthel oss;and ( b)t he
plai
ntif
f,throughnof aultofherown,i sunabl etoshow
thatanyoneoft hepossi bletort
feasor sinf actwast he
necessaryor' butf or'causeofheri nj ury,becauseeach
canpoi nttooneanot herast hepossibl e'butfor'causeof
theinjury,defeatingaf indingofcausat iononabal ance
ofprobabi l
it
iesagai nstany one."

Cal
ver
tvWi
l
li
am Hi
l
lCr
edi
tLt
d[20091Ch330
Facts:Thepl ai
nti
ffwasapr obl
em gambl erthrought elephone
betti
ngwiththedef endantbookmaker .Thedefendantandot her
bookmaker soff
eredproblem gambl ersthechoiceofmaki ngself
-
exclusi
onagreement sbywhi chthei raccountsforbetti
ngwoul d
becl oseduponr equest.Thepl aintif
fplacedar equestf orhis
accountt o be closed butowi ng t ot he negli
gence oft he
defendant'
sservant
,hisaccountwasnotcl osedandhel ostover
{2m.Hesued.

211.
Held:Si
ncetheplai
ntif
fcoul
dhavelostthemoneybybet t
ingwit
h
otherbookmaker
sev enifhi
saccounthadbeenclosed,
therewas
no causalconnecti
on between t
he loss and t
he defendant
's
negli
gence.

Principl
e:Tosucceedi nanacti
oni
nnegli
gence,t
heplai
nti
ffmust
provet hatthe i
njury woul
d nothav
e happened butf orthe
negligenceofthedefendant.

PerSi
rAnt honyMayPatpp.347—349, pars.45—48:45" As
LordHof fmann'sarti
clemakescl ear
,thesear chf orthe causal
connecti
onwhi cht hel aw requirescannotbeunder takenwithout
ref
erencetot heli
abil
it
ywhi chthedef endanthasunder t
akenandt he
damage whi ch the l
iabil
i
tyi st aken to have caused.The causal
connecti
on whi ch t
he law pr escri
bes isi n a sense onlya li
nk.
Negli
genceclaimsar ehabitual
lyanalysedcompar tmentall
ybyasking
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

whet hert her

ewas( a)adut yofcar e,(b)br eachoft hatdut y,and( c)
damagecausedbyt hebr eachofdut y.Butdamagei st heessenceof
a cause ofact i
on i n negligence,and t he cr iti
calquest ion i na
parti
cul arcasei sacomposi teone,thatiswhet hert hescopeoft he
dutyofcar eintheci rcumst ancesoft hecasei ssuchast oembr ace
damageoft heki ndwhi cht hecl aimantcl aimst ohav esuffered.As
LordBr i
dgeofHar wichsay sinCapar ovDi ckman[ 1990]2AC605,
627:' I
ti sneversufficienttoasksi mplywhet herAowesBadut yof
care.I tisalway snecessar ytodet erminet hescopeoft hedut yby
ref
er encet othekindofdamagef rom whichAmustt akecaret osav e
Bhar mless.'LordOliverofAy lmertonemphasi sedt hesamepoi ntin
Mur phyvBr entwoodDi str
ictCounci l[1991]1AC398,486whenhe
sai
d:' Theessent i
alquest i
onwhi chhast obeaskedi nev erycase,
giv
ent hatdamagewhi chist heessent i
alingr edientoft heact i
onhas
occur red,iswhet hert her elati
onshipbet weent hepl ainti
ffandt he
defendanti ssuch t hatitimposesupont hel atteradut ytotakecar e
toav oidorpr eventthatlosswhi chhasi nfactbeensust ained.'

"Thi
squest
ionnecessar
il
ysubsumest hequesti
onwhether
theact
soromissionsofthedefendantcausedt
herel
evant
damage.

46"Itmay ,ofcourse, benecessar yforaconsi der ati

onofa
tor
tiousclaimt hatpar t
soft hecomposi tequest ionar e
l
ookedatsepar ately;butnoti nisolationf r
om t heot her
part
sort hecomposi t
ewhol e.ThusMrFenwi cki s,inour
j
udgment ,correctt oexami net hescopeoft hedut yfor
whichthedef endant sassumedr esponsi bi
lityandt ol i
nkit
tothedamagewhi cht helawwi llentit
let hecl aimant
toclaimforbreachoft hatduty
.The»cl aimanti snot ,inour
j
udgment ,entit
ledt or equir
et hecour tonl ytoaddr essa
l
osswhi chhechoosest oclaim,i fthepr operl osswhi ch
thescopeoft hedut yembr acesisdi f
ferent .Insomecases,
thescopeoft hedut yofcar emaynotsust aint hef ullloss
whichacl aimantcl aims.Inothercases,t hescopeoft he
dutyofcar emayt aket heinquirybey ondt hepoi ntwher e
theclaimantwoul dhav eitstop.I nourj udgmentt hisis
suchacase.

47"Thedefendantsdidnotassumer esponsi
bili
tytoprevent
theclai
mantfrom gambli
ng.Theyassumedar esponsibi
li
ty
nottoall
owhimt oplacetel
ephonebetswi t
ht hem.Theydi d
notassumear esponsi
bil
i
tytopreventhimf r
om gambl i
ngi n
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

otherway s—i nbett

ingshopsOfont heInternetnorwi thot her
bookmaker s.Asamat t
eroffactasf oundbyt hej udge, hedi d
gambl ei not herway sandwithot herbookmaker sev endur ing
thet i
mewhenhewasbet t
ingont het elephonewi t
ht he
def endant s.The scope oft heirdut ywast o hel p him t o
cont rolhi sgambl i
ng.Thehar mf r om whi cht heirdut ywas
i
nt endedt ohel pprotecthim wasgambl i
ng; itwast ogosome
wayt opr otecthi mfrom hisgambl ingpr opensi ty.Itfol
lows, i
n
ourj udgment ,t
hatthequant i
ficationofhi sl ossf orbreachof
adut yoft hi sscopecannotasamat terofl aw ignor et he
otherpr obabl econsequencesofhi sgambl i
ng pr opensi ty.
Thus t he l aw shoul d appl
y Lor d Bl ackbur n's principl
ei n
Livingstone' s case 5 App Cas 25 t ot hose par ts oft he
claimant '
sact i
vi
ti
eswhi chwer eorwoul dhav ebeenwi thin
the ambi toft he scope oft he def endant s'dut y.As Mr
Fenwi ckr ightlysubmi tt
ed and ast hej udgei n subst ance
ri
ght lyhel d,thedefendantsdidnotassumear esponsi bil
i
tyt o
enabl et hecl aimanttogambl ef reef rom all ri
sk.

48 " Itf oll

ows,i n ourj udgment ,thatt he cl
aimant '
s case
ov erconcent ratesont hecausat ionelementoft hecomposi te
whol e.The case i s not,on anal ysis,determi ned by or
anal ogouswi thReev es'scase[ 2000]1AC360.Thedamage
i
n Reev es's case was t he deceased' s sui
cide and i ts
consequences,andt herewasnoquest i
onbutt hatt hiswas
the nat ure and scope oft he loss inissue.The i ssue of
causat i
on was whet hert he deceased' s deli
berat e actof
suicidei nterv
enedt obr eakt hechai nofcausat ionbet ween
thatl ossandt hebr eachofdut ybyt hepol i
ce.Thecl aimant'
s
claim doesnotf ai
l
,inourj udgment ,becausehi scont i
nued
gambl ingwi t
ht hedef endant swashi s owndel iberateact
breaki ngachai nofcausat ion;butbecauset hescopeoft he
def endant s'dut yofcar edidnotext endt opreventhi mf r
om
gambl ing,andbecauset hequant i
fi
cationofhi slosscannot
i
gnor eot hergambl i
ngl osseswhi chtheclaimant

213•
wouldprobablyhavesustainedbutforthei
rbreachofduty.
The law not only pr escri
bes the appropri
ate causal
connect
ion,butal
sothescopeoft hedut yandthescopeof
thel
osswhi chthecausalconnecti
onlinks.
"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Gr
eggvScot
t[200512AC176

Facts:Thepl aintif
fsaw t hedef endantf oral ump which had
developed underhi s arm.The def endantt old hi
m i twas a
coll
ect ionoff atandt hatnof urtheract i
onwasneeded.Af ter
aboutoney ear,thedefendantattendedanot herhospitalwherehe
wasdi agnosedofl ymphomaandwasoper atedupon.Att hetime
oft heoper ati
on,t het umourhadspr eadt o hischestandhe
sufferedt wor elapseswhichr educedhispr ospectofsur v
ival
.The
courtf oundt hatt hecondi
ti
ont hepl ai
nti
ffsufferedfr
om gav ehim
0
onlya42/ 0chanceofsur vi
valforonlyt eny earsevenifhehad
beent reatedpr ompt l
ybutt hatt her elapseshadr educedt hat
prospectt oonl y25%.

Held:Sincetheplai
nti
ffcoul
dnotpr ovethatthedel
ayi nthe
tr
eatmentwast hecauseoft hereduct
ion i
n hi
sprospectof
survi
val
,thedef
endantwasnotl
iabl
e.

Pri
ncipl
e:Inacl
aimi
nmedicalnegl
igence,
theplai
nti
ffmustpr
ovet
hat
thenegl
igencewast
hecauseofhiscondit
ion.

PerLor dHof fmannatpp.194and195,par .71:'Tr espectfully

thinkthatt hisformul ationbegsmor et hanonequest ion.Itis
truethatt hedel aycausedanear l
yspr eadoft hecancerand
thatthisr educedhi sper centagechanceofsur vivalformor e
thant eny ears.Butt o sayt hatt hecl aimantcant herefore
obt ai
ndamagesf orther educt i
oni nhi schancesofsur vi
v al
assumesi nhi sfavourt hatar educt i
onint hechanceofsur vi
v al
i
sar ecov erabl
e head ofdamage;an i ssue raised byt he
claimant'ssecondar gumentwhi chLatham LJsai d, atpara41,
thathedi dnotneedt odeci de.Ont heot herhand, iftheclaimi s
foract ual
lydepr iv
inghi m ofsur v
ivalformor ethant eny ear s,
thequest i
oni swhet hert hespr eadoft hecancercausedi t
.The
j
udge' sf i
ndingwast hati tdi dnot .Itwasl ikel
yt hathi sl i
fe
woul dhav ebeenshor tenedt ol essthant eny earsany way .
"

Atp.196,pars.79and80:79" Whatt hesecasesshowi sthat

,
asHelenReecepointsouti nani ll
uminatingar t
icl
e'Lossesof
ChancesintheLaw'( 1996)59MLR188,t hel aw regardsthe
worl
dasi npri
ncipl
eboundbyl awsofcausal i
ty.Ever
ythi
nghas
adeterminat
ecause,ev enifwedonotknow whati tis.The
bl
ood-st
arved hi
pj oi
nti n Hot son s case,t he bli
ndness in
Wil
sher'
scase,themesot heli
omai nFair
child'
scase;eachhad
i
tscauseandi twasforthepl ainti
fft
opr ovet hati
twasanact
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

oromissi
on f
orwhich t
he def
endantwasr
esponsi
ble.The
nar
rowter
msofthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

except i
onmadet ot hi
spr i
ncipl
ei nFai rchil
d'scase
onlyser vestoemphasi sethest r
engt hoft her ul
e.The
factt hatpr oofi srendered diffi
cultori mpossi bl
e
becausenoexami nati
onwasmadeatt het ime,asi n
Hotson'scase,orbecausemedi calsci encecannot
providet heanswer ,asi nWi l
sher '
scase,makesno
diff
erence.Ther eisnoinherentuncer t
aintyaboutwhat
caused somet hing t
o happen int hepastorabout
whet hersomet hi
ngwhi chhappenedi nt hepastwi ll
causesomet hingtohappeni nthef utur
e.Ev eryt
hingis
determinedbycausal it
y.Whatwel acki sknowl edge
and t he law deals withlack ofknowl edge byt he
conceptoft hebur denofproof.

80" Si
milarl
yint hepr esentcase,t hepr ogressofMr
Gregg'
sdi seasehadadet erminatecause.I tmayhav e
beeninherentinhi sgenet icmake- upatt het i
mewhen
hesaw DrScot t
,asHot son'
sf atewasdet ermi nedby
whathappenedt ohi sthighwhenhef el
loutoft het r
ee.
Oritmay ,asManceLJsuggest s,havebeenaf f ected
bysubsequentev ents and behav i
ourf orwhi ch Dr
Scottwasnotr esponsi ble.Medicalsciencedoesnot
enableust osay .Butt heout comewasnotr andom;i t
wasgov ernedbyl awsofcausal i
tyand,int heabsence
ofa speci alruleasi n Fai
rchil
d'scase,i nabi l
ityt o
establ
ishthatdel ayi ndiagnosiscausedt her educt ion
i
nexpect ationinl ifecannotber emedi edbyt r eating
theoutcomeashav i
ngbeensomehowi ndet ermi nate."

PerLor dPhill
i
psofWor t
hMat raversMRatpp.221
and222,par .174:"Underourlaw asi tisatpr esent,
and subjecttot heexcepti
on in Fairchil
d'
scase,a
clai
mantwi l
lonlysucceedif
,onbal anceofprobabi l
it
y
thenegli
gencei sthecauseoft heinjury.I
fthereisa
possibi
li
ty,butnotapr obabil
it
y,thatt henegligence
causedt heinj
ury,t
heclai
mantwi llrecovernothingin
respectofthebreachofduty:HotsonvEastBer kshi
re
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Heal t
hAut hori
ty[1987]AC750;Wi lshervEssexAr ea
Heal t
hAut honty[1988]AC1074.Ther eisanargument
thatj ust
ice woul d be bet t
erser ved if
,in such a
sit
uation,damageswer er ecoverableforthechance
thatt he negligence may hav e caused t he inj
ur y
.
NeitherLor dNicholl
sofBi rkenheadnorLor dHopeof
Craigheadconsi derst hatint hi
scaseweshoul dhol d
thatthoset wodeci sionsoft hisHousear enol onger
goodl aw.Iagr ee.Sot ohol dwoul dhaveimplicati
ons
forthebalanceofpr obabi li
tytestofcausationinot her
areasofourl aw.Thatconsi derati
oncouldbet terbe
givenbyt heLaw Commi ssionthant hisHouseandi t
certai
nlyhasnotbeen

215•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

gi
veni
nthepr
esentcase.
"

Andatp.225,par .191:" Thej udgeconcl uded,ont hedat a

befor
e hi m,t haton bal ance ofpr obabili
ti
es t he del ay in
commenci ngMrGr egg'streatmentt hatwasat t
ributablet oDr
Scott
'snegl i
gencehadnotaf f
ect edthecour seofhi si ll
nessor
hisprospectsofsur viv
al,whichhadnev erbeenasgoodasev en.
The dat a have now changed and MrGr egg'
s pr ospect s of
survi
val,despitethedel ayincommenci nghistreat ment ,seem
good.Thedel aymaywel l
,howev er,hav emeantt hathispat ht o
whatseemsal i
kelycur ehasi nvolvedmor eintr
usiv etreatment,
andmor epai n,sufferi
nganddi st
resst hanwoul dhav ebeen
experi
encedhadt reatmentcommencedpr omptly.Thoseact ing
forMrGr egghave,howev er,notsoughtt oreopent hef actsbut
haver el
iedont hef actsasf oundbyt hej udge.Ont hosef actsI
agreewi thLordHof fmannandBar onessHal eofRi chmondt hat
thi
sappeal mustbedi smissed."

PerBaronessHal eofRichmondatp.226,par s.193,195:193

"I
tisnowhor nbooklawthatdamagei sthegistoftheact ionin
negli
gence.Thedef endantowesadut ytot aker easonable
careoft heclaimant,thebr eachofwhi chhascausedt he
cl
aimantact i
onabledamage.Thepr i
maryfactsofwhatt ook
placemustbepr ov
edont hebal anceofprobabil
it
ies.Itmust
al
sobeshownont hebalanceofpr obabi
li
ti
est hatwhatt he
defendantnegli
gentl
ydidorfailedtodocausedt hecl ai
mant '
s
damage...
.

195"Ifitismoreli
kel
yt hannotthatthedef endant'scar
elessness
causedmet oloseal eg.Idonotwantmydamagesr educedt o
theextentthatiti
slesst han100%cer tainthati tdi
dso.Ont he
otherhand,ifi ti
smor el i
kel
yt hannott hatthedef endant'
s
carel
essnessdidnotcausemet olosethel eg,thenthedefendant
doesnotwantt ohavet opaydamagesf ort he20%or30%chance
thatitdid.A'morelikelythannot'appr oacht ocausationsuits
bothsides?'

Atp.227,par
.197:"Wehav eneverseent hatschedul
e.Butwe
candeducef rom t
hewayi nwhi chthej udgeassessedt he
damageswhi chhewoul dhaveawar ded,hadt hecl
aimant
prov
edt hecaseasallegedi nt
hepar ti
cularsofclai
m,t hati
t
was a conventi
onalclaim forpain,suf fer
ing and l
oss of
amenit
y;loss ofearnings and cost
s ofcar e;and l
oss of
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

expect ati
onofl i
fe.Al loft hiswoul dhav ebeenpay ablehadhe
succeededi npr ov i
ngont hebal anceofpr obabi l
iti
est hat'but
for't hedef endant '
sf ail
uret or ef erhi mf ori nv estigati
oni n
Nov ember1994 he woul d hav e been ' cured'.The l aw's
definition ofcur ef ort his pur pose i s a per manentcur e,
restor i
nghi mt oanor malexpect at i
onofl i
fe.Onl yt hatwoul d
entitl
ehi mt odamagesf orl ossofear ningsdur ingwhatwoul d
other wi sehav ebeent hatnor mall ifespan.Oneoft hemany
compl icationsi nt hiscasei st hatt hedef i
nit
ionofcur et o
whicht hemedi calev idencewasdi rectedwasdi seasef ree
surviv alt en yearsaf tert hei ni
tialt reatment .Onecan wel l
under st andwhy ,bot hf orclinicalandr esear chpur poses, t
here
hast o beawor king def init
ionoft hiski nd.Buti thasno
particul arrelevancet ot hel aw.Thel aw askswhatdi f
ference
thenegl i
gencehasmadet ot hecl aimant '
sl i
feasawhol e.But
i
ft hecl aimanthad succeeded i n pr oving thatbutf ort he
defendant 'snegl igence he woul d hav e been cur ed,nei t
her
clai
mant nor def endant woul d hav e suggest ed t hat his
damagesshoul dbedi scount edt or eflectthedegr eet owhi ch
thejudgewasnotcer tainthatt hi
swasso. "

Andatp.228,par .203:" Doct orsdonotcauset he

present ingdi sease.I ftheynegl i
gent lyfailtodi agnose
andt reati t,itisnotenought oshowt hatacl ai mant '
s
disease hasgotwor sedur ingt heper iodofdel ay.It
hast obeshownt hatt reatingi tear li
erwoul dhav e
prev entedt hathappeni ng,atl eastf ort het i
mebei ng.
Thei tal
icisedwor dsdoamountt oaf indingt hatt he
claimantwoul dhav eachi evedi ni
tialremi ssionhadhe
beent r
eat edear l
ier.Buthewoul dst i
llhav ehadt o
hav et hei ni ti
alt r
eat mentandhewoul dst il
l,ont he
j
udge' sl at erf indings( seepar a53) ,hav egi venup
wor kwhi lei twasgoi ngon.Hadt her ebeennol ater
relapse,t hej udget houghtt hatheshoul dhav ebeen
taken as hav i
ng begun wor kofsome ki nd att he
begi nningof1997,butt her eshoul dbeno l ossof
ear ningscl aim bef or et hen.Si milarly,thereshoul dbe
nocl ai mf ort hecost sofcar ebef oreSept ember1996,
any thingbef orethatnotbei ngat tri
but abletot hemor e
radicalt reat mentwhi chbecamenecessar y:seepar a
59.Hence, thei nit
iall ossofear ningsandcostofcar e
wer et her esul toft hedi seaseandt heneedt ot reatit
,
nott her esul tofthenegl i
gence. "
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Cor
rvI
BCVehi
cles[
2008]1AC884

Fact
s:Thedeceasedsuff
eredasever
eheadinj
urywhi
l
einthe
employ
mentoft hedef
endantowi
ngtoadefecti
vemachi
nery
.
He

217"
suffer
edpost -tr
aumat icstressdisorderanddepr essi
onand
l
atercommi tt
edsui cide.Thepl ai
nti
ff,t
hewi dow,sued.The
defendantsadmi ttedl iabi
l
ityfortheheadi nj
uriesbutnotf or
the death arguing t hatthe suicide was nota r easonable
consequenceoft heirnegli
gentactandt hatthesuicidehad
beenanewi nter
v eningactbr eaki
ngthechainofcausat i
on.

Held:Sincet hedepressi
veill
nesshadbeent hedirectand
reasonabl
econsequenceoft henegl
igentactofthedefendant
andt hesui
cide,t
houghdeli
berat
ehadbeendi rectr
esultofthe
depressi
veil
lness,t
hedefendantswereli
abl
e.

Pr
inci
ple:Aper
soni sl
iabl
ef ort
hef
oreseeabl
eri
skofi
njur
y
t
hatresul
tsf
rom hi
snegli
gentact
.

PerLor dBingham ofCor nhil

latp.901, par .10:"Iwoul d
agr eewit
ht hebr oadt hrustoft hissubmi ssion.Thel aw
doesnotgener all
yt reatusasourbr ot her'
skeeper ,
responsibleforwhathemaychooset odot ohisown
disadvantage.Iti shi schoi ce.ButIdonott hinkthat
thesubmi ssi
onaddr essest hepar ti
cul arf eatur
esof
thiscase.Theempl oy erowedt hedeceasedt hedut y
alreadynot ed,embr acing psy chol
ogicalas wel las
phy si
calinjury
.I tsbr eachcausedhi mi njuryofbot h
kinds.Whi lehewasnot ,att het i
meofhi sdeat h,
i
nsane i n MNaght en t er ms, nor was he f ully
responsible.Heact edi nawaywhi chhewoul dnot
hav edonebutf ort hei njuryfrom whicht heempl oyer's
breachcausedhi mt osuf fer.Thisbei ngso,Idonot
thinkhisconducti nt akinghi sownl ifecanbesai dt o
falloutsi
det hescopeoft hedut ywhi chhi sempl oy er
owedhi m. "

Andatp.902and903,par.13:"Her
e,thei
nescapable
facti
sthatdepr
essi
on,possi
blysever
e,possi
blyvery
sever
e,wasafor
eseeabl
econsequenceofthi
sbreach.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

TheCour tofAppealmaj or i
t ywer er i
ghtt ouphol dt he
claimant 'ssubmi ssi ont hati twasnoti ncumbentonher
toshow t hatsui cidei tselfwasf oreseeabl e.But ,as
Lord Pear ce obser ved i n Hughes v Lor d Adv ocat e
[1963]AC837,857,' t
odemandt oogr eatpr ecisioni n
thet estoff or eseeabi l
itywoul dbeunf airt ot hepur suer
since t he f acet s ofmi sadv ent ure ar ei nnumer abl e'
.
Thatwas f act ual l
ya v ery di fferentcase f r
om t he
present ,but t he pr inciplet hat a t or tf
easor who
reasonabl yf or eseest heoccur renceofsomedamage
neednotf oreseet hepr eci sef or m whi cht hedamage
mayt akei nmyv i
ew appl ies.Icanr eadi l
yacceptt hat
some mani fest at i
ons of sev ere depr essi on coul d
proper l
ybehel dt obesounusualandunpr edi ctableas
to be out side t he bounds ofwhati sr easonabl y
foreseeabl e,butsui cidecannotbesor egar ded.Whi l
ei t
i
snot ,happi ly,ausualmani festation,iti sonet hat ,as
Sedl ey LJ puti t[ 2007]QB 46,par a 66,i s not
uncommon.That i s enough f or the cl aimant t o
succeed.Buti fi twer enecessar yfort hecl aimanti n
this case t o hav e est abl i
shed t he r easonabl e
foreseeabi li
tybyt heempl oy erofsui cide,It hi
nkt he
empl oyer woul d hav e had di ffi
culty escapi ng an
adv ersef indi ng:consi der ingt hepossi bl eef fectoft his
accidenton a hy pot het i
calempl oyee,a r easonabl e
empl oyerwoul d, It hink, hav er ecogni sedt hepossi bi l
ity
not onl y of acut e depr essi on but al so of such
depr ession cul mi nat i
ng i n a way i n whi ch,i na
significantmi nor ityofcases, itunhappi lydoes. "

PerLor dScot tofFoscot eatpp.908and909,par .29:

"Authorit
y,howev er ,discour ages at temptst o deci de
casesl i
ket hepr esentbyt heappl i
cationofar easonable
foreseeabi l
itytest.Thegener alrul
eist hatinacasewher e
foreseeabl e phy si calinjuries have been caused t oa
claimantbyt henegl i
genceofadef endantt hedef endant
cannotl imithi sl iabil
it
ybycont endi
ngt hattheext entof
the phy sicali njur i
es coul d nothav e been r easonably
foreseen;t hedef endantmustt akehi sv ict
im ashef i
nds
him.InSmi thvLeechBr ain&CoLt d[ 1962]2QB405, 415
Lord Par kerCJ sai d:'The t esti s notwhet hert hese
empl oyerscoul dr easonabl yhav ef oreseent hatabur n
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wouldcausecancerandt hat[thev ict

im]woulddie.The
questioniswhet hertheseempl oy erscouldreasonably
for
eseet het ypeofinjur
yhesuf fered,namely,t
hebur n.
What ,inthepar ti
cul
arcase,i st heamountofdamage
whichhesuf fersasaresultofthatbur ndependsuponthe
character
ist
icsandconstit
utionoft hev i
cti
m.'

"SmithvLeechBr ain&CoLt ddi dnoti nv ol

vepsy chiatri
c
consequencesofaphy sicalinjury,butPagevSmi th[1996]
AC155di d.InPagevSmi t
ht heHousehel dt hatwher e
physical i njur y was a r easonabl y f oreseeable
consequenceoft henegl i
gencet hedef endantwasl i
able
forpsy chiatr
icdamagecausedbyt henegl igenceev en
thoughphy si
cali njuryhadnoti nt heev entbeencaused
andwhet herornotpsy chiatri
cdamageasaconsequence
oft he negl i
gence was f oreseeabl e.As Lor d Browne-
Wi l
ki
nson puti t,atp 182:' Int he pr esentcase t he
defendantcoul dnotf oreseet heexactt ypeofpsy chiatri
c
damagei nf actsuf feredbyt hepl ai nti
ffwho,duet ohi s
ME,was an " eggshellper sonal it
y ".Butt hati s ofno
signi
ficancesi ncet hedef endantdi doweadut yofcar et o
prevent f oreseeabl e damage, i ncluding psy chiatri
c
damage.Once such dut y ofcar ei s established,t he
defendantmustt akethepl ai
ntiffashef i
nds

219•
hi
m."
'

And perLor d Ll
oyd ofBer wick,atp 189:" The
negl
igentdef
endant.t
akeshisv i
cti
m ashef i
ndshim.
Thesameshoul dapplyinthecaseofpsy chi
atri
c
i
njury
.Thereisnodiff
erenceinpr i
ncipl
ebetweenan
eggshell
skul
landaneggshellpersonali
ty.
"

"PagevSmi th,theref
ore,extendedt heruleasst ated
i
nSmi thvLeechBr ain& CoLt dsoast oi nclude
psy chiat
rici
njury.I
fadut yofcar et oavoidphy sical
i
nj uryi s br
oken and psy chiat
ri
ci njur
yi st hereby
caused,whet herwithorwi thoutanyphy si
cali njury
bei ngcaused,t henegligentdef endantmustaccept
l
iabi l
i
tyf orthepsy chi
atricinjury.Hemustt akehi s
victim as he f i
nds hi m.That t hi
si s so i sa
consequenceoft heHouse'sdeci sioninPagevSmi th.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Thatdeci sionhasbeent hesubj ectofsomecr i

ti
cism
butnoti nt hepr esentcase.I fMrCor r'
spsy chiatri
c
damagecausedbyt heacci dentatwor ki sdamage
forwhi chhi sempl oy ersmustacceptl i
abi l
it
y,i tis
diff
icultto see on whatbasi st heycoul d escape
l
iabili
ty f or addi t
ional i njury, sel f-
infl
icted but
attr
ibutablet ohispsy chiatri
ccondi ti
on.I fMrCor rhad
notsuf f
ered f r
om t he cl i
nicaldepr ession br ought
aboutbyt heacci dent ,hewoul dnothav ehadt he
suicidaltendenci es t hatl ed hi m ev entuallyt o kill
himsel f
.Inmyopi nion,ont hepr i
nciplesest abli
shed
byt heaut horiti
est owhi chIhav er eferred,t hechai n
ofcausalconsequencesoft heacci dentf orwhi chMr
Corr'snegl i
gentempl oyersar eliablewasnotbr oken
byhi ssui cide.Fort orti
ousr emotenessofdamage
purposeshi sjumpf rom t hemul ti-
storeycarpar kwas
not,inmyopi nion,anov usact usi nterveniens.Mr s
Corri sentit
led,inmyopi nion, toaFat alAcci dentsAct
clai
m agai nsthisempl oyers."

Dal
l
ingvRJHeal
e&co.Lt
d[2011]EWCACi
v365

Fact s:Theplainti
ffsuffer
edheadi njur
ieswhenhef ellf
rom a
heightwhi l
e athi s place ofempl oyment.As a r esulthe
suf f
eredi mpairedmemor yandl ossofemot i
onalcont r
oland
abili
tyt oplanaheadamongot hers.Heal sotooktoexcessive
drinking.He l ater suff
ered anot her inj
ury when he f el
l
backwar dsabout3y earslater.Inanact i
onfordamages,t he
plainti
f fcl
aimedf ordamagesar i
singf rom bothaccidentson
thegr oundt hatt hefir
stacci denthadi mpair
edhisj udgment
andhi sabili
tytocont rolhisdr i
nki ngandt huswerecausal l
y
l
inkedt othesecondacci dent.

Held:Sincethefi
rstacci
denthadcont
ri
butedt
otheplai
nti
ff'
s
condit
ion which had caused the second acci
dent
,t he
defendantswerel
iabl
e.

Pri
ncipl
e:A per son i
sl i
abl
eforthe consequence ofhi
s
negl
igentacti
fitisj
ust
,fai
randr
easonabl
etosohold.

Per Smi th LJ atpar.26:' Mf Wal

ker expr
essl
y
accepted,bothinhisskel
etonargumentandinhis
oralsubmissi
ons,t
hatthejudgehadbeenenti
tl
edto
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

hold,ashedi d,t hatt hesecondi nj urywascausal ly

relatedt ot het or t.Thej udgehadt hent oconsi der
whet her ,notwi thst andi ngt hatcausal link, itwasunf air
orunj ustt ohol dt heDef endantl iabl e.Weseef r
om
Lor dNi cholls' speechi nKuwai tAi nv ay sandf rom Lor d
Bingham' si n Cor rt hatone oft he consi der ations
relevantt ot hati ssuei swhet hert heCl aimanthi msel f
was subst ant iallyr esponsi bl ef orhi si njur y.So,i t
woul d be possi blef ora j udge t o hol dt hat ,ev en
though t her e was a causal l ink bet ween t he
Def endant 'st or tandt hei njur y ,theCl aimantshoul d
not r ecov er any thing because t he i nj ury was
subst ant i
all
yhi sownf aul t
.Buti ti scl eart hatt he
j
udge t hought t hat bot ht he Appel lant and t he
Respondentbor esi gni ficantr esponsi bili
ty .MrWal ker
canpr oper l
ycompl aint hat ,inhi spar a98,t hej udge
did not expr essl y r ef er t o t he ext ent of t he
Respondent '
sr esponsi bility.Itmi ghthav ebeenbet ter
i
f, i
nt hatpar agr aph, hehadexpr essedt hev iew( whi ch
he cl ear l
y hel d)t hatt he t or thad notcompl etel y
dest roy ed t he Respondent '
s abi lityt o cont rolhi s
drinki ng. But i t had i mpai red i t so t hat t he
Respondent '
sact ioni nget tingdr unki nOct ober2008
wasnotanactoff reev oli
tion.I twasanact ionf or
whi chhewaspar tlyr esponsi bleandt heAppel l
ant
waspar tl
yr esponsi ble.Ev ent hought hej udgedi dnot
spel lt hisouti npar a98,i tisper fect lycl ear ,f rom hi s
holdi ngoncont r i
but or ynegl igencei npar a103,t hat
thati swhathet hought .Thus, hehadappl iedhi smi nd
tot hequest ionofwhet hert heRespondent '
sact ion
wasaf reeandv ol unt aryactandwassat isfiedt hati t
wasnot .Hewascl ear lyoft hev iew t hatbot ht he
Appel lantandt heRespondenthadmadesubst ant ial
cont ribut i
onst ot hehappeni ngoft hesecondacci dent .
Int heev ent,heappor ti
onedt her esponsi bilityoft he
Appel lantatt wot hi r
ds.I nt hoseci rcumst ances, itwas
ent i
rel ynat ur alt hatheshoul dsayt hati twasf airand
j
ustt ohol dt heAppel l
antpar tlyl iabl e.I twoul d,i nour
view,hav ebeenqui tei llogicalf orhi mt osayt hati t
wasnotf airandj ustf ort heAppel lantt obel iabl ei fhe
thoughtt hati twast wot hirdst obl ame. "
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ChubbFi
reLt
dvVi
carof
Spal
ding[
2010]EWCACi
v981

Facts:
The def endant
s suppl i
ed t he pl aintiff wit
h fir
e
exti
nguisher
swhi chwer epl acedint hechur ch.Thechurch
was unlocked and unattended to.Thr ee boy s enter
ed t
he
churchanddi schar
gedt hecont entintov ari
ouspar t
softhe
church.Thepowder ycont entcausedsubst antialdamageto
vari
ousitemsinthechurch.Thepl ai
ntif
f'
s

221•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
nsurersrepai
redthem andsuedt orecovert
hecost.Theyall
eged
thatthedefendant
shadbr eachedt hei
rdutyofcarebyf ai
li
ngto
warnt he pl
aint
if
fs aboutt he consequence ofdischar
ging t
he
content
soft heexti
nguisherandt hatthatbreachhadcausedthe
l
osssuf f
eredbythem.

Held:Si
ncetheplai
nti
ffswouldhaveinstal
l
edt heexti
nguisher
s
evenift
heyhadbeenwar ned,t
hebreachofthedefendants'dut
y
wasnott hecauseofthelosssuf
feredandt hust
hedef endant
s
werenotl
iabl
e.

Pr
inci
ple:Tosucceedi
nanact i
oninnegl
igence,thepl
aint
iffmust
pr
ovethatthedamagewast heresul
toft
hedef endant
'sbreachof
hi
sdutyofcareowedtotheplai
nti
ff.

PerAikensLJatpar s.46—49:[ 46]'Tnmyv i

ewi tiscl ear
from theev i
denceoft heexper t
s,asf oundbyt hej udge,
thatthewar ningt hatt hejudgef oundshouldhav ebeen
givenwoul dhav ebeenst atedinthecontextofadv i
cet hat
Chubb shoul d hav e gi v
en aboutt he advantages and
disadvant
agesoft hev ari
oust ypesofext i
nguisher .The
church had t he bur den ofpr ov i
ng,on a bal ance of
probabil
it
ies,thati fthewar ninghadbeengi veni nt hat
context,theni twoul dhav edef ini
ti
vel
yr ej
ectedt hedr y
powdert ypeofextinguisherforthenewv estr
yar ea.

[47] "I
tseemst o met hatthej udgedi d nott ake
account of Canon Bar ker's clear evidence in cr oss-
ex ami nati
onthati fthechur chhadbeengi venbal anced
adv ice,incl
udingawar ningaboutt hedangerofamess
from t he di
scharge ofa dr ypowderext i
nguisher,t he
chur chwoul dhav et akenf urtherprofessionaladv i
ceon
whi cht ypeofexti
ngui shertoi nstal
linthenewv estryarea.
Ther ewasnof ur
therev i
denceonwhatt hatprofessional
adv icemi ghthav ebeen.Buti tisnot eworthyt hatt he
ex pertsdidnotcriti
ciset heultimatedecisionoft heChubb
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

engi
neertoinstal
ladrypowderexti
nguisherint henew
vest
ryarea,asi scl
earf
rom thejudge'
sr eci
taloft hei
r
evi
denceandthepassageofthei
rrevi
sedjointstatement
quotedat13above.
[
48] "
Inmyv i
ew, i
fthejudgehadpr oper l
yhadinmi nd
CanonBar ker
'sev idencethatifthechur chhadbeengi ven
balancedadv iceont headvantagesanddi sadvant
agesof
thedi f
ferentt
y pesofext i
nguisher,i
ncludingt hewarningin
thet ermst hej udgef oundshoul dhav ebeengi ven,then
thejudgeshoul dhav emadet wof i
ndingswhi chhedidnot.
Fir
st,t hat the chur ch woul d hav e t aken f urt
her
professionaladv ice.Secondl y,thatsuch adv ice would
havebeent hatt hedr ypowdert ypeext inguisherwast he
'
leastwr ong'opt i
on,inthati
twast he

"
222
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

safestandmostcosteffect
ivesol
uti
onwhereel
ectri
calequi
pment
andl ar
geamount sofClassAmat er
ialwer
ePresent'
,asstat
edin
theexperts'j
ointst
atement(asquotedbythej
udgeat11ofhi s
judgment).

[49]" Ihav et herefore concl uded t hat ,byf ailing t o

consi dert hatev idenceofCanonBar kert hatf urther
professionaladv i
cewoul dhav ebeent aken,t hej udge
fellintoer r
ori nr eachinghi sconcl usiont hati ft he
war ninghadbeengi ven,thechur chwoul dhav emade
adef i
nit
edeci si
onnott oi
nst alltheext inguisher .Inmy
view,i ft he j udge had pr oper l
y consi dered t hat
ev i
dence,hewoul dhav ebeenboundt oconcl udet hat,
ulti
mat ely,theext inguisherwoul dhav ebeeni nst al l
ed
i
nanyev ent.( Inot eheret hatal thought heexper ts
madesomecommentandcr i
ticism aboutt hedeci sion
toinst al
la6kgdr ypowderext i
ngui sheri nsteadofa1
kgone,i twasnott hechur ch'scaseatt rialt hatt he
i
nst all
ati
onoft he6kgext i
ngui sherwasnegl igent .)If
so,t henthef ail
uret ogivet hewar ningcoul dnothav e
beencausat i
v eoft hedamagesuf feredandsot he
claim shoul dhav ef ai
ledont hatgr ound. "

PerLongmor eLJatpar s.80—82:[ 80]"Idonotthink

thi
scour tcanr everseJudgeI ngl
is'
findi
ngoffactthat
Chubb gav e no war ni
ng tot he Church aboutt he
dangerort he downsi de of using a dry powder
exti
nguisher.Thati sa findi
ng ofpr imaryfactand
therewasev i
dencef rom CanonBar kerthathewoul d
expectt ohav ebeent oldifanywar ningwasgi v
en.It
could onlyusef ull
yhav e been given tothe church
admi ni
strat
or,Mr sYoungman,whowasnotcal l
edt o
giveev i
dence.Butt hejudgeaccept edthatifshehad
beengi venanysuchwar ni
ngshewoul dhavepassedit
ont ot hev i
carandpossi blyothermember soft he
ParishCounci l
.Intheev entthatdidnothappenandi t
i
sl i
kelythatnowar ningwasgi ven.

81] "
[ Theot
hercr
it
icalf
act
ualdeci
sionf
ort
hej
udge
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

was whatt he Vi carwoul d hav e done ifhe had

receiv
edawar ni
ng.Thi sisamat terofinferenceand
canmor er eadilybeat tackedi nthiscourt.Thej udge
did notgetmuchassi stancef rom CanonBar ker
himselfwho mer elysai d( reasonablyenough)he
woul dhav et akenf urt
heradv i
ce.Whent hej udge
saidt hatChubb shoul d have given a ' balanced
war ni
ng'hemusthav emeantt hatChubbshoul d
hav enotonl ydescr ibedt hepr osandconsofadr y
powderext i
ngui sher( ideali fa f i
re star
ts wher e
electr
icsar esi t
uat edbutl iablet ocausepol luti
ng
damagei fdischar gedi nasmal lor,indeed,al arge
space)butshoul dal sohav edescr i
bedt hepr osand
consoft heonl yalternative(awat erandaC02

223•
•
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana

l
i
e
exti
nguisher )namel ythati twasessentialnott ouse
waterf i
rstift herewasaf i
reintheelectricsareaand
thatper sonnell ikelytouset heext i
nguisherswoul d
havet obet rainedi ntheiruse;thealter
nat i
vesy stem
woul d also be mor e expensivet han a dr ypowder
exti
nguisher( seepar a36oft hejudgment ).Evenift he
j
udgedi dnotposi ti
vel
ymeanwhatIhav edescr i
bed
whenheusedt hephr ase' bal
ancedadv ice',itwoul d
(according tot he exper tev i
dence)hav e been t he
advicewhi chCanonBar kerwouldhav erecei v
edi fhe
hadaskedf orf urtheradvice.

82] "
[ Thi
s bei ng the case the Church did not,i
n my
j
udgmentpr ov ethati nthesecircumstancest hemor e
expensiv
e and t roublesome opt i
on would hav e been
chosen;thej udge'sfindi
ngt hat
,ifther el
evantwarning
hadbeengi v enbyChubbt heChurchwoul dhav etaken
thatcoursecannot ,t
hereforebesupported."

JDvMat
her[
20121EWHC3063
Fact s:Thepl ai
ntif
fv isi
tedt hedef endantGener alPractit
ioner
concer ning a gr owt hin hi s groin.The def endantt ol
dt he
plaintiffthatitwasnot hingt owor r
yabout .Thepl ai
ntif
flater
attendedanot herGener alPr acti
ti
onerwher eitwasf oundt hat
thegr owt hhadact uall
ybeencancer ous.Emer gencysur gery
wasconduct edtor emov eitbuti thadspr eadatt hetimeand
hadr educedhi sl
ifeexpect ancybyt hreeyears.

Hel
d:Since t
he plai
nti
ff
'slif
e expectancy woul
d nothave
r
educedbutforthenegl
igentdiagnosi
sbyt hedef
endant
,she
wasli
abl
eforthel
ossoftheli
feexpectancy.

Pr
incipl
e:Adef endanti
sli
ableforaninjur
ythatr
esul
tsast
he
di
rectconsequenceofhisnegl
igentact
.
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana

PerBeanJatpar s.48and49:48' Tfi

ndt hatonthe
balanceofpr obabi
li
ti
esthefail
ureto diagnosethe
tumouri nMarch2006hascausedt heClaimant'
sli
fe
expectancyt
ober educedbyt
hreeyear
s.

49."
TheClai
mantisther
efor
eent
it
ledt
ojudgmentf
or
damagest
obeassessed

Net
workRai
lwayInf
rast
ruct
ureLt
dvConar
kenGr
oupLt
d
[
201211All
ER( Comm)692
Facts:The pl ai
nti
ff,owneroft he nati
onalr ail
waynet work,
earneditsr evenuef rom chargi
ngt rai
ncompani esusingi ts
rai
lway li
nes.The pl aint
if
fpaidt he compani es when train
servi
ceswer edisruptedasum permi nut
eofav er
agelat
eness.
Thiswasbecausedel ayswerelikel
yt opreventpeoplef r
om
usingthetrainsandt husthecompaniest ookcompensationf or
that.

•
224
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Thedef endantscauseddamaget otherai

lwayl i
nesowingto
the negligence of theif drivers. The plai
ntif
f and the
defendantsadmi tt
edliabi
li
tyf ort hecostofr epai
rsbutthe
plai
ntif
fsoughttorecoveralsot hecompensationtobepaidto
thetrai
ncompani esforthedelaycausedbyt hedamage.

Held:Sinceitwasreasonabl
yfor
eseeablethatdamagetothe
rai
lwayl i
neswouldcausetheplai
nti
ffslossofrevenue,t
he
defendantswereli
ablebothfort
hecostoft herepai
randthe
compensat i
on.

Pri
nci
ple:Lossofrev
enuecausedbyphysical
damageto
rev
enuegenerat
ingproper
tywasrecov
erablei
fitwasr
easonabl
y
for
eseeable.

PerPi l
lLJatp.711,par .68:"Thel ossescl ai
med
sat
isf yther equir
ementofbei ngadirectconsequence
ofthet ort.Thel iabi
l
ityoftherespondentstopaysums
tot heTOCsi sthedi r
ectconsequenceoft het or
t
whichoccasi onedthedamaget othetracks.Howev er
,
i
thasal sot obeconsi deredwhethertheappel l
antsare
boundbyt heassessmentofdamagesi nthecont r
acts
betweent her espondentsandt heTOCsand,i fnot,
whet her t he damages cl aimed ar e reasonably
for
eseeabl e( seeThewagonMound( No1)[ 1961]1All
ER404, [1961]AC388) .
"

Andatp.713,pars.81— 83:[81]'
Thavecomet othe
conclusi
ont
hatt
heappell
antsshouldbeli
ableforeach
of the heads clai
med,t hatist he soci
etalrate
componentandtheMREcomponent .

[82] "It was r easonably f or

eseeabl e that,i ft he
respondent s'apparatuswasdamaged,t heser vi
cesof
the TOCs,and t heirv al
ue t othe publ i
c,woul d be
dimi nishedandt hatarrangementswoul dhavebeenput
inpl acebythef ranchisi
ngaut horit
ytopenal isethe
TOCs f orthe di minuti
on int hei
rser vi
ces.Two
cont racts are involved,t he cont ract between t he
respondent s and t he TOC, and t he f ranchi
sing
ar r
angementbet weent hef r
anchisingauthorit
yandt he
TOC,butt hecompl exit
ydoesnotr enderther esult
ing
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
l
osstother
espondent
stoor
emot
efr
om t
hephy
sical
damage.

[83] " The MRE componenti s,in myj udgment,also

recov er abl
ei nt he circumst ances.I tdepends on a
medi um t olongterm assessmentofpassengerchoi ces
ov ert henetwor k.Whetherthe' ti
ppingpoint'ofdet
erri
ng
pot ent i
alrailpassengersisr eached dependsnotonl y
on t he di srupti
on caused by t he tortitsel
fbut,as
claimed,on an assessmentofpot enti
alpassengers'
fear st hattherewi l
lbef ur
therdi srupti
onsinthefuture.
Pr ovidedagenui neat t
empthasbeenmadet oassess
futurel oss ofi ncome f r
om t his cause,and on the
ev i
denceIam sat i
sfi
edithas, abar

225.
.
i
s notpl aced on recover
y by reli
ance on passenger
psychol
ogywithit
sf earsofar epeatoftheindexev ent
.
Thatisenoughtodecidetheissuei
nt hi
scase.
"

PerMoor e-BickLJatpp.720-721,par s.100-102:[ 100]

"Anyassetofacommer cialnat ur eiscapabl eofbei ng
used t o gener ater ev enue,ei therbybei ng putt o use
dir
ect l
ybyt heownerorbybei ngmadeav ai
lablef oruse
byot hersi nr et urnf orpay ment .Bui l
di ngs,l orries,shi ps
andai r
craftar ej ustexampl esofat y
pewhosev arietyis
endl ess.Thati spar tofev erydayexper i
ence.Whet heran
ordinar ymemberoft hepubl i
ccanbet akent obeawar e
oft hepar ti
cul arar rangement sest ablishedf ort heuseof
ther ailnetwor ki si nmyv iew immat er ial,sincehecan
certai nl
ybeexpect edt obeawar ethatt her ai
lnet wor ki sa
commer cialassetwhi chcanbeusedt ogener ater ev enue
foritsowneri nonewayoranot her .Itmi ghtbebyr unni ng
i
tsownser vices,orbyal lowi ngot her st odosof oraf ee,
or a combi nat i
on of t he t wo. Under t he cur r
ent
arrangement sNet wor kRai lgener at esr evenuebymaki ng
the nef i
vorkav ail
abl et ot he TOCsf ora f ee and any
pay menti ti sl iablet omaket ot heTOCsi nr espectof
periodswhent henet worki sunav ailabler epresent sanet
l
oss ofr evenue.I ti si mmat eri
alf ort hese pur poses
whet hert hef eei sr educedorsuspendedi nr espectof
periodsdur ingwhi cht het rackisunav ailabl e,whet herpar t
ofi thast ober efundedorwhet herpay ment shav et obe
made underpr ovisions br oadlysi mi lart oal iqui dated
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
damagescl
ause.I
neachcasei
tsuf
fer
sanetl
ossof
rev
enue.

[1011" Ithinki tiscl ear ,ther efore,t hatt wot ypesofl oss
flownat urallyfrom anydamaget ot hei nfrastructurethat
renderst het r
acki t
sel funav ai
labl ef oruse:t hecostof
repairandt hel ossofr evenueat tri
but ablet ot helossof
av ai
l
abili
tyoft het racki t
sel f.Bot har ei nmyv i
ew wi thin
thescopeoft hedut yoft hemot orist,ori ndeedany one
else,toexer ci
ser easonabl ecar enott ocausephy sical
damaget ot hei nfrastr ucture.Subj ectt ot hel imitat
ions
i
mposedbyt her ulesr elatingt oremot eness, therefore, al
l
suchl ossi sinpr incipler ecov erablef r
om t heper sonwho
causedt hedamage.Ther ulesconcer ningr emot enessof
damageconf i
net hescopeoft het ortfeasor'sl i
abili
tyt o
that whi ch was r easonabl y f oreseeabl e as t he
consequenceofhi swr ongf ulact :seeOv erseasTankshi p
(UK)Lt d v Mor ts Dock and Engi neer i
ng Co Lt d,The
WagonMound( No1)[ 1961]1Al lER404, [
1961]AC388.

[
102]"
Fort
heser
easonsIam unabl
etoacceptt
hati
npr
inci
ple

•
226
thescopeofNet wor kRai l
'
sr ecov erablel ossshoul dbe
l
imi tedt othecost sofr epairst oi tspr opertyandanyl oss
of r evenue r esul ting f rom i nter r
upt i
on t o i t
s own
passengerorf rei ghtser vi
ces.Net wor k Rai ldoes not
oper aterailser v
icesofanyki nd, butt hatdoesnotpr ovi
de
agoodr easonf orr ender i
ngt hef i
nanci all ossf lowing
from t he i nterr
upt ion ofi ts abi li
tyt o make t he t r
ack
av ai
lablet o ot her si rrecov er able.The f actt hati nt he
presentcaset hel osst ookt hef or m ofal iabili
tyt omake
pay ment sundert het rackaccessagr eement sdoesnot
renderi tirrecov erabl e,si nce l iabili
tydepends onl yon
foreseeabi li
tyoft heki ndofl osssuf feredr athert hant he
manneri nwhi chi twascaused.I nEhml ervHal l[1993]1
EGLR137acardr ivenbyt hedef endantcr ashedi ntoacar
showr oom ownedbyt hepl aint i
ffbutl ettoat hirdpar ty.
The showr oom became unusabl ef orsev eralweeks,
dur i
ngwhi cht het enantceasedt obel iabl
ef orr entunder
anexpr esspr ovisionoft hel ease.Thi scour theldt hatthe
plainti
ffwasent itledt or ecoverdamagesi nt heamountof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
thel ostrentasf i
nancialAossf l
owi ngf rom t hephy sical
damage t ot he bui ldi
ng.I tdid notmat tert hatt he
defendantmi ghtnothav ef or
eseent hatt hel easewoul d
cont ainacl auseoft hatnat ure,pr ovidedt hathecoul d
foreseef inanciallossofsomeki nd.Ther ei snomat erial
distincti
onbet weent hatcaseandt hepr esent ,thel ossof
revenuet aki
ngt hef orm ofl ossofr entr athert hant he
pay mentofasum i ncompensat ionf ort heunav ail
ability
oft hepr operty .Apply i
ngt heest abl i
shedpr inciplest hat
gov erncausat ionandr emot enessofdamagei nt or t
,itis
diff
iculttoseewhyt hel ossofr evenuer epr esent edbyt he
Sch8pay mentsshoul dnotber ecov er
abl e."

PerJacksonLJatp.733,par .145:[ 1451" Thecommon

l
aw rulesandpr i
ncipl
eswhi chregulat ether ecoverabil
it
y
andassessmentofdamagesf orm av astandr i
ppl i
ng
skei
n,t owhichmanyj udgesandj ur
istshav econt r
ibuted
overthelasttwocenturies.Iwoul dnotpr esumet ooffera
compr ehensi
ver evi
ew of t hatskei n.Ido,howev er,
suggestthatfourpri
nciplesrelevanttot hepr esentappeal
canbedi scer
nedfrom theaut horit
ies:

"
(i
)Economi cl osswhi chflowsdirectl
yandf oreseeably
from phy sical damage t o pr opert
y may be
recov
er able.The t hr
esholdtestoff oreseeabil
ity
doesnotr equir
ethetortf
easortohav eanydet ail
ed
knowledgeoft heclaimant'
sbusi nessaf fai
rsor
fi
nancialci rcumstances,so long as the gener al
natur
eoft heclaimant'
slossisforeseeable.

227.
"
(i
i)Oneoftherecogni
sedcategori
esofrecover
able
economicloss i
sl oss ofincome fol
lowing
damagetor ev
enue-
generati
ngproper
ty.

"
(i
ii
)Lossoff ut
urebusinessasar esultofdamage
topropert
yisaheadofdamagewhi chl i
eson
theouterfri
ngeofr ecoverabil
ity
.Whet herthe
clai
mantcanr ecoverforsucheconomi closs
dependsupont heci r
cumst ancesoft hecase
andtherelat
ionshi
pbet weent heparties.

"
(i
v)I
n choosi
ng t
he appr
opr
iat
e measur
e of
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
damages f or t
he purposes of assessing
recover
abl
eeconomi cl
oss,thecourtseeksto
arri
ve atan assessmentwhi ch i
sf ai
rand
reasonabl
easbet weentheclaimantandt he
defendant
."

NOVUSACTUSI
NTERVENI
ENS

Br
andonvOsbor
ne[
1924]1KB548
Facts: The plaint
iff
s, husband and wi fe, wer e in t he
defendant'
sshopwhenasky li
ghtfr
om therooff ellandstruck
thehusband,causinghim severeshock.Thewi f
er easonably
beli
evingthatherhusbandwasi ndanger,tr
iedinst i
ncti
vel
yt o
pullhimf rom t
hespotandi ntheprocess,st r
ainedherl eg.
Held:Sincetheactionofthewi f
ewasanat uralandpr obable
consequenceoft hedefendant
'snegl
igence,therewasnonew
i
nterveningact.

Pri
ncipl
e:Wher ethe new acti s a nat
uraland probabl
e
consequence ofthe ori
ginalnegl
igentact,the chai
n of
causati
onisnotbr
oken.

PerSwi f
tJatp.555:" Without,howev er
,det ermi ning
thesequest ions,itseemst omet hatwher eaper son
sust ainsi nj
uryt hr
oughacombi nat i
onofact s,some
donebyt hedef endant sandsomebyhi msel f,i
tisf or
thej ur yt osay ,hav ingregardt ot hewhol eoft he
circumst ances,whet her(1.)thei njuryist henat ur al
and pr obableconsequenceoft hedef endant s'act ,
and ( 2.)whet hert he plaintif
fhas been gui lt
y of
cont ri
but orynegl i
gence.I fi nthiscaset hef emal e
plaintiffhadbeenst andinginapl aceofper f
ectsaf ety,
andsaw,asshesay sshedi d(althoughi nt hisIt hink
sheexagger ated),the' gl
assr ainingdownuponher
husband' ,andhadt imet othinkwhatwast hewi sest
thingt odo,i tmi ghtpossi blybesai dt hatshewas
guiltyofnegl igencebygoi ngi ntot hedanger ;but ,
hav i
ng r egardt ot he pl ace she was i n and t he
fri
ght ening nat ure of t he acci dent ( f
or i t was
undoubt edlyfri
ghteningev enforpeopl eofst eady
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

.
228
nerv
es and st rong legs),I t hi
nk t hat acti
ng
i
nsti
nctiv
elyasshedi dinclut
chingherhusband'sarm
andtryi
ngt odraghim outofdanger ,shedidnothi
ng
wrong orany thi
ng thatcan be called cont
ri
butory
negl
igence.Itheref
orefindinfavouroftheplaint
iff
s,
andIassesst hedamagespay abl
etot hehusbandat
35/andthosepay abletothewifeat251."

JonesvBoy
ce[
1814-1823]Al
lERRep570

Fact
s:Theplaint
if
fwasapassengeri nacoachwhent he
coupli
ngrei
nbrokeoffandt hedri
verveeredofftheroadsoas
tostopitbyhi
tti
ngapost .Itappear
edt heplai
ntif
fseeingt
he
dangerhewasexposedt ojumpedof fthecoachandbr okehi
s
l
eg.Hesued.

Hel
d:Sincethepl ainti
ffhadactedreasonabl
ytoprotecthi
s
own l
if
e,t he chain ofcausat
ion was notbroken and t
he
def
endantswer el
iable.

Principl
e:Ifasar esultofthenegli
gentactofadef endant
,a
plainti
ffactsr easonablyto prot
ecthi mself
,the chain of
causat i
onisnotbrokenandt hedefendantwil
lbeli
ablefort
he
i
njur i
esthatresul
tfrom suchactoftheplai
nti
ff
.

PerLor dEl l
enboroughCJatp.571:" Toenabl et he
plainti
fftosust ai
nt heact i
oni tisnotnecessar ythathe
shoul dhavebeent hr
ownof fthecoach;i tissuf fi
cient
i
fhewer eplacedbyt hemi sconductoft hedef endant
i
n such a si t
uation as obl iged him t o adoptt he
alternati
veofadanger ousl eap,ortor emai natcer tain
per i
l.I
fthatposi t
ionwer eoccasi onedbyt hedef aul
tof
thedef endant ,theact ionmaybesuppor t
ed.Ont he
otherhand,i fthepl ai
nt i
ff'
sactr esultedf r
om ar ash
appr ehensionofdangerwhi chdi dnotexi st,andt he
i
njur y which he sust ained i st o be at tr
ibuted t o
rashnessandi mpr udence, hei snotent it
ledtor ecov er
.
The quest ion is whet herhe was pl aced in such a
situati
onast or enderwhathedi dapr udentpr ecaution,
forthepur poseofsel f-preser v
at i
on.
..
.

"
Ther
efor
e,i
tisf
ory
ourconsi
der
ati
on whet
hert
he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
plainti
f f
's actwas t he measur e ofan unr easonabl y
alarmedmi nd,orsuchasar easonabl eandpr udent
mi ndwoul dhav eadopt ed.IfIplaceamani nsucha
situationt hathemustadoptaper i
lousalternativ
e, Iam
responsi blef ort he consequences.I f
,t herefore,y ou
shoul dbeofopi niont hatther ei
nswer edef ective,did
thisci rcumst ancecr eat eanecessi t
yf orwhathedi d,
and di d he use pr opercaut ion and pr udence i n
extricatinghimsel ffrom t heappar entl
yimpendi ngper i
l.
Ify ouar eoft hatopi nion,then,sincet heor i
ginalf ault
wasi nt hepr opri
etor,hei sliabl
et ot heplainti
fffort he
i
njur ywhi chhi smi sconducthasoccasi oned.Thi si sthe
fi
rstcaseoft hekindwhi chIrecoll
ectt ohav e

229•
occurred.A coachpr opri
etorcer
tai
nlyisnott obe
responsibl
ef ortherashnessand imprudenceofa
passenger;it must appear that ther
e exist
ed a
reasonablecauseforalar
m."

AduvGl
i
kst
ein[
196112GLR662

Facts:Thepl ainti
ff'
scarwasdamagedbyt hedef endant sina
l
or r
yacci dentcaused byt he defendant's negl igence.The
plai
ntif
f'sservantwhowasdr ivingthecaratt het i
mel ef
tit
andwhenher eturnedt henextdaywi tht hepl aintiff,cert
ain
parts of t he car had been st olen whi ch r ender ed it
uneconomi calt orepair.Theplai nt
if
fsuedf orthev alueoft he
carbeforetheacci dent .Thedef endantarguedt hatt heact sof
thethieveshadbr okent hechai nofcausat i
onandt hatthey
werenotl i
ablef ort hat
.Inev i
dence, t
heplai nti
ff'
sser vantsaid
thathehadl eftthecarunat tendedt obecausehewasso
perplexedbyt heacci dentthathel ef
ttoinfor m hismast er.

Held:Si ncetheactofthepl
ainti
ff
'sservantwhi
chr esul
tedin
thethef thadbeencausedbyt hedefendant'
snegli
gence,the
actsoft hethi
evesdi
dnotbreakt hechai nofcausati
onand
thedef endantswereli
abl
eforthev al
ueoft hecarbeforethe
accident .

Pr
inci
ple:Thechai
nofcausati
onisnotbrokenifthenew
i
nter
veningactwasther
esul
toftheor
igi
nalnegl
i
gentactof
t
hedefendant.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
PerApal ooJatpp.663and664: "Thepl ai ntif
fseekst o
recov erf r
om t hedef endant st hev alueoft hel orry
whi chhesai dwasLG1, 150.Al thought hedef endant s
did not r aise t he poi nt , I hav e my self gi ven
consi derat i
ont ot hequest ionwhet hert hedef endant s
arel i
ableonl yf ort heact ualdamaget ot hel orr yor
also f ort heconsequent iall ossduet ot het hef tof
partsoft hel or r
y .Thepl aint iff'
sdr i
verdi dnotl eav e
any one t o at tend t ot he l or ryand i n a sense t he
defendant sar enott obl amef ort het hef toft hepar ts.I
hav e,howev er, comet ot heconcl usiont hatIoughtnot
tohol dt hatanypr incipl eofact usnov usi nter veniens
broke t he chai n of causat i
on and absol ved t he
defendant sf rom r esponsi bilit
yf ort he t heftoft he
parts.Accor dingt oFof ie,t hepl aintiff'
sdr iver,theonl y
personshehadont hel or ryatt het imewer ehi smat e
andapassengerwhoownedt hegoodsi nt hel orr y
.
Bot hwer eappar ent lyi nt hel or ryatt het imeoft he
acci dent.Theev i
dencei st hatbot hsuf feredi njuries
andwer er ushedt ot hehospi tal.Fof i
ewasal oneand
thepr udentt hi ngt odoi nt heci rcumst anceswast o
arrangef orsomeonei nt hev i
llagewher et heacci dent
occur redt okeepaney eont hel or ry.ButFof iesai d:'I
wasper plexedatt hesi ghtoft heacci dentandr ushed
toi nformt hel orryowner .'Iam sat isfiedhewasi na
real dil
emmaandt ookacour se, whi cht ur nedoutt obe
l
esst hanpr udent .Buti nmyj udgment ,thedef endant s
byt heirnegl igenceputhi mi nt hisdi lemmaandhe
tookacour set hatwasnotunr easonabl e.Ir eacht he
concl usiont hatt hedef endant sar el iabl enotonl yf or
the act ualdamage t ot he l orry butf ort he l oss
sust ainedbyt hepl aintiffbyt het hef toft hepar tsas
wel l
.I not herwor ds,t hepl ai ntiffi sent itl
edt or ecov er
from t hedef endant st hewhol epr e-acci dentv alueof
hislor ry.
"

CorrvIBC(supr
a)
Factsandholdi
ng:
(supr
a)
Pri
ncipl
e:Wher ethe new acti s a di
rectresul
tof the
consequenceofthedef endant
'
stort
iousact,thechai
n of
causati
onisnotbr
oken.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
PerLor dBi ngham ofCor nhillatpp.903and904, pars.
15and16:15' Ther ati
onal eoft hepr incipl et hata
nov nsact usi nter veni ensbr eakst hechai nofcausat i
on
i
sf airness.I ti snotf airtohol dat or tfeasorl iable,
howev ergr osshi sbr eachofdut ymaybe,f ordamage
causedt ot hecl aimantnotbyt het ortfeasor '
sbr each
ofdut ybutbysomei ndependent ,super veni ngcause
(whi ch mayormaynotbet orti
ous)f orwhi ch the
tortfeasori snotr esponsi ble.Thi si snott hel essso
wher et he i ndependent ,super vening cause i sa
volunt ary,infor meddeci siont akenbyt hev ictim asan
adul tofsoundmi ndmaki ngandgi vi
ngef f ectt oa
personaldeci sion about hi s own f uture.Thus I
respect fullyt hi nkt hatt heBr itishCol umbi aCour tof
Appeal( McEacher nCJBC,LeggandHol li
nr akeJJA)
wer er ightt ohol dt hatt hesui cideofar oadacci dent
victi
m wasanov usact usi nt hel ightofi tsconcl usion
thatwhen t he v i
ct im t ook herl ife' she made a
consci ous deci sion,t her e bei ng no ev idence of
disablingment ali ll
nesst ol eadt ot heconcl usi ont hat
shehadani ncapaci tyi nherf acul tyofv oli
tion' :Wr i
ght
Estat evDav idson( 1992)88DLR( 4th)698,705.I n
suchci rcumst ancesi tisusualt odescr ibet hechai nof
causat i
on bei ng br oken buti ti s per haps equal ly
accur atet o say t hatt he v ictim'si ndependentact
formsnopar tofachai nofcausat i
onbegi nni ngwi th
thet ortfeasor 'sbr eachofdut y.

16" Int hepr esentcaseMrCor r'

ssui cidewasnota
vol
unt ary,i
nf or
meddeci siont akenbyhi m asanadul t
ofsoundmi ndmaki ngandgi v i
ngef f ecttoaper sonal
decisi
onabouthi sfuture.Itwast her esponseofaman
suff
ering f r
om a sev erely depr essiv ei l
l
ness whi ch
i
mpai redhi scapacitytomaker easonedandi nformed
j
udgment sabouthi sf ut ure,suchi l
lnessbei ng,asi s
accept ed,aconsequenceoft heempl oyer'
st ort
.Itisin
nowayunf airtoholdt heempl oy erresponsi bleforthis
dir
e

231•
•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

consequenceofi tsbr eachofdut y,althoughi tcoul d

wellbet houghtunf airt ot hev ict i
m nott odoso.Mr
Cousi nssubmi tt edt hatont heagr eedf i
ndi ngsMrCor r
wasnot ,i
nM' Naght ent erms, insane, andi tist ruet hat
i
nsomeoft heol deraut hor iti
esaf i
ndi ngofi nsani t
y
was r egar ded as necessar yi fa cl aimantwer et o
recover f or l oss at tribut abl et o sui cide:see,f or
exampl e,Mur doch vBr itish I sr aelWor l
d Feder ation
(New Zeal and) I nc. [ 1942] NZLR 600,f ol l
owi ng
McFar l
andvSt ewaM ( 1900)19NZLR22.Idonotf or
mypar tf i
nd t hesecasesper suasi ve,f ort wo mai n
reasons.Fi rst,sol ongassui cider emai nedacr imet he
courtswer enat ur allyr eluct antt oawar ddamagesf or
theconsequencesofcr imi nalconduct .Thusaf i
ndi ng
of insani ty,whi ch excul pat ed t he deceased f rom
cri
mi nalr esponsi bility,remov edt hisobst acl e.Moder n
changesi nthel aw ov ercomet hepr obl em:t herei s
now noquest ionofr ewar dingt heconsequencesof
cri
mi nalconduct ,al t
hough i tr emai ns t rue t hatt he
mor eunsoundt hemi ndoft hev ict i
mt hel essl ikelyitis
thathi ssui cidewi llbeseenasanov usact us.The
secondr easoni st hatwhat ev ert hemer itsordemer i
ts
oftheM' Naght enr ulesi nt hef ieldofcr i
me,andt hey
aremuchdebat ed, therei sper cei vedi nt hatf ieldt obe
aneedf oracl eardi vidingl i
nebet weenconductf or
whichadef endantmaybehel dcr iminal lyr esponsi ble
andconductf orwhi chhemaynot .Int heci vilf i
eldof
tortt herei s no need f orso bl untan i nst rument .
'
Insane'i snotat er m ofmedi calar tev ent hough,i n
cri
mi nalcases,psy chi atrist sar eobl i
gedt ousei t
.I n
casessuchast hi s,ev idencemaybecal led,asi twas,
toenabl ethecour tt odeci deonwhet hert hedeceased
wasr esponsi bl eand, i
fso, towhatext ent .Iagr eewi th
SedleyLJt hati twoul dber et rogr adet obarr ecov eryby
the cl aimant because t he deceased was not ,i n
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

M'
Naght
ent
erms,
insane.
"

ChubbFi
reLtdvVicarof
Spal
ding[
20101EWCACi
v
981Fact
s:(
supra)
Hel
d:Theactofthevandalsconst
it
utedanewi
nter
veni
ngact
t
hatbr
okethechainofcausat
ion.

Pr
inci
ple:
Anewi
nter
veni
ngactbr
eakst
hechai
nofcausat
ioni
f:

a. Theactwassuchast orendert heori

ginalact
merelypartofthehist
oryofevents;
b. Theactwasdel iber
ate,unr
easonableorcri
minal
;
c. Theinter
veningactwasnotf oreseeabl
e;
d. Theactwaswhol l
yindependentofthedef
endant.

PerAikensLJat63:'
ff
nmyv i
ewiti
scleart
hatbot
hLor
dRodger
[
inSimmonsvBl i
ti
shSteel
p/c([
2004]UKHL20]

•
232
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
andLor dBi ngham [ inCor rvI BC]wer enotconf ini
ngt heir
remar ksabout' newi nterveningcause' tocaseswher ethenew
i
nt erv
eni ngacti st hatoft heor iginalvictim, asopposedt othat
ofat hirdpar ty.Thei rstatement sofpr i
nci plemustcov ercases
wher et he' new inter veningact 'ist hatofat hirdpar tyand,I
woul dsuggest ,alsowher eitisanactofnat ur
e.Fur ther,i
nmy
viewi talsodoesnotmat terwhet hery our egardt hedoct ri
neof
'
new i ntervening act 'as par toft he l aw of' causation'Of
'
remot eness ofdamage' .The doct r
ine of" new i ntervening
cause"i susedbyt hecour t
sasoneofanumberofmeansby
whi cht odeci dewhet heraDef endant ,whosebr eachofadut y
ofcar et oaCl ai
manthasbeenest ablished, willber esponsible
forcer tainconsequencesoft hatnegl i
genceandt hedamages
thatar ecl aimedt of low from t hoseconsequences.I nRober t
ElicSpencer vWi ncant onHol dingsLt d, ([
2009]EWCACi v1404:
see29)Idubbedt hosemeans' exclusionar yrules'.Itisalla
par tofwhatLor dHof fmannhassai d,ext ra-j
udiciall
y,ist he
l
aw' smet hodofat tri
butingl egalr esponsi bil
it
yf ort hi
ngst hat
happen.( Seehi sar t
icle:'Causat ion'in( 2005)121LQR592. )

Andatpar s.68— 73:[ 68]' '

Thef ourissuessetouti nCl erk&
Lindsel /cannow ber econsi dered.Thef i
rstf act or— whet her
the i nterv
eni ngconductoft het hir
dpar tywassuchast o
rendert heor iginalwr ongdoi ngmer el
yapar toft hehi storyof
ev ents— inv olvesav al uej udgmentandr equi rest hecour tt o
takeaccountoft heot hert hr eeissuesl istedbyCl erk&Li ndsell.
Buti tcanbenot ednowt hatt heext i
ngui sherwasi nst al
ledi n
1999andt hev andal '
sat tackandt hedamaget ookpl acesev en
year slater.Thej udgel i
stedt heincident sbet ween1999and
2006whenext i
ngui sher shadbeenl etof finthechur ch, butt he
drypowderext i
ngui sherwasnott amper edwi thint hesev en
year sbet weeni nst allationand t hepr esenti ncident .Int he
meant i
met hedeci sionwast akent okeept hechur chopeni n
thedayandi twasnotal way sattended.I tisacl eari nference
from t hosef actst hatnoonecoul dhav egi venmuchser i
ous
thoughtt ot hepossi bi li
tyt hatv andalswoul dbeatal lli
kelyt o
maket heirwayt hr ought hechur ch,throught heheav ydoori n
the chancel t ot he ki tchenet t
e and t her e pi ck up t he
ext i
nguisherandt akei tintot hechur cht odi schar gei t
.Ifthey
haddoneso,t henf urtheradv icemi ghthav ebeensought .
Fur t
hert houghtmi ghthav e been gi v en t o appl ying 'theft
stopper s't
oext i
ngui sher sin
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

233•

thekit
chenet
te,butthatwasappar entl
yneverconsider
ed,
evenwhentheywerebeingconsi
der
edf orot
herext
ingui
shers
(37oft
hejudgment)
.

[69] "
Ont hesecondi ssue,i tiscleart hatt hev andals'
actswer edel i
berate,unr easonableandcr i
mi nal.Mor eover,
givent hehi storyofi nci
dent sofext inguisher
sbei ngletoffin
thechur chbet ween1999and2006,wi thnohi storyofthis
extinguisher( ortheot heronei nt heki t
chenette)bei ngletoff,
the act ions oft hese v andals can be r egar ded as bot h
unpr edictableandext r
eme.Fur t
her ,themet hodofdi scharge
oft heext inguisherinthebodyoft hechur chont hisoccasion
was obv iously calculated t o cause maxi mum damage,
somet hingwhi chwas i tselfunpredictableandext reme.

[
70] "
Asf orthet hir
di ssue,whet hert hei nter venti
onwas
foreseeable,t hej udgef oundt hatmal i
ciousdi schar gewas
foreseeablei n 1999.Howev er,as at1999 t her e was no
evidenceofpr evi
ousi ncident sofv andal ism i nt hischur ch.
Therei snof indingthat ,asat1999, v
andal ism bydi schargeof
fi
reext i
nguisher sinthi schur chwaspr obabl e, orl i
kely,orthat
therewasapr obabi l
i
t yofext ensi
v edamaget ot hechur chby
thedi schargeofext ingui shersgener allyort hedi schargeof
thisextinguisher,placedasi twasi nt heki tchenet te.Therei s
onlyt hemor et entativef indingt hatift heext inguisherwas
discharged,subst antialdamagewasar ealpossi bili
ty.

[
71] "
Ont hef ourthissue— whet hert heconductoft he
thi
rdpar tywaswhol l
yi ndependentoft heDef endantordi dthe
Defendantowet heCl aimantanyr esponsi bil
ityfortheconduct
ofthei nterveni
ngpar ty—MrEkl undconcededt hatChubbwas
undernodut yposi t
ivelytopr eventtheact i
onsoft hev andals.
Iti
scl eart hatChubbowednoot herrelevantdut yt
hant heone
foundbyt hejudge.Theact ionsoft hev andalswer ewhol ly
i
ndependentofChubb, whichhadnocont rolov erthem norany
responsi bil
it
yfort hem.
[
72] "
MrEkl und ar gued t hatChubb was,t o useLor d
Gof f'
sphr aseinSmi thvLi ttl
ewoods( [
1987]AC241at272D-
H.),the' sourceoft hedanger 'andsowasr esponsi bl
ef orthe
actionsoft hev andal s.Ido notacceptt hisanal y
sis.The
extinguishercannotbecal leda' sourceofdanger '.Thej udge
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
f
ound,
ont
he

"
234
basi soft heexpertev idence,t hati twasr easonabl eto
i
nst alladrypowderext i
nguisheri nt hekit
chenet t
e.The
i
nst all
ati
onoft hattypeofext inguisherbyChubbdi dnot
i
nv olveanybreachofdut ybyi tbecausei twasr easonable
toi nstal
lthattype.Mor eover,althought hej udgef ound
thatmal i
ciousdischargewasf oreseeablein1999,hedi d
notf i
nd( i
ncontrasttot hetestexpoundedbyLor dGof fin
Smi th v Litt
lewoods) ( i
bid at 273F- G) that it was
reasonablyf oreseeablei n 1999 t hat vandals woul d
trespassintothechur ch,interfer
ewi ththeex ti
nguisherin
theki t
chenett
eandt herebycausedamaget othechur ch.

[
73]" Looki ngov erall atthef ouri ssues, asi dentifiedbyCl erk
& Li ndse/ /,and doi ng so wi t
ht he r ational ef ort he
doct ri
neof' new i nt erveni
ng act 'inmi nd,Iaskmy self
whet heri tisf ai
rt ohol dChubbl iablef ort hedamage
causedt hei ndependentact soft hev andal s?I nmyv iew
theansweri st hati ti snot .Theat tackhappenedsev en
year saf tert hebr eachofdut y.Itwast hedel i
ber ateand
cri
mi nalact of per sons f or whom Chubb had no
responsi bilit
y . Al though mal i
cious di schar ge was
foreseeabl ein1999,noonet houghtt hent hatt herewas
anydegr eeofl i
kelihoodt hatt hecombi nat i
onofev ent s
thatdi doccuron1Sept ember( 2006)woul d,inf actdoso.
Thatcombi nationofev entsi s:t hatv andal swoul dent er
thechur chi nt heshor tspacewheni twasunat tendedand
unlockeddur ingt heday ; t
hatt heywoul dmaket heirwayt o
the ki t
chenet te; t hat t hey woul d t ake down t he
extinguisherandt hent akei ti ntot hebodyoft hechur ch
anddi schar gei tinamannert hatwasdesi gnedt ocause
themaxi mum amountofdamage.Thatcombi nat i
onwas,
atitshi ghest , amer epossi bil
ity.So, Iwoul dconcl udethat
thei nterv eningconductoft hev andal swassuchast o
rendert heor iginalbr eachofdut ybyChubbmer elyapar t
oft hehi st oryofev ent s,sot hatChubbi snotr esponsi ble
forthedamagecausedbyt hev andal s."

Smi
thvYout
hJust
iceBoar
dforEngl
andandWal
es[
20101
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
EWCA
Ci
v99
Facts:The pl aintif
fwas empl oyed as a custodyof fi
cerin an
i
nstituti
onforv ulnerabl
echi l
drenser vingcustodi
alsentences.One
oft he restr
aintmet hods appr oved byt he defendantwas t he
'
seateddoubl eembr ace'(SDE) .Thepl ai
nti
ffandsomecol l
eagues
appliedthismet hodt oa15y earol dboywhoev entual
lydiedasa
resultofsuffocationandi nhalationofv omit
.Thepl ai
nti
ffsuffer
ed
post-tr
aumat i
cst ressdisorderasar esul
t

235•
•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

andwasunabl etoconti
nuewor k.Shesuedt hedefendants.The
cour
tfoundt hatat i
meousr eview oft hatmethodbyexper t
s
wouldhav
eledt oi
tsabandonment .I
talsofoundt
hatalthoughthe
methodwasanappr ovedone,theplainti
ffhadappli
edi twrongl
y
andhadr ef
usedt oreleasetheboywhenheshowedobv i
ous
si
gnsofdist
ress.

Held:Thedeat hofthedeceasedwhichwast hecauseoft he

pl
ainti
ff
'scondi
ti
onhadbeencausedbyt hepl
aint
if
f'
sownwr ong
appli
cati
onoftheactandhadthusbr
okenthechai
nofcausat
ion.

Pri
ncipl
e:Causat
ionisaquest
ionoffai
rnessandthusapl
aint
if
f
shouldnotsucceedi fiti
snotfai
rt oholdhim li
abl
eforthe
consequenceofhisact
.

PerSedl eyLJatpar s.31—36:[ 31]'Whatt heni sthet est

whichwear er equiredt oapplytothef actsIhav eout l
ined?
Iti
st odaywel lestablishedthatcausat ionisinessencea
quest ionoff airness.LawsLJi nhisjudgmenti nRahmanv
Arear oseLt d[2001]QB351, para33, 62BMI -
R84, [2000]3
WLR 1184,( cited wi th approvalby Lor d Bingham i n
FairchildvGl enhav enFuner alSer vi
cesLt d[ 2002]UI <HL
22,par a12,[2003]1AC32, [
2002]3Al lER305)expl ained
thei ssueasoneofr esponsi
bili
ty.InSpencer vWi ncant on
Holdi ngsLt d[2009]EWCACi v1404,par a15,Isaidt hata
successi onofconsequenceswhi chinf actandi nl ogici s
i
nfinitewi l
lbehal t
edbyt helawwheni tbecomesunf airt o
l
eti tcont i
nue.Lor dBi ngham hadl ucidlyexplai
nedwhyi n
CorrvI BCVehi clesLt d[2008]UKHL13, para69-70, 12008]
1AC884, [2008]2Al lER943.

[32] "Factualcausali
ty,itfoll
ows,isthefi
rstbutnot
theonlystep.Appl yi
ngithere,t her
eisnodoubtt hatbut
fort
hesanct i
oningbyt heHomeOf f
iceofSDEasameans
ofrestr
aini
ngy oungof f
enders,noneoft hiswoul dhave
happened.Butt hesecondst epist oasktowhatpoi ntt
he
stat
eoughti nfairnesstober egardedasresponsibl
e,and
soheldli
ablefort hesequenceofconsequences.

[33] "Between the Home Office's aut hor

isat
ion of
SDEandGar et
h'sdeathtwosigni
ficantt hingsinter
vened:
theuseoft hetechni
queonhi minbr eachofr ul
e,andt he
conti
nuanceofitinspit
eofhismani festationsofdistr
ess.
Aretheseatmostf or
msofcont ri
butoryf ault(apossibi
lit
y
whichthejudgeconsideredbutr
ejected), oraretheytobe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

f
air
lyr
egardedassuper
v eni
ngcausesofthet
raumawhich
t
heAppell
anthersel
feventual
l
ysuffer
ed?Inmyjudgment
t
helat
teri
sthecase.
[
34] "
Fir
st,t
heunnecessar
yuseofSDEonGar
eth,i
n
breach
ofrule,madei tanassaultwhichinl
aw hewasenti
tl
edto
resi
standi nwhicht
heAppellant,
whoknewhowithadcome
about,becameaparti
cipant
.

[35] "
Secondl yandsepar atel
y ,thesi gnst hati twas
necessar yt or eleaset het hreeof f
icer s'hol donhi m wer e
i
nmyj udgmentcl earandwer ei gnor ed.It akef ullaccount
i
nt hi sr egar dofMrMat thewson' ssubmi ssiont hatt here
wasnogoodr easont oappr eci atethi satt het ime: itwasa
commonf allacyt hati fat raineecoul dsay' Ican' tbr eat he'
he musti nf actbe abl et o br eat he;i twas per fectl
y
possi blet hatat raineewoul dnotonl ythreat ent osoi l
himsel fbutwoul dact uallydosoi nor dert ogetr eleased;
byt het imesomev omi tescaped,hi sl ungswoul dal ready
hav ebeenf i
ll
edwi thi t
;andsl umpi ngi ner tcoul dwel lhave
beenanot hersubt erfuge.I ft heof f i
cer shadbeendeal ing
withal argeandv iolenty outhwhoser elease, i
fhewasnot
i
nt ruthi ndi str
ess, mighthav eenabl edhi mt oat tackt hem,
onecoul datl easthav eunder stoodt heirr eluct ancet o
rel
easehi m.Butt hiswasanunder sized,under wei ght15-
year -
oldwhohaddonenomor ethanshow hi sf istt oan
offi
cert wicehi ssi ze anof fi
cerwho,mor eov er,had
prov okedhi mi ntodoi ngi tbyapoi ntlessandi nsensi ti
ve
act.Whenoner ecal l
st hecl earadv i
cei nt hemanualt o
rel
easet hehol di fitbecameunsaf ef ort het rai nee,t he
repeat edi gnor ingormi sreadi ngofhi ssi gnsofdi stress
becomesi nexcusabl e.Ast heAppel lanther selfsai di n
evidence,f ort hosesev enmi nutescommonsensewent
outoft hewi ndow.Ther ewer eper f ectl
ysaf eway sof
cont roll
ingGar eth, assumi ngt hatcont r olwasst illneeded,
whi chdi dnoti nv olv eSDE.

[36] "Noneoft hisnecessaril

yr epresentsaf indi
ngof
l
egalcul pabil
it
yagai nsttheAppel lantorhercol l
eagues:
thatisnott hepurposeoft hepr esentinqui ry.Itspur pose
i
st odecidewhet heritcanbef ai
rl
ysai dthatr esponsi bil
it
y
forGar eth's deat
h( and hence f ori ts ef fecton t he
Appellant)restsany wherebutont hosewhobr oughtit
about,one ofwhom was t he Claimant .Al though,f or
reasonsIhav egiv
en,nocr editgoest ot heHomeOf fi
ce
forhav i
ngkepti nbei ngthesy st
em ofr estraintwhi ch
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

enabledt hetr
agedytooccur,itsact
ualoccur
rencewas
the responsi
bil
it
y ofthe Appell
anthersel
f,al
beitwi
th
others.Itwouldberi
ghtl
yregardedasunjusti
fshewere
torecoverdamagesforit
seffectonher
."

237•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ReevesvCommi ssionerofPol
iceoft heMet ropolis[
200011AC360
Facts:Thedeceased,ar emandpr isoner,washel dinthedefendants'
pri
son.Thedef endant swerealer
tedt hathewasatr i
skofcommi t
ti
ng
sui
cide.Thef l
apoft hecellwasnegl igent
lyleftopenbyaser vantof
thedefendantsand,t akingadvantageoft hatsi t
uati
on,thedeceased
ti
edhi sshirtthroughaspyhol eandcommi tt
edsuicidebyhangi ng.
Theadmi nistr
atorsofhi sest
atesuedandt hedef endantspleaded,
amongot hers,thedefenceofactusnov usi
nterveni
ens.

Held:Si
ncet hesuici
dewast hever yactt
hedefendantswereundera
dut
yt oprevent,thedeceasedperson'sactofcommi t
ti
ngthesuici
de
hadnotbrokent hechai
nofcausation.

Pri
nciple:Whereadefendantunderadutyt
oguardagainstaspeci
fi
c
actbr eaches t
hatduty,itis no def
ence t
hatthe acthas been
del
iberatel
ydonebytheplai
nti
ff
.

PerLor dJaunceyofTul li
chet t
leatpp.374and375:" Itgoesont o
stat ethatt henov usact usi nterv eniens' mustconst ituteanev entof
such i mpactt hati tr ight l
y obl iterates t he wr ongdoi ng oft he
def endant'.Ther efer encet oani ndependentactsuper sedi ngt he
effectoft het ortiousconductmust ,inmyv i
ew,r elat et oanact
whi chwasoutwi tht hecont empl atedscopeofev ent st owhi cht he
dut yofcar ewasdi rect ed.Wher esuchadut yisspeci ficallydirected
att hepr ev ent ionoft heoccur renceofacer t
ainev entIcannotsee
howi tcanbesai dt hatt heoccur renceoft hatev entamount st oan
i
ndependentactbr eaki ngt hechai nofcausat ionf rom t hebr eachof
dut y,evenal thoughi tmaybeunusualf oroneper sont ocomeunder
adut yt o pr ev entanot herper sondel i
beratelyi nflictinghar m on
himsel f.Iti st hev er yt hingatwhi cht hedut ywasdi rected:see
Stansbi evTr oman[ 1948]2K. B.48,TuckerL. J.atpp.51- 52.I n
Kirkham v .Chi efConst ableoft heGr eaterManchest erPol i
ce[ 1990]
2Q. B283,295CFar quhar sonL. J.r ejectedt hedef enceofv olenti
nonf i
tinjur i
aas' i
nappr opriatewher et heactoft hedeceasedr eli
ed
oni sthev eryactwhi cht hedut ycastupont hedef endantr equi r
ed
him t o pr ev ent '
.Theseobser v ationsar eequal l
yapposi tet ot he
def enceofnov usact usi nterveni ensi nthepr esentcase.I nPal li
ster
vWai katoHospi talBoar d[ 1975]2N. Z.L.R.725WoodhouseJ.i na
dissent i
ngj udgment ,atp.742,putt hemat termostsucci nctl
y :The
concept of a nov us act us i nt erveniens does not embr ace
foreseeabl eact sinr espectofwhi cht hedutyofcar ehasspeci fi
cally
arisen.'Itf ollowst hatt heobser v ationsofLl oydL. J.i nKi rkham v
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ChiefConstable ofthe Gr
eat
erManchesterPol
ice,atp.290B,
cannotappl
yt oacasei nwhicht
her
eexi stsadutyofcar
eona
custodi
ert
opr eventa

manwi
thknownsui
cidal
tendenci
esf
rom commi
tt
ingsui
cide.

PerLor dHopeofCr aigheadatp.381:" Similarl

y,Idonotsee
howwhatoccur redi nt hiscasecoul dbesai dt oamountt oa
novnsact usi nt erv eniens.Ther ewasno' new'acther eatall.
Theactbywhi cht hedeceasedki ll
edhi mselfwast hev er
yact
whicht hecommi ssi onerwasunderadut ytopr eventbynot
l
eav ingt hewi cketgat eopenwhent hedeceasedwasi nhis
cellandt huspr ov idinghi m wi t
hthemeansofhangi nghi mself.
Thechai nofcausat ionwasnotbr oken.Ther ewasno' thir
d
factor',
asexpl ainedbyHar tandHonor é,Causat i
onint heLaw,
2nd ed. ,p.134,whi ch mi ghthav e negat i
ved a causal
connect ionbet weent hewr ongfulactandt hehar mt othe
deceased.Her et hewr ongfulactwast hecauseoft hehar m
becausei tcreat edt heoppor t
unit
yf orthedeliberateactofsel f
-harm.Thesui cidewasaf oreseeableconsequenceoft he
fail
urei ndutywhi choccur r
edwhent hedeceased,whowasa
knownsui ci
der isk,waspl acedi nacel lwhichpr ovidedhi m
witht heoppor t uni tytocar ryoutt hatact."

ELECTI
ONS

EkowvEnechukwu14WACA512
YeboahvYamak[
1962]1GLR120

Facts:Owi ngtothenegligenceoft hedefendants,theircarinwhichthe

plai
nti
ffswer epassenger scoll
i
dedwi thanot herv ehicl
e.Theplaint
if
fs
sustai
nedv ari
ousi nj
uri
esi ncl
udingbonei njuri
es.Theyconsul t
eda
nati
vedoct orfort hebonei nj
uries.Inanact ionf ordamages,t hey
cl
aimed as par toft he damages t he expenses i ncurr
ed int he
consultati
onwi t
ht henati
vedoctor .
Held:Si nce itwas nor mal,hav i
ng regardt othe backgr ound and
prej
udicesoft hepl ai
nti
ffs,to consultanat i
vedoct or
,thespeci al
damagesi nrespectoftheconsultati
onwasr ecov erable.

Pr
inci
ple:Wher
etheactoft
hepl
aint
if
fisanecessar
yconsequenceof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

t
hedef
endant
'sact
,thechai
nofcausat
ioni
snotbr
oken.

PerDj abanorJatp.121:" Iwi l

lfir
stdealwi tht hecl ai
mf or
specialdamages.Her et heonl yclai
mscont est edaret hosein
respectofexpensesi nconnect i
onwi ththev isittothenat i
ve
doctor.Counselcont endedt hatthev isi
ttot henat ivedoctor
wasqui teunnecessar y.Formypar tIdonott hi nkthathav i
ng
regardtothebackgr oundoft heplaint
iff
s,especi al
lytheirway
ofli
feandt hesuperstit
ionsandpr ejudicesofthecommuni t
y

239•
fr
om whichtheycome,av isi
tintheseci rcumstancestot he
nati
vedoctorisunnecessary.Dr.Evans-Anfom admi t
tedthat
al
thoughhewoul dnothaveadv i
sedav isi
ttothenativedoctor,
heknew thatincasesofbonei njurynativesalmostalway s
consul
tedthenati
vedoctor.Iknowt hattheyperfor
m wonder s
i
nboneheal ing.Intheresult
,therefor
e,Iwoul dallow these
cl
aims,andal sothetotalofLG498s.i nr espectofspeci al
damages."

Adj
eivYeboah[
1962]1GLR495

Facts:The pl ai
nti
ff,while a passengeri nt he defendant'svehicl
e
sufferedinjuri
eswhent hev ehi
clecol
lidedwithastati
oner yvehi
cle.He
wasi nhospi t
alfort womont hsbutaf terthatheconsul tedanat iv
e
doctorf ornat iv
et reat
mentf oraf urthersevenmont hs.Duri
ngt he
whol eperiod,heempl oyedt heservicesofaconduct ortocar r
yhi m
aroundashecoul dnotwal k.Inanactionfordamagesar i
singfr
om the
defendants' negli
gence,hecl ai
medaspar tofthespecialdamages, t
he
expensesont henativetreatmentandt hewagest otheconduct orhe
empl oyed.

Held:Si
ncet henati
vetr
eat
mentandthewagesfort
heconductorwer
e
necessary expenses r
equi
red by hi
s speci
alsi
tuat
ion,they ar
e
recover
able.

PerDj abanorJ atp.498:" 1t hi

nk the empl oymentoft he
conductorwasnecessary,butIdon'tacceptt heI OS.perdayas
reasonabl
e.It
hink6s.perdayisreasonableint hecircumstances
andIwi l
lawardthatamountf ort he346day scl ai
med.That
comest oLG10316s.Iknowt hatthehospitalschar geafeeofI s.
orI s.
6dperdayf orin-pat
ient
s.Idon' tthinkt hatLG4I OS.i s
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

unreasonabl e.Iwi l
lacceptthatamountast hef eespaidbyt he
plaint
iffwhenhewasadmi ttedattheTamal ehospi t
alforthetwo
mont hs.Agai nIwi l
lacceptt heLG12asr easonableexpenses
i
ncur redfort henativedoctor'
streat
mentwhi ch,accordingtothe
defendant, l
ast edaboutsevenmont hs.Iam sur ethatduringthi
s
ti
met hepl aintif
fspentmuchmoneybuy ingt hev ari
oust hi
ngs
withwhi cht hemedi cinewasmadef orhiscur e.Thatbr i
ngsthe
totalspecialdamagest oLG4666s. "

Damal
i
evKwadzi
[197411GLR161
Facts:Theplainti
ffwasapassengeri nthedef endants'vehiclewhi ch
hadwor noutty r
es.Thedr iverdrov ethev ehicleatanexcessi v
espeed
suchthatthetyrebur standthepl aint
iffsustainedser i
ousinjuriessuch
thathewasper manent l
ydi sabled.Inanact ionfornegl igence,t he
defendantarguedt hattheacci denthadnotbeenf oreseenandt hatit
wasi nevi
tabl
e.Hel d:Sincear easonabl emani ntheposi t
ionoft he
defendantwoul dhav eforeseent her i
skoft heacci dent,thefactt hat
thedefendantsthemsel ves
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

hadnotf
oreseeni
twasnoexcuse.

Princi
ple:A def
endantisli
abl
eift
her i
skoft hei
njur
ywas
reasonablyf
oreseeabl
eundert
heci
rcumstances.

Per AbbanJatpp.162and163:" 1donother eintend

todi scussi ndet ailthef oresightpr i
nciple.Iwouldonl y
sayi npassi ngt hatt hi
spr incipleseemst ohavebeen
foundedmai nl
yont heal l
egedr el ati
vityofnegligence
topar t
icularconsequences:seeOv erseasTankshi p
(U.K.),Lt d.vMor tsDockandEngi neeringCo. ,Ltd.
(ThewagonMound)[ 1961]A. C.388atpp.425—426,
P.C.Asi thasof t
enbeensai d,negl igencecannotbe
spokenof' int heair'
.Anactmaybenegl i
gentinregar d
tooneconsequence,butnoti nr egar dt oanother;and
sincenegl igenceconsi stsi nf ail
ingt oguar dagai nst
some f oreseeabl er i
sk,an act may be t er med
negl i
gentonl yinregar dt of oreseeabl econsequences.
Thenegl igenceofadef endantwi llnotber elevantt o
harmi nfactcausedbyi t,unl esst hehar m mat er
iali
zes
through a danger ous ev entwhi ch he shoul d hav e
foreseenandguar dedagai nst

"From t hepl ai nti

ff'
sev idence,If indthatbef oret he
j
our neyinquest i
onst art
ed, t
hedef endantswer eawar e
thatther eart y rewaswor nout .Theyknew t hatt he
tyr
ehadwor noutt osuchanext entthatitwasunsaf e
fort he v ehiclet o be on t he r oad.Despi tet his
knowl edgeoft hecondi ti
onoft het yr
e,he,t hef i
rst
defendant , di
dnotcar et oprovi
deort or ef
itthevehicle
withar oadwor thyorser vi
ceabl
et yrebeforepermi t
ti
ng
thev ehiclet obedr ivenonsuchabusyhi ghr oad.
Furthermor e,in spi t
e oft he factt hatt he second
defendantwasal soawar eoft hedef ecti
vecondi ti
on
oft hety r
e,hedr ovethev ehicl
eataspeedofov er70
milesperhour .Ithinkthisisaclearcaseofnegl i
gence
ont hepar tofbot hdef endants.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"Ithinkt heacci dentcoul dhav ebeenav oidedi fthe

fi
rstdef endant ,as t he owneroft he vehicle,had
changed t hatwor n-outt yre befor
e per mi t
ti
ng t he
vehiclet obedr iven.Thedef ect
ivecondi t
ionoft het y
re
madet hev ehiclepot enti
all
ydanger ousont her oad;
andi nmyv iew, anownerofadef ect
iveandpot enti
all
y
danger ousv ehicle who causesorper mitsi tt o be
dri
venshoul dnotbeal l
owedt oescapel iabil
it
yf orthe
consequencesofanacci dent,byshowi ngt hatnocar e
orski l
lonhi spar tcoul dhaveremedi edthedanger ous
conditionoft hev ehi cl
e."

241•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Quar
coovAppi
ah[
1972]2GLR30
Facts:Thepl ainti
ffwasknockeddownbyacardr ivenbyt he
defendantandwasr ushedt ohospital
.Howev er,t
hehospi tal
couldnotper form asur geryonhi m owingtotheshor tageof
bl
ood att he bl ood bank,leading t
o an aggravati
on oft he
pl
ainti
ff'
scondi ti
on.Atthet ri
alfordamagesinnegl i
gence,the
defendantarguedt hattheshor t
ageofbloodatt hebloodbank
wasnotr easonabl yf
oreseeableandt husthedefendantshould
notbeheldliableforthef ul
ldamagesuf f
eredbythepl ai
nti
ff
.

Held:Thedamagesuf f
ered bythepl
ainti
ffwasreasonabl
y
for
eseeabl
eandthusthedefendanti
sli
ablefort
hef
ulldamage
suff
eredbythepl
aint
if
f.

Pri
nci
ple:Foracti
onsinnegli
gence,solongassomedamage
wasreasonablyfor
eseeabl
e,thedefendantisli
ablefort
heful
l
damagesuf f
eredbytheplai
nti
ffevenifthatpar
ticul
ardamage
wasnotforeseeabl
e.

PerAbbanJatp.35: "1am ingr eatsy mpat hywi t

ht his
submi ssionofl earnedcounsel .But, unfort
unat ely,Idonott hinkitwi l
lbe
ri
ghtt or eli
ev et he defendantoft he f ul
lr esponsibi l
it
yf oral lthe
consequences whi ch can be sai dt o havef l
own di rectlyf r
om hi s
negli
gentconduct .Whet heror. 1nott helackofsur ger ycont ri
buted
whollyorpar tl
yt ot heincapaci tyoft hepl ai
nt i
ff,theinj uri
es( whi
cht he
defendantnegl igentl
yi nfl
icted)wer et het ypewhi cht hedef endant
couldr easonabl yhav ef oreseen;andt hedef endant ,asat or
tfeasor,
mustbeasked t otaket hepl ainti
ffashef indsher .I ncasesof
personali njur
ies,thepr incipleist hatsol ongassomei nj
uryt othe
plai
nti
f fwasr easonabl yforeseeabl e,thedef endanti sliabl eforthef ul
l
extentoft hedamage.Thev icti
m mustbet akent al
em qua/ em,ev en
thought hef actorswhi chaggr avatedhi sinjur
iesar eunf or eseeable."

McKewvHoll
andandHannenandCubi
tt
s(Scot
land)Lt
d[1969]
3Al
lER1621

•
261
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Facts:Thepl ai
ntif
f,whi l
eint heempl oymentoft hedef endant,sustai
ned
i
njuriesowi ngtot henegl i
genceoft hedefendant.Thiscausedhi mt olose
controlofhi sleftleg,onoccasi onsmaki nghimf all
.Theev i
denceshowed
thatthepl ai
ntif
fwoul dhav erecov eredi naweekbutf orasecondacci dent.
Thesecondacci dentoccur r
edwhenhel ostcont r
olofhi sl egwhi le
descendingast air
casewi t
houtar ail
.Inordertoprev enthimselffr
om
fal
li
ngdownt hest ai
rsandi njuringhisdaughter,hepushedt hedaught er
awayandj umpedof fthest airs.Hel andedsobadl yt hathesust ai
ned
severeinj
uries.

•
262
 CaseBri
efs:Ti
e
LawofTortsin
Ghana

Hel d:Ast hepl aintiffwasawar ethathe

coul dl osecont r
olofhi sl egandf all
,it
wasunr easonabl ef orhi mt odescenda
st aircasewi thoutar ailenti
relybyhi mself
andt hust hechai nofcausat i
onhadbeen
br okenbyt heplaintif
f'sunreasonableact.
Principle:Wher eapl aintiffactsunr easonably
foll
owi nganegl igentactoft hedef endant,t
he
unreasonabl e act br eaks t he chai n of
causat ionandt hepl ainti
ffwi l
lnotbeabl eto
recover .

PerLor dRei datpp.1623and1624:" I

n
myv i
ew t hel aw iscl ear.Ifamani s
i
njur edi nsuchawayt hathislegmay
givewayatanymomenthemustact
reasonabl y and car efull
y .Itis qui t
e
possi blet hati nspi t
eofal lreasonable
car e hi s l eg may gi ve way i n
circumst ancessucht hatasar esul
the
sust ains f urther i nj
ur y
. Then t hat
second i njury was caused by hi s
disabilitywhi chi nturnwascausedby
thedef ender 'sf ault
.Buti fthei nj
ured
manact sunr easonabl yhecannothol d
thedef enderl iablefori njurycausedby
his own unr easonabl e conduct .Hi s
unr easonabl econducti snov usact us
i
nt erveniens.The chai n ofcausat i
on
has been br oken and whatf oll
ows
mustber egardedascausedbyhi sown
conductandnotbyt hedef ender'
sf ault
ort hedi sabi l
itycausedbyi t
.Orone
maysayt hatunr easonabl econductof
thepur suerandwhatf ollowsf r
om itis
 nott henat ur
alandpr obableresultof
theor i
ginalf aultoft hedef enderorof
the ensui ng disabili
ty.Ido nott hink
thatf oreseeabi lit
ycomesi ntot his.A
defender i s not l i
able f or a
consequence ofa ki nd which is not
foreseeabl e.Butitdoesnotf oll
owt hat
he i sl iabl ef or ev ery consequence
whi char easonabl emancoul dfor esee.
Whatcanbef oreseendependsal most
entirelyont hef actsoft hecase,andi t
i
sof teneasyt of oreseeunr easonabl e
conductorsome ot hernov us act us
i
nter veniensasbei ngqui t
el i
kely.But
thatdoesnotmean
thatt hedefendermustpayf ordamagecausedbyt he
nov usactus.Itonl yleadstot r
oublethatifonet
riesto
graftont ot heconceptoff oreseeabi
li
tysomer uleof
l
aw t ot heef fectt hatawr ongdoeri snotboundt o
foresee somet hing which inf acthe coul dreadil
y
foreseeasqui tel i
kelytohappen.Fori tisnotatall
unlikelyorunfor eseeablethatanact i
vemanwhohas
suffered such a di sabi
l
ity willtake some qui te
unreasonabler isk.Buti fhedoeshecannothol dt he
defenderliablef ortheconsequences.
"Soinmyv i
ew thequesti
onhereiswhethert
hesecond
acci
dentwascausedbytheappel
l
antdoi
ngsomethi
ng

243•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

unreasonable.Itwasar guedt hatthewr ongdoermust

takehi svi
ctim ashef indshim andt hatthatapplies
notonl yt
oat hinskul lbutalsot ohisint
elli
gence.ButI
shallnotdealwi tht hatar gumentbecauset her
ei s
nothingintheev i
dencet osuggestt hatt
heappel l
antis
abnor mal
lystupid.Thi scasecanbedeal twit
hequal l
y
wel
lbyaski ngwhet hert heappellantdidsomet hing
whichamoment '
sr eflecti
onwoul dhav eshownhi m
wasanunr easonablet hingtodo.

"He knew t hathi sleftl

eg was l iablet o gi
ve way
suddenl yandwi thoutwarning.Heknewt hatthi
sst ai
r
wasst eepandt hattherewasnohandr ai
l.Hemust
haver eali
sed,ifhehadgi vent hemat t
eramoment '
s
thought ,t
hathecoul donlysafelydescendt hestairif
heei therwentext r
emelyslowlyandcar eful
lysot hat
hecoul dsitdowni fhisl
eggav eway , orwait
edfort he
assistanceofhi swi f
eandbr other-
inlaw.Buthechose
todescendi nsuchawayt hatwhenhi sleggaveway
hecoul dnotst ophi mself.Iagreewi thwhatt heLor d
Justice-Cl
erkasaysatt heendofhi sopi ni
onandIt hink
thatt hisis suffici
entt orequiret his appealto be
dismissed.

"ButIt hinkitri
ghtt osayawor daboutt heargument
thatthef actthattheappel l
antmadet ojumpwhenhe
fel
thimsel ffall
i
ngi sconclusiveagai
nsthim.Whenhi s
l
eg gav e wayt he appellantwas inav erydiffi
cul
t
sit
uation.Hehadt odecidewhatt odoinaf racti
onofa
second.Hemayhav ecomet oawr ongdeci sion;he
probablydi d.Buti fthechai nofcausat ionhadnot
beenbr okenbef orethisbyhi sputt
inghi mselfina
posit
ion wher e he mi ght be confronted wi th an
emergency ,Idonott hinkthathewouldputhi mselfout
ofcour tbyact i
ngwr onglyintheemergencyunl esshis
acti
onwassout terl
yunr easonabl
ethatev enont he

•
266
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

spuroft hemomentnoor dinarymanwoul dhav ebeen

sof ool i
shast odowhathedi d.I nanemer gencyiti
s
naturalt ot rytodosomet hi
ngt osav eoneselfandIdo
nott hinkt hathistryi
ngtojumpi nthi
semer gencywas
sowr ongt hatitwouldbesai dt obenomor ethanan
err
orofj udgment .Butf
ort her easonsalr
eadygi v
enI
woul ddi smi ssthi
sappeal.
PerLordGuestat1625and1626:" Iftheappel l
ant
j
umped, asfoundbyt heLordOrdinar
y,Icannotregard
t
hisasreasonablehumanconduct .Butwhetherthisis
t
oj udgetheappellant'
sconducti ntoof i
nescalesI
wouldr egar
dt he Lor d Justi
ce-Cl
erk'
s ground of
j
udgmentasequal l
ysatisf
actor
y.

•
267
 Theappel l
antwasst i
llconvalescentf rom hi sf i
rstaccident
whent hesecondacci dentoccur r
ed.Hewasl i
mpi ng.Hehad
theexperienceofhi sleggi vi
ngway .Yethechosewi thout
assi
stance,wi thouthangingont ot hewal l,t
ocommencet o
descendthosest eepstair
sholdinghi sy oungdaught erbyt he
hand.LiketheLor dJust i
ce-Cl
erkIcoul dnotchar acteri
sesuch
conductasot herthanunr easonablei nt hecir
cumst ances.If
thi
sbeso,t hent hechainofcausat ionbet weent hef ir
stand
secondaccidenti sbrokenandt heappel lantmustf ail
."

Rousevsqui
res[
1973]QB889

Fact s:Thet hi
rdpar t
y '
sv ehicleski ddedi nt
oaposi t
ionblocki
ngt woof
thet hreelanesoft hemot orway .Anot hervehi
clecolli
dedwi ththis
vehi cleandstoppedi nt hemi ddleoft heway .Athir
dv ehi
cleparkedon
thewayt ogi v
et hem l ight.Thedef endant,whowasdr iv
ingint hat
direction,came t ot he v ehi cl
es and,wi thoutreal
isi
ng they wer e
stat i
onary,drovei ntot hem such t hatt he par
ked carwas pushed
forwar d,knocking and ki lli
ng t he deceased.The pl ai
nti
ffsued t he
def endantwho compr omi sed t he act i
on and broughtt hi
rd par t
y
proceedi ngsagainstt het hirdpar tyf orcontri
buti
on.Thet hi
rdpar t
y
argued t hathisnegl igencewasnott hecauseoft hedeat h oft he
deceased.

Held:Alt
houghthei mmediatecauseofthedeat hwast hedefendant
's
negli
gentdri
vi
ng,sincethathadresul
tedfrom t
hethi
rdparty
'snegli
gent
parki
ngont heroad,hisnegli
gencecontr
ibutedtocausethedeathand
hewast husli
abl
e.

Pri
nci
ple:Whereasubsequentnegli
gentactwasreasonabl
ycausedby
anorigi
nalnegl
igentact
,thetor
tfeasoroftheor
igi
nalnegl
igentacti
s
l
iabl
e.

PerCai rnsLJatp.894:" Icannotseet hatt

hereisanybr eachin
thechai nofcausat i
onbet weent henegl i
gentdrivingoft he
thir
dpar tydri
verandt heinjurytoMr .Rouse.Itist
r uethatthe
arri
valon t he scene ofMr .Frankl
in'slorr
yand oft he car
provided some war ni
ng by l i
ghts which would hav e been
obser v
edbyacar efuldri
ver,butthefactremainsthatthet hi
rd
partydriver
'snegli
gencecr eatedagrav edangertousersoft he
highwaywhi cht hearri
valofthecarandMr .Frankl
in'sl
orrydid
somet hingtolessenbutbynomeanst oremov e.
"

Andatp.896:"Mr.St
uartSmi
th,f
ort
hethi
rdpar
ti
es,cont
ends
t
hatthejack-
knif
edlorr
yceasedtoconst
it
uteadangeronce
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
theothert wovehicl
es,themot orcarandMr .Frankl
i
n'sl orry
,
tookup t hei
rpositi
ons.Thej udge,inmyv i
ew,appl i
ed t he
wrongt estwhenhef oundthatthesceneoft heobst ruction
wasadequat elyli
ghtedtowar nanydr i
vercomingal ongand
keepi
ngapr operlookout.I
fonet akesaccount
,asIconsi der
onemust ,

245"
oft hedr i
verwho,whi lenotdel i
ber atelydr i
ving agai nstan
obstruct i
on,nordr ivi
ngr ecklessl
ywi thoutr egardt opossi ble
danger s,isdrivingatanexcessi vespeedandnotobser vingor
notint er
preti
ngcor rect
lyli
ght sahead, Ifindi timpossi bl
et osay
thatt het hi
rdpar t
yl orr
ydi dnotcont inuet obeadanger .I ts
dangerwasduet oi t
sbei ngi naposi t
ionwher ei tcausedan
ex t
ensi v
eobst ruction,li
ghtedi nawaywhi chwoul dnotmakei t
cleart oappr oachingt r
affi
cwhatt henat ureorext entoft he
obstruct i
onwas;andi tmustbet akeni ntoaccountt hatt he
roadwasf rosty ,sot hati twouldbenecessar yf oradr iver
comi ngal ongt hecar ri
agewayt oappr eciat eatanear li
erst age
thanwoul dor dinaril
ybenecessar yt hatt herewassomet hing
aheadwhi chr equiredhi mt oapplyhi sbr akes.Idonott hinki t
canbesai dt hatt henegl igenceofwhi cht hedef endantwas
undoubt edlygui l
tywasofsuchachar act erordegr eeast ot ake
i
toutoft heconductwhi chanot herdr i
v eroughtt oexpectmay
occurupont hehi ghway ."

Andatp.898: "Ifadr iv
ersonegl i
gentlymanageshi sv ehicl
eas
tocausei ttoobst r
uctt hehighwayandconst ituteadangert o
otherr oaduser s,incl
udingt hosewhoar edrivi
ngt oof astornot
keepingapr operl ookout ,butnott hosewho del i
beratelyor
recklessly dri
vei ntot he obst r
ucti
on,t hen the f i
rstdr iver'
s
negli
gencemaybehel dt ohavecont ri
butedtot hecausat i
onof
anacci dentofwhi cht hei mmedi at
ecausewast henegl igent
driv
ingoft hev ehicl
ewhi chbecauseoft hepr esenceoft he
obstruct i
oncollideswi thitorwi thsomeot herv ehi
cleorsome
otherper son.Accor dingly,Iwouldholdi nthi
scaset hatt het hi
rd
partydr i
ver
'snegl i
gence di d contr
ibutet othe deat h ofMr .
Rouse. "

Kni
ght
leyvJohns[
1982]1Al
lER851
Fact
s:Thefi
rstdef
endant'
sv ehicl
ewasi nvol
vedinanaccidentatthe
exi
tofaone-
wayt r
aff
ictunnel,obscur
ingtheexit
.Thepol
icef or
gotto
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
cl
oset hetunnelt ot r
af f
icandwhent heyr ealisedt hi
s,ani nspector
orderedt hepl
aintif
fandanot herofficertor ideagai nstt heoncomi ng
tr
affictocloset het unnel.Whileri
dingagai nstt hetr af
fic,theplainti
ff
coll
idedwi t
hanoncomi ngmot ori
standsust ai nedinj
ur i
es.Hesuedt he
fi
rstdefendantandt hepol i
ce.Thefir
stdef endantar guedt hatthepol i
ce,
i
nor deri
ngthepl ai
nt i
fftorideagainstt heoncomi ngt raffi
chadbeen
negligentandthatnegl i
gencehadbr okent hechai nofcausat ion.

Held:Thei nspectorhadbeennegl i
gentinorder
ingtheplaint
if
ft ori
de
againsttheoncomi ngtraff
icandthatnegli
gencehadbeent hemai n
cause oft he plainti
ff
'sinj
uri
es and had t
hus broken the chain of
causati
onbet weent hefir
stdef
endant'
sactandtheinj
uri
essustainedby
theplai
ntif
f.

Thus,
thepol
i
ce,
andnott
hef
ir
stdef
endant
,wer
eli
abl
e.

Pri
nci
ple:Thetestf orconsi
deri
ngwhet herthechainofcausat
ionhas
beenbrokeniswhet herthesubsequentactwasanat ur
alandprobabl
e
cause ofthe originalnegli
gentactsuch t hatitwas reasonabl
y
for
eseeabl
eundert hecir
cumstances.Ifyes,
thenthechai
nofcausati
on
hasnotbeenbroken.

PerSt ephensonLJatp.864:" Atoneendoft hescal ei swant on

i
nt er
ferenceordi sregardf orther escuer '
sownsaf ety, whi chwi l
l
break t he chai n;att he ot her,r easonabl e conductwhi ch,
accor dingt owhatLor dHal danesai di nCanadi anPaci ficmyCo
vKel v i
nShi ppi ngCoLt d( 1927)138LT369at370( andwhat
Maugham LJsai d,i
nHay nesvHanpood[ 1935]1KB146at162,
[1934]Al lERRep103at110) ,willnot.Butt heremaybemany
i
nt er
v ening act ionswhi chcannotbechar acter i
sed asei ther
reasonabl er eact ionorwant oni ntermeddl ingandr eckl essness.
Int hisi nt ermedi ate categor ycome Lor d Reid' st ortious or
criminalact s( want on enough i n one sense) ,t he l atter
i
llustratedbyt heDor setYachtCocase,t hef ormerbysuch
casesofnegl igentdr ivi
ngi ntoanobst ructionnegl igent lylefton
thehi ghwayassqui r
es[ 1973]2Al lER903at910,[ 1973]QB
889at898,wher eCai r
nsLJr egarded' thosewhodel iberately
andr eckl essl ydr iveintot heobst ructi
on' asdi squal i
fiedbyt heir
ownnewactf rom r ecover i
ngdamagesf rom t hoser esponsi ble
fort heobst ruction.Oft hosewhoexposet hemsel v est ot he
dangerofbei ngi njuredbyt henegl i
genceofot her s,r escuer s
areofcour sei naspeci alcat egory.Fort heywi l
lcomet ot he
rescueasof tenbydel i
ber ateandcour ageouschoi ceasby
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
nstinct
ivereact
ionandtheyareunli
kel
ytocommi tanycri
meor
tor
tinsodoi ngexceptt
hetortoff
ail
ingtotakereasonablecar
e,
whichmi ghtbedescr i
bedasr eckl
essness,fort hesafetyof
personslikel
ytobeendanger edbyt hei
ractions,incl
udingof
coursethemselves.

And atpp.865 and 866:" Itis plainf rom t hatcl earand

persuasiveexpressionoft hejudge'sr easonedopi niont hathe
wasaski nghimsel ftherightquestionandappl yi
ngt hefightlaw.
Hewas,It hi
nk,rightlytakingthel awt obet hat
,i nconsi dering
theeffectsofcar elessness,asi nconsi deri
ngthedut yt otake
care,t
het esti
sr easonabl eforeseeabi
lity,whi
chIunder standt o
meanf oreseeabili
tyofsomet hingoft hesamesor tbeingl i
kely
tohappen,asagai nstitsbeingamer epossibil
itywhi chwoul d
neveroccurt othemi ndofar easonabl emanor ,ifitdid,woul d
beneglectedast oor emotetor equir
epr ecauti
onsort oi mpose
responsibi
li
ty:cfLordDunedi n'sjudgmenti nFardonvHar court-

247•
Rivingt on(1932)146LT391at392,[ 1932]Al lERRep81at82.The
questiont obeaskedi saccor dinglywhet herthatwhol esequenceof
eventsi sanat uralandpr obableconsequenceofMrJohns' snegl igence
andar easonablyf oreseeabl eresul tofi t
.Inanswer ingt hequest ioni tis
helpfulbutnotdeci siveto consi derwhi ch oft hese ev ents wer e
deli
ber atechoicest odoposi ti
veact sandwhi chwer emer eomi ssi ons
offailurestoact ;whi chact sandomi ssionswer einnocentmi stakesor
miscal cul
ati
ons and whi ch wer e negl igent hav i
ng r egar dt ot he
pressur esandt hegr av it
yoft heemer gencyandt heneedt oactqui ckly.
Negligentconducti smor elikelytobr eakt hechainofcausat iont han
conductwhi chi snot ;positi
veact swi l
lmor eeasi l
yconst i
tutenew
causest haninact ion.Mi st
akesandmi schancesar et obeexpect ed
whenhumanbei ngs,howev erwel lt r
ained,hav et ocopewi t
hacr i
sis;
whatexact l
ytheywi llbecannotbepr edicted,buti fthosewhi choccur
arenat uralt
hewr ongdoercannot ,Ithink,escaper esponsi bil
i
tyf ort hem
and t heir consequences si mpl y by cal l
ing them i mpr obabl e or
unforeseeable. He must accept t he r isk of some unexpect ed
mischances:seeWar dvTEHopki ns&sonLt d[ 1959]3Al lER225at
244, [
1959]1WLR966at984perWi l
lmerLJandChadwi ck'scase[ 1967]
2Al lER945at952,[ 1967]1WLR912at921perWal l
erJ.Butwhat
mischances?

"
Theanswert
othi
sdi
ff
icul
tquest
ionmustbedi
ctat
edbycommon
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
senser athert hanlogicont hef actsandcircumst ancesofeachcase.I n
thi
scasei tmustbeanswer edi nthelightoft het ruev i
ewt obet akenof
theev entsl eadingupt oInspect orSommer vi
ll
e'sact s,orr at
herhisact
and omi ssion,and t he plaintif
f'
s,and Pc East hope's,act s.Ihav e
expressed myv i
ew ofal lt hesel i
nksi nt hechai nl eading fr
om Mr
Johns'snegl igencet ot hepl ai
ntif
f'
scol l
isionwi thMrCot t
on.Ihav e
decided,r espect f
ullydisagreeingwi ththejudge,t hatt hei nspectorwas
negli
genti nf ail
ingt oclosethet unneland, respect fullyagreeingwi t
hthe
j
udge,t hatt hepl ainti
ffwasnotnegl i
genti nr i
dingt hewr ongwayaf t
er
beingor deredt odosobyt hei nspectorori ndeci dingont hespuroft he
momentt oridehismot orcy cleclosetothewal li
nl ane.

"Iam al sooft heopi nionthatt heinspector'

snegl i
gencewasnota
concur rentcauser unni
ngwi thMrJohns' snegl i
gence,butanewcause
disturbingthesequenceofev entsleadingfrom MrJohns' sov er
t urni
ng
ofhi scart othepl ainti
ff
'saccidentandinter
rupt i
ngt heeffectofi t.This
woul d,Ithink,hav ebeensohadt heinspector'
snegl i
gencest oodal one.
Comi ngasi tdidont opoft hemuddl eandmi sunderstandingofMr
Wi l
l
iams' st elephone cal land foll
owed by t he i nspect
or '
s ordert o
remedyhi sownnegl i
gencebyadanger ousmanoeuv re,i
twast her eal
causeoft hepl aintif
f'
sinjur
yandmadet hatinjuryt ooremot efrom Mf
Johns' swrongdoi ngt obeaconsequenceofi t....
"I
nmyj udgment ,toomuch
happenedher e, t
oomuchwent
wr ong, t hechapt erofacci dent sand
mi stakeswast ool ongandv ari
ed,
toi mposeonMrJohnsl iabili
tyfor
whathappenedt ot hepl aintif
fin
dischar ginghi sdut yasapol i
ce
officer, althoughi twoul dnothav e
happenedhadnotMrJohns
negl igent lyoverturnedhi scar .The
ordi narycour seoft hi
ngst ookan
extr aordi narycour se.Thel ength
andt hei rregulari
tiesoft hel ine
l
eadi ngf rom t hefirstacci dentt o
thesecondhav enopar allelinthe
repor tedr escuecases, inal lof
whi cht hepl aint
iffsucceededi n
est ablishi ngtheor iginal
wr ongdoer '
sliabil
ity.Itwasnat ural
,
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
twaspr obabl e,itwasf or eseeabl
e,
i
twasi ndeedcer tain,thatt hepolice
woul dcomet ot heov erturnedcar
andcont r
ol t
het unnel traffi
c.Itwas
alsonat uralandpr obabl eand
foreseeabl ethatsomest epswoul d
bet akenincont roll
ingt het raff
ic
andcl eari
ngt het unnel andsome
thingsbedonet hatmi ghtbemor e
cour ageoust hansensi bl e.The
reasonabl ehy pothet i
cal obser ver
woul danticipatesomehuman
errors,somef ormsofwhatmi ght
becal ledfoll
y, perhapsev enfrom
trainedpol i
ceof ficers,andsome
unusual andunexpect edacci dent
s

i
nthe

EVI
DENCEANDPROCEDUREI
NNEGLI
GENCE

RESI
PSALOQUI
TUR

Hender
sonvH.
E.Jenki
nsandSons[
19701AC282
Facts:Thebr akesoft hedef endant s'vehi
clefail
édwhi let he
vehiclewasdescendi ngahi l
landst r
uckandki ll
edthedeceased.
Thef ail
ureoft hebrakewasduet ot heescapeoff lui
df r
om t he
hydrauli
cbr akingsystem whi chhadbeencausedbycor rosion
ofapi peint hehy dr
auli
csy stem.Onl ypartofthepipecoul dbe
seenbyv isualinspecti
onbutt hecor rosi
vepar tcouldnotbe
seenbyv i
sualinspecti
on.Thedef endant spl
eadedlatentdefect.
Held:Sincet hedefendantscoul dnotl eadev i
dencetoshowt hat
thev ehi
clehadbeensubj ectedt oacor rosi
vemat eri
alandt hat
all
reasonabl ecarehadbeent aken, t
hedef encefail
ed.

PerLordReid291:"Ift
herewer
enothi
ngi ntheevi
dence t
o
i
ndicat
e a probabi
l
itythatsomet
hing unusualmusthave
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
happenedt othislorrytocauset hev eryunusualt ypeofbr ake
fai
lurewhi cht helearnedt rialj
udgehashel di nf actoccurred
here,thenundoubt edlyt her espondent swoul dhav epr oved
thattheyhadexer cisedal lpropercar eint hi
scase.Buti fthe
evidencei ndicatesal ikeli
hoodt hatsomet hingunusualhas
occurredt ocauseabr eakdown,t henIdonotseehow t he
ownercansayt hathehasexer ci
sedal lpropercar eunlesshe
canpr ovet hathenei t
herknew noroughtt ohav eknownof
anysuchoccur r
ence.Fori fhedi dknow ofi thewoul dhav e
beenboundt ot akeadequat est epst oprev entanyr esult
ing
breakdown.I tmaywel lbet hatitwoul dbesuf fi
cientforhimt o
provet hathehadapr opersy st em fordr i
v ersr eport
ingall
unusual occurrences

•
250

andt
hatnonehadbeenr
epor
tedt
ohi
m.

"Buti nthiscaset her espondent sl ednoev i

denceast o
thehi storyofthi slorryot hert hant heev i
denceoft he
fi
ttert owhichIhav er eferr
ed.I tmaybet hattheycoul d
hav epr ovedthatsof arast heyknew orcoul dhav e
discov eredbyr easonabl einquirynot hingunusualev er
happenedt oitwhi chcoul dhav el edt othiscorrosion.
Ori tmaybet hatt heydi dknowofsomet hi
ngbutdi dnot
realisethepossi bledangerr esult
ingf rom itthoughthey
oughtt ohavedoneso.Wedonotknow.Theyhadt o
prov ethatinallt heci rcumst anceswhi cht heyknewor
oughtt ohaveknownt heyt ookal lproperst epstoav oid
danger .Inmyopi niont heyhav ef ail
edt odot hat,andI
am t heref
ore ofopi nion thatt hi s appealshoul d be
all
owed. "

PerLor dPear sonatpp.302and303:" Thatwast he

effectoft hedef endant s'pl
eading,buti nanycaset he
phy sicalfactsoft hecaser aiseast rongpr i
maf acie
i
nf erencet hatthedef endantswer eatf aultandt hat
theirf aul
twasacauseoft heacci dent.Fir
st,theyhad
1
sentoutt hislorry,it
sel fwei
ghing4/ 2to5t onsand
carryingal oadof9t ons,onaj ourneywhi chi nv
olv ed
travelli
ngdownahi l11/
l 4mileslongwi t
hagr adientof
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
1i n6att hetopand1i n8or1i n9f ur t
herdown.The
roadwasnar r
owandi tpassedt hrought hesmal lt own
orl ar
gev ill
ageofCy mmer .Ift hebr akesf ai
led,av ery
seriousacci dentmi ghtoccur .Secondl y ,thel orrywas
fi
v eyear soldandhadr unf or150, 000mi l
es.Thi rdly ,the
mai nbr akef l
uidpipewasov eranoti nconsi derablear ea
so cor roded t hati t
st hickness was r educed f r
om 7
tenths t o1t enth ofa mi lli
met r
e( from about28
thousandt hs of an i nch t o about4 t housandt hs).
Four t
hly,t hepi pewashel dbycl ipsi nt heangl eofa
chassismember ,andabout40percent .oft hepi pe,
beingt husencl osed, wasspeci all
yl i
abletobecor roded.
Fift
hly,t hat40percent .coul dnotbeseenonav isual
i
nspect ioni fthepi per emai nedi nsi t
u.Si xthly,thepi pe
hadnev erbeensubj ect edt oanyexami nat i
onexcepta
visualinspect i
oni nsitu.Sev enthly, whent hef luidbr oke
outoft hepi pe, i
tdidsoatapl acewher et hev erysev ere
corrosionhadoccur r
ed, andi tmadeahol eofsuf ficient
sizet oal low thef l
uidt of low outf r
eely,sot hatt her e
was

251•
The

i
mmedi
atel
yat
otal
fai
l
ureoft
hebr
akes.

"Fr
om thesef actsitseemst omecl ear,
asapr imaf aci
e
i
nference,thatt he acci dentmusthav e been due to
defaul
toft hedef endant sinr espectofi nspecti
onor
maintenanceorbot h.Unl esst heyhad asat i
sfactor
y
answer,suff
icienttodi splacethei nfer
ence,theyshould
havebeenhel dliable.

"Thedef endants'answerwast hattheyhadf oll

oweda
practiceofr el
yi
ngsol el
yonvisualinspecti
onoft hepipes,
andt hatt hi
swasagener alandpr operpract i
ce.The
l
earnedj udge'sf i
ndingwast hat'i
tispl ai
nlythecust om
i
nt heor dinarycourseofthi
ngsnott oremov etheseflui
d
pi
pes. 'Thismaybeagener alandpr operpracticeforan
ordinary case i n whi ch t here ar e no speci al
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
ci
rcumst ances increasi
ng the r
isk.But It hi
nk the
defendants'answershoul d nothav e been accepted
wit
hout ev idence from the defendant
s suf f
ici
ently
showingt hatthiswasanor di
nar
ycasewi thoutspecial
ci
rcumst ancesincreasi
ngtheri
sk.
"

ScottvLondonandSt .Kat
heri
neDocksCo.[1861—73]AllERRep
246;(1865)159ER665
Facts:Theplai
nti
ffwasint
hedefendant
'
swarehousetoper
form hi
s
duti
esasacust omsoffi
cerwhenbagsofsugarfel
lonhi
m,inj
uri
ng

Hel d:Since t
he defendantcoul
d notexplain how the acci
dent
happened, t
heywereliabl
e.
Principl
e:Wherethet hi
ngisonet hatwoul
dnotor di
nar i
l
yoccur
withoutnegli
genceont hepar
tofthepersonincharge,itrai
sesa
presumpt i
onofnegli
genceintheabsenceofexpl
anati
on.

PerEr l
e CJ atp.248:" There mustbe r easonable
evidenceofnegl i
gence,but ,wheret hethingisshownt o
be undert he managementoft he def endant,orhi s
servants,and t heacci denti ssuchas,i ntheor di
nar y
courseoft hings,doesnothappeni fthosewhohav ethe
managementoft hemachi neryusepr opercare,itaff
ords
reasonableev idence,int heabsenceofex planati
onby
thedef endant,thatt
heacci dentar osef r
om wantofcar e.
Weal l
assentt otheprinciplelaiddowni nt hecasescited
fort hedef endants;butt hej udgmentt urnsupon t he
const r
ucti
ont obeput

•
252
ont hejudge'
snotes.AsmybrotherMELLORandmy sel
f
read those notes,we cannot find t
hat r
easonabl
e
evidenceinthepresentcaseofthewantofcarewhich
seemsappar entt
ot her
estoft
hecourt.
"

UdevBonjut(1954)14WACA533
Facts:Thedef
endantoccupiedt
hetopfl
oorofthepl
aint
if
f'
sshop.
Hel eftt
hehousei nt
hecareofhisser
vant
s.Someoneletthetap
runningandfl
owi ngoversuchthatwat
erseepedthr
ought othe
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
plainti
ff'
s shop and dest r
oy ed his goods.I n an action for
negl i
gence,thetr
ialjudgehel dthattheonuswasont hepl
ainti
ffto
prov ethattheseepi ngoft hewat erhadbeenduet ot hefaul
tof
thedef endantorhisser vant
s.
Held:Si nce the plainti
ffhad no means ofshowi ng how t he
i
nci denthappened,t hatbei ng int he sole knowledge oft he
defendant ,t
heonuswasont hedef endant.
Principl
e:Wher ethehappeni ngofani ncidenti
ssolelywithi
nt he
knowl edgeoft hedef endant,theprinci
pleappli
esandt heonusi s
ont hedef endanttoshow t hatt hehappeningoft heinci
denthas
notbeenduet ohisfaul t
.

PerFoster-Sutt
onPatp.534:" Intheci r
cumst anceshereIam of
theopini
ont hatthef actoftheacci dentr aisesapr esumptionof
negli
gencef orwhi cht hedef endanti sr esponsi bl
e,andthati f
ther
ewer eanyf actsi nconsi
stentwi thnegl igence,ornegli
gence
forwhichhecoul dbehel dresponsi ble,itwasf ort
hedefendant
toprovet hem.Br amwel l,B.
,saidi nBy rnevBoadl e:'
Lookingat
themat t
eri nar easonabl eway ,i
tcomest ot his— aninj
uryi s
donet othepl ai
ntiffwhohasnomeansofknowi ngwhet herit
wast heresultofnegl i
gence;thedef endantwhoknowshowi t
wascaused, doesnott hi
nkfittotellthejury.'Itseemstomet hat
thi
sreasoningisappl i
cabl et
ot hepresentcase.

"As the learned tri

alJudge sai d,the onlyreasonabl
e
explanati
on oft hef l
oodi
ng wast hatsomeonei nthe
defendant'spremiseshadl eftthetaponandal lowedthe
watertoov er
fl
ow.Theper sonswhocoul dhavetoldhow
i
thappenedar etheladythedef endantl ef
tinchargeof
the premi ses,hi s st
ewar d or clerk,and It hi
nk i
t
reasonablet odraw theinferencethatt heactofoneof
them causedt hef l
oodingandt heconsequentdamaget o
theplaint
iff'
sgoods.Thatbeingso, intheabsenceofany

253.
The

evidenceinconsist
entwit
hhisli
abil
it
y,Iam oft heopi
nion
that the defendant must be hel
dr esponsi
blefor the
damage."
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Mbadi wevYay a(1954)14WACA613
Fact s:Thepl ai
nti
ff
'sl orrywaspar kedont hesi deoft heroadwhen
theseconddef endantdr ovetheirlorrytohi ti
t,kil
li
ngt heplai
ntif
f'
s
dri
v er.Thedef endant '
sar gumentwast hatt hebr akesofhi slorr
y
fai
ledandt hatifhehadnothi ttheplainti
ff'
scar ,hewoul dhavehi t
thegat eoft hebri
dge.
Held:Si ncetheplaint i
ff'
scarwasst at
ionar yandt hedefendant
drov ehiscart ohitit,itraisedapr esumpt ionofnegl igenceforthe
defendantt odisprovewhi chtheyf ai
led.
Principle:Wher ethecauseofan acci denti ssol elywithi
nt he
knowl edgeofaper son, hebear stheonusofpr ove.

PerFost er-SuttonP.atp.615:" Inacasesuchast heone

underconsi deration here,t he acci
dentit
selfraises a
presumpt ionofnegl igenceagai nstt
he.defendant
s,and
theonusofdi spr ovi
ngnegl igencewasupont hem;The
Mer chantPr ince.I ti
st hereforenecessar
yt odetermine
whet hertheydi schargedt hatonus.

"Ther
ecanbenodoubtt hatacoll
i
sionwouldnothave
occurred i
fthebrakesoft hedefendant'
svehi
clehad
funct
ionedproper
ly.Thei
rfai
l
uretodosowasduet othe
factt
hatthebrakewascompletel
yempty."

KlutsevNel son[ 19651GLR537

Facts:Abusonwhi cht heplainti
fftr
avell
edcolli
dedhead- onwi tha
ti
ppert r
uckdr i
venbyt hedef endantwhent hetruckskiddedof fit
s
l
anet ot hel aneoft hebus.Thepl ai
ntif
fclaimedt hecollisi
on
occurredasar esultofthenegl i
genceoft hedefendanti ndri
vi
ngat
anexcessi vespeedandf ail
ingtoappl yhisbrakesatt heri
ghtt i
me.
Thedef endantont heot herhandcl ai
medt heski doccur r
ed
whenheappl i
edani mmediatebr aketoav oidhitti
ngthebackofa
car.thathadov ert
akenhi m att hewrongpl ace.Thet r
ialjudge
rej
ectedt heev idenceoft hedef endantandappl iedthedoctri
neof
resipsa.
Held:Sincet hepl ai
nti
ffclai
medt oknowt hecauseoft heåccident,
themaxi m didnotappl y.
Princi
ple:Thepr i
ncipleofresi psaloquit
urappl iesonlywheret he
causeoft heacci dentisunknown.

—054
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
PerApal ooJSCatpp.543and544:" Atpage79,par a.81,
Vol.28ofHal sbur
y '
sLawsofEngl and( 3r
ded.),
t hecor r
ect
l
egalposi t
ioni sstatedasf oll
ows:' Themaxi mr esipsa
l
oquiturappl i
esonlywher ethecausesoft heacci dentare
unknownbutt heinferenceofnegl i
genceisclearf rom the
natureoft heaccident ,and thedef endantist heref
ore
l
iableifhedoesnotpr oduceev idencet ocount eractthe
i
nference.Ift hecausesar esufficientl
yknown,t hecase
ceasest obeonewher ethef actsspeakf orthemsel ves
andt hecour thast odet er
mi newhet herornot,f rom the
knownf acts,negl
igencei stobei nferred.
'

"Inthiscase,t hepl aintif

fpr ofessedt oknowt hecauseof
theacci dentandpr oducedaney e-wi tnesswhom shehel d
outasawi tnessoft ruth.Hi sev i
dencewasobv iouslynot
accept ed as a t rut
hf ulaccountoft he acci dent .The
plainti
f fal sot otallyf ail
edt osubst antiat et hef actswhi ch
she al leged const ituted negl i
gence. I n t hose
circumst ances,i tseemst obeent i
relywr ongt or esor tt o
the r es i psa l oqui t
urmaxi m t ot hrow t he bur den of
disproofofnegl i
genceont hedef endant s.I nt hecaseof
Bol t
onv .St one, 3Mi ssSt onecl aimeddamagesf ori njuries
received when she was st r
uck bya cr icketbal lwhi l
e
standi ngont hehi ghwayi nar oadadj oiningacr icketf ield
occupi edbyt hedef endant s.Shef ail
edt omakeouther
all
egat ionsofnegl i
genceandOl i
v erJ.f oundagai nsther .
Whent hecaseev entual l
yr eachedt heHouseofLor ds,her
counselat tempt edt or elyont her esi psal oqui turmaxi m.
Lor dPor ter,reject i
nganar gumentbasedont hatpr incipl e,
said:'Iam notassi stedbyanyr elianceont hedoct ri
neof
resi psal oqui t
ur .Wher et heci rcumst ancesgi vingr i
set o
thecauseoft heacci dentar eunknown,t hatdoct rinemay
beofgr eatassi st ance,butwher e,asi nt hepr esentcase,
allthef act sar eknown, i
tcannothav eanyappl ication.Iti s
known exact ly how t he acci denthappened,and i ti s
unnecessar yt o ask whet hert his acci dentwoul d hav e
happenedhadt her ebeennonegl igence.Theonl yquest ion
i
s:Dot hef actsoromi ssionswhi char eknownandwhi ch
l
edupt ot hei njur yamountt onegl igence? '

"
Itfol
lowsinmyjudgment
,thatt
hepl
ainti
ff
'scasest
oodor
f
ellaccor
dingasshesucceededorf
ailedtoestabl
i
shthe
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
act
sonwhichsherel
i
edasconsti
tuti
ngthenegl
i
gence.
I
ndeedt
hati
sthev
iewwhi
cht
hiscourtt
ookwhenall
owi
ng
an

255.
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"
Ihe

appeali nacol lisi

onact i
onent it
ledSaoudBr other sv
Boat engwhi chj udgmentwasdel iveredon22June1964.
Int hatcase,asi nt hepr esent ,thepl aintifff urnished
particularsofnegl i
genceonwhi chher eli
edt of oundhi s
action.Al thoughhedi dnotsubst antiateanyoft hem, the
l
ear ned t ri
alj udge f ound i n hisf av our .Thi s cour t
reversingt hesai dj udgmentsai d,intera/ i
a,' Finallyt he
l
ear ned j udge f ailed to di rect his at tention t ot he
negl i
gence r el i
ed upon byt he pl aintifft o sust ai
n hi s
claim; consequent l
yhef ail
edt or eali
set hatt herewasno
evidencel edbyt hepl ai
nti
fft oest ablishanypar toft he
negl i
gencepl eadedbyhi m. 'Virt
ual l
y,ev erywor doft hat
passage appl ies t ot his case and i ti s per haps not
without i nter est t hat that v iew was expr essed by
Acol atseJ. S.C.t hensi t
ti
ngasaj udgeoft heSupr eme
Cour t.Inmyopi nion,thepl ainti
ffhav ingf ail
edt omake
outt henegl igencesheal leged,t hequest i
onofl i
abilit
y
shoul dhav ebeendeci dedagai nstherandIam sat isfied
thatt hel ear nedt ri
aljudgeer redi ninv okingt hedoct r
ine
ofr esi psal oqui turi nherfav our.Ifthatv i
ewi sr ight, i
tis
sufficientt o concl ude this appeali nt he def endant s'
favour ."

AboakuvTet teh[196212GLR165
Facts:Thedef endantdrov ehiscart ohittheplainti
ff
'scarwhi
ch
waspar kedbyt her oadside.Thedef endantchosenott ogi
ve
evi
denceatt het r
ialbutr el
iedont wost atementsgi v
entothe
poli
ce, whichthecour tfoundt obeinadmi ssi
ble.
Held:Sincet hedef endanthadnoev i
denceorexpl anati
onfort
he
accident,themaxi m ofr esi psal oquit
urwoul dappl yandthe
defendantwoul dbeliable.
Pri
nci pl
e:Thef actofanacci dentmayr ai
seapr esumpti
onof
negligencesuchast omaket hemaxi m apply.

•
256
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana

PerSarkodee-AddoJSCatpp.169and170:" Turningto
ground (2)itisa set t
led rul
eofl aw and cannotbe
doubtedthattheonusofpr oofthatt
hefirstdefendantas
theservantoragentoft heseconddef endanthasbeen
guil
tyofnegl i
gencefall
supont heplai
ntif
fandunt i
lhe
hasdischargedthisburdenthereisnocaset obel eftt
o
thejur
y.Inal i
mitednumberofcases, howev er,t
hef acts
oftheaccidentmayoft hemselvesconsti
tuteev i
denceof
negli
genceandt hedoct r
ineofr esi
psaloqni t
urappl i
es.
'
Insomeci rcumstancesthemer ehappening

•
257
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ofanacci dentaf
for
dsPr i
mafacieev i
dencethatitwas
ther esul
tofwantofduecar eon t hepartoft he
defendant'
;seeClerkandLindse/lonTor t
s,(1It
hed.)
p.399.I n such ci
rcumstancest he plai
nti
ffwillbe
enti
tl
edt osucceedunlessthedef endantbyev i
dence
rebutstheprobabi
li
ty.

"InBy rnevBoad/ etheplaintiffwaswal kingi napubl i

c
streetpastt hedef endant'
sshopwhenabar reloff lour
fellupon hi m f rom awi ndow abov et heshop,and
seriousl yinjuredhi m.Itwashel dt hatwassuf ficient
Primaf acieev i
denceofnegl igencef ort hej urytocast
ont hedef endantt heonusofpr ovingt hatt heacci dent
wasnotcausedbynegl i
gence.Pol lock,C. B.sai d:'The
presentcaseupont heev idencecomest ot his,aman
i
spassi ngi nfrontofthepr emi sesofadeal eri nf l
our ,
andt her ef all
sdownuponhi m abar reloff l
our .Ithinkit
appar entt hatt hebar r
elwasi nt hecust odyoft he
defendantwho occupi ed the pr emi ses,and who i s
responsi bl
ef ort heactsofhi sser vantswhohadt he
cont r
olofi t;andi nmyopi niont hef actofi tsf all
ingi s
primaf acieev i
denceofnegl i
gence,andt hepl aintif
f
whowasi njuredbyitisnotboundt oshewt hati tcoul d
notf allwi thoutnegl i
gence,buti ftherear eanyf acts
i
nconsi stentwi thnegli
gencei tisfort hedef endantt o
prov ethem. '

"In McAr t
hur v Domi nion Car t
ri
dge Company ( a
Canadi ancase) ,ajur
yhav i
ngf oundthatanexpl osion
occur red t hrough the negl ect of t he def endant-
companyt o supplysuitable machi neryand t ot ake
properpr ecauti
ons,andt hatt her esul
ti
ngi njurytot he
plai
nt i
ffwasnoti nanywayduet ohisnegl i
gence,t he
verdictwasuphel dbyt heunani mousj udgment soft wo
cour t
s.TheSupr emeCour tr
ev ersedthejudgment sof
thet wocour ts.Onappealt ot hePr i
vyCounci l
,itwas
heldt hatanor derbyt heSupr emeCour tsett i
ngasi de
thev erdictont hegroundt hatt herewasnoexactpr oof
oft hef aultwhi chcertai
nlycausedt heinjurymustbe
reversed.Pr ooft ot hatef fectmay be r easonabl y
required i n parti
cul
arcases;i ti snotso wher et he
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
accidenti st heworkofamoment ,anditsorigi
nand
coursei ncapableofbeingdet ect
ed.I nacasesuchas
theoneunderconsi derati
onher et heacci
dentitsel
f
rai
ses a pr esumpt
ion of negl i
gence against the
defendant s,andtheonusofdi spr
ov i
ngnegli
gencewas
upon t hem and t hi
st hey completelyfai
l
ed to do.
Hav i
ng al readyindi
catedt hatexhibit
sD andEwer e
i
nadmi ssiblet he

257"

onlyev i
dence befor
et he cour twas thatoft he
plai
nti
ffandhi stwowi t
nessesi nsuppor tofthe
clai
m;andexcl udi
ngt hesest atements(exhi
bit
sD
andE)wear eoftheviewt hatinthecir
cumstances
thedoctri
neofresipsaloquiturappl
ies.

"Uponappl icationoft hi
sdoct ri
ne,wedi ffer,with
respectandgr eatr eluct
ance,afterlisteningt othe
argument sofl earnedcounselandr ev i
ewi ngal lthe
facts,from t he findings and conclusi ons oft he
l
ear nedtri
aljudge,andar eoft heopiniont hatupon
fail
ure oft he def endantsto cr oss-exami ne the
plai
ntif
fast ot hequant um ofhiscl aimf orr epai
rs
andt helossofear ningscoupl
edwi t
ht heirf ail
ureto
l
eadev i
dencet or ebutthepr obabili
ty,thepl aint
if
f
wasent it
ledtosucceedi nhisclaim."

DeckervAt ta(1970)CC109
Facts:Thepl ai
ntif
fwasapai dpassengeri nt hedef endant's
l
or r
ywhent helorr
yov ert
urned, causingseverei nj
uri
est othe
plai
ntiff
.He sued and r el
ied on t he doctri
ne ofr es ipsa
/oquitw.Thedef endantexpl ainedthatt heaccidentoccurred
duet ot hesuddenbr eakoft helongshaf tint helorry.Held:
Thef act srai
sedaPl imafaciecaseofnegl igenceandt he
maxi m of r es ipsa applied and si nce the def endant's
explanationcouldnotdi spl
acet heonusont hem,t hevwer e
l
iable.

Dumgy
avSpor
tsCounci
lofGhana[
197411GLR429
Fact
s:Thedeceasedwasaspect
atoratt
heKumasiSpor
ts
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Stadi um f ora mat ch or gani sed by t he def endant .The
stadi um wasal soundert hecar eandmai ntenanceoft he
defendant .Partofthewal lint hest adium col lapsedandf el
l
ont hedeceasedwhosust ainedsev erei nj
uriesf r
om whi chhe
died.Thepl ainti
ffsued.Itwasf oundt hatt hepar toft hewall
thatcol l
apsedhadonl yonepi l
l
arinsteadoft heusual two.
Hel d:Si ncet heaccidentwasonet hatwoul dor dinari
lynot
occuri nt he absence ofnegl i
gence on t he par toft he
defendant ,themaxi m ofr esi psal oqui turappl i
edandt he
defendant swoul dbeheldl iable.
Princi ple:Wher eanacci dentoccur st hatint henor malcour se
oft hingswi l
lnotoccuri nt heabsenceoft henegl i
genceof
the per son i n contr
ol,the f actoft he acci dentr aises a
Primaf acieev idenceofnegl igenceont hepar toft heper son
is cont roland i sl i
ablei nt he absence ofa r easonable
expl anat ionast othecour seoft heacci dent.

PerAninJAatpp.434—436:"
From t
hedeci
dedcases,
it
i
s
sett
led thatt
he maxi
m res ipsa l
oqui
turcomes int
o
operat
ion:

onpr
oofoft
hehappeni
ngoft
heunexpl
ainedoccur
rence;

"
(i
i)whent heoccurrenceisonewhi chwoul
dnothav e
happened i nt he ordinar
y course of t
hings
withoutnegligence on the partofsomebody
otherthantheplaint
if
f;and

"
(i
ii
)thecircumstancespoi
ntt
ot henegl
i
gencei
nquest
ion
beingt hatofthedef
endantrat
herthant
hatofany
otherperson.

"Themax i
mr esipsaloquiturappli
esonl ywheret he
causeorcausesoft heacci dentareunknownbut
theinf
erenceofnegl igencei sclearfr
om thenat ure
ofthe acci dent,and t he defendanti stherefore
l
iabl
eifhedoesnotpr oduceev i
dencet ocounteract
theinf
erence.I fthecausesar esuffi
cient
lyknown,
thecaseceasest obeonewher ethef actsspeak
forthemsel ves and t he courthas to det er
mi ne
whetherOfnot ,from theknownf act
s,negli
gencei s
to be i nferr
ed: see Bar kway v Sout h Wal es
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Transpor tco. ,
Lt d[1950]1Al lE. R392atp.394, H.L.
perLor dPor ter( wher eanomni busl eftther oadand
felldownanembankment ,butt hecauseoft he
accidentwasknownt obeabur stt yreduet oan
i
mpactf r
act urewhi chdoesnotnecessar i
lyl eave
anyv isi
blemar ksont heout ert yre,itwashel dthat
themaxi m wasi nappl icabl e.Howev er ,t
heomni bus
company was f ound on t he ev idence t o be
negligenti n nothav ing apr opersy stem oft yr
e
i
nspect ion).I nt hatcasei nt heCour tofAppeal
reportedi n[1948]2Al lE. R.460atp.471Asqui t
h
L.J.(ashet henwas)summar isedt heposi tionwi t
h
regardt ot heonusofpr oofi ncasesf allingunder
themaxi mi nt hreepr oposi ti
ons,whi chpr ovidea
usefult estf orourpur pose:' (i
)I ft hedef endant s'
omni bus l eav es t he r oad and f alls down an
embankment ,andt hi swi thouti nmor ei spr ov ed,
thenr esi psal oqui t
ur ,t herei sapr esumpt iont hat
theev entiscausedbynegl igenceont hepar toft he
defendant s,andt hepl aintiffsucceedsunl esst he
defendant s[ p.435]canr ebutt hispr esumpt ion.( i
i)
Itisnor ebut t
alf ort hedef endant st oshow,agai n
withoutmor e,t hatt he i mmedi at e cause oft he
omni busl eav i
ngt her oadi sat y reburst ,sinceat yr
e
-burstperse i sa neut ralev entconsi stent ,and
equal l
yconsi stent ,withnegl i
genceorduedi l
i
gence
ont hepar toft hedef endant s.\ Vhenabal ancehas
beent il
tedoneway ,youcannotr edressi tbyaddi ng
anequal weightt oeachscal e.

259•
Thedepr essedscalewi l
lr emaindown. .
.(ii
i
)To
displacethepresumpti
on,t hedefendantsmustgo
furtherand prove(oritmustemer ge f
rom the
evidenceasawhol e)eit
her( a)thatthebursti
tself
was due t o a specif
ic cause whi ch does not
connot enegl
igenceont heirpartbutpointstoi t
s
absenceasmor eprobable,or(b),i
ftheycanpoint
to no such specifi
c cause,t hatt hey used all
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
r
easonablecar
einandaboutt
hemanagementof
t
hei
rtyres.
'

"Referencemayal sobemadet oMoor evR.Fox&

Sons[ 1956]1Q.B.596, C.A.wher eitwasheldthat
the onus ofdi sprovi
ng negl igence li
es on the
defendant ,atleasti nt he sense t hatitis not
suffi
ci entforhi
mt oshow t hattherewer eseveral
hypot heti
ccausesconsi st
entwi t
hanabsenceof
negligence,buthemustgof urt
herandshow,( i)
eit
hert hatthe accidentwas due t o a specifi
c
causewhi chdoesnotconnot ehisnegli
gence,or(ii
)
thathehadusedal l
reasonablecar e.

"Appl
y i
ngt hesepr i
ncipl
esofthemaxi m ofresi psa
l
oquiturandt heonusofpr oofarisingt heref
r om to
theev i
dencei nt hi
scase,Iam sat isfi
edt hatt he
l
earnedci rcuitj
udgeer r
edi nhol dingt hat( i)the
max i
m wasi napplicabl
e;(ii
)thatnegl igencehad
notbeenest abl
ishedagai nstthedef endant s;(ii
i)
thatthesur roundingci r
cumstancesshowedt hat
thedefendant swer enotincontroloft hesi tuation;
and(iv)thatthecauseoft heaccidentwasknown.

"Int hefirstplace,Iwoul duphol dt heappel l

ant's
cont ent
iont hatt hemaxi m appl i
edt otheev idence
whi chemer gedi nt hiscase.Ont hepl eadi ngsi t
was conceded byt he def endantst hatt heyar e
solelyr esponsi blef ort he mai ntenance oft he
KumasiSpor tsSt adium ( vi
depar agraph( 2)oft he
claim anddef ence) .Thepl ai nt
if
f'
sexper twi tness,
Mr .Kuf f
uor ,obser vedt hatt hedef ecti
vewal lhad
onlyonepi l
laratoneendi nsteadoft henor mal two;
thatt hewal lcoul dhav ehadast rongerr esistance
i
fi thadhadt wopi l
lars;andt hatt hepi l
larwas
stronger t han t he st eel hand- rai
l whi ch had
replacedit.Thedef endant s'expertwitness( Mont a)
shar edMr .Kuffuor '
sv iew t hatthewal lwi thone
columnonl ywoul dnothav et hesamer esistance
asawal lwi thtwocol umns.Her e,thestadi um was
shownt obeundert hesol emanagementoft he
defendant s.I nt he or dinarycour se oft hings,a
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
stadium wal l,suchast heonei nquest i
on, doesnot
collapseandbur yf ootbal lspect ator sift hosewho
arei ncont rol oft hest adi um hav eusedpr opercar e.
Themer ef allingoft hewal lisi nmyv i
ew pr i
ma
facieev idenceofnegl igenceont hepar toft he
defendantoccupi er s,j
ustast hemer ef all
ingoft he
theatr ecei lingonamemberoft heaudi encewas
heldi nt he Engl i
sh case ofPope vSt .Hel ens
Threat reLt d.( supr a)t obespeakoft henegl i
gence
oft het heat reoccupi ers.Fur t
her mor e,itisasel f-
evidentt rutht hatawal lwi thonl yonesuppor ting
columni smor epr onet oasuddencol l
apset hana
proper ly const ruct ed wal lwi tht wo suppor ting
columns.Thepr esenceofat hi ckcr owd i nt he
stadium i saneut ralev ent .I ti satonceequal l
y
consi stentwi t hnegl i
genceorduedi li
genceont he
partoft hedef endant s, theowner si ncont roloft he
stadium.Undoubt edl y,st adiaar ebui ltt o at tract
crowds;t hemor enumer oust heyar e,t hemor e
profitt heowner sder ivet heref rom.Whati st he
reasonabl ecapaci t yofapar ticul arst adi um i sor
shoul d,wi t
ht heexer ciseofdi ligence,beknownby
thest adi um owner s( t
hedef endant sher ein).Ther e
was no ev idence adduced by t he def endant s
tending t o show t hat t he st adi um had been
regular l
ymai nt ainedorkepti nar easonabl est at e
ofr epai rsi ncei tsconst ruct i
on,ev ent hought his
all
egat ionwasmadei nt hest atementofdef ence.
Thei rsol e wi tness and bui lding sur v eyor ,Fel i
x
Mont a,conf essedundercr oss-exami nat i
ont onot
hav i
ngst eppedt her esi ncei tsconst ruct i
onandt he
mandat or y mai nt enance per iod of one y ear
thereaf t
er .Thi swi tnessdi dnoti nanywayr ebutby
his ev idence t he pr ima f aci e ev i
dence of
negl i
genceest abl i
shedagai nstt hedef endant sby
themer eoccur r
enceofanacci dentwhi chi nt he
ordinar ycour seoft hingsdoesnothappeni ft hose
whohav et hemanagementoft hest adi um andi ts
walls( def endant s her ein)use pr opercar e.No
evidence was adduced t o show t hatsi nce t he
defendant sassumedsol econt roloft hest adium
they had mai ntained i t.On t he cont r
ar y,t he
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
evi
dencer evealed t
hatt hewal lwhichcol l
apsed
wasnott heor i
ginalwallwhoseconst ructi
onhad
beensuper visedbyFel i
xMont a.Heev enadmi tt
ed
undercr oss-examinati
ont hatinconsequenceof
therepl
acementofpar tofthewal li
nquest i
onwi t
h
agateandt heremov alofasuppor t
ingcolumn, t
he
remaini
ngwal lhadbecomeaweakerwal l.Amor e
potenti
aldangert ot he mill
i
ng st adi
um cr owds
couldbehar dlyimagined."

261•

Asant ekr amoAl iasKumahvAt t

orneyGener al[ 1975]1GLR
319Fact s:Thepl aintiffsuffer
edar upturedect opicpr egnancy
and was oper at ed upon att he Komf o Anoky e Teachi ng
Hospi t al.Inthecour seoft heoper ati
onhowev er,herr ightarm
became swol len and gangr enous owi ng t o a bl ood
transf usionadmi nisteredbyanur seoft hehospi tal .Thear m
wasl at eramput atedt osav eherl i
fe.Shesuedt hedef endant.
The pl aint i
ffgav et he par t
iculars oft he negl igence and
pleaded t hatshe woul dr el
yon t he doct r
ine ofr es ipsa
l
oqui tur .Shehowev erf ai
ledt opr ovet hepar ti
cul arsoft he
negl i
genceaspl eaded.
Hel d:The f act s as pl eaded r ai
sed a pr esumpt i
on of
negl i
genceandsi ncet hedef endantscoul dnotr ebutt hat
pr esumpt i
on,theywer el i
able.Pr i
nciple:Thedoct rineofr es
ipsaneednotbepl eadedbutr atherf actsmustbepl eaded
thatshowt hatt heacci dentcoul dnothav ehappenedbutf or
thenegl i
genceoft hedef endant .

Per Tay lor J atpp.326 — 329:" Ithas been

fashi onableinsomeper sonalinjuryclaimsf ounded
onnegl i
gencet opl eadr esipsal oquitur.Indeedi n
BullenandLeake' sPr ecedentsofPl eadi
ngs( 11t hed.)
atp.536,t herei sasuggest iont hatiti spropert o
pleadr esipsal oquitnrincertaincasesandi nfactin
Nel sonvKl utse,Cour tofAppeal,8Sept ember1969,
unrepor t
ed;di gestedi n(1969)C. C.142,t hispoint
regar ding pl eading r es ipsa l oquitur and t he
treatmentoft hatpl eai nBull
enandLeakewasur ged
ont heCour tofAppeali nanar gumentcal culat
edt o
show t hatf ailur
et o all
ege res ipsa l oquit
uri na
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
statementofcl ai
m disbar sthepl ainti
fff r
om r elyi
ng
on t he doct r
ine. In obi ter dicta,Ami ssah J. A.
consider edt hemat t
erthus:' Ourattent i
onwasdr awn
i
nt hisr espectt othepr ecedentinBul l
enandLeake' s
Precedent sofPl eadings( 1I thed. )atpp.535- 536
wher e a sent ence i s added t oi ndicatet hatt he
plainti
ffwi llrelyont hemaxi m.Asetofpl eadi
ngsi s
notnecessar ilybadbecausei tf
ail
st ocomeupt othe
standar d of Bul l
en and Leake.And t hough t he
pleadingsoft heappl i
cantquot ed abov emaynot
reach t he hei ghts ofper fect
ion t he quest ion is
whet her,i fone may bor r
ow t he wor ds ofLor d
Nor mand i nEsso Pet roleum Co. ,Lt d.vSout hpor t
Cor poration[ 1956]A. C.218atp.238, H. L.
, t
heygav e
fairnot i
ceoft hecasewhi chhast obemetsot hat
theopposi ngpar tymaydi recthisev idencet ot he
i
ssuedi sclosedbyt hem. '

"Theideathatresipsal
oquit
urassuchi spleadabl
e
must have probabl
y ar
isen ex abundant
i caute/
a
becauseoft
hecauti
onof

pleader s.In Benasand Essenhi gh'sPr ecedent sof

Pleadings( 2nded.),oneoft hespeci menst at
ement s
ofcl aim i nnegli
gencecont ai
nst hi
satp.236:' I
n
regardt oeachoft heDef endant sthePlainti
ffwillrel
y
ont hepr inci
pleofresi psaloquitur.Andatp.536of
Bullen and Leake r eferr
ed t o byAmi ssah J. A.in
NelsonvK/ ufse(supra),thef oll
owingappear si na
speci men,'Sof arasmaybenecessar y,thepl ainti
ff
willrelyupont hedoctr
ineofr esipsaloqui f
ur..
..
'

"I
nmyopi nion,theeditorsofBul l
enandLeakeand
BenasandEssenhi ghareent irelywrong.Or der19,r .
4ofourHi ghCour t(Civ i
lProcedur e)Rul es,1954,
whi chwascul ledwi t
houtanyal t
erati
oni nf orm or
substancef rom theEnglishRul esprovidesasf ol
lows:
'
Ev ery pleading shallcont ai
n,and cont ain onl ya
statementi nasummar yf orm ofthemat erialfactson
whi ch the par t
y pleadi
ng r elies forhis cl aim or
defence,ast hecasemaybe,butnott heev i
denceby
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
which t
heyar
eto be pr
oved .
..(
the emphasi
sis
mine)
.'

"Thispr ov
isi
onmakesi tmandat orythatonl ymaterial
factsandnot hingelsear etobepl eaded.I nmyv i
ew
paragraph( 9)oft hestat ementofcl ai
m oughtt obe
struck offand Ipr opose t oi gnorei tas bei ng
unnecessar yhavingr egar dtothepr ovi
sionofOr der
19,r .29,whichpr ovi
desasf ol
lows:'TheCour tora
Judgemayatanyst ageoft heproceedingsordert o
be st ruck out or amended any mat ter i
n any
i
ndor sement or pl eading whi ch may be
unnecessar y.
..
.'

"Itseemst omet hatwhatoughtt obepl eadedi n

theser esi psal oqui t
urcasesi snott hemer ewor ds
resi psal oquitur,incantator ywor dsasAmi ssahJ.A.
call
edt hem i nNel sonvK/ utse( supra);thesewor ds
by t hemsel ves do noti n any way adv ance t he
narrativ
eoft hepl aintiff
'scase.Fact sshoul dr at
herbe
pleadedwhi cht akent oget herpr ov ethatt hedamage
sufferedbyt hepl ainti
ffcoul dnothav ehappenedbut
forthepr esumpt ivenegl i
genceoft hedef endant .In
facti ntheser esi psal oquiturcaseswhatact uall
y
contributedt othe, damagei sunknownt othepl ai
ntif
f
sincehewasnoti ncont roloft her es.Theper soni n
controloft her esi sthedef endantandbecausebei ng
i
ncont rol,thedamageori njuryoughtnott ohav e
happenedi fheexer cisedcar eanddi ligence,anonus
i
scastonhi mt oshow t hatt hedamagewasnot
causedbyhi snegl i
genceort henegl igenceofhi s
servant.
263•
•

"Thisisthelegalandcommonsenseappr oacht othe

problem whichcommendsi t
selft
omeandwhi ch
fi
nds suppor tint he views ofDav i
es L.J.int he
EnglishcaseofBennet tvChemi cal
Construct
ion(GB)
Ltd.[1971]3AllE.R.822atp.825, C.A.Comment ing
ont henecessi t
yf orpleadingresipsa/ oquit
urhe
saidatp.825:'Ihav esaidthatinmyopinionitisnot
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
necessaryto pl
ead r
esi psa/ oqui
tur
.Ifthef act
s
pleadedandthefact
sprov edshowthatthecauseof
theaccidentwasapparent l
yandoni tsfacesome
negli
gence,t
hati
ssuffi
cient.
'

"Withr egardtotheonusofpr oofinsuchasi tuat

ion
her emar kedatt hesamepage:' I
ftheacci dentis
proved t o have happened i n such a way t hat
Primaf aci
ei tcoul d nothav e happened wi t
hout
negligenceont hepar tofthedefendants,thenitis
fort hedef endantsto explai
nand show how t he
accidentcouldhav ehappenedwithoutnegli
gence.'

"Thedecisionitselfofthefullbenchoft heCour tof

AppealinNel sonvKl utse(supra)supportst hevi
ew
thatres ipsa / oquit
urneed notbe pl eaded,for
AmissahJ. A.,whodel i
veredtheunanimousdeci sion
ofthecourt,explai
nedt heposit
ionrathercareful
ly:

'
Wedonotshar et heirv i
ewt hatthedoct r
ineofr es
i
psa l oqui t
urcan be r esor ted to onl y when a
plaintiffspeci fi
callypl eadst hathei nt endst or el
y
oni t.Whatt hepassagei nHa/ sbur y '
sLawsof
Engl and( 3rded. )
,Vol .28,p.77,par a.79,whi ch
wasci tedbyl earnedcounselt ous, say sisnott hat
resi psal oqui t
urmustbepl eaded,butt hatf acts
from whi ch iti si ntended t hatt hepr esumpt ion
shoul dbedr awnmustbe.Theact ualwor dsof
Ha/ sbur yar e:'Thepl ainti
ffcannotr elyuponan
i
nf erenceofnegl igenceunl esshehasal legedi n
thepl eadi ngsandpr ov edatt hetri
althef act sfrom
whi cht hei nferencei st obedr awn. 'Sot hatt he
appear ance oft he i ncantatory wor ds r es i psa
/oqui furi nt hepl eadings,Oft hepl aintiffsay ing
thereint hathei ntendst orelyont hemer eacci dent
as pr oof of t he negl igence,i s not t he onl y
foundat ionf ort hei nvocat i
onoft hedoct r
ine( the
emphasi sismi ne) .'

"I
tseems t o me wi threspectthough t
hatt he
appearanceoft hemer ephraseresi
psaloqui
turis
by it
self,inf act,no foundati
on atallfort he
i
nvocation oft he doct
ri
ne.I n my v
iew t
he true
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
foundati
onf ort
hei
nvocat
ionoft
hedoct
ri
nei
sas
clear
lystat
ed
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
nt he above passage.I ti s merelypleadi ng and
nothingelse,only't
hefact sfr
om whi chitisintended
that t he pr esumpt i
on shoul d be dr awn.
'
Unfortunatel
ypr obabl
yt hecaut i
ouswayi nwhi chit
wasexpr essedhasi nadv ert
ently
,Ibel ieve,l edan
academi c wr i
ter to mi sconceivet he true r at
io
decidendiand t o suggesti nt he usualv ein of
academi cwr i
tersbutv erywr onglyinmyv i
ew,t hat
the decision oft he f ul
lbench i n applying t he
pri
ncipletothecasei shar dtojusti
fy.
"

Asaf
ovCat
hol
i
cHospi
tal
ofApam [
197311GLR282
Fact s:Thepl aintif
f'sdaught erofsi xweeksol dwasadmi tt
ed
tot hedef endant '
shospi talataspeci alwar df orchi l
dren.
Althought hemot herwasal l
owedt osl eepint hehospi talin
ordert obr east f
eedher ,sheonlyhadaccesst ot hedaught er
ont hei nvit
ationoft hehospi talaut hori
ti
es.Thechi l
dl ater
disappear ed and nobody coul dt el
lherwher eabout.The
plainti
ffsued.Thedef endantsof f
erednoexpl anationfort he
disappear anceoft hechi ld.
Hel d:Sincet hedef endantcoul dnotgi veev i
dencet oshow
thatt hedi sappear anceoft hechildwasconsi stentwi thdue
careanddi li
gence,t hepl ai
ntif
fwasent i
tl
edt or elyont he
doct ri
neofr esi psal oquiturandt hedef endantwasl i
ablei n
theabsenceofexpl anation.
Principle:Wher eanev entoccur r
edsuchaswoul dnoti nt he
ordinarycour seoft hingshav eoccur redwi t
houtnegl igence,
thedoct ri
neofr esi psal oquit
urappl i
es.

PerEdwar d Wi redu J atpp.285 and 286:" The

quest i
on now i s do t he presentf actsj ustif
yt he
plainti
ff'
sr el
ianceont heprincipl
eofr esipsal oquit
ur
i
nest abli
shinghi sclaim agai nstthedefendant s?On
thisissueIunder standt heplaint
if
f'scontentiontobe
thatsi ncet hecust odyandcont r
oloft hechi ldwas
witht hedef endantsatt hemat erialti
mewhenshe
wasf oundt obemi ssingonl ytheempl oyeesoft he
defendanthospi talwhower ewi tht hechi l
datt he
specialwar d coul dt ellaboutt he circumst ances
underwhi cht hechi l
ddi sappearedf rom hercotata

269.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ti
mewhenshewassupposedt obesl eepinginit.The
circumst ances underwhi ch t he child gotmi ssi
ng
accor di
ngt ot hepl aintif
f'scounselwer eamat ter
withint heexcl usi
veknowl edgeoft hedef endant s'
staf fondut yatt her elevantt ime.Lear nedcounsel
fort he defendant st ook issue wi tht he pl ai
ntiff'
s
reli
ance on t he principle ofr es i
psa loqui t
urand
submi tt
edt hati nt heabsenceofanyev idencet o
show t hat t he admi nist
r ati
v e set up of t he
def endants'hospi t
alwas f ound want i
ng i nt hei r
secur ity sy stem compar ed wi t
h what exi sts
elsewher ei n ot herhospi t
al st he plai
ntif
f'
s act i
on
shoul dbedi smi ssed.

"Itist ri
tel aw t hatwher eanev entoccur ssuchas
woul d noti nt he or dinar y cour se oft hings hav e
occur redwi thoutnegl igencet hen, condi tionsexi stfor
the appl i
cat ion ofr es i psa / oqui tur.Among t he
i
nst ancesofsuchoccur rencei st het heftofgoods
from abai l
ee'swar ehouse:seeBr ooksWhar fand
Bui/Whar fLt d.vGoodmanBr other s[1937]1K. B.534
atpp.539- 540,C. A.Thef actsoft hiscasecanbe
l
ikenedt oacaseofbai lment .Theonl ydi ff
er encei s
thatachi l
dcannotst rictl
ybedescr i
bedasachat tel
whichcanbebai l
ed,butt hepr inci pleIam t ryingt o
draw i st hesame.I nmat tersofcar e,at tent i
onand
cont rolofmov ement sachi l
dofsi xweeksol di sno
diff
er entf rom ani nani mat eobj ectwhi chi si ncapabl e
ofi ndependentmov ementbutdepends f orsuch
suppor t on whoev er hav e i ts cust ody . Wher e
theref ore t he chi ld get s mi ssing whi l
st under
someone' scust odycondi tionsexi stwhi chr equi rean
explanat ionf rom whoev erhadi tscust ody ,andon
this scor e Iam oft he v iew t hatt he pl ai
nt i
ff'
s
cont ent iont hatt hef act soft hepr esentcasecal lfor
anexpl anat ionf r
om t hedef endanti st her ightv i
ew
andt hatt her eliancehepl acesonr esi psal oqni t
urto
establ ishhi scl aimi sjust ifi
able.I nmyj udgmentIf ind
resipsal oqni turappl icablet othef actsoft hepr esent
case,andi nt heabsenceofanyev idencef rom t he

270.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

defencet o show how t hechild di

sappeared orto
showt hatthedisappearancewasconsistentwithdue
dil
igenceont heirpartort hattherewasnol ackof
reasonablecareont hepar tofthehospitalstaf
fin
theircust
odyoft hechild,Iholdthedefenceli
ableto
theplaint
if
findamages. "

Br
ownvSal
tpondCer
ami
cs[
1979]GLR409
Facts:Thepl ainti
ff'
sf iv
e-year -
oldsonwasknockeddownand
kil
l
edbyt hedef endant '
sdr iveronamaj orroadwhi chcrossed
amar ketpl aceandwhi chwasal way scr owded.Thepl aint
if
f
all
egedt hatt heaccidentoccur r
edduet oexcessivespeedat
whicht hedef endant'sdr i
v erwasgoi ng.Hewashowev ernot
aney e-witnesst otheacci dentandatt hetri
alfail
edt oprove
thespeedatwhi cht hecarwast ravel
li
ngort hedistancethe
chil
dwast hrownaf tertheacci dent.Thet ri
aljudgeheldforthe
defendantandonappeal ,hear guedt hatthej udgef ai
ledto
applythedoct ri
neofr esipsa
l
oqui
tur
.

Held:Sincethefact
spleadedandt heev i
denceleddi
dnotshow
anyev i
denceofnegli
gence,thedoct r
inewasnotappli
cabl
e.
Pri
nciple:Forthedoctri
net o apply,thefact
smustpoi ntt
oa
Pri
maf acienegl
i
genceont hepar tofthedef
endant.

PerAnnanJA atpp.414— 416:" I

nt hepresent
caset hereisveryli
tt
leevidenceast ot hepar
ticul
ar
situati
oncr eat
edbyt hepresenceoft hechi
ldand
whi chshoul dhaveputt hedr i
v erspecial
lyonhi s
guar d and obl i
ged hi m t o t ake some such
precaut i
onassoundi ng thehor n,slowing down,
swer vingorev enst oppi
ngal together.Allt
hati s
knowni sthatthechi l
dwasknockeddownont he
highwaybyt hevehicleinchargeoft heserv
antof
ther espondents.

"Hardcases,i
tissaid,makebadl aw.It
hinkt hi
sis
ahardcasebutf atherthanextendtheapplicat
ion
ofthemaxi mr esi
psal oquit
urtosuchacaseas
thi
s,Iwoul d,Ithink,be justi
fi
ed i
nleaving the
damageint hi
scasewher ei
tfell
.

271.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"Recov er y of damages i n cases ar ising f rom

per sonali njuryont hehi ghwayi sst i
llf i
rml ybased
on pr oofofbehav iourr egar ded asunr easonabl e
andt her ef oreput t i
ngt hedef endantatf aul t.The
maxi m r es i psa l oqui tur nei ther di spl aces t his
bur denofpr oofnorl ight ensi t.I tmer ely[ p.415]
alterst hemet hodofdi schar gi ngi t.Thebasi sof
successbyapl aint i
ffi sst i
llnegl igenceandt his
mustbe est abl ished ei therexpr essl y,by di rect
ev i
dence of f act s on omi ssi ons bef ore t he
happeni ng oft heacci dent ,orci rcumst ant iallyby
wayofr easonabl ei nfer ence f rom t he par ti
cul ar
fact soft heacci denti tsel f,pr ov i
dedsuchf actsi n
themsel vesper mi tt hei nf erenceofnegl igencet obe
drawn.I ti snotenoughf ort her est ospeak.I tmust
speakwi tht he v oi ce ofnegl igence.It hi nki ti s
i
mpor tantf orar eal isticappl icat ionoft hemaxi m of
resi psal oqui t
uri ncasesofacci dent st hati tbesai d
thati tisnotpr oofofanyacci dentont hehi ghway ,
be i ta case ofcol l
ision orr unni ng down,t hat
per mitst hei nf erenceofnegl igencet obedr awn:
'
Accor di
ngt oourunder standi ngoft hedoct r
ine[ of
resi psal oqui tudi tappl i
eswhenev eri tcanbesai d
atagi venpoi ntofat rialt hatr esorci rcumst ances
prov edbyt hepl aint iffar eoft hemsel v essuf fi
cient
ev i
dencef rom whi chnegl igencemayr easonabl ybe
i
nf erred.Andt hef i
r stdeci sivepoi ntoft het rial i
st he
closeoft hepl aint iff'
scase.Fori ft hedoct rinecan
thenbei nv okedbyhi m, hei senabl edt oav oidanon
-suitorhi sact i
onbei ngdi smi ssedont hegr ound
thathehadnotdi schar gedt heonuswhi chl ayon
him;seet hei ll
umi natingj udgmentofEv attJ.i n
Dav isvBunn( (1936)56C. L.R.246) .Inef fectwhat
thisboi l
sdownt oi st hati nev er ycaseofnegl igence
i
ti sf ort hepl aint ifft opl eadandpr ovef act sf rom
whi ch t he negl i
gence oft he def endantmay be
i
nf erredbyt hecour t.Gener ally,pr oofoft heactor
omi ssionwhi choccasi onsdamagei snotbyi tself
suf fi
cientev idence f rom whi ch t he i nf erence of
negl i
gencecanbedr awn...Butt her ear ecases

272.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wher et he proofoft he acti t

self
,l etussayan
accident,i s suffici
entt or aise the i nference of
negligence because act s oromi ssions of t hat
naturedonoti nt heor di
narycour seoft hingsoccur
withoutt henegligenceoft heper sonr esponsi bl
ef or
i
tshappeni ng.Thesear ethecaseswher eitissai d
thatt her esspeaksf ori t
self.Wher et hepr oofi s
givenbyt hepl ai
nt i
ffofsuchanacci dentbyi tself
andnomor e,thecour tisentit
ledtoinf ernegligence
(perAmi ssah J. A.in Nel son vK/ utse,Cour tof
Appeal( fullbench) ,8Sept ember1969,unr eported;
digestedi n(1969)C.C.142( theemphasi sismine) .
'

"Wher e an i nference i sa r easonabl e deduct ion

from theev idencei tmaybesuf f
icientt odi schar ge
thebur denofpr oofbutt her ecanbenoi nfer ence
unlesst herear eobj ecti
vef actsf r
om whi cht he
factsoughtt obepr ovedmaybeest ablishedand
wher etherear enosuch' posi t
ivepr ovedf act s'
,the
met hod ofi nferencef ai
lsand whatr emai nsi s
mer e specul ation orconj ecture:see Ny ame v
TarzanTr anspor t[1973]1G. L.R.8atp.15, C.A.In
myv i
ew, ont hef actsofthisappeal ,theonl ybasi s
onwhi cht hemaxi m woul dappl yist his,thati nthe
ordinary cour se ofexper i
ence a mot orv ehi cl
e
doesnotknockdownapedest ri
anont hehi ghway
wi t
houtanynegl i
genceont hepar toft heper soni n
cont r
oloft hev ehicleandsot hemer eoccur rence
oft hatkindofacci dentmakesi tmor epr obabl e
thannott hati twascausedbyt henegl i
genceof
theper soni n[ p.416]cont roloft hemot orv ehicle.
Thati saconcl usi onIdonotf eelabl et ocomet o
andIam notper suadedt hataut hor i
tycompel sme
todoot herwi se.Accor dingly,Iwoul duphol dt he
ruli
ngoft het rialj udgeinwhi chhehel dt hatt he
appellanthadnotmadeouthi scase. "

BarkwayvSouthWalesTranspor
t[195011AllER392
Facts:Theplai
nti
ff
'shusband wasa passengeron the
defendant
'somni
buswhent heoffsi
defrontt
yreoft
hebus

273.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

bur standt hebusv eeredoffacr osstheroadandf el

l,
kill
i
ng
thepl ai
nt i
ff'
shusband.Thecauseoft heaccidentwassai d
tobeani mpactfractureduetoheav yblowsont heout si
de
oft hety r
ewhi chledt othedisintegrat
ionofitsinnerparts.
Thepl ainti
ffsoughtt or el
yont hedoct ri
neofr esipsa
loquitur.
Hel d:Sincet hecauseoft heacci dentwassuf fi
cientl
yknown
thedoct rinedidnotappl y
.
Principl
e:Wher et he fact
s ar e suffi
cient
ly known,t he
quest i
onceasest obeonet hatspeaksf orit
sel fandt he
doct r
inedoesnotappl y.

PerLor dPor teratpp.394and395: "Thedoct ri

nei s
dependenton t he absence ofexpl anat ion,and,
althoughi tist hedut yoft hedef endant s,ift hey
desi r
et opr ot ectt hemsel ves,togi veanadequat e
explanat ionoft hecauseoft heacci dent ,y et,i
ft he
factsar esuf ficient l
yknown,t hequest ionceases
tobeonewher et hef act sspeakf ort hemsel v es,
and t hesol ution i st o bef ound bydet ermi ning
whet her,ont hef actsasest ablished,negl igencei s
to be i nf erred ornot .I nt he pr esentcase,t he
evidencegi venandaccept edbySel lersJwast hat
theomni busl ef tPembur ywor ksat6. 15andt he
accidentoccur rednotl atert han6. 30.Thedi stance
cov eredbet weent hest artf rom thewor ksandt he
placeoft heacci dentwasf iv
emi l
es, 220y ards, but
thef irst13/ 8mi leswasal ongapr ivate,nar row
anddanger ousr oadandt her emai ni ng33/ 4mi les
along ar oad whi ch wassomewhatnar row and
windi ng and i n poorcondi t i
on.Ov ert he ear lier
por t
iont hepr escr ibedandsaf el i
mi twast enmi les
anhour .Ov ert hesecondpor t
iont hel imi tdur ing
blackouthour si nwar timewast went ymi l
esan
hour .Buckni l
lLJpoi ntsouti nt hecour seofhi s
j
udgmentt hat ,ift hedr iverpr oceededatt hepr oper
speedoft enmi lesanhourov ert hepr ivater oad,
hisav er
agespeedov ert hepubl i
cr oadmusthav e
been some t hir ty
-two mi l
es an hour . Thi s
calculationwasaccept edbyt her espondent si n

274.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

yourLor dships'House,butitdoesnotconcludet he
matterordet er
mine the speed att he moment
when t he acci dent took pl ace.There was a
considerablebodyofev i
denceatt hetri
altot he
eff
ectt hattheomni buswasdr i
venatav er
yf ast
speedi nt heconditi
onsobt aining,andeventhatit
i
ncreased

275.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

speedj ustbef oret heacci dent .Ont heot herhand,manyof

thewi tnesseswhogav et hi sev i
dencehadpr eviousl ymade
statement st ot hepol i
cet hatt hev ehicl ewasbei ngdr ivenata
moder at espeed.Thedr iverhi msel fasser tedt hathewas
goingnomor et hanf ift
een- twent ymi lesanhouratt hev i
tal
moment ,butSel l
er sJhasnotaccept edt hisest i
mat eandhas
putt hespeedataboutt went y-fiv e—t went y-sixmi lesanhour .
Theexactspeedmust ,ofcour se,benomor et hanar ough
estimat e,buti nt he ci r
cumst ances Isee no r eason f or
depar tingf rom t heopi nionexpr essedbySel lersJ.I tappear s
thatshor tlybef oret heacci dentt her oadr isessl ightlyuphi ll
,
and, thought heev idencei snotposi tive, therei sasuggest i
on
thatgearwast henchangeddown, anev entwhi chwoul dlead
passenger st osuppose, fr
om t hei ncr easedr ev olut i
onsoft he
engi ne,t hat t he speed had i ncr eased.Mor eov er,i tis
exceedi ngl ydi fficult,ev enf oranexper t,toest i
mat espeedi n
thedar k,andi nt hepar ti
cul arcasei tisdoubt fulift hespeed
coul dev erhav eexceededt hirtymi lesanhourast heengi ne
was f i
tt ed wi th a gov ernorpr ev ent i
ng i tf rom pr oceedi ng
fastert hant hatpace.I fIwer el eftt omy self,Ishoul dbe
i
ncl i
ned t o say t hatt he dr ivermusthav e exceeded t he
prescr ibedspeedov eral lpor tionsoft hecour se, i
ncl udingt he
fi
rstpor tion,and,asr egar dst hef irstpor t
ion,t hati nef fectis
ther esul tofhi sev idence.I ft hepr escr i
bedr at eoft enmi l
es
anhourwasexceededont hatpor ti
onso t hati tr eached
fi
fteenort went ymi lesanhouri nst eadoft enmi lesanhour ,
thespeedont hel aterpor t
ionneednothav ebeenmuch
great ert hant went ymi lesanhour .Int his,ther efor e,asi nall
mat ter swher eSel l
er sJsaw t hewi tnessesandf ormedhi s
i
mpr essi onf rom t heev idencegi v en, Isuggestt hati twoul dbe
unsaf ef ory ourLor dshi pst odepar tf rom t heconcl usionat
whi chhear rived.Ihav edeal tal ittl
eatl engt h,and shal l
hereaf terhav et odealwi t
h,t hequest ionofspeedbecausei t
wasoneoft hef or emostcont ent ionsr elieduponi nsuppor tof
the appel lant's case.Butf ort he speed,i twas sai d,t he
acci dentwoul dnothav ehappened,t het yrewoul dnothav e
burst , andt heomni buswoul dhav ekeptt her oad. "

PerLordNor mandatpp.399and400:" Thefactt hatan

omnibus leav
es the r
oadway and so causes i
njur
yt oa
passengerort o someone on the pav
ementi s evidence
rel
evanttoinf
erthatt
heinj
urywascausedbyt henegligence
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
oft
heowner,sothat,
ifnot
hingmor
ewer
epr
oved,
itwoul
dbe
asuff
ici
entf
oundati
on

.
270
foraf indingofl iabili
tyagainsthi m.I tcanr arelyhappenwhen
ar oadacci dentoccur st hattherei snoot herev idence,and,i f
thecauseoft heacci denti spr ov ed,t hemaxi m r esi psa
l
oqui turisofl it
tlemoment .Thequest iont hencomest obe
whet hert heownerhasper f
or medt hedut yofcar ei ncumbent
on hi m,orwhet herhe i s by r eason ofhi s negl igence
responsi blef ort
hei njury.Themaxi mi snomor et hanar uleof
evidenceaf fecti
ngonus.I ti
sbasedoncommonsense, andits
purposei stoenabl ejusti
cet obedonewhent hef act sbearing
oncausat ionandont hecar eexer cisedbyt hedef endantar e
att heout setunknownt othepl aintiffandar eoroughtt obe
withint heknowl edgeoft hedef endant .Itisnotnecessar yin
thepr esentcaset oconsi dert heint ermedi ateposi tion,when
therei s some ev idence bear ing on t he causat i
on oft he
accidentandont hecar eexer cisedbyt hedef endant ,butthe
causeoft heacci denthasnotbeenpr ov ed,ort odi scusswhat
evidencei nsuchacasemaysuf fi
cet odi schar get heonus. "

PerLor dRadcl iffeatpp.403and404:" Idonott hi nkt hatt he

appel lantwasent i
tledt oj udgmenti nt heact ionbecauseofany
speci alv i
rtueint hemaxi mr esipsal oqui t
ur.If indnot hi ngmor ei n
thatmax i
mt hanar uleofev idence,ofwhi cht heessencei st hatan
ev entwhi chi ntheor di narycour seoft hingsi smor elikelyt hannott o
hav ebeencausedbynegl i
gencei sbyi tselfevidenceofnegl igence.
Int hisact ion much mor ei sknown t han thebar ef actt hatt he
omni busmount edt hepav ementandf elldownt he bank.Thet r ue
quest ioni snotwhet hert heappel lantadducedsomeev i
denceof
negl igence,butwhet heronal ltheev idenceshepr ov edt hatt he
respondent shadbeengui ltyofnegl igencei nar el evantpar ti
cul ar.In
myv iew,t hei mpor tantt hingi st hatt het yreont her espondent s'
omni buswasdef ect i
v e.Itwas,i ndeed,t heircaset hatt hebur stof
thei nnert ubewascausedbyt hef aul tycondi ti
onoft hest r
uct ureof
thet y re,andt hatt hatf aultycondi tionhadar i
senf rom ani mpact
fract ur esuf fer
edatsomeunascer tainabl et i
mebef oret heacci dent .
Now,acar rier'
sobligat iont ohi spassenger ,whet heritbeexpr essed
i
ncont ractOfi nt or t,ist opr ovi
deacar r
iaget hati sasf reef r
om
def ect sast heexer ciseofal lreasonabl ecar ecanmakei t.Thiscar e
the r espondent sclai mt ohav etaken,andt hemaj ority
,i fnotal l
,of
themember soft heCour tofAppealuphel dt heirclaim.I nmy v i
ew,
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
t
her
espondent
sfai
l
edt
oest
abl
i
sht
hatt
heyhadobser
ved

271"

anadequatest
andardofcar
e,anditi
sfort
hatreasont
hatI
thi
nkt
hattheappel
lanti
sent
it
ledt
oherdamages.
"

ByrnevBoadle[1861-731Al lERRepExt1528; (1863)159ER299

Facts:The plaint
iffwas passi ng al ong a publi
cr oad byt he
defendant
'swarehousewhenabar reloff l
ourbeingloweredi nto
thewarehousefellonhi
m andi njuredhi m.
Held:Thefactoftheaccidental oner aisedaprimaf aci
eevidence
ofnegli
genceont hepartofthedef endantandt hedoctri
newoul d
apply.
Pri
ncipl
e:Wher ethecauseoft heacci dentiswithintheexclusive
knowledgeoft hedefendant,t hedoct ri
neappliesandput st he
onusofproofonhi m.

PerPol l
ockBatp.1529:" Supposeamant obewal king
underawar ehouse,aswast hecaseher e,andabar rel
wast or olloutandf alluponhi m, thebar relcomi ngf rom a
heightabov e,how coul d he possi bl yt ellby whose
negligencei twasdone?I twaspr ovedi nev idence,i nt his
case,t hattheent i
rewar ehouseandpr emi seswer ei nt he
defendant '
soccupat i
on,usedbyhi mf ort hecar r
y i
ngon
histrade,andt hatt hebar relwhi chf ellout ,orwasbei ng
l
ower ed,camef rom t hewar ehouseoft hedef endantand
causedt hei njur ytot hepl aintiff.Thatwoul dbeofi tsel f
Pimaf acieev i
denceofnegl igencebyt hedef endant ,or
thosef orwhoseact shewasr esponsi ble.Thepl aintiffis
nott obeobl igedt ogoaboutandi nqui r
et hecauseof
suchanacci dent —whower ei nt hewar ehouseabov ehi m,
andt heirbusi nesst her e;howi twasdone, andsuchl i
ke: it
i
ssi mi l
artot hatofamanwhohast ogot hr oughapubl i
c
passagewher eabui l
dingisbei nger ect ed, andani nj
ur yis
causedt ohi m bysomeoft hemat erialsf all
i
ngonhi m
whilstpassi ng.Thi swoul dbePr i
maf aci eev i
denceof
negligenceagai nstt hebui lder;her et heev idencebef ore
thecour twas, t hatthepl aintiffandhi swi f
ewer epassi ng
alongt heScot landRoad, inLi verpool ,andwhent heywer e
doseagai nstt hedef endant 'swar ehouse,t hewhol eof
whichwasi nhi soccupat i
on, usedbyhi m asaf l
ourdeal er,
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
therecamedownsuddenl yupont hemanabar relofflour
,
andt hust heaccidentoccurredtothepl
aint
if
fofwhi chhe
compl ained.Thisisoneoft hosecasesinwhich,Ithink,a
presumpt ionofnegl i
gencebydef endantisrai
sed,andi t
wasf orhi m,whohadal lt hemeansofev i
denceand
knowl edgewi thi
nhi sreach,t omeeti t
.Ithav i
ngbeen
shownt hatthedefendant

•
272
had the enti
re possessi
on and excl
usive use oft hi
s
warehouse,i
twoul dbepresumedthattheaccidentarose
from hi
swantofcar e,unlesshegavesomeex planat
ion
ofthecausebywhi chitwasproduced,whichexplanat
ion
theplai
nti
ffcoul
dnotbeexpect edtogive,nothavingthe
samemeansofknowl edge."

War dvTesco[ 1976]1Al lER219

Fact s:Thepl ainti
ffslippedonsomey oghurtwhichhadbeenspilt
ont hef looroft hedef endant'sshopwhi l
ehewasshoppi ngthere.
Hesust ainedinjur
iesandsued.
Held:Si ncet heacci dentisnotonet hatwoul dhavehappenedhad
thef loorbeenkeptcl ean,theonusl ayont hedefendant
st oshow
thatt heacci dentwasnotduet oanynegl ectoftheirdutyand
hav i
ngf ailedinthis,theplainti
ffmustsucceed.
Principle:Wher et heacci dentisnotonet hatwould ordi
nari
ly
occuri nt heabsenceofnegl igence,
thedoct r
ineappl
ies.

PerLawt onLJatp.222:" Inthi

scaset hef l
ooroft hi
s
super mar ket was under t he management of t he
defendant sandt hei
rser vant s.Theacci dentwassuchas
i
nt heor dinar ycour seoft hi ngsdoesnothappeni ffl
oors
arekeptcl eanandspi l
lagesar edeal twi t
hassoonas
theyoccur .I fanacci dentdoeshappenbecauset hef l
oors
arecov er ed wi th spill
age,t hen in myj udgmentsome
explanat ionshoul dbef ort hcomingf r
om t hedef endants
toshowt hatt heacci dentdi dnotar i
sef r
om anywantof
careont hei rpart;andi nt heabsenceofanyexpl anat i
on
thejudgemaygi vejudgmentf ortheplainti
ff.Suchbur den
ofpr oofast herei sondef endantsi nsuchci r
cumst ances
i
sev ident ial,notpr obat i
ve.Thet r
ialjudget houghtt hat
pri
maf aciet hisaccidentwoul dnothav ehappenedhad
thedef endant stakenr easonabl ecar e.Inmyj udgmenthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
wasjusti
fi
edintaki
ngt hatv
iewbecausetheprobabi
l
iti
es
wer
et hatthespi
ll
agehadbeenont hefloorl
ongenough
f
orittohavebeencleanedupbyamemberoft hestaff
."

PerMegawLJatp.224:" I
tisfort
heplai
ntif
ftoshowt hat
therehasoccur redanev entwhichi
sunusualandwhi ch,in
the absenceofexpl anati
on,i
smor econsist
entwi thfault
ont hepartofthedef endantst
hantheabsenceoff ault
;and
tomymi ndthel ear
nedjudgewaswhollyfi
ghtint aki
ngt hat
view ofthepr esenceoft hi
ssli
pperyl
iqui
dont hefloorof
thesupermar ket

273•
•

i
nt he ci r
cumst ances oft his case:t hati st hatt he
def endant skneworshoul dhav eknownt hati twasanot
uncommonoccur rence;andt hati fitshoul dhappen,and
shoul dnotbepr ompt l
yat t
endedt o,itcr eat edaser ious
ri
skt hatcust omer swoul df al land i nj ur et hemsel v es.
Whent hepl ai ntiffhasest ablishedt hat ,t hedef endant s
canst il
lescapef rom liabi
li
ty .Theycoul descapef rom
l
iabi l
ityi ft heycoul dshow t hatt heacci dentmusthav e
happened,orev enonbal anceofpr obabi lit
ywoul dhav e
been l ikel
yt o hav e happened,i rrespect i
v e of t he
exist enceofapr operandadequat esy stem,i nr elationt o
theci r
cumst ances, toprov i
def ort hesaf etyofcust omer s.
But ,ift hedef endant swi shtoputf orwar dsuchacase,i t
i
sf ort hem t oshowt hat,onbal anceofpr obabi lit
y ,either
byev idenceorbyi nferencef rom t heev i
dencet hati s
givenori snotgi v en,thisacci dentwoul dhav ebeenat
l
eastequal lyl ikelyt ohav ehappeneddespi teapr oper
syst em desi gned t o give r easonabl e pr ot ect i
on t o
cust omer s.That ,int hiscase,t heywhol lyf ail
edt odo.
Real lyt he essence of counself or t he def endant s'
argument —and hedi d notshr inkf rom i t
—was:' Nev er
mi nd whet herwe had no sy stem atal l:st i
ll,as t he
plaint i
ffhasf ai l
edt oshow t hatt hey oghour twasspi l
t
withi naf ewsecondsbef oret heacci dent ,shemustf ail.
'
AsIhav esai d, i
nt heci r
cumst ancesoft hiscase, Idonot
thinkt hatt hepl aintiff
,tosucceed,hadt opr ov ehowl ong
i
twassi ncet hedef endants'floorhadbecomesl i
pper y."
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Par
kervMi
l
ler(
1926)42TLR408
Facts:Thedef endantl
ethisf r
ienddr iv
ehi scart ot hel at
ter
's
houseandpar keditonav eryst eepgr adi
ent.Afterabout30
minutes,thecarrandownt hehillandcr ashedintothepl ai
nti
ff
's
house.
Held:Thef actsoft hecarrunningdownt hehi l
lwheni twas
unattended to and it
s crashi
ng t he plai
nti
ff'
s house wer e,
themselves,evi
denceofnegli
genceandt husthedef endantwas
l
iableintheabsenceofexpl
anati
on.

ThomasvCur ley(2013)131BMLR111
Facts:The def endantperformed a surgeryon t he pl
aint
if
ft o
remov east oneinhi sgal
lbladder
.Afterthesur gery
,theplai
ntif
f
suff
eredinjurytohisbil
eductresul
ti
nginabi leleak.
Held:Thedoct ri
neofr esipsaloqui
turwoul dnotappl ybutsince
theplaint
if
fhadbeenabl etoestabli
shthatinj
ur yhadbeencaused
toapar tofhisbodyot herthanwherethesur gerywasperformed,
hewasent itl
edt ojudgment.

"
274
Pr
inci
ple:Wher
ethecauseoft
heacci
denti
sknownt
hedoct
ri
ne
doesnotappl
y.

PerLl oy dJonesLJatp.114,par s.10and11:[ 10]" The

appel l
ant cont ends t hat t he j udge er red i nl aw i n
det erminingt hei ssueofbr eachofdut yi nrelati
ont ot he
conductoft hel aparoscopi csur ger ybyt heappl icat i
onof
resi psal oquit ur .Thet ermr esi psal oquiturdescr ibesa
sit
uat ioni nwhi chi ti spossi bl ef ort hecour ttodr aw an
i
nf erenceofnegl i
gencewher eacl aimanthaspr ov eda
resultwi thoutpr ov i
nganyspeci fi
cactoromi ssionont he
par tofthedef endantwhi chhaspr oducedt heresult.I fiti
s
prov edont hebal anceofpr obabi l
itiest hatther esultcoul d
nothav e happened wi thoutnegl i
gence and t hatt he
sit
uat ionwasundert hecont r
oloft hedef endant ,theni tis
opent othecour ttoconcl udet hati ti smor elikelythannot
thatt her esultwascausedbynegl i
gence.Howev er,itis
notappr opriatet odr aw suchani nf erencewher et her eis
evidenceast owhyorhow t her esul toccurred( Scot tv
LondonandstKat herineDocksCo( 1865)3H &C596,
[1861- 73]Al lER Rep246) .Resi psal oquiturhasbeen
appl i
ed i nt he pasti n medi calnegl i
gence cases ( eg
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
CassidyvMi nisterofHeal t
h[ 1951]1Al lER574,[ 1951]2
KB 343).Howev er,ithasmor er ecent l
ybeen doubt ed
whetheritisofmuchassi stanceinsuchcases.I nRat cl
iff
vPlymout handTor bayHealthAut hor i
ty[1998]Lloyd'sLR
Med162at177HobhouseLJobser ved:'Resipsaloquitur
i
snotapr inci
pleofl aw andi tdoesnotr elatetoorr ai
se
anypresumpt i
on.I tismerelyagui det ohelpidentif
ywhen
aprimaf aciecasei sbeingmadeout .Wher eexper tand
fact
ualev i
dencei sbeingcalledonbot hsi desatt ri
alits
useful
nesswi l
l normallyhavebeenl ongsi nceexhausted.'

[11]"Theappel l
antsubmi tsthattherespondent '
scaseat
tri
alwasf oundedent i
relyonr esi psal oquit
ur,thatthe
j
udgewasi ner rori
nf ail
ingtor ecogniset hatandt hat
,
becauset her espondent'
scasemani festl
yf ai
ledtomeet
therequir
ement sofresipsaloquit
ur,thejudgewaswr ong
toconcludet hattheinj
urysufferedbyt herespondentwas
causedbyt heappel l
ant'
snegligence."

Atpp.115and116,par
s.17and18:[
17]"
Tomymi nditdoes
appeart
hatt
hemoreextremebasi
sonwhichPr
ofessorParks
rest
ed

275"
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana

his opi
nion did seek to draw a necessar yinfer
ence of
negli
gencef r
om themer ef actofinjuryandmi ghttheref
ore
beconsi der
edanappl icat
ionofr esi psaloquit
nr.Howev er
,
thatwasnott heonlywayinwhi chthecasewasputonbehal f
ofther espondent
.Iconsidert hatthej udgewascor r
ectto
decli
net oapplyresi psa/ oquit
urandt oaddresswhet her
negli
gencehadbeenpr ovedi nthepar ti
cularci
rcumstances
ofthi
scase.

[18] " Howev er

, t he appellant submi t
s t hat,
notwit
hstanding thi
s disav
owal by t he j
udge, t
he
respondent'
s case was essent
ial
ly one ofres i
psa
l
oquiturandthejudgeerr
edinconcludi
ngthati
twasnot
...
."

And atp.120,par .33:" I

nt he circumstances Iam
sati
sf i
ed t hatt he j
udge' s approach t ot he i ssue of
negligencewasent ir
elyappropr i
ate.Ther espondenthad
establishedt hatint hi
scase,dur inganuncompl i
cated
operat i
on,i njurywascausedi nanar eaothert hant hat
wher et he oper ati
on took pl ace.Thatcal l
ed f oran
explanat ionast ohow t hatmi ghthav eoccur redi nthe
absenceofnegl i
gence.Nonewasf ort
hcomi ngf rom t he
defendant '
sexper torf r
om anyot herquar ter.Thati s
entir
elyconsi stentwi t
ht hejudge'sdi recti
ont ohi mself
thatheshoul dassesst hewei ghtoft heev i
denceand
decidewhet hernegligenceont hepar toftheappel l
ant
hadbeenpr ov ed.Thishasnot hingt odowi tht her eversalof
thebur den ofpr oofand not hing t o do withr esi psa
l
oqui tur.
"

Smi thvFor dyce[2013]EWCACi v320

Facts:Thepl aint
if
fwasi napassengeri nt hedef endant'scar
whent hedefendantl ostcontrolofthecarandcr ashedi ntoawal l
opposi tethesi deoft her oad.Thecauseoft helossofcont rol
wasf oundt o bet heski doft hecaront her oadduet ot he
presenceofbl ackiceont her oad.Thepl ai
ntif
fsoughtt orelyon
resipsal oqui
turthatcar sdonotor dinar
il
yskidoffther oad.
Held:Si ncethecauseoft heacci denthadbeenduet oal atent
defectwhi chthedef endanthadnor easonofknowi ng,hewasnot
l
iable.
Principle:Fort heprincipl
er esi psaloquit
urt oappl y,thef acts
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
mustshow thatt
heacci
dentcoul
dnothav
ehappenedwi
thout
negl
i
gence.

PerToul sonLJatpars.59— 63:[59]"MrBri

ghtfurther
submittedt hati
fadri
verl
osescontrolofav ehi
cle,the
doctri
neofr esipsal
oqui
turappl
i
es,andt hatitisnot
suff
ici
entf orsucha
77ae

per
sont
oshowmer
elyt
hatt
hecauseofl
ossofcont
rolwas
a
skid,becauseaski disi tsel
fa'neutralevent',consistent
equall
ywi th negligence ordue dil
igence.Accor dinglyt he
burdenremai nsont hedri
v eninsuchcircumstancest opr ove
thatheexer cisedduedi li
gence.Fort hosepr oposi
tionsMr
Brightrel
iedonBar kwayvSout hWal esTransportCoLt d
[1949]1KB54,[ 1948]2Al lER460,[1948]LJR1921( upheld
byt heHouseofLor dsat[1950]1Al lER392)andRi chie,v
Faull[
196513Al lER109,129JP498, [
1965]1WLR1454.
60] "
[ Iti
sundoubt
edl
ythecaset
hatski
dsmayOCCUfi
n
dif
ferentcircumstancesandfordiffer
entr easons.However
,
thejudgef oundthatinthepresentcaset heskidhappened
becauseoft hepresenceofblackicewhi chwasi nvi
sibl
eto
themot or
ist.Thatisnota' neutr
alev ent',butanunusual
andhi ddenhazard.

61] "
[ Thedoctrineexpressedinthemaxi mr esipsaloqui t
ur
i
sar uleofevidencebasedonf ai
rnessandcommonsense.
Itshouldnotbeappl i
edmechani stical
lybuti nawaywhi ch
refl
ectsit
sunder lyi
ngpur pose.Themaxi m encapsul ates
theprinci
plethatinor derforaCl aimantt oshow t hatan
eventwascausedbyt henegl i
genceoft heDef endant ,he
need notnecessar il
ybe abl et o show pr eci
selyhow i t
happened.Hemaybeabl etopoi nttoacombi nationof
factswhichar esuffi
cient,wit
houtmor e,togiv eriset oa
properinf
erencet hattheDef endantwasnegl igent.Acar
goingoffther oadisanobv i
ousexampl e.Adr iv
erowesa
dutytokeephi sv ehi
cleunderpr opercont rol
.Unexpl ained
fai
luretodosowi l
ljusti
fytheinferencet hatthei ncident
wast hedr i
ver'
sf aul
t.Int hewor dsoft heLat i
nt ag,t he
mat t
erspeaksf orit
self.I
nsuchci rcumst ancesthebur den
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
rest
sont heDef endanttoest abli
shfact sfrom whichi tis
nolongerpr operforthecour ttodr awt heinit
iali
nference.
To show mer elythatt he carskidded i s notsuf f
ici
ent,
becauseacarshoul dnotgoi ntoaski dwi t
houtagood
explanation.InBar kwayvSout hWalesTr ansportCoLt d
thecour ttookt hesamev i
ewaboutat y
r eburst.Aproperly
maintainedv ehicl
eoughtnott osuf ferat yr
ebur st
.I tis
ther
eforenotsur pri
singthatt hecour theldt hatinsuch
cir
cumst ances:

'
.
..
theDef
endantsmustgof
urt
herandprov
e( Ofi
tmustemer
ge
f
rom t
heevi
denceasawhol
e)ei
ther(
a)t
hatthe

277.
.
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

burstit
sel
fwasduet ospeci fi
ccausewhi chdoes
notconnotenegl
igenceont hei
rpartbutpoint
stoits
absenceasmor eprobable,or(b)i
ftheycanpointto
nosuchspecifi
ccause,thattheyusedallr
easonable
careinandaboutthemanagementoft hei
rtyr
es.'

62] "
[ Int
hepr
esentcaset
hei
nsur
erssat
isf
iedt
hej
udge
thatMrFordycewasnott rav
elli
ngatanexcessi
v espeed;
thathehadnor easontoantici
pat
eicyr oadconditi
ons;
andthatheski ddedonapat chofblackicewhi chwas
notvisi
bleandcouldnotreasonabl
yhav ebeenforeseen.

[63] "In myj udgmenthe was r ightt o concl ude t hat

thosef actswer esuf ficientt or ebutt hei nferencet hatt he
accidentwasMrFor dy ce' sf ault.I twast r
uet hatot her
driversusi ngt hatr oadont hatmor ning,i ncludingt he
two pol i
ce of ficer s who at tended t he scene,di d not
exper ienceanysi mi lardi ffi
cult yandt hatt herewasno
historyofpr i
oracci dent satt hatpr ecisespot .ButMr
Abbot t'
sev idencewascl eart hathehadf orsomet i
me
regar dedt her oadashazar dousandhadr epor tedhi s
concer nst ot hehi ghwayaut hor it
y .Althought hepol i
ce
agreedunderski l
fulcr ossexami nat i
ont hatacar eful
driverwascapabl eofnegot i
at i
ngt her oadsaf ely,itis
appar entf r om t hepol iceacci dentr ecor dt hatPCCar r
didnott hinkatt het imeoft heacci dentt hati twas
attr
ibut ablet ot hef aul toft hedr iver .Iam notper suaded
byt hear gumentt hatt heev i
denceoft hepol iceof fi
cer s,
coupl edwi tht heabsenceofot heracci dent s,oughtt o
havedr i
vent hej udget oconcl udet hatMrFor dy cewas
tobl ame.Tosayt hatacar efuldr i
v ermaybecapabl eof
drivi
ngonadanger ousr oadsur facewi thoutanacci dent
i
s one t hi
ng.To sayt hata per son who suf fers an
accidentbecauseoft hedanger ouscondi tionsoft he
roadwast heref oreaxi omat i
cal lycar elessi sanot her .It

•
286
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

doesnotfoll
owasamat terofl
ogicorhumanexper ience.
Ifther
eisinvisi
bleiceonapav ement,t
hef actthatonly
onepedestri
anamonganumberhadt hemi sfort
unet o
sli
p on i
twoul d notmean thatt he pedestri
an who
sli
ppedwast heref
oretoblame.
"

DawkinsvCar niv
alPlc(t/aP&OCr ui
ses)[20111EWCACi v
1237Facts:Theplai
nti
ff,
apassengeronacruiseshi
poper
ated
bythedef endant
s,sl
ippedandfellwhi
lewalkingthr
oughthe
conserv
atoryrest
aur
antofthe

•
287
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
ship.Hesust ainedi nj
uries.Thecauseoft heslippingwast hepr esence
ofsomel iquidont heflooroft herestaurant .Therewasnoev idenceas
tohowl ongthel iquidhadbeenont hefloor.
Held:Thepr esenceoft hel iqui
dont hef loorwasmor econsi stentwith
faultonthepar toft hedef endantsandt heonusl ayont hem todi sprove
thi
swhi chtheyf ail
ed.Theywer ethusliable.
Princi
ple:Wher et he cause oft he acci denti s consist
entwi tht he
presenceoff aultratherthant heabsenceoff ault
,thedoct r
ineappl ies.

PerPil
lLJatpars.26—29:[26]"Ont hefaceofi t
,thepresence
oftheli
quidwasmor econsist
entwi t
hfaultont hepartoft he
Respondent
sthanwi t
habsenceoff aul
tont heirpart
.Thear ea
wasunderthei
rclosecont
rol
andliquidwaspr esentonthef l
oor
.

[27]"Iacceptt hatiftheprobabil
ityisofsuchcont emporaneit
y
bet weent hespill
ageandt heaccidentt
hatremedialact
ioncould
notr easonablybet akenduringthegapbetweent hem,theclai
m
woul dfail.TheRecor derdi
dnotmakeaf i
ndingast oti
mebut ,i
f
theDef endantscoulddemonst ratesuchcont emporanei
ty,the
claim woul dfail
.

28]"
[ Theabsenceofev
idencef
rom oneormor eoft hemany
member sofst affclaimedt obepr esentint heConser vator
yat
themat eri
altimeisr emarkable.Theex pl
anat ionforthelackof
evidencef rom amemberormember sofst affwas, t
heRecor der
found,t hattheDef endants' coul
dnotest ablishwhoi twas'.In
myj udgment ,i
ntheabsenceofev idencef r
om member sofstaff
claimed t o bei mplementing thesy stem,t hej udgewasnot
entitledtoinferfr
om t heexistenceofasy stem thatthespi l
l
age
whi chledtot hefal
loccurredonl yaf ewseconds, orav eryshort
ti
me, befor
et heaccident.

29]"
[ Thecl
aim succeedsont heev i
denceinthiscase.Ther eis
nothi
ngt osuggestsuchcl osenessi ntimebetweent hespil
lage
andt heaccidentaswoul d,atapl acewher ecloseobser v
ation
wasr equi
red,excludeli
abil
it
y.Intheabsenceofev i
dencetot he
contr
ary,Icanconcl udeonlythatonabal anceofpr obabil
iti
es
thewat erhadbeent her
ef orlongert hanthev er
ybr i
efperiod
which,i nt his part
icul
ar place,woul d have excused t he
Defendantsfrom taki
ngremedial acti
onbeforetheaccident.
"
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
279•
•

ChandvDut
t[200714LRC1
Facts:Thepl ai
ntif
fwasempl oyedbyt hedefendanttobepar tofat eam
repairingpot holesonr oads.Theplai
ntif
fwast otendthef i
reforbur ning
thecoalt arindr ums.Duringonesucht endi
ng,thefi
ref l
aredupbur ning
hiscl othesandbody .Hesuedandr el
iedont heprincipl
eofr esi psa
l
oqui tur.Hel d:Sincetheflari
ngupoft hefir
ewasnotat hi
ngt hatcoul d
notr easonabl yhavehappenedwi ththeheat i
ngofcoal ,thedoct rinei s
notappl icable.
Principle:Thedoct r
ineappliesonlywher eint heor di
narycour seof
humanaf fairs,t
heaccidentwouldhav ebeenunl i
kel
ytooccurwi thouta
wantofcar eont hepartofthedefendant.

PerWar dP,ScottandWoodJJAatpp.7and8,par s.25—35:

[25]" Facedwithanabsenceofev i
denceast othecauseoft he
flare-up,theappell
antsoughtt orelyont hedoctrineofresipsa
l
oqui t
w.Undert hatdoctri
ne,wher etheacci dentinquest i
onis
sucht hatitwouldnothav ehappenedi nt heordinarycourseof
thingsi fthedefendanthadusedpr opercar e,t
hent hefactofi
ts
occur renceaffordsreasonableevidence,intheabsenceofany
ex planati
onbyt hedefendant,thatitarosef r
om awantofcar e:
Scot tvLondonandStKat her
ineDocksCo( 1865)3H&C596
andMummer yvIrvi
ngsPtyLtd( 1956)96CLR99.

[26]"Thedoct r
ineoper at
esnotasadi sti
nctsubst ant i
ver ul
eof
l
aw.Rat heri
ti nvolvesanapplicat
ionofani nf
erentialr easoni
ng
processincircumst anceswheretheplainti
ffretainst heonusof
provi
ngnegligence:Sche/ /
enbergvTunnelHol dings( 2000)200
CLR 121.I t
s ef fecti sto pass an evidenti
albur den t othe
defendanttopr ovideanexplanati
onf ortheacci dentt hatdoes
notinvol
veawantofcar eonitspart.

[27]"InBar
kwayvSout hWal esTransportCoLt d[1950]1AllER
392wher et
hedoctri
newassi mil
arlysai
dt obear ul
eofev i
dence,
i
twashel dthat,i
fthef act
sar esuf f
ici
entl
yknownast owhyor
howt heoccur
rencetookpl ace,t
hent hedoctrinedoesnotapply,
andthesoluti
onist obef ound,bydet erminingwhet her
,onthe
fact
sasestabli
shed,negli
genceist obeinfer
redornot .

28]"
[ InNgChunPui
vLeeChuenTat[
1988]132SJ124t
hePr
ivy
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Councilconf
ir
medt hatt
herul
eisoneofevi
denceal
one,anddoes
notcausethelegal
burdenofprooft
oshi
ftt
othedefendant
.

[29]"Wheret her e ar
e equall
y plausi
ble expl
anati
ons forthe
accident
,t hati s,explanat
ions which have some colourof
probabil
i
ty,thent heplai
nti
ffisbackt owherehest art
ed,andis
requir
edtoest abli
shhiscasebypositi
veevidence.

[30]"Inmostinst ances,i
twillbenecessaryforthedefendantto
callsome ev idence ofan expl anat
ion t
hathas a colourof
probabil
i
ty:see,forexampl e,Moor evRFox&Sons[ 1956]1All
ER 182 and Devine[ 1969]2 AllER 53.Itwillnot
normallysuffi
cef orthedef endanttoputupmer et heor
eti
cal
possibi
li
ti
es.

31]"
[ Howev
er,t
hatdependsf
ir
stupont
hecour
tbei
ngsat
isf
ied
that,intheor dinarycour seofhumanaf fai
rs,theaccidentwas
unli
kelyt o occurwi thouta wantofcar e on the partoft he
defendant.Unlesst hatpointismadegood,t hemerefactoft he
accidentisnotenought oraiseapresumpt i
vecaseofnegl i
gence:
Frankli
nvVi ctori
anRai lwaysComr s(1959)101CLR 197and
PieningvWan/ ess( 1968)117CLR498at508wher eBarwickCJ
said:'I
ftheoccur rencei stopr ov
ideevidence,itcanonlybethat,
withinthecommonknowl edgeandexper ienceofmanki nd,[
the]
occur r
enceisunl ikelytooccurwi thoutnegligenceonthepar tof
thepar t
ysued.'

[32]"Wearenotper suadedthatt hemer efactofthefir

ef l
aring
upi sanoccur rencewhi ch,wit
hint hecommonknowl edgeand
experi
ence ofmanki nd,is unli
kelyt o have occur
red without
negli
genceont hepartoft hedefendant.Iti
sinthenatur
eofaf i
re
toemi tfl
ame,andt obur nwithdifferentdegreesofintensity
,
dependingupont henat ur
eandv olumeoft hefuelwhichisadded
toit
,andthevigourwi thwhichthebur ni
nglogsaretur
ned.

[33]"Althoughnoev i
dencewascal l
edi nt hi
scaset oidenti
fythe
causef orit
sflar
ingup,noneoft hepossibili
ti
esment i
onedbyt he
plai
ntif
fsuchast hegustofwi ndorspil
lageofcoalt ar(assuming
i
tt ohav ebeencombust i
ble)hadanyev identi
arysupportforthei
r
occurrence.Therewer eotherpossibi
li
ti
esav ai
l
ablesuchast he
actionoftheplai
ntif
finpushingthelar
ge281•
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
pi
eceoft
imberi
ntot
hef
ir
e,orev
enst
andi
ngt
oocl
oset
oit
sfl
ames.

[34]"Whatthet ri
alj
udgehadl ef
twasthemerecir
cumst
ance
thatthefi
refl
ared,anevent
,whi
chaswehaveobser
vedwasnot
onewhi chcouldbef ai
rlysai
dt ohav
ebeenunli
kel
ytooccur
withoutnegl
i
gence.

[35]"Fort heser easonswear enotper suadedthaterroroccurr

ed.
Howev er
,si ncet hepoi ntwast akenbyt her espondentthatitis
notper missi bl
efort heappellanttoadv anceacasebasedonr es
i
psa l oquiturwi thoutpl eadi
ng i t
,we poi nttot he decisi
on in
Bennet tvChemi calConst r
uction( GB)Ltd[ 1971]3Al lER822
whichi stot hecont raryofthatcont enti
on.Thati ti
snott osay
thatitwoul dbeot herthandesi rabl
et oparti
cular
isesuchacase
i
nt heinterest sofclarit
y .
"

KumarvCommi ssionerofPoli
ce[2007]3LRC214
Facts:Fol l
owi ng an armed i nsur gence whi ch result
ed i n a gener al
breakdown ofl aw and or der ,the deceased,a pol i
ce of f
icer,whi l
e
exercisi
nghi sdut i
es,waskill
edbyanescapedpr isoner.Thepl aintif
f,t
he
spouseoft hedeceasedsuedandr el i
edont hepr i
ncipleofr esipsa
l
oqui t
ur.Shear guedt hattheescapeofapr i
sonerf r
om pr i
soni si nit
self
evidenceofnegl igenceont hepar toft hedef endant .
Held:Althought heescapeofapr isonerf rom prisonwasi tselfev i
dence
ofnegl i
gence,t hegener albreakdownofl aw andor derwasnoti nthe
normal causeoft hi
ngsandt hust hepr inciplewoul dnotappl y.
Princi
ple:Thepr i
ncipl
eappl i
eswher ei nthenor malcauseoft hingsthe
accidentwi l
lnothappenwi t
houtt henegl i
genceoft hedef endant .Where
thecircumst ancesoft heacci denti st hereforenoti nthenor malcause
ofthings,thedoct ri
nedoesnotappl y.

PerFrench,HandleyandI ppJJatpp.217and218,par s.13—

17:[13]"
Theappel l
ant '
scaseagainstthi
sr espondentisbased
ont heproposi
ti
ont hatt heescapeofapr i
sonerf r
om lawful
custody,
unlessexplained,i
sevi
denceofnegl igenceont hepart
ofthepr i
sonser vi
ce.MrCamer onalsoi nvokedthepr inci
ple
enshri
nedorobscur edbyt heLat inmax i
mr esipsal oqui
tur
(pr
oofofanescape,wi t
houtmor e,speaksf oritsel
f,andi s
evi
denceofnegligence).

[
14] "
Wecannotacceptt
hesear
gument
s.Pr
oofoft
he
means
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
ofescapef rom pri
soni nnormalt imesmi ghtestabli
shapr i
me
faciecaseofnegl igenceont hepar tofthepr i
sonser vice.In
Scot t
vLondonandStKat heri
neDocksCo( 1865)3H&C596
at601 Er l
e CJ del iv
eri
ng t he judgmentoft he Cour tof
ExchequerChambersai dthatt hemaxi m applied'wher et he
accidenti ssuchasi ntheor di narycourseoft hingsdoesnot
happeni fthosewhohav et hemanagementusepr opercar e'
.
Howev er,t
hesi t
uati
onwhi chpr evai
ledfoll
owingthebreakdown
ofl aw andor derafterGeor geSpei ghtandhi sconf ederates
seizedt hePar li
amentwer enot' theordinarycourseoft hings'
.
Int hatsi tuat
ion proofofan escape wi thoutmor e cannot
possiblyest abli
shapr imaf aciecaseofnegl i
gencebyt he
pri
sonser vi
ce.

[
15] "Thebreakdownofl awandor dermayhav eext
ended
tothepri
sonsandpr i
sonofficer
smayhav erefusedtodothei
r
duty.I
fso,theymay ,asar esult
,hav eactedout si
dethescope
ofthei
rempl oymentsoast oexcl udethev i
cari
ousli
abi
li
tyof
thepri
sonser v
iceforthei
ractsandomi ssions.Theremayhave
beenabsolutel
ynot hi
ngthatt heCommi ssionerandhisseni
or
off
icer
scouldhav edonetopr eventtheescape.

[
16] "
Thest
ateisnotgeneral
lyl
i
ableindamagestothose
whosuffer
edpersonali
njur
iesorpropertydamagefoll
owing
t
hebreakdownoflaw andor deri
nFijii
nMay2000.Thel aw
woul
dlackcoher
enceifthecourtscr
eatedalimi
tedexcept
ion
f
orinj
uri
esanddamagei nfl
i
ctedbyprisoner
swhoescapedat
t
hatti
me.

[17] "I
nourj udgment ,therefore,t
heappel l
antfai
ledt o
est abl
ish a prima facie case ofnegl i
gence,and i nt hese
circumst ances the factt hatt he Commi ssionercal l
ed no
evidence, wherethefactswer epeculiarl
ywithinhisknowledge,
cannotassi sttheappellant.Wet herefor
eagr eewi t
htheCour t
ofAppealt hattheclaim againsttheCommi ssionerofPrisons
failsont hisgroundwhi ch,inanyev ent,rai
sednoquest i
onof
gener alpri
ncipl
e."

Ratcl
if
fevPl ymout
hTorbayHealthAut
hori
ty(1998)42BMLR64Fact s:
Theplaint
if
funderwentasurger
yonhi sfi
ghtankleatt hedefendants'
hospit
alandwasgivenananaesthet
ict
orel
ievepost-oper
ati
vepain.The
operat
ionitsel
fwassuccessfulbuthesuf f
eredneur ol
ogi
caldef ect
s
whichcausedhi mt obeparal
ysedont herightsidedownwar dsand
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
pr
oducedej
acul
ator
ypr
obl
ems.Thedef
endant
sledexper
tev
idence

283•
to show thattheanaest heti
sthad notbeennegl i
gent
.Thepl aint
iff
soughttorelyonthedoctri
neofr esipsal
oqui
tur
.
Held:Thefactthatamedicaloper at
ionpr
oducedanunfavour
ableresult
was notev idence ofnegligence and t
hatin mostcases involvi
ng
medicalnegli
gence,exper
topinionwouldbenecessar
y.

PerBr ookeLJatp.80: "I

ti snowpossi blet odr awsomet hreads
outofal lthismat erial, bywayofexpl anat ionoft her elevanceof
themaxi mr esi psal oqui t
urt omedi calnegl igencecases:( 1)I n
i
tspur estf or m, themaxi m appl ieswher et hepl aintiffr el
iesont he
'
res' (thet hingi t
sel f)tor aiset hei nfer enceofnegl igence,whi ch
i
ssuppor t
edbyor dinar yhumanexper ience,wi thnoneedf or
exper tev idence.( 2)I npr inci ple,t hemaxi m canbeappl iedi n
thatf ormi nsi mpl esi t uat ionsi nt hemedi calnegl igencef ield
(sur geoncut sof frightf ooti nst eadofl ef t;swabl efti noper ation
site; pat i
entwakesupi nt hecour seofsur gicaloper at i
ondespi te
gener alanaest het i
c).( 3)I n pr act ice,i n cont est ed medi cal
negl igencecasest heev idenceoft hepl aint i
ff, whichest abl i
shes
the' res',isl ikelyt obebut tressedbyexper tev idencet ot he
effectt hatt hemat tercompl ai neddoesnotor dinar ilyoccuri n
the absence ofnegl i
gence.( 4)The posi ti
on may t hen be
reachedatt hecl oseoft hepl aint iff'
scaset hatt hej udgewoul d
beent it
ledt oi nf
ernegl i
genceont hedef endant '
spar tunl esst he
def endantadducesev idencewhi chdi schar gest hisinf erence.( 5)
Thi sev idencemaybet ot heef fectt hatt her ei sapl ausible
expl anat ion ofwhatmay hav e happened whi ch does not
connot eanynegl igenceont hedef endant 'spar t
.Theexpl anat ion
mustbeapl ausi bleoneandnotat heor eticall
yorr emot el y
possi bleone, butt hedef endantcer tai nlydoesnothav etopr ov e
thathi sexpl anat i
oni smor el i
kel yt obecor rectt hananyot her.I f
thepl aintiffhasnoot herev idenceofnegl i
gencet or el
yon,hi s
claim wi l
lt henf ail.( 6)Al t ernat ively ,thedef endant '
sev i
dence
maysat i
sfyt hej udgeont hebal anceofpr obabi li
tiest hathedi d
exer cisepr opercar e.I ft heunt owar dout comei sext r emel yrar e,
ori si mpossi blet oexpl aini nt hel ightoft hecur rentst ateof
medi calknowl edge,t hej udgewi llbeboundt oexer ci
segr eat
car ei nev aluat i
ngt heev idencebef or emaki ngsuchaf i
nding,
buti fhedoesso, t hepr imaf aciei nf erenceofnegl i
gencei s
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
rebut
tedandt heplai
nti
ff
'scl
aim wi
llfai
l.Thereasonwhyt
he
court
sarewi ll
ingtoadoptthisapproach,par
ti
cular
lyi
nver
y
complexcases,ist
o
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
be found i nthe j udgment s ofSt uart-
Smi t
h and Dill
on LJJ in
DelaneyvSout hmeadHeal thAut hoHty[1995]6MedLR355.( 7)I
t
fol
lowsf r
om allt histhat,alt
houghi nverysimpl esit
uati
onst he
'
res'mayspeakf ori t
selfattheendoft helayevi
denceadducedon
behalfoft heplaintif
f,i
npr acticetheinferenceisthenbut t
ressed
byexper tev i
denceadducedonhi sbehalf,andi fthedefendant
weret ocallnoev idence,thej udgewoul dbedeci dingthecaseon
i
nferenceshewasent i
tl
edt odr awfrom thewholeoft heevidence
(i
ncludingt heexper tevidence),andnotont heappl i
cati
onoft he
maximi nit
spurestf orm."

Andatp.81:" Int hi
scase,howev er ,thej udgemadet heposi tive
fi
ndi ngt hatt heanaest hetisthadper for medt hespi nali nject ioni n
theappr opriatepl acewi thal lpropercar e.I nt hoseci rcumst ances,
anypossi blei nf erenceofnegl i
gencef all
sawayand,unl esst his
fi
ndi ngwer esetasi de,t hepl aint i
ff'
scasewasboundt of ail.Mr
Bur net tgal lantlysetoutt oper suadeust hatt hej udgehadnot
eval uatedt heev idencei nt hispar toft hecasecar ef ull
yenough,
andt hati fhehad,hewoul dnothav emadet hef i
ndi nghedi d.He
said,f ori nst ance,t hatatt he t ri
ali n Jul y 1996,DrBoaden
accept edt hathehadnodi rectr ecol l
ect i
onofMrRat cliffeorhi s
oper ation, andt hatthi swassur prising, gi v
ent hathehadbeenf i
rst
toldaboutMrRat cl
if
fe'spai nfulsy mpt omsonl y12day saf tert he
oper ation.I twascommongr oundt hat ,atanear lyst ageoft he
l
iti
gat ion,DrBoadenhadmi stakenl yt houghtt hatananaest het i
c
regist r
arcal l
edDrBy attehadbeenpr esentt hroughout , andt hathe
hadf orgot tent hatDrCl ement swaspr esent .Hehadal somadeno
posi ti
v eav er mentpr iort ot het ri
alt hati twashehi msel fwhohad
admi nisteredt hespi nali njection.Thi swassai dt ocastdoubton
hisev i
denceundercr oss- exami nat i
ont hati twascl eari nhi smi nd
att het imet hathehadper formedt hei njection,andt hatt hat
memor yhad beenwi thhi m ev ersi nce.MrBur net tal so dr ew
attent i
on t o mi nori nconsi stenci es oroddi ti
es in DrBoaden' s
earlierconductori nhi sear l
ierexpl anat ionsofwhathadt aken
place,andhemadeanumberofot herpoi nt sinanat temptt o
satisf y us t hatt he j udge shoul d hav er ejected DrBoaden' s
evidenceandconcl udedei thert hatt hepl aintiffhadpr ov edt hat
thei njectionwasadmi nisteredatt hewr ongl evel,ort hatt he
defendant shadf ail
edt opr ovet hati twasi ndeedadmi ni ster edat

295"
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
t
heL3/
L4l
evel
.

"MrBur netthadt omaket hesechal lengesi fhiscl ientwast o

have any r ealhope ofsucceedi ng i n hi s appeal .In my
j
udgment ,howev er,they wer e al lmat tersf or t he v er
y
experienced j udge t o ev al
uat e.He had t he i nest i
mable
advant age,deni edt othiscour t,ofseei ngDrBoaden( who
wasi nt hewi t
ness-boxforav eryl ongt ime)andDrCl ements
giveev idence,andhewasent i
tledt oacceptwhatt heyt ol
d
him.I twasnotasi ft hepl ai
nt iff'
sexper twi tnesseshad
present ed a l ogical
ly coher entexpl anation ofwhathad
probabl yhappened,andDrNur i
ck' st hesis,whi cht hej udge
wasent itl
edt orej
ect,hadl eftanumberofpi ecesofev i
dence
wholly unexpl ai
ned.I tf oll
ows t hatonce t he j udge was
disposed t o beli
ev e DrBoaden,and t o believ et hatDr
Clement s'
snot ewasanaccur atecont empor aryr ecord of
whatt ookpl ace,hisfi
ndingt hatt hei njecti
onwasi nsertedin
thecor rectspaceatt hechosenl evelwasr eallyi nevit
able,
andhi sappr oacht otheappl icabi lityoft hedoct riner esipsa
l
oqui t
urcannot ,i
nmyj udgment ,bef ault
ed."

PerHobhouseLJatpp.82and83:Resi psal oquituri sno

mor et hanaconv eni
entLat inphr aseusedt odescr i
bet he
proofoff actswhi charesuf f
icienttosuppor taninferencet hat
adef endantwasnegl igentandt her
eforetoest abli
shapr ima
faciecaseagai nsthim.Thecl assicdescri
pt i
onisandr emai ns
thatgi venbyEr l
eCJi nScot tvLondon&#38;StKat herine
DocksCo( 1865)3 596at601,[ 1861-73]Al lERRep
246at248: 'Theremustber easonableev i
denceofnegl igence,
but,wher et het hi
ngi sshownt obeundert hemanagementof
thedef endant ,orhi sservants,andt heacci denti
ssuchas,i n
theor dinarycour seoft hi
ngs,doesnothappeni fthosewho
hav ethemanagementoft hemachi neryusepr opercar e,it
affordsr easonabl eevidence, i
nt heabsenceofexpl anationby
thedef endant ,thattheaccidentar osefrom wantofcar e.'

"
The bur
den ofprovi
ng t
he negli
gence oft
he def
endant
r
emai
nst hr
oughoutupont
heplaint
if
f.Thebur
denisont he

296"
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
plai
nti
ffatthestartoft het r
ialand,absentanadmi ssionby
thedefendant,i
sst i
llupont hepl ai
nti
ffatt heconcl
usionof
thetri
al.Attheconclusionoft hetri
althejudgehastodeci de
whether,uponal ltheev idenceadducedatt hetri
al,hei s
sati
sfi
edupont hebal anceofpr obabil
i
t i
esthatthedefendant
wasnegl i
gent

"
286
andthathisnegli
gencecausedthepl
aint
iff
'sinj
ury
.Ifheisso
sat
isf
ied,he gi
ves judgmentf
orthe pl
aint
if
f:ifnot,he gi
ves
j
udgmentforthedefendant
.

"Whet herornott hepl aintiffhasatsomeear l

i
erst ager el
iedupon
apr imaf aciecasedoesnotal terthisposi ti
on.Thepl aint i
ffmayor
maynothav eneededt ocal lev i
dencet oest ablishapr i
maf acie
case.Theadmi t
tedf actsmaysuf fi
cef ort hatpur pose:seeNg
Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat[ 1988]RTR 298.Conv ersely,t he
def endantmayhav echosent ocal lnoev i
dence, inwhi chcaset he
cour twi llhav et odeci dewhet hert heev i
denceadducedbyt he
plainti
f fsuf fices t o sat isfyt he cour t,int he absence ofany
ev i
dencet ocont radicti t,thatt hedef endantwasnegl i
gentand
thathi s negl igence caused t he plainti
ff'si njury.I n al lt hese
situations, t
het askoft hej udgeatt heendoft het r
ialist hesame.
Theonl ydi fferencei sthathemaybel eftwi thoutdi rectev i
dence
ofwhatoccur r
edandmayhav et oactuponi nferencest obe
drawnf rom i ncompl eteev idence.Wher et hedef endanti si na
posi ti
ont oadduceev i
denceast owhatoccur r
edbuthasr efrained
from doi ngso,t hecour twi llbemor ewi ll
ingt odr aw i nferences
adv erset ot hedef endantt hanmi ghtot herwisebet hecase.Wher e
thepl aintif
fi snoti naposi t
ionhi msel ftogi veanaccountofwhat
occur redandwher ether elev antsituationwasundert hecont rol of
thedef endantandt her elev antf actsar eknownt ot hedef endant ,
thecasemaycomef air
lyandsquar el
ywi thinthest atementofEr le
CJquot edabov e.Buti tdoessobecauset hef actspr ovedhav e
givenr iset oani nferencet hatt hedef endantwasnegl igent .Wher e
ther eisdi rectev idenceast owhatoccur r
edt herei snoneedt o
relyuponi nfer ences:seeBar kwayvSout hWal esTr anspor tCoLt d
fl
950]1 Al lER 392,[ 1950]AC 185.Ther ei s no r ulet hata

297"
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
def
endantmustbel iableforanyaccidentforwhi chhecannotgi ve
acompleteexplanation.Ev enift
hereisani nferencethat,absent
someexplanati
on,ther epr obabl
ywasnegl i
gence,thedef endant
canal
way s,byshowi ngt hathenev ert
helesst ookallreasonable
car
e,persuadethecour tthatont heevidenceadducedi tshould
notbesat i
sfi
edt hatt hedef endantwasi nf actnegligent
:see
WoodsvDuncan[ 1946]1Al lER420,[1946]AC401.
"Medi
calnegl
igence cases havethe pot
ent
ialto giv
eri
se t
o
consi
der
ati
onswhethertheplai
nti
ffhasmadeoutaprima

298"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

faci ecaseandwhet herornott hedef endanthaspr ovided

anadequat eanswert odi splacet hei nfer encet obedr awn
from t he pl aintiff
's Pr ima f aci e case. Fur ther,iti s
commonpl acet hatthepl ainti
ffwi l
lnot ,hi msel forher self,
hav ef ul
lyknownwhatoccur r
ed,par ticularlyi fther el
evant
procedur ewasanoper ationcar ri
edoutunderanaest hetic.
Thepr ocedur eswer eundert hecont roloft hedef endant
andwhatt hedef endantdi dordi dnotdoi sexcl usively
wi thint he di r
ectknowl edge oft he def endant .But ,in
pract i
calt er ms,f ew,i fany ,medi calnegl igencecasesar e
broughtt ot ri
alwi t
houtf ulldiscov ery hav ingbeengi v en,
par ticularshav ingbeenobt ai
nedwher enecessar yoft he
def endant 's pl eading,wi t
ness st atement s hav i
ng been
ex changedandexper ts' reportsl odged.Ther efore,thet r
ial
opens noti nt he v acuum ofav ailable ev idence and
ex planat ionassomet i
mesoccur si nr oadt rafficaccident
cases,butwi thexper tev idenceonbot hsi desanddef ined
bat tlel
inesdr awn.Theaspect soft hef act sandaet i
ology
whi ch can and cannotbe expl ained wi thr easonable
cer tainty wi l
l hav e been i dent i
fied and t he r ival
ex planat ions mar shalled. The v i
abl e al legations or
i
nf er encesofnegl igencewi l
lhav ebeeni dent i
fied,andt he
par tiesandt het ri
al j
udgewi l
lhav ear easonabl eideaoft he
speci f
icf actuali ssues whi ch ar e goi ng t o hav et o be
i
nv est igat edanddet ermi nedatt het rial."

Kyr
iakouvBarnetandChaseFar
msHospi
tal
NHS
Tr
ust[2006]Al
l
ER(D)285
Facts:Aftergivi
ng birt
h,t he plainti
ffunderwenta sur gical
operati
on att he defendant'
s hospi taltor emover etained
products ofconcepti
on.Af tert he operat
ion,she coul
d not
menst r
uate and itwas f ound t hatshe no longerhad an
endomet r
ium lay
eron t hesur faceofherut erus.Shesued
rel
yingonr esi
psaloquit
ur.Thedef endant
sledexpertevi
dence
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

tot heef fectt hatthelossofherendomet r

ium hadbeencaused
byani nfection.
Held:Thepr incipl
eofr esipsawoul dappl
ybutt hedefendant'
s
exper tev idencet hatthel osswascaused byi nf
ect i
on had
rebut t
edt hei nferenceofnegligence.
Principle:Wher et hepri
ncipl
eappl ies,i
tputstheonusofpr oof
ont hedef endantandt hedef endantcanescapel iabil
it
yby
showi ng t hatt heaccidentcoul d haveoccur r
ed withouthis
negl i
gence.

Chapel
vHar
t[199912LRC341
Fact
s:Thedef
endant
,anENTspeci
ali
stper
for
medasur
gical
oper
ati
on

•
288
ont heplainti
fft
or emov eapouchf r
om heroesophagus.I nthecauseof
theoper ati
on,heroesophaguswasper foratedandani nfecti
onseti n
whichaf fectedherv oice.Thecour tfoundt hatalt
houghshehadbeen
tol
daboutt heriskoft heper for
ation,shewasnott ol
daboutt heeff
ect
onherv oiceandt hathadsheknownshewoul dnothaveunder gonethe
surgeryatt hedefendant '
spl acebutwoul dhavesoughtanexper i
enced
surgeon.Thedef endantar guedthatt herewasnocausalconnect ion
betweent hewar ni
ngandt hei nj
urysuffered.
Held:Thepr i
nci
pleofr esipsawoul dapplyandshi f
ttheburdenofpr oof
tothedef endanttoshowt hattherewasnocausalconnect i
onbet ween
thewar ningandt hei njur
yandhav i
ngf ail
edt odi
schargethisonus,he
wasl i
able.
Pri
nciple:Wher ethepr i
ncipleapplies,i
tshi f
tstheburdenofpr ooftothe
defendant .

PerKi rbyJatpp.377and378,par .93( 8) :" Onemeansof

all
ev i
at i
ngt hebur dencastbyl aw onapl aint i
fft oest abli
sha
causalr el
ationship bet ween t he br each and t he damage
concer nst heev i
dent i
ar yonus.Aust r
ali
anl awhasnotembr aced
thet heor ythatt hel egalonusofpr oofshi ftsdur ingat r i
al( see
AnchorPr oduct sLt dvHedges( 1966)115CLR 493at500,
Nomi nal DefendantvHas/ bauer( 1967)117CLR448at456and
Gov ernment I nsurance Of fice of New Sout h Wal es v
Fredrichber g( 1968)118CLR403at413- 414;cfLt dvDev i
ne
[1969]2Al lER53at58.Seegener al
lyAt i
yah:ResI psaLoqui tur
i
n Engl and andAust ralia ( 1972) 35 MLR 337 at 345) .
Nev ertheless,t her ealisticappr eci ationoft hei mpr eci sionand
uncer tainty of causat ion in many cases—i ncluding t hose
i
nv olvingal l
egedmedi calnegl igence—hasdr ivencour tsi nt his
count ry,asi nEngl and,t oacceptt hatt heev ident i
aryonusmay
shiftdur i
ngt hehear ing.Onceapl ai
nt i
ffdemonst r
at est hata
breach ofdut y has occur red whi ch i s cl oselyf ollowed by
damage,a pr i
ma f acie causalconnect ion wi llhav e been
establ i
shed( seeBet t
svWhi tti
ngs/ owe( 1945)71CLR637at
649) .Iti st henf ort hedef endantt oshow,byev idenceand
argument ,thatt he pat ientshoul d notr ecov erdamages.I n
McGheevNat ionalCoalBoar d[ 1972]3Al lER1008at1012,
[1973]1 WLR 1 at6,a Scot tish appeal ,Lor d Wi lber force
explained why t his was so.Al t
hough Lor d Wi lber force' s
statementi nMcGheehaspr ov edcont roversi alinEngl and( see
Wi l
sher vEssexAr eaHeal thAut hor i
ly[1988]1Al lER871at879,
881—882) ,i
thasr ecei vedsuppor ti nthis
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana

cour t( seeegMar chvSt ramar e(E&MH)Pt yLt d( 1991)171

CLR506at514andBennet tvMi nist erofCommuni tyWel f
are
(1992)176CLR408at420- 421) .I t
spr inciplehasal sobeen
accept edbyi nt ernationalexper tssuchasPr of essorGi esen.I
fi
ndLor dWi lber force'sex posi ti
oncompel li
ng( [1972]3Al lER
1008at1012) :'thequest ionr emainswhet herapur suermust
necessar i
lyf aili f
,af terhe has shown a br each ofdut y,
i
nv olvingani ncr easeofr i
skofdi sease,hecannotposi tively
prov et hatt hisincr easeofr iskcausedormat eriallycont r i
but ed
tot hedi seasewhi lehi sempl oyerscannotposi tivelypr ov et he
cont r
ar y.I nt hisi ntermedi at ecaset herei sanappear anceof
l
ogi ci nt hev iew t hatt hepur suer,onwhom t heonusl ies,
shoul df ail
—al ogi cwhi chdi ctatedt hej udgment sbel ow.The
quest ioni swhet herweshoul dbesat isfi
edi nf act ualsituat ions
l
iket hepr esent , witht hislogi calappr oach.I nmyopi ni
on, there
aref ur therconsi derationsofi mpor tance.Fi rst ,i tisasound
principlet hatwher eaper sonhas,bybr eachofadut yofcar e,
createdar isk,andi njuryoccur swi thint hear eaoft hatrisk, the
l
ossshoul dbebor nebyhi m unl essheshowst hati thadsome
othercause.Secondl y ,from t heev i
dent ialpoi ntofv i
ew,one
mayask,whyshoul damanwhoi sabl et oshow t hathi s
empl oy ershoul d hav et aken cer tain pr ecaut ions,because
withoutt hem t herei sar i
sk,oranaddedr i
sk,ofi nj uryor
disease, andwhoi nf actsust ainsexact lyt hati njur yordi sease,
hav et oassumet hebur denofpr ov ingmor e:namel y ,t hati t
wast headdi tiont ot her isk,causedbyt hebr eachofdut y,
whi chcausedormat er i
allycont ri
but edt ot hei nj ury?I nmany
casest hi sisi mpossi blet opr ove,justbecausehonestmedi cal
opinioncannotsegr egat et hecausesofani l
lnessbet ween
compoundcauses.Andi foneaskswhi choft hepar ties,t he
wor kmanort heempl oy ers,shoul dsuf f
erf rom t hisi nher ent
evident ialdi f
ficul ty
,theanswerasamat terofpol i
cyorj ust i
ce
shoul dbet hati tist hecr eat oroft her iskwho,exhy pot hesi,
mustbet akent ohav ef oreseent hepossi bil
ityofdamage, who
shoul dbeari tsconsequences' .
"

Jenny(
AMi
nor
)vNor
thLi
ncol
nshi
reCount
yCounci
l[20001
LGR269
Facts:The plaint
if
f8-year
-ol
d pupi
lin a schoolmanaged by t
he
defendantl
efttheschoolduri
nganafter
noonbreakandwasknocked
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
downbyacaront hemai
nroadabout1000metr
esf
rom t
heschool
.The
schoolhadapoli
cyofcl
osi
ngallgat
esbutther
ewasnooneincharge
ofclosi
ngthem.

"
290
Thet eachersclosedthem whenev ertheysawt hem opened.
Held:Themaxi m ofresi psaloquiturwouldapplyandputt heonuson
thedef endanttoexplainhow t hepl ai
nti
ffcamet obebyt heroadsi
de
whenshewasnotsupposedt obet here,andhavingfail
edtodot hat,
theywer eli
able.
Princi
ple:Theonusi sont hedef endanttoexplaint
heci r
cumstancesof
thecauseofi njuryt
ot heplai
nti
ff.

PerHenr yLJatp.274, pars.19—21: 19."Wet akethebasiclaw

tobeasf oll
ows:Wher et heschoolhasaccept edthecar eof
chi
ldrenwhowoul dbeatr iskifl
eftalonebesideahi ghway,ifa
chi
ldintheircar
ei si
njuredasar esul
tofbei ngwher eheshould
notbe( unaccompanied,byahi ghway )thentheonusi sont he
schooltoshowhowi twast hatheorshecamet obewherehe
orsheshoul dnotbe,andt oshowt hatthatstateofaf f
air
shad
comeaboutt hroughnof aultoft heirs(seeCar mar
thenshir
e
CountyCouncilvLewis[ 1955]AC549, atpp561—562, 566,568
and570) .

20."
Thi
sist
heappl
i
cat
ionoft
hemaxi
mresi
psa/
oqui
tur
,whi
ch
mer elydescri
best hest ateoft heev i
dencefrom whi chi twas
propert odrawani nferenceofnegl i
gence.Iti
s:'nomor et hana
rul
eofev i
denceaf fecti
ngonus.I tisbasedoncommonsense,
andi tspurposei st oenabl ej
usti
cet obedonewhent hef acts
bearing on causat ion and on t he car e exercised by t he
defendantar eatt heout setunknownt otheplainti
ffandar eor
ought t o be wi thin t he knowl edge of t he def endant
(Charlesworth and Per cyon Negl igence9t h ed ( 1997)5- 88,
cit
ingLor dNormandi nBar kwayvSout hWalesTr anspor t[1950]
AC185) .
'

21."Theschoolsimplycoul
dnotsayhowi twasthatRyancame
tobeont heA18, 1,000metresfr
om theschool
.Ifthei
rsyst
em
andt hei
rsuper
visi
onhadwor ked,t
henheshouldnothav ebeen
ther
e.Theycouldt hr
ownol i
ghtonhowhel eft
,becauseno-one
hadseenhi m.Butt hejudgeacceptedther
ear ecaseswher e,
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
despit
et hefactt hatthedef endantcant hrow nol i
ghtonhow
theaccidenthappened, hecanst i
llsat
isfythecour tthathewas
notnegl i
gent,t hatist o sayt hatt he schoolhad t aken all
reasonableprecautionstoprev entchil
drenwhowoul dbeatr i
sk
i
funaccompani edint r
affi
cf rom beingt here(seet hef act
uall
y
verydif
ferentcasesofBar kwayvSout hWal esTr ansport

291n

Co( supr a)andLudgat evLov et t[1969]1WLR1016) .Butf or

suchev i
dencetobeef fectiv
e,itmustbecompl et
e—i tmustbe
acompl eteanswert ot henegl i
gencecl aim( seeHender sonv
HenryEJenki ns&Sons[ 1970]AC282,303g) .There,api pein
thehy drauli
cbrakingsy stem ofal or
ryfail
ed,causingabr ake
fai
lureandaf atalinj
ury.Thedef endantssoughtt oshow t hat
thefailurewasanunobser vabl
el atentdefect.Butsuchf ail
ures
occurredwhencer tai
nt ypesofusercausedear l
ycor r
osionof
thepi pe.Thedef endantsf ai
ledt ocal levi
denceel iminating
such user .Theirdef ence was accor dingl
yi ncomplete and
fai
led."

Mel
O'Rei
l
lyvSeamusLav
ell
e[19901I
R372
Fact s:Thepl ainti
ffwasdr i
vingonahi ghwaywhenhi svehiclecoll
i
ded
withf resiancal fbel ongi
ngt ot hedef endant.Hesuedf ordamagesi n
respectofhi scar .Att hetri
al,hesoughtt orelyont heprincipl
eofr es
i
psal oquituralt
houghhedi dnotspeci ficall
ypleadit.
Hel d:The pl aintiffcouldr elyon t he pr i
nciple alt
hough he di d not
speci fi
call
ypl eadi t;theprinciplewoul dapplywher eanani malstrays
ont othehi ghway .Thedef endantwast herefor
el i
able.
Principle:Tor elyont hepri
nci pl
eofr esi psaloquitur,theplaint
if
fneed
notspeci f
icall
ypl eadi tpr
ov i
dedf actst hatshowt heappl i
cationoft he
principlehav ebeenadequat elypleaded.

PerJohnsonJatpp.372and373:" Ont heopeningoft hecase

counself orthe plaint
if
fsubmi t
ted thatwhi l
e he had not
specif
ical
lypleadedt hedoctri
neofr esipsa/ oqui
turhewas
enti
tl
edt or el
yont hedoctri
nepr ov
idedhi spleadingswer e
adequateandt hatthefactsprovedshow thedoct rinetobe
appli
cable.Thiswasst renuousl
yopposedbycounself orthe
defendant.

"
Inmyopi
niont
hesubmi
ssi
onsmadeonbehal
foft
hepl
aint
if
f
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
arecor r
ectandt helawont hi
spar t
icularpoi ntoflawhasbeen
wellstatedbyGr if
fi
nJi nMul lenvQui nnswor t
hLtd[ 199011I R
59wher ehest atesatp62oft herepor t
:'Thispri
nci pl
ewas
statedasl ongagoas1865byEr leCJ, i
nScot tvLondonandSt
KatheHneDocksCo ( 1865)3 H & C 596.Ther et heChi ef
Justicesaidatp601:' Theremustber easonableev idenceof
negligence.Butwher et het hi
ng isshown t o beundert he
managementoft hedef endantorhisser vants,andtheacci dent
i
ssuchasi ntheor di
nar ycourseoft hingsdoesnothappeni f
thosewho

.
.292
havethemanagementusepr opercare,i
taf
fordsreasonable
evi
dence,i
ntheabsenceofexplanati
onbythedefendant
s,that
theacci
dentar
osefrom wantofcare.
'

"Inthei nstantcaset hef l

oorwasundert hemanagementof
thedef endant,ori t
sser vant
s,andt heacci dentwassuchas,
i
nt heor di
narycour seoft hi ngs,woul dnothappeni ft he
fl
oor sar ekeptfr eefrom spil
lageoft hisnature.Theonusi s
thereforeont hedef endanttoshowt hattheaccidentwasnot
duet oanywantofcar eoni tspar t
.Ont hehear i
ngoft he
appeal ,thedefendantobj ectedt ot heplainti
ffrel
y i
ngont his
maxi m because i twas notpl eaded.I n myopi nion,this
doct r
inedoesnothav et obepl eadedbef oreapl ainti
ffmay
relyoni t.Ift
hef actspleadedandt hef actsprovedshowt hat
thedoct rineisappl i
cabletothecase, thatissuf f
ici
ent—see
Bennet tvChemi cal ( 6B)Lt d[1971]1WLR1572. "

Pat
ri
ckMer
ri
manvGr
eenhi
l
lsFoodsLt
d[199613I
R73
Facts:Thepl aintiffwasempl oyedasadr i
v erofthedefendant'
scar.
Whiledr i
vingi troundacor ner,t
hev ehi
cleturnedstr
aightofftheroad
andcr ashedi ntoaf iel
d,causi
nghi mi nj
uri
es.Hesuedt hedefendantin
negligencer elying on t hepri
ncipleofr esi psa.Hear gued thatthe
accidentwoul dnothav ehappenedi fthedefendanthadmai ntai
nedthe
carpr operly
.Hel d:Si ncetheplainti
ffdidnotknow t hecauseoft he
accident,thepr inciplemustappl ytoputt hebur denofpr oofont he
defendant.Pr inci pl
e:The pr i
ncipl
e applies wherethe cause oft he
accidentisunknownt othepl
aint
iff
.

PerBlay
neyJatpp.76and78:" Thepri
ncipalgroundrel
ied
uponbythepl
aint
if
finhi
snot
iceofappeal
,andintheargument
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
befor
ethisCour t
,ist
hatthelear
nedtri
aljudgewasmi stakenin
holdi
ngthatt hedoctri
neofr esipsaloquit
urdidnotappl y.I
t
wassubmi ttedthatthepri
ncipledidapplybecauset hetruck
wasundert hemanagementoft hedefendantandtheaccident
wasonewhi chwouldnothappeni ntheor di
nar
ycour seof
eventsi
fpropercareweretaken.

"Onbehalfoft hedefendant,MrHedi gansubmitt

edt hatthe
pri
ncipl
edidnotapplybecauset her
ewasanexplanati
onast o
howt heacci
dentoccurred:ithadbeenshownbyt heev i
dence
oftheplai
nti
ff
'swit
nessest hatthecauseoft
heaccidentwas

293• •
thebr eakingoft hetopleafoftheoff
sidef r
ontspring.Hefurt
her
submi tted that
,as t her
e was no explanat
ion ofwhy t he l
eaf
fract
ur ed,itwouldbeunf ai
rtoputonthedef endanttheburdenof
explainingtheinexpl
i
cable.

"Forther easonswhi chIwi llnowel abor at

e, itseemst omet hatthe
plainti
ff '
ssubmi ssionont hisi ssuei scor rect.Oncet herewasno
evidence,aswast hecase,t hatt herewasanynegl i
genceont he
partoft hepl ainti
ffwhi chcausedorcont r
ibut edt ot heacci dent,the
posi t
iont henwas, andwasf oundbyt helear nedt ri
alj udgesot obe,
thatt hecauseoft heacci dentwast hebr eakingoft hetopl eafof
theof fsidef rontspr i
ng.Butt hedef endanthasnotpr ov i
dedany
explanat ionast owhyt hishappened.I nviewoft his, i
tseemst ome
thatt hecasecomeswi thint hemuchci t
edpr inciplesetouti nt he
j
udgmentoft heCour tofExchequerChamberi nScot tvLondonand
StKat her i
neDocksCompany( 1865)3H&C596:' Theremustbe
reasonabl eev idenceofnegl igence.Butwhent het hingisshewnt o
beundert hemanagementoft hedef endant ,orhisser vants,andt he
accidenti ssuch asi nt heor di
narycour seoft hingsdoesnot
happeni ft hosewho hav et hemanagementusepr opercar e,it
affordsr easonabl eev i
dence,i nt heabsenceofexpl anationbyt he
defendant s,thattheacci dentar osef rom wantofcar e.'

"MrHedi gansubmittedthatthepr i
ncipl
edi dnotapplybecauset he
defendanthadprovidedanexpl anati
onfort heacci
dent.Iam unable
toagree.Theexplanati
onpr off
ereddidnotgof arenough.Itdidnot
explai
nwhyt heleafoft hespr i
ngbr oke.Andi nt hi
sr espectthe
caseisdi st
ingui
shablefrom BarkwayvSout hWal esTransportCo
Ltd11950]1Al lER392onwhi chMrHedi ganreli
ed.Thef act
sthere
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
weret hatt hepl
ai nti
ff
'shusbandhadbeenki ll
edwhi leapassenger
i
nt hedef endant'sbus.Theof fsi
def ronttyreoft hebushadbur st
andasar esul
tthebushadv eeredacr ossther oadandf al
lenover
anembankment .Theexper tevidenceest abl
ishedt hatthecauseof
thebur sti
ngoft het yrewasani mpactf ract
ureduet ooneormor e
heavybl owsont heout sideoft hety r
el eadi
ngt othedi si
ntegrat
ion
ofthei nnerpar ts.Itwashel dbyt heHouseofLor dst hatast he
evi
dence had est abl
ished the cause oft he accident,res ipsa
l
oquiturdi dnotappl y.LordPor ter
,af t
ercitingthepassagef r
om
ScottvLondonandStKat herineDocksCompanyt owhichI

•
294

havej ustref
erred,saidinhisopi ni
onatp394:' Thedoctri
nei s
dependentont heabsenceofexpl anat
ion,and,althoughitist he
dutyoft hedefendants,i
ftheydesir
etopr ot
ectthemselves,togive
anadequat eexpl anati
onoft hecauseoft heacci dent
,yet,ifthe
factsaresuffi
cientlyknown,thequesti
onceasest obeonewhen
thefactsspeakf orthemselves,andthesoluti
oni stobef oundby
determiningwhether,onthef act
sasest abl
ished,negli
gencei sto
beinferredornot.'

"AndLor dNor mandsai di nhi sopinionatp399:' Thef actthatan

omni busleav esther oadwayandsocausesi njuryt oapassenger
ortosomeoneont hepav ementi sev idencer elevanttoi nferthat
theinjurywascausedbyt henegl igenceoft heowner ,sot hat,i
f
nothingmor ewer epr ov ed, i
twoul dbeasuf fi
ci entfoundat i
onf or
af i
ndingofl i
abil
it
yagai nsthim.I tcanr arel
yhappenwhenar oad
accidentoccur s,
thatt herei snoot herevidence, and, i
ft hecause
oftheacci denti spr ov ed,t hemaxi mr esipsal oqui t
urisofl i
ttl
e
moment .Thequest iont hencomest obewhet hert heownerhas
performedt hedutyofcar ei ncumbentonhi m, orwhet herhei sby
reasonofhi snegligencer esponsi bleforthei njury.Themaxi mi s
nomor et hanar uleofev idenceaf f
ecti
ngonus.I tisbasedon
common- sense,andi t
spur posei st oenabl ej usti
cet obedone
whent hef actsbear ingoncausat ionandont hecar eexer cised
byt hedef endantar eatt heout setunknownt ot hepl ainti
ffand
areoroughtt obewi thintheknowl edgeoft hedef endant .'

"I
ntheinst
antcaset
hefactsbear
ingoncausati
onandont hecar
e
exer
cisedbythedef
endantar
eunknowntot heplai
nti
ffandar
eor
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
oughtt obeknownt ot hedefendant.Al
lthattheplai
nti
f fknowsis
thatthel eafoft
hespr
ingbroke.Hedoesnotknowwhyi tbrokeand
he does notknow whatcar et he defendantexerci
sed i nthe
mai ntenanceand ser
v i
cing ofthet r
uck.Iam sat isf
ied thatto
enabl ejusti
cetobedonet hedoct r
ineshouldbeappl i
edsoast o
throw t heonuson thedef endantt o provethattheywer enot
negligent."

295"
cour seoft hei
rrescuedut i
es.Butwoul dheant i
cipatesuchar esul
t
ast hisf r
om somanyer ror
sast hese,somanydepar turesfrom the
commonsensepr ocedur eprescri
bedbyt hest andingor dersfor
j
ustsuchanemer gencyast his?Icanseet hatitisaquest i
onon
whicht heopinionsofpl ainmenandwomeni nt hejuryboxand
j
udgeswhohav enow t operformt heirfuncti
onmayr easonably
diff
er .Icanonlysayt hat
, i
nmyopi nion,thejudge'
sdeci si
oncar ri
es
MfJohns' sresponsi bi
li
tytoofar:i
nt ry
ingtobef airtotheinspector
thejudgewasunf airtoMrJohnsandgav ethewr onganswert othe
fir
stj uryquesti
onputbySwi f
tJi nBrandon'scase[ 1924]1KB548,
[1924]Al lERRep703. "

249"

EVI
DENCEANDPROCEDUREI
NNEGLI
GENCE
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
RESI
PSALOQUI
TUR

Hender
sonvH.
E.Jenki
nsandSons[
19701AC282
Facts:Thebr akesoft hedef endant s'vehi
clefail
édwhi let he
vehiclewasdescendi ngahi l
landst r
uckandki ll
edthedeceased.
Thef ail
ureoft hebrakewasduet ot heescapeoff lui
df r
om t he
hydrauli
cbr akingsystem whi chhadbeencausedbycor rosion
ofapi peint hehy dr
auli
csy stem.Onl ypartofthepipecoul dbe
seenbyv isualinspecti
onbutt hecor rosi
vepar tcouldnotbe
seenbyv i
sualinspecti
on.Thedef endant spl
eadedlatentdefect.
Held:Sincet hedefendantscoul dnotl eadev i
dencetoshowt hat
thev ehi
clehadbeensubj ectedt oacor rosi
vemat eri
alandt hat
all
reasonabl ecarehadbeent aken, t
hedef encefail
ed.

PerLor dRei d291:" I

fther ewer enot hingi nt heev idence to
i
ndi cate a pr obabilit
yt hatsomet hing unusualmusthav e
happenedt othi slorrytocauset hev eryunusualt ypeofbr ake
fai
lurewhi cht hel earnedt rialj
udgehashel di nf actoccurred
here,t henundoubt edlyt her espondent swoul dhav epr oved
thatt heyhadexer cisedal lpropercar eint hi
scase.Buti fthe
evidencei ndicat esal ikel i
hoodt hatsomet hingunusualhas
occur redt ocauseabr eakdown,t henIdonotseehow t he
ownercansayt hathehasexer ci
sedal lpropercar eunlesshe
canpr ovet hathenei t
herknew noroughtt ohav eknownof
anysuchoccur r
ence.Fori fhedi dknow ofi thewoul dhav e
beenboundt ot akeadequat est epst oprev entanyr esult
ing
breakdown.I tmaywel lbet hatitwoul dbesuf fi
cientforhimt o
prov et hathehadapr opersy st em fordr i
v ersr eport
ingall
unusual occurr ences

•
250

andt
hatnonehadbeenr
epor
tedt
ohi
m.

"Butinthiscasetherespondentsl
ednoev i
denceast o
thehistoryofthi
slorryotherthantheev i
denceoft he
fi
ttert
owhi chIhavereferr
ed.Itmaybet hattheycould
hav eprovedthatsof arast heyknew orcoul dhav e
discoveredbyreasonableinqui
rynothi
ngunusualev er
happenedt oitwhichcouldhav eledtothiscorrosi
on.
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Oritmaybet hattheydidknowofsomet hi
ngbutdi dnot
real
isethepossibledangerresult
ingfrom itthoughthey
oughtt ohavedoneso.Wedonotknow.Theyhadt o
provethatinallthecircumstanceswhi cht heyknewor
oughtt ohaveknownt heytookallproperst epstoav oi
d
danger.Inmyopi niontheyhav efai
ledt odot hat,andI
am t heref
ore ofopinion t
hatt his appealshoul d be
all
owed. "

PerLor dPear sonatpp.302and303:" Thatwast he

effectoft hedef endant s'pleadi ng,buti nanycaset he
phy sicalf actsoft hecaser aiseast rongpr i
maf acie
i
nf erencet hatt hedef endant swer eatf aul tandt hat
theirf aul twasacauseoft heacci dent .Fi rst,theyhad
1
sentoutt hisl or ry,itsel fwei ghi ng4/ 2t o5t onsand
carry i
ngal oadof9t ons,onaj our neywhi chi nvol ved
travelli
ngdownahi l11/
l 4mi lesl ongwi thagr adientof
1i n6att het opand1i n8or1i n9f ur t
herdown.The
roadwasnar rowandi tpassedt hr ought hesmal lt own
orl argev ill
ageofCy mmer .Ift hebr akesf ail
ed,av ery
seriousacci dentmi ghtoccur .Secondl y ,t hel or r
ywas
fi
v ey ear sol dandhadr unf or150, 000mi l
es.Thi rdly ,the
mai nbr akef luidpi pewasov eranoti nconsi der ablear ea
so cor roded t hati t
st hickness was r educed f r
om 7
tenths t o1t ent h ofa mi l
li
met re( from about28
thousandt hs of an i nch t o about4 t housandt hs).
Four thly,t hepi pewashel dbycl ipsi nt heangl eofa
chassi smember ,andabout40percent .oft hepi pe,
beingt husencl osed, wasspeci allyl i
abl etobecor roded.
Fifthly,t hat40percent .coul dnotbeseenonav isual
i
nspect ioni ft hepi per emai nedi nsi tu.Si xt hly,thepi pe
hadnev erbeensubj ect edt oanyexami nat ionexcepta
visuali nspect i
oni nsi tu.Sev enthl y, whent hef luidbr oke
outoft hepi pe, i
tdi dsoatapl acewher et hev erysev ere
cor rosionhadoccur red, andi tmadeahol eofsuf ficient
sizet oal low t hef l
uidt of low outf reely,sot hatt her e
was

251•
The
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
mmedi
atel
yat
otal
fai
l
ureoft
hebr
akes.

"Fr
om thesef actsitseemst omecl ear,
asapr imaf aci
e
i
nference,thatt he acci dentmusthav e been due to
defaul
toft hedef endant sinr espectofi nspecti
onor
maintenanceorbot h.Unl esst heyhad asat i
sfactor
y
answer,suff
icienttodi splacethei nfer
ence,theyshould
havebeenhel dliable.

"Thedef endant s'answerwast hattheyhadf oll

oweda
pract iceofr el
yingsol el
yonv i
sual i
nspecti
onoft hepi pes,
andt hatt hi
swasagener alandpr operpr act i
ce.The
l
ear nedj udge' sf i
ndingwast hat'itisplai
nlyt hecust om
i
nt heor dinarycour seofthi ngsnott oremov et hesef luid
pipes. 'Thismaybeagener alandpr operpract iceforan
ordi nary case i n whi ch t here ar e no speci al
ci
r cumst ances i ncreasi
ng t he r i
sk.But It hi
nk t he
def endant s'answershoul d nothav e been accept ed
without ev i
dence f rom t he def endants suf fi
cient ly
showi ngt hatthiswasanor di
nar ycasewi thoutspeci al
ci
r cumst ancesi ncr easi
ngt herisk."

ScottvLondonandSt .Kat
heri
neDocksCo.[1861—73]AllERRep
246;(1865)159ER665
Facts:Theplai
nti
ffwasint
hedefendant
'
swarehousetoper
form hi
s
duti
esasacust omsoffi
cerwhenbagsofsugarfel
lonhi
m,inj
uri
ng

Hel d:Since t
he defendantcoul
d notexplain how the acci
dent
happened, t
heywereliabl
e.
Principl
e:Wherethet hi
ngisonet hatwoul
dnotor di
nar i
l
yoccur
withoutnegli
genceont hepar
tofthepersonincharge,itrai
sesa
presumpt i
onofnegli
genceintheabsenceofexpl
anati
on.

PerEr l
e CJ atp.248:" There mustbe r easonable
evidenceofnegl i
gence,but ,wheret hethingisshownt o
be undert he managementoft he def endant,orhi s
servants,and t heacci denti ssuchas,i ntheor di
nar y
courseoft hings,doesnothappeni fthosewhohav ethe
managementoft hemachi neryusepr opercare,itaff
ords
reasonableev idence,int heabsenceofex planati
onby
thedef endant,thatt
heacci dentar osef r
om wantofcar e.
Weal l
assentt otheprinciplelaiddowni nt hecasescited
fort hedef endants;butt hej udgmentt urnsupon t he
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
const
ruct
iont
obeput

•
252
ont hejudge'
snotes.AsmybrotherMELLORandmy sel
f
read those notes,we cannot find t
hat r
easonabl
e
evidenceinthepresentcaseofthewantofcarewhich
seemsappar entt
ot her
estoft
hecourt.
"

UdevBonj ut(1954)14WACA533
Fact s:Thedef endantoccupi edt hetopfloorofthepl
ainti
ff'
sshop.
Hel ef tthehousei nt hecareofhi sservants.Someonel ett hetap
runni ngandf l
owingov ersucht hatwat erseepedthrought othe
plaintiff'
s shop and dest r
oy ed his goods.I n an act i
on f or
negl i
gence, t hetr
ialjudgehel dthattheonuswasont heplaintif
fto
prov et hatt heseepi ngoft hewat erhadbeenduet ot hef aultof
thedef endantorhi sser vant
s.
Held:Si nce t he plainti
ffhad no means ofshowi ng how t he
i
nci denthappened,t hatbei ng int he sole knowledge oft he
defendant ,theonuswasont hedef endant.
Princi pl
e:Wher ethehappeni ngofani ncidentissol
elywi thinthe
knowl edgeoft hedef endant,theprinci
pleappli
esandt heonusi s
ont hedef endantt oshow t hatt hehappeningoft heincidenthas
notbeenduet ohisfaul t
.

PerFoster-Sutt
onPatp.534:" Intheci r
cumst anceshereIam of
theopini
ont hatthef actoftheacci dentr aisesapr esumptionof
negli
gencef orwhi cht hedef endanti sr esponsi bl
e,andthati f
ther
ewer eanyf actsi nconsi
stentwi thnegl igence,ornegli
gence
forwhichhecoul dbehel dresponsi ble,itwasf ort
hedefendant
toprovet hem.Br amwel l,B.
,saidi nBy rnevBoadl e:'
Lookingat
themat t
eri nar easonabl eway ,i
tcomest ot his— aninj
uryi s
donet othepl ai
ntiffwhohasnomeansofknowi ngwhet herit
wast heresultofnegl i
gence;thedef endantwhoknowshowi t
wascaused, doesnott hi
nkfittotellthejury.'Itseemstomet hat
thi
sreasoningisappl i
cabl et
ot hepresentcase.

"As the learned tr

ialJudge said,the onl
yreasonabl
e
explanat
ion oft hef loodi
ng wast hatsomeonei nthe
defendant'spremiseshadleftthetaponandallowedthe
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
wat
ertoov er
fl
ow.Theper sonswhocoul dhavetoldhow
i
thappenedar etheladythedefendantlef
tinchargeof
t
he premises,his steward or cler
k,and It hi
nk i
t
r
easonabl
et odraw theinfer
encethattheactofoneof
t
hem causedthefloodi
ngandt heconsequentdamageto
t
heplai
nti
ff'
sgoods.Thatbeingso,i
ntheabsenceofany

253.
The

evidenceinconsist
entwit
hhisli
abil
it
y,Iam oft heopi
nion
that the defendant must be hel
dr esponsi
blefor the
damage."

Mbadi wevYay a(1954)14WACA613

Fact s:Thepl ai
nti
ff
'sl orrywaspar kedont hesi deoft heroadwhen
theseconddef endantdr ovetheirlorrytohi ti
t,kil
li
ngt heplai
ntif
f'
s
dri
v er.Thedef endant '
sar gumentwast hatt hebr akesofhi slorr
y
fai
ledandt hatifhehadnothi ttheplainti
ff'
scar ,hewoul dhavehi t
thegat eoft hebri
dge.
Held:Si ncetheplaint i
ff'
scarwasst at
ionar yandt hedefendant
drov ehiscart ohitit,itraisedapr esumpt ionofnegl igenceforthe
defendantt odisprovewhi chtheyf ai
led.
Principle:Wher ethecauseofan acci denti ssol elywithi
nt he
knowl edgeofaper son, hebear stheonusofpr ove.

PerFost er-SuttonP.atp.615:" Inacasesuchast heone

underconsi deration here,the accidentit
sel
fr aises a
presumpt ionofnegl i
genceagainstthe.def
endants,andthe
onus ofdi sprovi
ng negl i
gence was upon t hem;The
Mer chantPr i
nce.I ti
st her
eforenecessarytodet ermine
whet hertheydi schargedthatonus.

"Ther
ecanbenodoubtt hatacoll
i
sionwouldnothave
occurred i
fthebrakesoft hedefendant'
svehi
clehad
funct
ionedproper
ly.Thei
rfai
l
uretodosowasduet othe
factt
hatthebrakewascompletel
yempty."

Klut
sevNel son[19651GLR537
Facts:Abusonwhi cht hepl
aint
if
ftrav
ell
edcol
l
idedhead-
onwi
tha
ti
ppertruckdri
venbyt hedefendantwhenthet
ruckski
ddedof
fit
s
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
l
anet ot hel aneoft hebus.Thepl ainti
ffcl
aimedt hecol li
sion
occurredasar esultofthenegligenceoft hedefendantindriv
ingat
anexcessi v
espeedandf ail
ingtoapplyhi sbrakesattheri
ghtt i
me.
Thedef endantont heot herhandcl ai
medt heskidoccurredwhen
heappl i
edani mmedi atebr aketoav oidhi t
ti
ngthebackofacar .
thathadov ertakenhi m atthewr ongpl ace.Thetri
alj
udger ej
ect ed
theevidenceoft hedef endantandappl iedthedoctri
neofresi psa.
Held:Sincethepl ainti
ffclai
medt oknowt hecauseoft heåccident,
themaxi m didnotappl y.
Princi
ple:Thepr incipl
eofr esipsal oquiturappli
esonlywher et he
causeoft heacci dentisunknown.

—054

PerApal ooJSCatpp.543and544:" Atpage79,par a.81,

Vol.28ofHal sbur
y '
sLawsofEngl and( 3r
ded.),
t hecor r
ect
l
egalposi t
ioni sstatedasf oll
ows:' Themaxi mr esipsa
l
oquiturappl i
esonlywher ethecausesoft heacci dentare
unknownbutt heinferenceofnegl i
genceisclearf rom the
natureoft heaccident ,and thedef endantist heref
ore
l
iableifhedoesnotpr oduceev idencet ocount eractthe
i
nference.Ift hecausesar esufficientl
yknown,t hecase
ceasest obeonewher ethef actsspeakf orthemsel ves
andt hecour thast odet er
mi newhet herornot,f rom the
knownf acts,negl
igencei stobei nferred.
'

"Inthiscase,t hepl aintif

fpr ofessedt oknowt hecauseof
theacci dentandpr oducedaney e-wi tnesswhom shehel d
outasawi tnessoft ruth.Hi sevidencewasobv iouslynot
accept ed as a t ruthf ulaccountoft he acci dent.The
plainti
f fal sot ot
allyf ail
edt osubst antiatet hefactswhi ch
she al leged const ituted negl i
gence. I n t hose
circumst ances,i tseemst obeent irelywr ongtor esortt o
the r es i psa l oquiturmaxi m t ot hrow t he bur den of
disproofofnegl i
genceont hedef endant s.Inthecaseof
Bol t
onv .St one,3Mi ssSt oneclaimeddamagesf orinjuries
received when she was st r
uck bya cr i
cketbal lwhi l
e
standi ngont hehighwayi nar oadadj oiningacr icketfield
occupi edbyt hedef endant s.Shef ail
edt omakeouther
all
egat ionsofnegl i
genceandOl iverJ.f oundagai nsther .
Whent hecaseev entual l
yr eachedt heHouseofLor ds,her
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana
counselat t
empt edt orelyont her esipsal oquit
urmaxi m.
LordPor ter,rejecti
nganar gumentbasedont hatpri
nciple,
said:'Iam notassi stedbyanyr elianceont hedoctri
neof
resi psaloqui t
ur .Wher ethecircumst ancesgi vi
ngr i
set o
thecauseoft heacci dentareunknown,t hatdoctri
nemay
beofgr eatassi stance,butwher e,asi nthepr esentcase,
allthefactsar eknown, i
tcannothav eanyappl i
cati
on.Itis
known exact ly how t he accidenthappened,and i ti s
unnecessar yt o ask whet herthis accidentwoul d hav e
happenedhadt herebeennonegl igence.Theonl yquestion
i
s:Dot hef actsoromi ssionswhi char eknownandwhi ch
l
edupt othei njuryamountt onegligence?'

"I
tfol
lowsinmyj udgment
,thatt
heplainti
ff
'scasest
oodor
fel
laccordingasshesucceededorf ailedtoestabl
i
shthe
actsonwhi chsher el
i
edasconst i
tutingthenegli
gence.
I
ndeedt hatisthev i
ewwhichthi
scourttookwhenallowi
ng
an

255.
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"
Ihe

appeali nacol lisi

onact i
onent it
ledSaoudBr other sv
Boat engwhi chj udgmentwasdel iveredon22June1964.
Int hatcase,asi nt hepr esent ,thepl aintifff urnished
particularsofnegl i
genceonwhi chher eli
edt of oundhi s
action.Al thoughhedi dnotsubst antiateanyoft hem, the
l
ear ned t ri
alj udge f ound i n hisf av our .Thi s cour t
reversingt hesai dj udgmentsai d,intera/ i
a,' Finallyt he
l
ear ned j udge f ailed to di rect his at tention t ot he
negl i
gence r el i
ed upon byt he pl aintifft o sust ai
n hi s
claim; consequent l
yhef ail
edt or eali
set hatt herewasno
evidencel edbyt hepl ai
nti
fft oest ablishanypar toft he
negl i
gencepl eadedbyhi m. 'Virt
ual l
y,ev erywor doft hat
passage appl ies t ot his case and i ti s per haps not
without i nter est t hat that v iew was expr essed by
Acol atseJ. S.C.t hensi t
ti
ngasaj udgeoft heSupr eme
Cour t.Inmyopi nion,thepl ainti
ffhav ingf ail
edt omake
outt henegl igencesheal leged,t hequest i
onofl i
abilit
y
shoul dhav ebeendeci dedagai nstherandIam sat isfied
thatt hel ear nedt ri
aljudgeer redi ninv okingt hedoct r
ine
ofr esi psal oqui turi nherfav our.Ifthatv i
ewi sr ight, i
tis
sufficientt o concl ude this appeali nt he def endant s'
favour ."

AboakuvTet teh[196212GLR165
Facts:Thedef endantdrov ehiscart ohittheplainti
ff
'scarwhi
ch
waspar kedbyt her oadside.Thedef endantchosenott ogi
ve
evi
denceatt het r
ialbutr el
iedont wost atementsgi v
entothe
poli
ce, whichthecour tfoundt obeinadmi ssi
ble.
Held:Sincet hedef endanthadnoev i
denceorexpl anati
onfort
he
accident,themaxi m ofr esi psal oquit
urwoul dappl yandthe
defendantwoul dbeliable.
Pri
nci pl
e:Thef actofanacci dentmayr ai
seapr esumpti
onof
negligencesuchast omaket hemaxi m apply.

•
256
CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
tsi
nGhana

PerSarkodee-AddoJSCatpp.169and170:" Turningto
ground (2)itisa set t
led rul
eofl aw and cannotbe
doubtedthattheonusofpr oofthatt
hefirstdefendantas
theservantoragentoft heseconddef endanthasbeen
guil
tyofnegl i
gencefall
supont heplai
ntif
fandunt i
lhe
hasdischargedthisburdenthereisnocaset obel eftt
o
thejur
y.Inal i
mitednumberofcases, howev er,t
hef acts
oftheaccidentmayoft hemselvesconsti
tuteev i
denceof
negli
genceandt hedoct r
ineofr esi
psaloqni t
urappl i
es.
'
Insomeci rcumstancesthemer ehappening

•
257
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ofanacci dentaf
for
dsPr i
mafacieev i
dencethatitwas
ther esul
tofwantofduecar eon t hepartoft he
defendant'
;seeClerkandLindse/lonTor t
s,(1It
hed.)
p.399.I n such ci
rcumstancest he plai
nti
ffwillbe
enti
tl
edt osucceedunlessthedef endantbyev i
dence
rebutstheprobabi
li
ty.

"InBy rnevBoad/ etheplaintiffwaswal kingi napubl i

c
streetpastt hedef endant'
sshopwhenabar reloff lour
fellupon hi m f rom awi ndow abov et heshop,and
seriousl yinjuredhi m.Itwashel dt hatwassuf ficient
Primaf acieev i
denceofnegl igencef ort hej urytocast
ont hedef endantt heonusofpr ovingt hatt heacci dent
wasnotcausedbynegl i
gence.Pol lock,C. B.sai d:'The
presentcaseupont heev idencecomest ot his,aman
i
spassi ngi nfrontofthepr emi sesofadeal eri nf l
our ,
andt her ef all
sdownuponhi m abar reloff l
our .Ithinkit
appar entt hatt hebar r
elwasi nt hecust odyoft he
defendantwho occupi ed the pr emi ses,and who i s
responsi bl
ef ort heactsofhi sser vantswhohadt he
cont r
olofi t;andi nmyopi niont hef actofi tsf all
ingi s
primaf acieev i
denceofnegl i
gence,andt hepl aintif
f
whowasi njuredbyitisnotboundt oshewt hati tcoul d
notf allwi thoutnegl i
gence,buti ftherear eanyf acts
i
nconsi stentwi thnegli
gencei tisfort hedef endantt o
prov ethem. '

"In McAr t
hur v Domi nion Car t
ri
dge Company ( a
Canadi ancase) ,ajur
yhav i
ngf oundthatanexpl osion
occur red t hrough the negl ect of t he def endant-
companyt o supplysuitable machi neryand t ot ake
properpr ecauti
ons,andt hatt her esul
ti
ngi njurytot he
plai
nt i
ffwasnoti nanywayduet ohisnegl i
gence,t he
verdictwasuphel dbyt heunani mousj udgment soft wo
cour t
s.TheSupr emeCour tr
ev ersedthejudgment sof
thet wocour ts.Onappealt ot hePr i
vyCounci l
,itwas
heldt hatanor derbyt heSupr emeCour tsett i
ngasi de
thev erdictont hegroundt hatt herewasnoexactpr oof
oft hef aultwhi chcertai
nlycausedt heinjurymustbe
reversed.Pr ooft ot hatef fectmay be r easonabl y
required i n parti
cul
arcases;i ti snotso wher et he
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
accidenti st heworkofamoment ,anditsorigi
nand
coursei ncapableofbeingdet ect
ed.I nacasesuchas
theoneunderconsi derati
onher et heacci
dentitsel
f
rai
ses a pr esumpt
ion of negl i
gence against the
defendant s,andtheonusofdi spr
ov i
ngnegli
gencewas
upon t hem and t hi
st hey completelyfai
l
ed to do.
Hav i
ng al readyindi
catedt hatexhibit
sD andEwer e
i
nadmi ssiblet he

257"

onlyev i
dence befor
et he cour twas thatoft he
plai
nti
ffandhi stwowi t
nessesi nsuppor tofthe
clai
m;andexcl udi
ngt hesest atements(exhi
bit
sD
andE)wear eoftheviewt hatinthecir
cumstances
thedoctri
neofresipsaloquiturappl
ies.

"Uponappl icationoft hi
sdoct ri
ne,wedi ffer,with
respectandgr eatr eluct
ance,afterlisteningt othe
argument sofl earnedcounselandr ev i
ewi ngal lthe
facts,from t he findings and conclusi ons oft he
l
ear nedtri
aljudge,andar eoft heopiniont hatupon
fail
ure oft he def endantsto cr oss-exami ne the
plai
ntif
fast ot hequant um ofhiscl aimf orr epai
rs
andt helossofear ningscoupl
edwi t
ht heirf ail
ureto
l
eadev i
dencet or ebutthepr obabili
ty,thepl aint
if
f
wasent it
ledtosucceedi nhisclaim."

DeckervAt ta(1970)CC109
Facts:Thepl ai
ntif
fwasapai dpassengeri nt hedef endant's
l
or r
ywhent helorr
yov ert
urned, causingseverei nj
uri
est othe
plai
ntiff
.He sued and r el
ied on t he doctri
ne ofr es ipsa
/oquitw.Thedef endantexpl ainedthatt heaccidentoccurred
duet ot hesuddenbr eakoft helongshaf tint helorry.Held:
Thef act srai
sedaPl imafaciecaseofnegl igenceandt he
maxi m of r es ipsa applied and si nce the def endant's
explanationcouldnotdi spl
acet heonusont hem,t hevwer e
l
iable.

Dumgy
avSpor
tsCounci
lofGhana[
197411GLR429
Fact
s:Thedeceasedwasaspect
atoratt
heKumasiSpor
ts
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Stadi um f ora mat ch or gani sed by t he def endant .The
stadi um wasal soundert hecar eandmai ntenanceoft he
defendant .Partofthewal lint hest adium col lapsedandf el
l
ont hedeceasedwhosust ainedsev erei nj
uriesf r
om whi chhe
died.Thepl ainti
ffsued.Itwasf oundt hatt hepar toft hewall
thatcol l
apsedhadonl yonepi l
l
arinsteadoft heusual two.
Hel d:Si ncet heaccidentwasonet hatwoul dor dinari
lynot
occuri nt he absence ofnegl i
gence on t he par toft he
defendant ,themaxi m ofr esi psal oqui turappl i
edandt he
defendant swoul dbeheldl iable.
Princi ple:Wher eanacci dentoccur st hatint henor malcour se
oft hingswi l
lnotoccuri nt heabsenceoft henegl i
genceof
the per son i n contr
ol,the f actoft he acci dentr aises a
Primaf acieev idenceofnegl igenceont hepar toft heper son
is cont roland i sl i
ablei nt he absence ofa r easonable
expl anat ionast othecour seoft heacci dent.

PerAninJAatpp.434—436:"
From t
hedeci
dedcases,
it
i
s
sett
led thatt
he maxi
m res ipsa l
oqui
turcomes int
o
operat
ion:

onpr
oofoft
hehappeni
ngoft
heunexpl
ainedoccur
rence;

"
(i
i)whent heoccurrenceisonewhi chwoul
dnothav e
happened i nt he ordinar
y course of t
hings
withoutnegligence on the partofsomebody
otherthantheplaint
if
f;and

"
(i
ii
)thecircumstancespoi
ntt
ot henegl
i
gencei
nquest
ion
beingt hatofthedef
endantrat
herthant
hatofany
otherperson.

"Themax i
mr esipsaloquiturappli
esonl ywheret he
causeorcausesoft heacci dentareunknownbut
theinf
erenceofnegl igencei sclearfr
om thenat ure
ofthe acci dent,and t he defendanti stherefore
l
iabl
eifhedoesnotpr oduceev i
dencet ocounteract
theinf
erence.I fthecausesar esuffi
cient
lyknown,
thecaseceasest obeonewher ethef actsspeak
forthemsel ves and t he courthas to det er
mi ne
whetherOfnot ,from theknownf act
s,negli
gencei s
to be i nferr
ed: see Bar kway v Sout h Wal es
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Transpor tco. ,
Lt d[1950]1Al lE. R392atp.394, H.L.
perLor dPor ter( wher eanomni busl eftther oadand
felldownanembankment ,butt hecauseoft he
accidentwasknownt obeabur stt yreduet oan
i
mpactf r
act urewhi chdoesnotnecessar i
lyl eave
anyv isi
blemar ksont heout ert yre,itwashel dthat
themaxi m wasi nappl icabl e.Howev er ,t
heomni bus
company was f ound on t he ev idence t o be
negligenti n nothav ing apr opersy stem oft yr
e
i
nspect ion).I nt hatcasei nt heCour tofAppeal
reportedi n[1948]2Al lE. R.460atp.471Asqui t
h
L.J.(ashet henwas)summar isedt heposi tionwi t
h
regardt ot heonusofpr oofi ncasesf allingunder
themaxi mi nt hreepr oposi ti
ons,whi chpr ovidea
usefult estf orourpur pose:' (i
)I ft hedef endant s'
omni bus l eav es t he r oad and f alls down an
embankment ,andt hi swi thouti nmor ei spr ov ed,
thenr esi psal oqui t
ur ,t herei sapr esumpt iont hat
theev entiscausedbynegl igenceont hepar toft he
defendant s,andt hepl aintiffsucceedsunl esst he
defendant s[ p.435]canr ebutt hispr esumpt ion.( i
i)
Itisnor ebut t
alf ort hedef endant st oshow,agai n
withoutmor e,t hatt he i mmedi at e cause oft he
omni busl eav i
ngt her oadi sat y reburst ,sinceat yr
e
-burstperse i sa neut ralev entconsi stent ,and
equal l
yconsi stent ,withnegl i
genceorduedi l
i
gence
ont hepar toft hedef endant s.\ Vhenabal ancehas
beent il
tedoneway ,youcannotr edressi tbyaddi ng
anequal weightt oeachscal e.

259•
Thedepr essedscalewi l
lr emaindown. .
.(ii
i
)To
displacethepresumpti
on,t hedefendantsmustgo
furtherand prove(oritmustemer ge f
rom the
evidenceasawhol e)eit
her( a)thatthebursti
tself
was due t o a specif
ic cause whi ch does not
connot enegl
igenceont heirpartbutpointstoi t
s
absenceasmor eprobable,or(b),i
ftheycanpoint
to no such specifi
c cause,t hatt hey used all
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
r
easonablecar
einandaboutt
hemanagementof
t
hei
rtyres.
'

"Referencemayal sobemadet oMoor evR.Fox&

Sons[ 1956]1Q.B.596, C.A.wher eitwasheldthat
the onus ofdi sprovi
ng negl igence li
es on the
defendant ,atleasti nt he sense t hatitis not
suffi
ci entforhi
mt oshow t hattherewer eseveral
hypot heti
ccausesconsi st
entwi t
hanabsenceof
negligence,buthemustgof urt
herandshow,( i)
eit
hert hatthe accidentwas due t o a specifi
c
causewhi chdoesnotconnot ehisnegli
gence,or(ii
)
thathehadusedal l
reasonablecar e.

"Appl
y i
ngt hesepr i
ncipl
esofthemaxi m ofresi psa
l
oquiturandt heonusofpr oofarisingt heref
r om to
theev i
dencei nt hi
scase,Iam sat isfi
edt hatt he
l
earnedci rcuitj
udgeer r
edi nhol dingt hat( i)the
max i
m wasi napplicabl
e;(ii
)thatnegl igencehad
notbeenest abl
ishedagai nstthedef endant s;(ii
i)
thatthesur roundingci r
cumstancesshowedt hat
thedefendant swer enotincontroloft hesi tuation;
and(iv)thatthecauseoft heaccidentwasknown.

"Int hefirstplace,Iwoul duphol dt heappel l

ant's
cont ent
iont hatt hemaxi m appl i
edt otheev idence
whi chemer gedi nt hiscase.Ont hepl eadi ngsi t
was conceded byt he def endantst hatt heyar e
solelyr esponsi blef ort he mai ntenance oft he
KumasiSpor tsSt adium ( vi
depar agraph( 2)oft he
claim anddef ence) .Thepl ai nt
if
f'
sexper twi tness,
Mr .Kuf f
uor ,obser vedt hatt hedef ecti
vewal lhad
onlyonepi l
laratoneendi nsteadoft henor mal two;
thatt hewal lcoul dhav ehadast rongerr esistance
i
fi thadhadt wopi l
lars;andt hatt hepi l
larwas
stronger t han t he st eel hand- rai
l whi ch had
replacedit.Thedef endant s'expertwitness( Mont a)
shar edMr .Kuffuor '
sv iew t hatthewal lwi thone
columnonl ywoul dnothav et hesamer esistance
asawal lwi thtwocol umns.Her e,thestadi um was
shownt obeundert hesol emanagementoft he
defendant s.I nt he or dinarycour se oft hings,a
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
stadium wal l,suchast heonei nquest i
on, doesnot
collapseandbur yf ootbal lspect ator sift hosewho
arei ncont rol oft hest adi um hav eusedpr opercar e.
Themer ef allingoft hewal lisi nmyv i
ew pr i
ma
facieev idenceofnegl igenceont hepar toft he
defendantoccupi er s,j
ustast hemer ef all
ingoft he
theatr ecei lingonamemberoft heaudi encewas
heldi nt he Engl i
sh case ofPope vSt .Hel ens
Threat reLt d.( supr a)t obespeakoft henegl i
gence
oft het heat reoccupi ers.Fur t
her mor e,itisasel f-
evidentt rutht hatawal lwi thonl yonesuppor ting
columni smor epr onet oasuddencol l
apset hana
proper ly const ruct ed wal lwi tht wo suppor ting
columns.Thepr esenceofat hi ckcr owd i nt he
stadium i saneut ralev ent .I ti satonceequal l
y
consi stentwi t hnegl i
genceorduedi li
genceont he
partoft hedef endant s, theowner si ncont roloft he
stadium.Undoubt edl y,st adiaar ebui ltt o at tract
crowds;t hemor enumer oust heyar e,t hemor e
profitt heowner sder ivet heref rom.Whati st he
reasonabl ecapaci t yofapar ticul arst adi um i sor
shoul d,wi t
ht heexer ciseofdi ligence,beknownby
thest adi um owner s( t
hedef endant sher ein).Ther e
was no ev idence adduced by t he def endant s
tending t o show t hat t he st adi um had been
regular l
ymai nt ainedorkepti nar easonabl est at e
ofr epai rsi ncei tsconst ruct i
on,ev ent hought his
all
egat ionwasmadei nt hest atementofdef ence.
Thei rsol e wi tness and bui lding sur v eyor ,Fel i
x
Mont a,conf essedundercr oss-exami nat i
ont onot
hav i
ngst eppedt her esi ncei tsconst ruct i
onandt he
mandat or y mai nt enance per iod of one y ear
thereaf t
er .Thi swi tnessdi dnoti nanywayr ebutby
his ev idence t he pr ima f aci e ev i
dence of
negl i
genceest abl i
shedagai nstt hedef endant sby
themer eoccur r
enceofanacci dentwhi chi nt he
ordinar ycour seoft hingsdoesnothappeni ft hose
whohav et hemanagementoft hest adi um andi ts
walls( def endant s her ein)use pr opercar e.No
evidence was adduced t o show t hatsi nce t he
defendant sassumedsol econt roloft hest adium
they had mai ntained i t.On t he cont r
ar y,t he
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
evi
dencer evealed t
hatt hewal lwhichcol l
apsed
wasnott heor i
ginalwallwhoseconst ructi
onhad
beensuper visedbyFel i
xMont a.Heev enadmi tt
ed
undercr oss-examinati
ont hatinconsequenceof
therepl
acementofpar tofthewal li
nquest i
onwi t
h
agateandt heremov alofasuppor t
ingcolumn, t
he
remaini
ngwal lhadbecomeaweakerwal l.Amor e
potenti
aldangert ot he mill
i
ng st adi
um cr owds
couldbehar dlyimagined."

261•

Asant ekr amoAl iasKumahvAt t

orneyGener al[ 1975]1GLR
319Fact s:Thepl aintiffsuffer
edar upturedect opicpr egnancy
and was oper at ed upon att he Komf o Anoky e Teachi ng
Hospi t al.Inthecour seoft heoper ati
onhowev er,herr ightarm
became swol len and gangr enous owi ng t o a bl ood
transf usionadmi nisteredbyanur seoft hehospi tal .Thear m
wasl at eramput atedt osav eherl i
fe.Shesuedt hedef endant.
The pl aint i
ffgav et he par t
iculars oft he negl igence and
pleaded t hatshe woul dr el
yon t he doct r
ine ofr es ipsa
l
oqui tur .Shehowev erf ai
ledt opr ovet hepar ti
cul arsoft he
negl i
genceaspl eaded.
Hel d:The f act s as pl eaded r ai
sed a pr esumpt i
on of
negl i
genceandsi ncet hedef endantscoul dnotr ebutt hat
pr esumpt i
on,theywer el i
able.Pr i
nciple:Thedoct rineofr es
ipsaneednotbepl eadedbutr atherf actsmustbepl eaded
thatshowt hatt heacci dentcoul dnothav ehappenedbutf or
thenegl i
genceoft hedef endant .

Per Tay lor J atpp.326 — 329:" Ithas been

fashi onableinsomeper sonalinjuryclaimsf ounded
onnegl i
gencet opl eadr esipsal oquitur.Indeedi n
BullenandLeake' sPr ecedentsofPl eadi
ngs( 11t hed.)
atp.536,t herei sasuggest iont hatiti spropert o
pleadr esipsal oquitnrincertaincasesandi nfactin
Nel sonvKl utse,Cour tofAppeal,8Sept ember1969,
unrepor t
ed;di gestedi n(1969)C. C.142,t hispoint
regar ding pl eading r es ipsa l oquitur and t he
treatmentoft hatpl eai nBull
enandLeakewasur ged
ont heCour tofAppeali nanar gumentcal culat
edt o
show t hatf ailur
et o all
ege res ipsa l oquit
uri na
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
statementofcl ai
m disbar sthepl ainti
fff r
om r elyi
ng
on t he doct r
ine. In obi ter dicta,Ami ssah J. A.
consider edt hemat t
erthus:' Ourattent i
onwasdr awn
i
nt hisr espectt othepr ecedentinBul l
enandLeake' s
Precedent sofPl eadings( 1I thed. )atpp.535- 536
wher e a sent ence i s added t oi ndicatet hatt he
plainti
ffwi llrelyont hemaxi m.Asetofpl eadi
ngsi s
notnecessar ilybadbecausei tf
ail
st ocomeupt othe
standar d of Bul l
en and Leake.And t hough t he
pleadingsoft heappl i
cantquot ed abov emaynot
reach t he hei ghts ofper fect
ion t he quest ion is
whet her,i fone may bor r
ow t he wor ds ofLor d
Nor mand i nEsso Pet roleum Co. ,Lt d.vSout hpor t
Cor poration[ 1956]A. C.218atp.238, H. L.
, t
heygav e
fairnot i
ceoft hecasewhi chhast obemetsot hat
theopposi ngpar tymaydi recthisev idencet ot he
i
ssuedi sclosedbyt hem. '

"Theideathatresipsal
oquit
urassuchi spleadabl
e
must have probabl
y ar
isen ex abundant
i caute/
a
becauseoft
hecauti
onof

pleader s.In Benasand Essenhi gh'sPr ecedent sof

Pleadings( 2nded.),oneoft hespeci menst at
ement s
ofcl aim i nnegli
gencecont ai
nst hi
satp.236:' I
n
regardt oeachoft heDef endant sthePlainti
ffwillrel
y
ont hepr inci
pleofresi psaloquitur.Andatp.536of
Bullen and Leake r eferr
ed t o byAmi ssah J. A.in
NelsonvK/ ufse(supra),thef oll
owingappear si na
speci men,'Sof arasmaybenecessar y,thepl ainti
ff
willrelyupont hedoctr
ineofr esipsaloqui f
ur..
..
'

"I
nmyopi nion,theeditorsofBul l
enandLeakeand
BenasandEssenhi ghareent irelywrong.Or der19,r .
4ofourHi ghCour t(Civ i
lProcedur e)Rul es,1954,
whi chwascul ledwi t
houtanyal t
erati
oni nf orm or
substancef rom theEnglishRul esprovidesasf ol
lows:
'
Ev ery pleading shallcont ai
n,and cont ain onl ya
statementi nasummar yf orm ofthemat erialfactson
whi ch the par t
y pleadi
ng r elies forhis cl aim or
defence,ast hecasemaybe,butnott heev i
denceby
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
which t
heyar
eto be pr
oved .
..(
the emphasi
sis
mine)
.'

"Thispr ov
isi
onmakesi tmandat orythatonl ymaterial
factsandnot hingelsear etobepl eaded.I nmyv i
ew
paragraph( 9)oft hestat ementofcl ai
m oughtt obe
struck offand Ipr opose t oi gnorei tas bei ng
unnecessar yhavingr egar dtothepr ovi
sionofOr der
19,r .29,whichpr ovi
desasf ol
lows:'TheCour tora
Judgemayatanyst ageoft heproceedingsordert o
be st ruck out or amended any mat ter i
n any
i
ndor sement or pl eading whi ch may be
unnecessar y.
..
.'

"Itseemst omet hatwhatoughtt obepl eadedi n

theser esi psal oqui t
urcasesi snott hemer ewor ds
resi psal oquitur,incantator ywor dsasAmi ssahJ.A.
call
edt hem i nNel sonvK/ utse( supra);thesewor ds
by t hemsel ves do noti n any way adv ance t he
narrativ
eoft hepl aintiff
'scase.Fact sshoul dr at
herbe
pleadedwhi cht akent oget herpr ov ethatt hedamage
sufferedbyt hepl ainti
ffcoul dnothav ehappenedbut
forthepr esumpt ivenegl i
genceoft hedef endant .In
facti ntheser esi psal oquiturcaseswhatact uall
y
contributedt othe, damagei sunknownt othepl ai
ntif
f
sincehewasnoti ncont roloft her es.Theper soni n
controloft her esi sthedef endantandbecausebei ng
i
ncont rol,thedamageori njuryoughtnott ohav e
happenedi fheexer cisedcar eanddi ligence,anonus
i
scastonhi mt oshow t hatt hedamagewasnot
causedbyhi snegl i
genceort henegl igenceofhi s
servant.
263•
•

"Thisisthelegalandcommonsenseappr oacht othe

problem whichcommendsi t
selft
omeandwhi ch
fi
nds suppor tint he views ofDav i
es L.J.int he
EnglishcaseofBennet tvChemi cal
Construct
ion(GB)
Ltd.[1971]3AllE.R.822atp.825, C.A.Comment ing
ont henecessi t
yf orpleadingresipsa/ oquit
urhe
saidatp.825:'Ihav esaidthatinmyopinionitisnot
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
necessaryto pl
ead r
esi psa/ oqui
tur
.Ifthef act
s
pleadedandthefact
sprov edshowthatthecauseof
theaccidentwasapparent l
yandoni tsfacesome
negli
gence,t
hati
ssuffi
cient.
'

"Withr egardtotheonusofpr oofinsuchasi tuat

ion
her emar kedatt hesamepage:' I
ftheacci dentis
proved t o have happened i n such a way t hat
Primaf aci
ei tcoul d nothav e happened wi t
hout
negligenceont hepar tofthedefendants,thenitis
fort hedef endantsto explai
nand show how t he
accidentcouldhav ehappenedwithoutnegli
gence.'

"Thedecisionitselfofthefullbenchoft heCour tof

AppealinNel sonvKl utse(supra)supportst hevi
ew
thatres ipsa / oquit
urneed notbe pl eaded,for
AmissahJ. A.,whodel i
veredtheunanimousdeci sion
ofthecourt,explai
nedt heposit
ionrathercareful
ly:

'
Wedonotshar et heirv i
ewt hatthedoct r
ineofr es
i
psa l oqui t
urcan be r esor ted to onl y when a
plaintiffspeci fi
callypl eadst hathei nt endst or el
y
oni t.Whatt hepassagei nHa/ sbur y '
sLawsof
Engl and( 3rded. )
,Vol .28,p.77,par a.79,whi ch
wasci tedbyl earnedcounselt ous, say sisnott hat
resi psal oqui t
urmustbepl eaded,butt hatf acts
from whi ch iti si ntended t hatt hepr esumpt ion
shoul dbedr awnmustbe.Theact ualwor dsof
Ha/ sbur yar e:'Thepl ainti
ffcannotr elyuponan
i
nf erenceofnegl igenceunl esshehasal legedi n
thepl eadi ngsandpr ov edatt hetri
althef act sfrom
whi cht hei nferencei st obedr awn. 'Sot hatt he
appear ance oft he i ncantatory wor ds r es i psa
/oqui furi nt hepl eadings,Oft hepl aintiffsay ing
thereint hathei ntendst orelyont hemer eacci dent
as pr oof of t he negl igence,i s not t he onl y
foundat ionf ort hei nvocat i
onoft hedoct r
ine( the
emphasi sismi ne) .'

"I
tseems t o me wi threspectthough t
hatt he
appearanceoft hemer ephraseresi
psaloqui
turis
by it
self,inf act,no foundati
on atallfort he
i
nvocation oft he doct
ri
ne.I n my v
iew t
he true
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
foundati
onf ort
hei
nvocat
ionoft
hedoct
ri
nei
sas
clear
lystat
ed
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
nt he above passage.I ti s merelypleadi ng and
nothingelse,only't
hefact sfr
om whi chitisintended
that t he pr esumpt i
on shoul d be dr awn.
'
Unfortunatel
ypr obabl
yt hecaut i
ouswayi nwhi chit
wasexpr essedhasi nadv ert
ently
,Ibel ieve,l edan
academi c wr i
ter to mi sconceivet he true r at
io
decidendiand t o suggesti nt he usualv ein of
academi cwr i
tersbutv erywr onglyinmyv i
ew,t hat
the decision oft he f ul
lbench i n applying t he
pri
ncipletothecasei shar dtojusti
fy.
"

Asaf
ovCat
hol
i
cHospi
tal
ofApam [
197311GLR282
Fact s:Thepl aintif
f'sdaught erofsi xweeksol dwasadmi tt
ed
tot hedef endant '
shospi talataspeci alwar df orchi l
dren.
Althought hemot herwasal l
owedt osl eepint hehospi talin
ordert obr east f
eedher ,sheonlyhadaccesst ot hedaught er
ont hei nvit
ationoft hehospi talaut hori
ti
es.Thechi l
dl ater
disappear ed and nobody coul dt el
lherwher eabout.The
plainti
ffsued.Thedef endantsof f
erednoexpl anationfort he
disappear anceoft hechi ld.
Hel d:Sincet hedef endantcoul dnotgi veev i
dencet oshow
thatt hedi sappear anceoft hechildwasconsi stentwi thdue
careanddi li
gence,t hepl ai
ntif
fwasent i
tl
edt or elyont he
doct ri
neofr esi psal oquiturandt hedef endantwasl i
ablei n
theabsenceofexpl anation.
Principle:Wher eanev entoccur r
edsuchaswoul dnoti nt he
ordinarycour seoft hingshav eoccur redwi t
houtnegl igence,
thedoct ri
neofr esi psal oquit
urappl i
es.

PerEdwar d Wi redu J atpp.285 and 286:" The

quest i
on now i s do t he presentf actsj ustif
yt he
plainti
ff'
sr el
ianceont heprincipl
eofr esipsal oquit
ur
i
nest abli
shinghi sclaim agai nstthedefendant s?On
thisissueIunder standt heplaint
if
f'scontentiontobe
thatsi ncet hecust odyandcont r
oloft hechi ldwas
witht hedef endantsatt hemat erialti
mewhenshe
wasf oundt obemi ssingonl ytheempl oyeesoft he
defendanthospi talwhower ewi tht hechi l
datt he
specialwar d coul dt ellaboutt he circumst ances
underwhi cht hechi l
ddi sappearedf rom hercotata

269.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ti
mewhenshewassupposedt obesl eepinginit.The
circumst ances underwhi ch t he child gotmi ssi
ng
accor di
ngt ot hepl aintif
f'scounselwer eamat ter
withint heexcl usi
veknowl edgeoft hedef endant s'
staf fondut yatt her elevantt ime.Lear nedcounsel
fort he defendant st ook issue wi tht he pl ai
ntiff'
s
reli
ance on t he principle ofr es i
psa loqui t
urand
submi tt
edt hati nt heabsenceofanyev idencet o
show t hat t he admi nist
r ati
v e set up of t he
def endants'hospi t
alwas f ound want i
ng i nt hei r
secur ity sy stem compar ed wi t
h what exi sts
elsewher ei n ot herhospi t
al st he plai
ntif
f'
s act i
on
shoul dbedi smi ssed.

"Itist ri
tel aw t hatwher eanev entoccur ssuchas
woul d noti nt he or dinar y cour se oft hings hav e
occur redwi thoutnegl igencet hen, condi tionsexi stfor
the appl i
cat ion ofr es i psa / oqui tur.Among t he
i
nst ancesofsuchoccur rencei st het heftofgoods
from abai l
ee'swar ehouse:seeBr ooksWhar fand
Bui/Whar fLt d.vGoodmanBr other s[1937]1K. B.534
atpp.539- 540,C. A.Thef actsoft hiscasecanbe
l
ikenedt oacaseofbai lment .Theonl ydi ff
er encei s
thatachi l
dcannotst rictl
ybedescr i
bedasachat tel
whichcanbebai l
ed,butt hepr inci pleIam t ryingt o
draw i st hesame.I nmat tersofcar e,at tent i
onand
cont rolofmov ement sachi l
dofsi xweeksol di sno
diff
er entf rom ani nani mat eobj ectwhi chi si ncapabl e
ofi ndependentmov ementbutdepends f orsuch
suppor t on whoev er hav e i ts cust ody . Wher e
theref ore t he chi ld get s mi ssing whi l
st under
someone' scust odycondi tionsexi stwhi chr equi rean
explanat ionf rom whoev erhadi tscust ody ,andon
this scor e Iam oft he v iew t hatt he pl ai
nt i
ff'
s
cont ent iont hatt hef act soft hepr esentcasecal lfor
anexpl anat ionf r
om t hedef endanti st her ightv i
ew
andt hatt her eliancehepl acesonr esi psal oqni t
urto
establ ishhi scl aimi sjust ifi
able.I nmyj udgmentIf ind
resipsal oqni turappl icablet othef actsoft hepr esent
case,andi nt heabsenceofanyev idencef rom t he

270.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

defencet o show how t hechild di

sappeared orto
showt hatthedisappearancewasconsistentwithdue
dil
igenceont heirpartort hattherewasnol ackof
reasonablecareont hepar tofthehospitalstaf
fin
theircust
odyoft hechild,Iholdthedefenceli
ableto
theplaint
if
findamages. "

Br
ownvSal
tpondCer
ami
cs[
1979]GLR409
Facts:Thepl ainti
ff'
sf iv
e-year -
oldsonwasknockeddownand
kil
l
edbyt hedef endant '
sdr iveronamaj orroadwhi chcrossed
amar ketpl aceandwhi chwasal way scr owded.Thepl aint
if
f
all
egedt hatt heaccidentoccur r
edduet oexcessivespeedat
whicht hedef endant'sdr i
v erwasgoi ng.Hewashowev ernot
aney e-witnesst otheacci dentandatt hetri
alfail
edt oprove
thespeedatwhi cht hecarwast ravel
li
ngort hedistancethe
chil
dwast hrownaf tertheacci dent.Thet ri
aljudgeheldforthe
defendantandonappeal ,hear guedt hatthej udgef ai
ledto
applythedoct ri
neofr esipsa
l
oqui
tur
.

Held:Sincethefact
spleadedandt heev i
denceleddi
dnotshow
anyev i
denceofnegli
gence,thedoct r
inewasnotappli
cabl
e.
Pri
nciple:Forthedoctri
net o apply,thefact
smustpoi ntt
oa
Pri
maf acienegl
i
genceont hepar tofthedef
endant.

PerAnnanJA atpp.414— 416:" I

nt hepresent
caset hereisveryli
tt
leevidenceast ot hepar
ticul
ar
situati
oncr eat
edbyt hepresenceoft hechi
ldand
whi chshoul dhaveputt hedr i
v erspecial
lyonhi s
guar d and obl i
ged hi m t o t ake some such
precaut i
onassoundi ng thehor n,slowing down,
swer vingorev enst oppi
ngal together.Allt
hati s
knowni sthatthechi l
dwasknockeddownont he
highwaybyt hevehicleinchargeoft heserv
antof
ther espondents.

"Hardcases,i
tissaid,makebadl aw.It
hinkt hi
sis
ahardcasebutf atherthanextendtheapplicat
ion
ofthemaxi mr esi
psal oquit
urtosuchacaseas
thi
s,Iwoul d,Ithink,be justi
fi
ed i
nleaving the
damageint hi
scasewher ei
tfell
.

271.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"Recov er y of damages i n cases ar ising f rom

per sonali njuryont hehi ghwayi sst i
llf i
rml ybased
on pr oofofbehav iourr egar ded asunr easonabl e
andt her ef oreput t i
ngt hedef endantatf aul t.The
maxi m r es i psa l oqui tur nei ther di spl aces t his
bur denofpr oofnorl ight ensi t.I tmer ely[ p.415]
alterst hemet hodofdi schar gi ngi t.Thebasi sof
successbyapl aint i
ffi sst i
llnegl igenceandt his
mustbe est abl ished ei therexpr essl y,by di rect
ev i
dence of f act s on omi ssi ons bef ore t he
happeni ng oft heacci dent ,orci rcumst ant iallyby
wayofr easonabl ei nfer ence f rom t he par ti
cul ar
fact soft heacci denti tsel f,pr ov i
dedsuchf actsi n
themsel vesper mi tt hei nf erenceofnegl igencet obe
drawn.I ti snotenoughf ort her est ospeak.I tmust
speakwi tht he v oi ce ofnegl igence.It hi nki ti s
i
mpor tantf orar eal isticappl icat ionoft hemaxi m of
resi psal oqui t
uri ncasesofacci dent st hati tbesai d
thati tisnotpr oofofanyacci dentont hehi ghway ,
be i ta case ofcol l
ision orr unni ng down,t hat
per mitst hei nf erenceofnegl igencet obedr awn:
'
Accor di
ngt oourunder standi ngoft hedoct r
ine[ of
resi psal oqui tudi tappl i
eswhenev eri tcanbesai d
atagi venpoi ntofat rialt hatr esorci rcumst ances
prov edbyt hepl aint iffar eoft hemsel v essuf fi
cient
ev i
dencef rom whi chnegl igencemayr easonabl ybe
i
nf erred.Andt hef i
r stdeci sivepoi ntoft het rial i
st he
closeoft hepl aint iff'
scase.Fori ft hedoct rinecan
thenbei nv okedbyhi m, hei senabl edt oav oidanon
-suitorhi sact i
onbei ngdi smi ssedont hegr ound
thathehadnotdi schar gedt heonuswhi chl ayon
him;seet hei ll
umi natingj udgmentofEv attJ.i n
Dav isvBunn( (1936)56C. L.R.246) .Inef fectwhat
thisboi l
sdownt oi st hati nev er ycaseofnegl igence
i
ti sf ort hepl aint ifft opl eadandpr ovef act sf rom
whi ch t he negl i
gence oft he def endantmay be
i
nf erredbyt hecour t.Gener ally,pr oofoft heactor
omi ssionwhi choccasi onsdamagei snotbyi tself
suf fi
cientev idence f rom whi ch t he i nf erence of
negl i
gencecanbedr awn...Butt her ear ecases

272.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wher et he proofoft he acti t

self
,l etussayan
accident,i s suffici
entt or aise the i nference of
negligence because act s oromi ssions of t hat
naturedonoti nt heor di
narycour seoft hingsoccur
withoutt henegligenceoft heper sonr esponsi bl
ef or
i
tshappeni ng.Thesear ethecaseswher eitissai d
thatt her esspeaksf ori t
self.Wher et hepr oofi s
givenbyt hepl ai
nt i
ffofsuchanacci dentbyi tself
andnomor e,thecour tisentit
ledtoinf ernegligence
(perAmi ssah J. A.in Nel son vK/ utse,Cour tof
Appeal( fullbench) ,8Sept ember1969,unr eported;
digestedi n(1969)C.C.142( theemphasi sismine) .
'

"Wher e an i nference i sa r easonabl e deduct ion

from theev idencei tmaybesuf f
icientt odi schar ge
thebur denofpr oofbutt her ecanbenoi nfer ence
unlesst herear eobj ecti
vef actsf r
om whi cht he
factsoughtt obepr ovedmaybeest ablishedand
wher etherear enosuch' posi t
ivepr ovedf act s'
,the
met hod ofi nferencef ai
lsand whatr emai nsi s
mer e specul ation orconj ecture:see Ny ame v
TarzanTr anspor t[1973]1G. L.R.8atp.15, C.A.In
myv i
ew, ont hef actsofthisappeal ,theonl ybasi s
onwhi cht hemaxi m woul dappl yist his,thati nthe
ordinary cour se ofexper i
ence a mot orv ehi cl
e
doesnotknockdownapedest ri
anont hehi ghway
wi t
houtanynegl i
genceont hepar toft heper soni n
cont r
oloft hev ehicleandsot hemer eoccur rence
oft hatkindofacci dentmakesi tmor epr obabl e
thannott hati twascausedbyt henegl i
genceof
theper soni n[ p.416]cont roloft hemot orv ehicle.
Thati saconcl usi onIdonotf eelabl et ocomet o
andIam notper suadedt hataut hor i
tycompel sme
todoot herwi se.Accor dingly,Iwoul duphol dt he
ruli
ngoft het rialj udgeinwhi chhehel dt hatt he
appellanthadnotmadeouthi scase. "

BarkwayvSouthWalesTranspor
t[195011AllER392
Facts:Theplai
nti
ff
'shusband wasa passengeron the
defendant
'somni
buswhent heoffsi
defrontt
yreoft
hebus

273.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

bur standt hebusv eeredoffacr osstheroadandf el

l,
kill
i
ng
thepl ai
nt i
ff'
shusband.Thecauseoft heaccidentwassai d
tobeani mpactfractureduetoheav yblowsont heout si
de
oft hety r
ewhi chledt othedisintegrat
ionofitsinnerparts.
Thepl ainti
ffsoughtt or el
yont hedoct ri
neofr esipsa
loquitur.
Hel d:Sincet hecauseoft heacci dentwassuf fi
cientl
yknown
thedoct rinedidnotappl y
.
Principl
e:Wher et he fact
s ar e suffi
cient
ly known,t he
quest i
onceasest obeonet hatspeaksf orit
sel fandt he
doct r
inedoesnotappl y.

PerLor dPor teratpp.394and395: "Thedoct ri

nei s
dependenton t he absence ofexpl anat ion,and,
althoughi tist hedut yoft hedef endant s,ift hey
desi r
et opr ot ectt hemsel ves,togi veanadequat e
explanat ionoft hecauseoft heacci dent ,y et,i
ft he
factsar esuf ficient l
yknown,t hequest ionceases
tobeonewher et hef act sspeakf ort hemsel v es,
and t hesol ution i st o bef ound bydet ermi ning
whet her,ont hef actsasest ablished,negl igencei s
to be i nf erred ornot .I nt he pr esentcase,t he
evidencegi venandaccept edbySel lersJwast hat
theomni busl ef tPembur ywor ksat6. 15andt he
accidentoccur rednotl atert han6. 30.Thedi stance
cov eredbet weent hest artf rom thewor ksandt he
placeoft heacci dentwasf iv
emi l
es, 220y ards, but
thef irst13/ 8mi leswasal ongapr ivate,nar row
anddanger ousr oadandt her emai ni ng33/ 4mi les
along ar oad whi ch wassomewhatnar row and
windi ng and i n poorcondi t i
on.Ov ert he ear lier
por t
iont hepr escr ibedandsaf el i
mi twast enmi les
anhour .Ov ert hesecondpor t
iont hel imi tdur ing
blackouthour si nwar timewast went ymi l
esan
hour .Buckni l
lLJpoi ntsouti nt hecour seofhi s
j
udgmentt hat ,ift hedr iverpr oceededatt hepr oper
speedoft enmi lesanhourov ert hepr ivater oad,
hisav er
agespeedov ert hepubl i
cr oadmusthav e
been some t hir ty
-two mi l
es an hour . Thi s
calculationwasaccept edbyt her espondent si n

274.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

yourLor dships'House,butitdoesnotconcludet he
matterordet er
mine the speed att he moment
when t he acci dent took pl ace.There was a
considerablebodyofev i
denceatt hetri
altot he
eff
ectt hattheomni buswasdr i
venatav er
yf ast
speedi nt heconditi
onsobt aining,andeventhatit
i
ncreased

275.
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

speedj ustbef oret heacci dent .Ont heot herhand,manyof

thewi tnesseswhogav et hi sev i
dencehadpr eviousl ymade
statement st ot hepol i
cet hatt hev ehicl ewasbei ngdr ivenata
moder at espeed.Thedr iverhi msel fasser tedt hathewas
goingnomor et hanf ift
een- twent ymi lesanhouratt hev i
tal
moment ,butSel l
er sJhasnotaccept edt hisest i
mat eandhas
putt hespeedataboutt went y-fiv e—t went y-sixmi lesanhour .
Theexactspeedmust ,ofcour se,benomor et hanar ough
estimat e,buti nt he ci r
cumst ances Isee no r eason f or
depar tingf rom t heopi nionexpr essedbySel lersJ.I tappear s
thatshor tlybef oret heacci dentt her oadr isessl ightlyuphi ll
,
and, thought heev idencei snotposi tive, therei sasuggest i
on
thatgearwast henchangeddown, anev entwhi chwoul dlead
passenger st osuppose, fr
om t hei ncr easedr ev olut i
onsoft he
engi ne,t hat t he speed had i ncr eased.Mor eov er,i tis
exceedi ngl ydi fficult,ev enf oranexper t,toest i
mat espeedi n
thedar k,andi nt hepar ti
cul arcasei tisdoubt fulift hespeed
coul dev erhav eexceededt hirtymi lesanhourast heengi ne
was f i
tt ed wi th a gov ernorpr ev ent i
ng i tf rom pr oceedi ng
fastert hant hatpace.I fIwer el eftt omy self,Ishoul dbe
i
ncl i
ned t o say t hatt he dr ivermusthav e exceeded t he
prescr ibedspeedov eral lpor tionsoft hecour se, i
ncl udingt he
fi
rstpor tion,and,asr egar dst hef irstpor t
ion,t hati nef fectis
ther esul tofhi sev idence.I ft hepr escr i
bedr at eoft enmi l
es
anhourwasexceededont hatpor ti
onso t hati tr eached
fi
fteenort went ymi lesanhouri nst eadoft enmi lesanhour ,
thespeedont hel aterpor t
ionneednothav ebeenmuch
great ert hant went ymi lesanhour .Int his,ther efor e,asi nall
mat ter swher eSel l
er sJsaw t hewi tnessesandf ormedhi s
i
mpr essi onf rom t heev idencegi v en, Isuggestt hati twoul dbe
unsaf ef ory ourLor dshi pst odepar tf rom t heconcl usionat
whi chhear rived.Ihav edeal tal ittl
eatl engt h,and shal l
hereaf terhav et odealwi t
h,t hequest ionofspeedbecausei t
wasoneoft hef or emostcont ent ionsr elieduponi nsuppor tof
the appel lant's case.Butf ort he speed,i twas sai d,t he
acci dentwoul dnothav ehappened,t het yrewoul dnothav e
burst , andt heomni buswoul dhav ekeptt her oad. "

PerLordNor mandatpp.399and400:" Thefactt hatan

omnibus leav
es the r
oadway and so causes i
njur
yt oa
passengerort o someone on the pav
ementi s evidence
rel
evanttoinf
erthatt
heinj
urywascausedbyt henegligence
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
oft
heowner,sothat,
ifnot
hingmor
ewer
epr
oved,
itwoul
dbe
asuff
ici
entf
oundati
on

.
270
foraf indingofl iabili
tyagainsthi m.I tcanr arelyhappenwhen
ar oadacci dentoccur st hattherei snoot herev idence,and,i f
thecauseoft heacci denti spr ov ed,t hemaxi m r esi psa
l
oqui turisofl it
tlemoment .Thequest iont hencomest obe
whet hert heownerhasper f
or medt hedut yofcar ei ncumbent
on hi m,orwhet herhe i s by r eason ofhi s negl igence
responsi blef ort
hei njury.Themaxi mi snomor et hanar uleof
evidenceaf fecti
ngonus.I ti
sbasedoncommonsense, andits
purposei stoenabl ejusti
cet obedonewhent hef act sbearing
oncausat ionandont hecar eexer cisedbyt hedef endantar e
att heout setunknownt othepl aintiffandar eoroughtt obe
withint heknowl edgeoft hedef endant .Itisnotnecessar yin
thepr esentcaset oconsi dert heint ermedi ateposi tion,when
therei s some ev idence bear ing on t he causat i
on oft he
accidentandont hecar eexer cisedbyt hedef endant ,butthe
causeoft heacci denthasnotbeenpr ov ed,ort odi scusswhat
evidencei nsuchacasemaysuf fi
cet odi schar get heonus. "

PerLor dRadcl iffeatpp.403and404:" Idonott hi nkt hatt he

appel lantwasent i
tledt oj udgmenti nt heact ionbecauseofany
speci alv i
rtueint hemaxi mr esipsal oqui t
ur.If indnot hi ngmor ei n
thatmax i
mt hanar uleofev idence,ofwhi cht heessencei st hatan
ev entwhi chi ntheor di narycour seoft hingsi smor elikelyt hannott o
hav ebeencausedbynegl i
gencei sbyi tselfevidenceofnegl igence.
Int hisact ion much mor ei sknown t han thebar ef actt hatt he
omni busmount edt hepav ementandf elldownt he bank.Thet r ue
quest ioni snotwhet hert heappel lantadducedsomeev i
denceof
negl igence,butwhet heronal ltheev idenceshepr ov edt hatt he
respondent shadbeengui ltyofnegl igencei nar el evantpar ti
cul ar.In
myv iew,t hei mpor tantt hingi st hatt het yreont her espondent s'
omni buswasdef ect i
v e.Itwas,i ndeed,t heircaset hatt hebur stof
thei nnert ubewascausedbyt hef aul tycondi ti
onoft hest r
uct ureof
thet y re,andt hatt hatf aultycondi tionhadar i
senf rom ani mpact
fract ur esuf fer
edatsomeunascer tainabl et i
mebef oret heacci dent .
Now,acar rier'
sobligat iont ohi spassenger ,whet heritbeexpr essed
i
ncont ractOfi nt or t,ist opr ovi
deacar r
iaget hati sasf reef r
om
def ect sast heexer ciseofal lreasonabl ecar ecanmakei t.Thiscar e
the r espondent sclai mt ohav etaken,andt hemaj ority
,i fnotal l
,of
themember soft heCour tofAppealuphel dt heirclaim.I nmy v i
ew,
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
t
her
espondent
sfai
l
edt
oest
abl
i
sht
hatt
heyhadobser
ved

271"

anadequatest
andardofcar
e,anditi
sfort
hatreasont
hatI
thi
nkt
hattheappel
lanti
sent
it
ledt
oherdamages.
"

ByrnevBoadle[1861-731Al lERRepExt1528; (1863)159ER299

Facts:The plaint
iffwas passi ng al ong a publi
cr oad byt he
defendant
'swarehousewhenabar reloff l
ourbeingloweredi nto
thewarehousefellonhi
m andi njuredhi m.
Held:Thefactoftheaccidental oner aisedaprimaf aci
eevidence
ofnegli
genceont hepartofthedef endantandt hedoctri
newoul d
apply.
Pri
ncipl
e:Wher ethecauseoft heacci dentiswithintheexclusive
knowledgeoft hedefendant,t hedoct ri
neappliesandput st he
onusofproofonhi m.

PerPol l
ockBatp.1529:" Supposeamant obewal king
underawar ehouse,aswast hecaseher e,andabar rel
wast or olloutandf alluponhi m, thebar relcomi ngf rom a
heightabov e,how coul d he possi bl yt ellby whose
negligencei twasdone?I twaspr ovedi nev idence,i nt his
case,t hattheent i
rewar ehouseandpr emi seswer ei nt he
defendant '
soccupat i
on,usedbyhi mf ort hecar r
y i
ngon
histrade,andt hatt hebar relwhi chf ellout ,orwasbei ng
l
ower ed,camef rom t hewar ehouseoft hedef endantand
causedt hei njur ytot hepl aintiff.Thatwoul dbeofi tsel f
Pimaf acieev i
denceofnegl igencebyt hedef endant ,or
thosef orwhoseact shewasr esponsi ble.Thepl aintiffis
nott obeobl igedt ogoaboutandi nqui r
et hecauseof
suchanacci dent —whower ei nt hewar ehouseabov ehi m,
andt heirbusi nesst her e;howi twasdone, andsuchl i
ke: it
i
ssi mi l
artot hatofamanwhohast ogot hr oughapubl i
c
passagewher eabui l
dingisbei nger ect ed, andani nj
ur yis
causedt ohi m bysomeoft hemat erialsf all
i
ngonhi m
whilstpassi ng.Thi swoul dbePr i
maf aci eev i
denceof
negligenceagai nstt hebui lder;her et heev idencebef ore
thecour twas, t hatthepl aintiffandhi swi f
ewer epassi ng
alongt heScot landRoad, inLi verpool ,andwhent heywer e
doseagai nstt hedef endant 'swar ehouse,t hewhol eof
whichwasi nhi soccupat i
on, usedbyhi m asaf l
ourdeal er,
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
therecamedownsuddenl yupont hemanabar relofflour
,
andt hust heaccidentoccurredtothepl
aint
if
fofwhi chhe
compl ained.Thisisoneoft hosecasesinwhich,Ithink,a
presumpt ionofnegl i
gencebydef endantisrai
sed,andi t
wasf orhi m,whohadal lt hemeansofev i
denceand
knowl edgewi thi
nhi sreach,t omeeti t
.Ithav i
ngbeen
shownt hatthedefendant

•
272
had the enti
re possessi
on and excl
usive use oft hi
s
warehouse,i
twoul dbepresumedthattheaccidentarose
from hi
swantofcar e,unlesshegavesomeex planat
ion
ofthecausebywhi chitwasproduced,whichexplanat
ion
theplai
nti
ffcoul
dnotbeexpect edtogive,nothavingthe
samemeansofknowl edge."

War dvTesco[ 1976]1Al lER219

Fact s:Thepl ainti
ffslippedonsomey oghurtwhichhadbeenspilt
ont hef looroft hedef endant'sshopwhi l
ehewasshoppi ngthere.
Hesust ainedinjur
iesandsued.
Held:Si ncet heacci dentisnotonet hatwoul dhavehappenedhad
thef loorbeenkeptcl ean,theonusl ayont hedefendant
st oshow
thatt heacci dentwasnotduet oanynegl ectoftheirdutyand
hav i
ngf ailedinthis,theplainti
ffmustsucceed.
Principle:Wher et heacci dentisnotonet hatwould ordi
nari
ly
occuri nt heabsenceofnegl igence,
thedoct r
ineappl
ies.

PerLawt onLJatp.222:" Inthi

scaset hef l
ooroft hi
s
super mar ket was under t he management of t he
defendant sandt hei
rser vant s.Theacci dentwassuchas
i
nt heor dinar ycour seoft hi ngsdoesnothappeni ffl
oors
arekeptcl eanandspi l
lagesar edeal twi t
hassoonas
theyoccur .I fanacci dentdoeshappenbecauset hef l
oors
arecov er ed wi th spill
age,t hen in myj udgmentsome
explanat ionshoul dbef ort hcomingf r
om t hedef endants
toshowt hatt heacci dentdi dnotar i
sef r
om anywantof
careont hei rpart;andi nt heabsenceofanyexpl anat i
on
thejudgemaygi vejudgmentf ortheplainti
ff.Suchbur den
ofpr oofast herei sondef endantsi nsuchci r
cumst ances
i
sev ident ial,notpr obat i
ve.Thet r
ialjudget houghtt hat
pri
maf aciet hisaccidentwoul dnothav ehappenedhad
thedef endant stakenr easonabl ecar e.Inmyj udgmenthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
wasjusti
fi
edintaki
ngt hatv
iewbecausetheprobabi
l
iti
es
wer
et hatthespi
ll
agehadbeenont hefloorl
ongenough
f
orittohavebeencleanedupbyamemberoft hestaff
."

PerMegawLJatp.224:" I
tisfort
heplai
ntif
ftoshowt hat
therehasoccur redanev entwhichi
sunusualandwhi ch,in
the absenceofexpl anati
on,i
smor econsist
entwi thfault
ont hepartofthedef endantst
hantheabsenceoff ault
;and
tomymi ndthel ear
nedjudgewaswhollyfi
ghtint aki
ngt hat
view ofthepr esenceoft hi
ssli
pperyl
iqui
dont hefloorof
thesupermar ket

273•
•

i
nt he ci r
cumst ances oft his case:t hati st hatt he
def endant skneworshoul dhav eknownt hati twasanot
uncommonoccur rence;andt hati fitshoul dhappen,and
shoul dnotbepr ompt l
yat t
endedt o,itcr eat edaser ious
ri
skt hatcust omer swoul df al land i nj ur et hemsel v es.
Whent hepl ai ntiffhasest ablishedt hat ,t hedef endant s
canst il
lescapef rom liabi
li
ty .Theycoul descapef rom
l
iabi l
ityi ft heycoul dshow t hatt heacci dentmusthav e
happened,orev enonbal anceofpr obabi lit
ywoul dhav e
been l ikel
yt o hav e happened,i rrespect i
v e of t he
exist enceofapr operandadequat esy stem,i nr elationt o
theci r
cumst ances, toprov i
def ort hesaf etyofcust omer s.
But ,ift hedef endant swi shtoputf orwar dsuchacase,i t
i
sf ort hem t oshowt hat,onbal anceofpr obabi lit
y ,either
byev idenceorbyi nferencef rom t heev i
dencet hati s
givenori snotgi v en,thisacci dentwoul dhav ebeenat
l
eastequal lyl ikelyt ohav ehappeneddespi teapr oper
syst em desi gned t o give r easonabl e pr ot ect i
on t o
cust omer s.That ,int hiscase,t heywhol lyf ail
edt odo.
Real lyt he essence of counself or t he def endant s'
argument —and hedi d notshr inkf rom i t
—was:' Nev er
mi nd whet herwe had no sy stem atal l:st i
ll,as t he
plaint i
ffhasf ai l
edt oshow t hatt hey oghour twasspi l
t
withi naf ewsecondsbef oret heacci dent ,shemustf ail.
'
AsIhav esai d, i
nt heci r
cumst ancesoft hiscase, Idonot
thinkt hatt hepl aintiff
,tosucceed,hadt opr ov ehowl ong
i
twassi ncet hedef endants'floorhadbecomesl i
pper y."
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Par
kervMi
l
ler(
1926)42TLR408
Facts:Thedef endantl
ethisf r
ienddr iv
ehi scart ot hel at
ter
's
houseandpar keditonav eryst eepgr adi
ent.Afterabout30
minutes,thecarrandownt hehillandcr ashedintothepl ai
nti
ff
's
house.
Held:Thef actsoft hecarrunningdownt hehi l
lwheni twas
unattended to and it
s crashi
ng t he plai
nti
ff'
s house wer e,
themselves,evi
denceofnegli
genceandt husthedef endantwas
l
iableintheabsenceofexpl
anati
on.

ThomasvCur ley(2013)131BMLR111
Facts:The def endantperformed a surgeryon t he pl
aint
if
ft o
remov east oneinhi sgal
lbladder
.Afterthesur gery
,theplai
ntif
f
suff
eredinjurytohisbil
eductresul
ti
nginabi leleak.
Held:Thedoct ri
neofr esipsaloqui
turwoul dnotappl ybutsince
theplaint
if
fhadbeenabl etoestabli
shthatinj
ur yhadbeencaused
toapar tofhisbodyot herthanwherethesur gerywasperformed,
hewasent itl
edt ojudgment.

"
274
Pr
inci
ple:Wher
ethecauseoft
heacci
denti
sknownt
hedoct
ri
ne
doesnotappl
y.

PerLl oy dJonesLJatp.114,par s.10and11:[ 10]" The

appel l
ant cont ends t hat t he j udge er red i nl aw i n
det erminingt hei ssueofbr eachofdut yi nrelati
ont ot he
conductoft hel aparoscopi csur ger ybyt heappl icat i
onof
resi psal oquit ur .Thet ermr esi psal oquiturdescr ibesa
sit
uat ioni nwhi chi ti spossi bl ef ort hecour ttodr aw an
i
nf erenceofnegl i
gencewher eacl aimanthaspr ov eda
resultwi thoutpr ov i
nganyspeci fi
cactoromi ssionont he
par tofthedef endantwhi chhaspr oducedt heresult.I fiti
s
prov edont hebal anceofpr obabi l
itiest hatther esultcoul d
nothav e happened wi thoutnegl i
gence and t hatt he
sit
uat ionwasundert hecont r
oloft hedef endant ,theni tis
opent othecour ttoconcl udet hati ti smor elikelythannot
thatt her esultwascausedbynegl i
gence.Howev er,itis
notappr opriatet odr aw suchani nf erencewher et her eis
evidenceast owhyorhow t her esul toccurred( Scot tv
LondonandstKat herineDocksCo( 1865)3H &C596,
[1861- 73]Al lER Rep246) .Resi psal oquiturhasbeen
appl i
ed i nt he pasti n medi calnegl i
gence cases ( eg
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
CassidyvMi nisterofHeal t
h[ 1951]1Al lER574,[ 1951]2
KB 343).Howev er,ithasmor er ecent l
ybeen doubt ed
whetheritisofmuchassi stanceinsuchcases.I nRat cl
iff
vPlymout handTor bayHealthAut hor i
ty[1998]Lloyd'sLR
Med162at177HobhouseLJobser ved:'Resipsaloquitur
i
snotapr inci
pleofl aw andi tdoesnotr elatetoorr ai
se
anypresumpt i
on.I tismerelyagui det ohelpidentif
ywhen
aprimaf aciecasei sbeingmadeout .Wher eexper tand
fact
ualev i
dencei sbeingcalledonbot hsi desatt ri
alits
useful
nesswi l
l normallyhavebeenl ongsi nceexhausted.'

[11]"Theappel l
antsubmi tsthattherespondent '
scaseat
tri
alwasf oundedent i
relyonr esi psal oquit
ur,thatthe
j
udgewasi ner rori
nf ail
ingtor ecogniset hatandt hat
,
becauset her espondent'
scasemani festl
yf ai
ledtomeet
therequir
ement sofresipsaloquit
ur,thejudgewaswr ong
toconcludet hattheinj
urysufferedbyt herespondentwas
causedbyt heappel l
ant'
snegligence."

Atpp.115and116,par
s.17and18:[
17]"
Tomymi nditdoes
appeart
hatt
hemoreextremebasi
sonwhichPr
ofessorParks
rest
ed

275"
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana

his opi
nion did seek to draw a necessar yinfer
ence of
negli
gencef r
om themer ef actofinjuryandmi ghttheref
ore
beconsi der
edanappl icat
ionofr esi psaloquit
nr.Howev er
,
thatwasnott heonlywayinwhi chthecasewasputonbehal f
ofther espondent
.Iconsidert hatthej udgewascor r
ectto
decli
net oapplyresi psa/ oquit
urandt oaddresswhet her
negli
gencehadbeenpr ovedi nthepar ti
cularci
rcumstances
ofthi
scase.

[18] " Howev er

, t he appellant submi t
s t hat,
notwit
hstanding thi
s disav
owal by t he j
udge, t
he
respondent'
s case was essent
ial
ly one ofres i
psa
l
oquiturandthejudgeerr
edinconcludi
ngthati
twasnot
...
."

And atp.120,par .33:" I

nt he circumstances Iam
sati
sf i
ed t hatt he j
udge' s approach t ot he i ssue of
negligencewasent ir
elyappropr i
ate.Ther espondenthad
establishedt hatint hi
scase,dur inganuncompl i
cated
operat i
on,i njurywascausedi nanar eaothert hant hat
wher et he oper ati
on took pl ace.Thatcal l
ed f oran
explanat ionast ohow t hatmi ghthav eoccur redi nthe
absenceofnegl i
gence.Nonewasf ort
hcomi ngf rom t he
defendant '
sexper torf r
om anyot herquar ter.Thati s
entir
elyconsi stentwi t
ht hejudge'sdi recti
ont ohi mself
thatheshoul dassesst hewei ghtoft heev i
denceand
decidewhet hernegligenceont hepar toftheappel l
ant
hadbeenpr ov ed.Thishasnot hingt odowi tht her eversalof
thebur den ofpr oofand not hing t o do withr esi psa
l
oqui tur.
"

Smi thvFor dyce[2013]EWCACi v320

Facts:Thepl aint
if
fwasi napassengeri nt hedef endant'scar
whent hedefendantl ostcontrolofthecarandcr ashedi ntoawal l
opposi tethesi deoft her oad.Thecauseoft helossofcont rol
wasf oundt o bet heski doft hecaront her oadduet ot he
presenceofbl ackiceont her oad.Thepl ai
ntif
fsoughtt orelyon
resipsal oqui
turthatcar sdonotor dinar
il
yskidoffther oad.
Held:Si ncethecauseoft heacci denthadbeenduet oal atent
defectwhi chthedef endanthadnor easonofknowi ng,hewasnot
l
iable.
Principle:Fort heprincipl
er esi psaloquit
urt oappl y,thef acts
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
mustshow thatt
heacci
dentcoul
dnothav
ehappenedwi
thout
negl
i
gence.

PerToul sonLJatpars.59— 63:[59]"MrBri

ghtfurther
submittedt hati
fadri
verl
osescontrolofav ehi
cle,the
doctri
neofr esipsal
oqui
turappl
i
es,andt hatitisnot
suff
ici
entf orsucha
77ae

per
sont
oshowmer
elyt
hatt
hecauseofl
ossofcont
rolwas
a
skid,becauseaski disi tsel
fa'neutralevent',consistent
equall
ywi th negligence ordue dil
igence.Accor dinglyt he
burdenremai nsont hedri
v eninsuchcircumstancest opr ove
thatheexer cisedduedi li
gence.Fort hosepr oposi
tionsMr
Brightrel
iedonBar kwayvSout hWal esTransportCoLt d
[1949]1KB54,[ 1948]2Al lER460,[1948]LJR1921( upheld
byt heHouseofLor dsat[1950]1Al lER392)andRi chie,v
Faull[
196513Al lER109,129JP498, [
1965]1WLR1454.
64] "
[ Iti
sundoubt
edl
ythecaset
hatski
dsmayOCCUfi
n
dif
ferentcircumstancesandfordiffer
entr easons.However
,
thejudgef oundthatinthepresentcaset heskidhappened
becauseoft hepresenceofblackicewhi chwasi nvi
sibl
eto
themot or
ist.Thatisnota' neutr
alev ent',butanunusual
andhi ddenhazard.

65] "
[ Thedoctrineexpressedinthemaxi mr esipsaloqui t
ur
i
sar uleofevidencebasedonf ai
rnessandcommonsense.
Itshouldnotbeappl i
edmechani stical
lybuti nawaywhi ch
refl
ectsit
sunder lyi
ngpur pose.Themaxi m encapsul ates
theprinci
plethatinor derforaCl aimantt oshow t hatan
eventwascausedbyt henegl i
genceoft heDef endant ,he
need notnecessar il
ybe abl et o show pr eci
selyhow i t
happened.Hemaybeabl etopoi nttoacombi nationof
factswhichar esuffi
cient,wit
houtmor e,togiv eriset oa
properinf
erencet hattheDef endantwasnegl igent.Acar
goingoffther oadisanobv i
ousexampl e.Adr iv
erowesa
dutytokeephi sv ehi
cleunderpr opercont rol
.Unexpl ained
fai
luretodosowi l
ljusti
fytheinferencet hatthei ncident
wast hedr i
ver'
sf aul
t.Int hewor dsoft heLat i
nt ag,t he
mat t
erspeaksf orit
self.I
nsuchci rcumst ancesthebur den
 CaseBr
ief
s: LawofTor
t nGh
si ana
rest
sont heDef endanttoest abli
shfact sfrom whichi tis
nolongerpr operforthecour ttodr awt heinit
iali
nference.
To show mer elythatt he carskidded i s notsuf f
ici
ent,
becauseacarshoul dnotgoi ntoaski dwi t
houtagood
explanation.InBar kwayvSout hWalesTr ansportCoLt d
thecour ttookt hesamev i
ewaboutat y
r eburst.Aproperly
maintainedv ehicl
eoughtnott osuf ferat yr
ebur st
.I tis
ther
eforenotsur pri
singthatt hecour theldt hatinsuch
cir
cumst ances:

'
.
..
theDef
endantsmustgof
urt
herandprov
e( Ofi
tmustemer
ge
f
rom t
heevi
denceasawhol
e)ei
ther(
a)t
hatthe

277.
.
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

burstit
sel
fwasduet ospeci fi
ccausewhi chdoes
notconnotenegl
igenceont hei
rpartbutpoint
stoits
absenceasmor eprobable,or(b)i
ftheycanpointto
nosuchspecifi
ccause,thattheyusedallr
easonable
careinandaboutthemanagementoft hei
rtyr
es.'

66] "
[ Int
hepr
esentcaset
hei
nsur
erssat
isf
iedt
hej
udge
thatMrFordycewasnott rav
elli
ngatanexcessi
v espeed;
thathehadnor easontoantici
pat
eicyr oadconditi
ons;
andthatheski ddedonapat chofblackicewhi chwas
notvisi
bleandcouldnotreasonabl
yhav ebeenforeseen.

[67] "In myj udgmenthe was r ightt o concl ude t hat

thosef actswer esuf ficientt or ebutt hei nferencet hatt he
accidentwasMrFor dy ce' sf ault.I twast r
uet hatot her
driversusi ngt hatr oadont hatmor ning,i ncludingt he
two pol i
ce of ficer s who at tended t he scene,di d not
exper ienceanysi mi lardi ffi
cult yandt hatt herewasno
historyofpr i
oracci dent satt hatpr ecisespot .ButMr
Abbot t'
sev idencewascl eart hathehadf orsomet i
me
regar dedt her oadashazar dousandhadr epor tedhi s
concer nst ot hehi ghwayaut hor it
y .Althought hepol i
ce
agreedunderski l
fulcr ossexami nat i
ont hatacar eful
driverwascapabl eofnegot i
at i
ngt her oadsaf ely,itis
appar entf r om t hepol iceacci dentr ecor dt hatPCCar r
didnott hinkatt het imeoft heacci dentt hati twas
attr
ibut ablet ot hef aul toft hedr iver .Iam notper suaded
byt hear gumentt hatt heev i
denceoft hepol iceof fi
cer s,
coupl edwi tht heabsenceofot heracci dent s,oughtt o
havedr i
vent hej udget oconcl udet hatMrFor dy cewas
tobl ame.Tosayt hatacar efuldr i
v ermaybecapabl eof
drivi
ngonadanger ousr oadsur facewi thoutanacci dent
i
s one t hi
ng.To sayt hata per son who suf fers an
accidentbecauseoft hedanger ouscondi tionsoft he
roadwast heref oreaxi omat i
cal lycar elessi sanot her .It

•
286
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

doesnotfoll
owasamat terofl
ogicorhumanexper ience.
Ifther
eisinvisi
bleiceonapav ement,t
hef actthatonly
onepedestri
anamonganumberhadt hemi sfort
unet o
sli
p on i
twoul d notmean thatt he pedestri
an who
sli
ppedwast heref
oretoblame.
"

DawkinsvCar niv
alPlc(t/aP&OCr ui
ses)[20111EWCACi v
1237Facts:Theplai
nti
ff,
apassengeronacruiseshi
poper
ated
bythedef endant
s,sl
ippedandfellwhi
lewalkingthr
oughthe
conserv
atoryrest
aur
antofthe

•
287
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
ship.Hesust ainedi nj
uries.Thecauseoft heslippingwast hepr esence
ofsomel iquidont heflooroft herestaurant .Therewasnoev idenceas
tohowl ongthel iquidhadbeenont hefloor.
Held:Thepr esenceoft hel iqui
dont hef loorwasmor econsi stentwith
faultonthepar toft hedef endantsandt heonusl ayont hem todi sprove
thi
swhi chtheyf ail
ed.Theywer ethusliable.
Princi
ple:Wher et he cause oft he acci denti s consist
entwi tht he
presenceoff aultratherthant heabsenceoff ault
,thedoct r
ineappl ies.

PerPil
lLJatpars.26—29:[26]"Ont hefaceofi t
,thepresence
oftheli
quidwasmor econsist
entwi t
hfaultont hepartoft he
Respondent
sthanwi t
habsenceoff aul
tont heirpart
.Thear ea
wasunderthei
rclosecont
rol
andliquidwaspr esentonthef l
oor
.

[30]"Iacceptt hatiftheprobabil
ityisofsuchcont emporaneit
y
bet weent hespill
ageandt heaccidentt
hatremedialact
ioncould
notr easonablybet akenduringthegapbetweent hem,theclai
m
woul dfail.TheRecor derdi
dnotmakeaf i
ndingast oti
mebut ,i
f
theDef endantscoulddemonst ratesuchcont emporanei
ty,the
claim woul dfail
.

31]"
[ Theabsenceofev
idencef
rom oneormor eoft hemany
member sofst affclaimedt obepr esentint heConser vator
yat
themat eri
altimeisr emarkable.Theex pl
anat ionforthelackof
evidencef rom amemberormember sofst affwas, t
heRecor der
found,t hattheDef endants' coul
dnotest ablishwhoi twas'.In
myj udgment ,i
ntheabsenceofev idencef r
om member sofstaff
claimed t o bei mplementing thesy stem,t hej udgewasnot
entitledtoinferfr
om t heexistenceofasy stem thatthespi l
l
age
whi chledtot hefal
loccurredonl yaf ewseconds, orav eryshort
ti
me, befor
et heaccident.

32]"
[ Thecl
aim succeedsont heev i
denceinthiscase.Ther eis
nothi
ngt osuggestsuchcl osenessi ntimebetweent hespil
lage
andt heaccidentaswoul d,atapl acewher ecloseobser v
ation
wasr equi
red,excludeli
abil
it
y.Intheabsenceofev i
dencetot he
contr
ary,Icanconcl udeonlythatonabal anceofpr obabil
iti
es
thewat erhadbeent her
ef orlongert hanthev er
ybr i
efperiod
which,i nt his part
icul
ar place,woul d have excused t he
Defendantsfrom taki
ngremedial acti
onbeforetheaccident.
"
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
279•
•

ChandvDut
t[200714LRC1
Facts:Thepl ai
ntif
fwasempl oyedbyt hedefendanttobepar tofat eam
repairingpot holesonr oads.Theplai
ntif
fwast otendthef i
reforbur ning
thecoalt arindr ums.Duringonesucht endi
ng,thefi
ref l
aredupbur ning
hiscl othesandbody .Hesuedandr el
iedont heprincipl
eofr esi psa
l
oqui tur.Hel d:Sincetheflari
ngupoft hefir
ewasnotat hi
ngt hatcoul d
notr easonabl yhavehappenedwi ththeheat i
ngofcoal ,thedoct rinei s
notappl icable.
Principle:Thedoct r
ineappliesonlywher eint heor di
narycour seof
humanaf fairs,t
heaccidentwouldhav ebeenunl i
kel
ytooccurwi thouta
wantofcar eont hepartofthedefendant.

PerWar dP,ScottandWoodJJAatpp.7and8,par s.25—35:

[25]" Facedwithanabsenceofev i
denceast othecauseoft he
flare-up,theappell
antsoughtt orelyont hedoctrineofresipsa
l
oqui t
w.Undert hatdoctri
ne,wher etheacci dentinquest i
onis
sucht hatitwouldnothav ehappenedi nt heordinarycourseof
thingsi fthedefendanthadusedpr opercar e,t
hent hefactofi
ts
occur renceaffordsreasonableevidence,intheabsenceofany
ex planati
onbyt hedefendant,thatitarosef r
om awantofcar e:
Scot tvLondonandStKat her
ineDocksCo( 1865)3H&C596
andMummer yvIrvi
ngsPtyLtd( 1956)96CLR99.

[36]"Thedoct r
ineoper at
esnotasadi sti
nctsubst ant i
ver ul
eof
l
aw.Rat heri
ti nvolvesanapplicat
ionofani nf
erentialr easoni
ng
processincircumst anceswheretheplainti
ffretainst heonusof
provi
ngnegligence:Sche/ /
enbergvTunnelHol dings( 2000)200
CLR 121.I t
s ef fecti sto pass an evidenti
albur den t othe
defendanttopr ovideanexplanati
onf ortheacci dentt hatdoes
notinvol
veawantofcar eonitspart.

[37]"InBar
kwayvSout hWal esTransportCoLt d[1950]1AllER
392wher et
hedoctri
newassi mil
arlysai
dt obear ul
eofev i
dence,
i
twashel dthat,i
fthef act
sar esuf f
ici
entl
yknownast owhyor
howt heoccur
rencetookpl ace,t
hent hedoctrinedoesnotapply,
andthesoluti
onist obef ound,bydet erminingwhet her
,onthe
fact
sasestabli
shed,negli
genceist obeinfer
redornot .

38]"
[ InNgChunPui
vLeeChuenTat[
1988]132SJ124t
hePr
ivy
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Councilconf
ir
medt hatt
herul
eisoneofevi
denceal
one,anddoes
notcausethelegal
burdenofprooft
oshi
ftt
othedefendant
.

[39]"Wheret her e ar
e equall
y plausi
ble expl
anati
ons forthe
accident
,t hati s,explanat
ions which have some colourof
probabil
i
ty,thent heplai
nti
ffisbackt owherehest art
ed,andis
requir
edtoest abli
shhiscasebypositi
veevidence.

[40]"Inmostinst ances,i
twillbenecessaryforthedefendantto
callsome ev idence ofan expl anat
ion t
hathas a colourof
probabil
i
ty:see,forexampl e,Moor evRFox&Sons[ 1956]1All
ER 182 and Devine[ 1969]2 AllER 53.Itwillnot
normallysuffi
cef orthedef endanttoputupmer et heor
eti
cal
possibi
li
ti
es.

41]"
[ Howev
er,t
hatdependsf
ir
stupont
hecour
tbei
ngsat
isf
ied
that,intheor dinarycour seofhumanaf fai
rs,theaccidentwas
unli
kelyt o occurwi thouta wantofcar e on the partoft he
defendant.Unlesst hatpointismadegood,t hemerefactoft he
accidentisnotenought oraiseapresumpt i
vecaseofnegl i
gence:
Frankli
nvVi ctori
anRai lwaysComr s(1959)101CLR 197and
PieningvWan/ ess( 1968)117CLR498at508wher eBarwickCJ
said:'I
ftheoccur rencei stopr ov
ideevidence,itcanonlybethat,
withinthecommonknowl edgeandexper ienceofmanki nd,[
the]
occur r
enceisunl ikelytooccurwi thoutnegligenceonthepar tof
thepar t
ysued.'

[42]"Wearenotper suadedthatt hemer efactofthefir

ef l
aring
upi sanoccur rencewhi ch,wit
hint hecommonknowl edgeand
experi
ence ofmanki nd,is unli
kelyt o have occur
red without
negli
genceont hepartoft hedefendant.Iti
sinthenatur
eofaf i
re
toemi tfl
ame,andt obur nwithdifferentdegreesofintensity
,
dependingupont henat ur
eandv olumeoft hefuelwhichisadded
toit
,andthevigourwi thwhichthebur ni
nglogsaretur
ned.

[43]"Althoughnoev i
dencewascal l
edi nt hi
scaset oidenti
fythe
causef orit
sflar
ingup,noneoft hepossibili
ti
esment i
onedbyt he
plai
ntif
fsuchast hegustofwi ndorspil
lageofcoalt ar(assuming
i
tt ohav ebeencombust i
ble)hadanyev identi
arysupportforthei
r
occurrence.Therewer eotherpossibi
li
ti
esav ai
l
ablesuchast he
actionoftheplai
ntif
finpushingthelar
ge281•
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
pi
eceoft
imberi
ntot
hef
ir
e,orev
enst
andi
ngt
oocl
oset
oit
sfl
ames.

[44]"Whatthet ri
alj
udgehadl ef
twasthemerecir
cumst
ance
thatthefi
refl
ared,anevent
,whi
chaswehaveobser
vedwasnot
onewhi chcouldbef ai
rlysai
dt ohav
ebeenunli
kel
ytooccur
withoutnegl
i
gence.

[45]"Fort heser easonswear enotper suadedthaterroroccurr

ed.
Howev er
,si ncet hepoi ntwast akenbyt her espondentthatitis
notper missi bl
efort heappellanttoadv anceacasebasedonr es
i
psa l oquiturwi thoutpl eadi
ng i t
,we poi nttot he decisi
on in
Bennet tvChemi calConst r
uction( GB)Ltd[ 1971]3Al lER822
whichi stot hecont raryofthatcont enti
on.Thati ti
snott osay
thatitwoul dbeot herthandesi rabl
et oparti
cular
isesuchacase
i
nt heinterest sofclarit
y .
"

KumarvCommi ssionerofPoli
ce[2007]3LRC214
Facts:Fol l
owi ng an armed i nsur gence whi ch result
ed i n a gener al
breakdown ofl aw and or der ,the deceased,a pol i
ce of f
icer,whi l
e
exercisi
nghi sdut i
es,waskill
edbyanescapedpr isoner.Thepl aintif
f,t
he
spouseoft hedeceasedsuedandr el i
edont hepr i
ncipleofr esipsa
l
oqui t
ur.Shear guedt hattheescapeofapr i
sonerf r
om pr i
soni si nit
self
evidenceofnegl igenceont hepar toft hedef endant .
Held:Althought heescapeofapr isonerf rom prisonwasi tselfev i
dence
ofnegl i
gence,t hegener albreakdownofl aw andor derwasnoti nthe
normal causeoft hi
ngsandt hust hepr inciplewoul dnotappl y.
Princi
ple:Thepr i
ncipl
eappl i
eswher ei nthenor malcauseoft hingsthe
accidentwi l
lnothappenwi t
houtt henegl i
genceoft hedef endant .Where
thecircumst ancesoft heacci denti st hereforenoti nthenor malcause
ofthings,thedoct ri
nedoesnotappl y.

PerFrench,HandleyandI ppJJatpp.217and218,par s.13—

17:[13]"
Theappel l
ant '
scaseagainstthi
sr espondentisbased
ont heproposi
ti
ont hatt heescapeofapr i
sonerf r
om lawful
custody,
unlessexplained,i
sevi
denceofnegl igenceont hepart
ofthepr i
sonser vi
ce.MrCamer onalsoi nvokedthepr inci
ple
enshri
nedorobscur edbyt heLat inmax i
mr esipsal oqui
tur
(pr
oofofanescape,wi t
houtmor e,speaksf oritsel
f,andi s
evi
denceofnegligence).

[
18] "
Wecannotacceptt
hesear
gument
s.Pr
oofoft
he
means
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
ofescapef rom pri
soni nnormalt imesmi ghtestabli
shapr i
me
faciecaseofnegl igenceont hepar tofthepr i
sonser vice.In
Scot t
vLondonandStKat heri
neDocksCo( 1865)3H&C596
at601 Er l
e CJ del iv
eri
ng t he judgmentoft he Cour tof
ExchequerChambersai dthatt hemaxi m applied'wher et he
accidenti ssuchasi ntheor di narycourseoft hingsdoesnot
happeni fthosewhohav et hemanagementusepr opercar e'
.
Howev er,t
hesi t
uati
onwhi chpr evai
ledfoll
owingthebreakdown
ofl aw andor derafterGeor geSpei ghtandhi sconf ederates
seizedt hePar li
amentwer enot' theordinarycourseoft hings'
.
Int hatsi tuat
ion proofofan escape wi thoutmor e cannot
possiblyest abli
shapr imaf aciecaseofnegl i
gencebyt he
pri
sonser vi
ce.

[
19] "Thebreakdownofl awandor dermayhav eext
ended
tothepri
sonsandpr i
sonofficer
smayhav erefusedtodothei
r
duty.I
fso,theymay ,asar esult
,hav eactedout si
dethescope
ofthei
rempl oymentsoast oexcl udethev i
cari
ousli
abi
li
tyof
thepri
sonser v
iceforthei
ractsandomi ssions.Theremayhave
beenabsolutel
ynot hi
ngthatt heCommi ssionerandhisseni
or
off
icer
scouldhav edonetopr eventtheescape.

[
20] "
Thest
ateisnotgeneral
lyl
i
ableindamagestothose
whosuffer
edpersonali
njur
iesorpropertydamagefoll
owing
t
hebreakdownoflaw andor deri
nFijii
nMay2000.Thel aw
woul
dlackcoher
enceifthecourtscr
eatedalimi
tedexcept
ion
f
orinj
uri
esanddamagei nfl
i
ctedbyprisoner
swhoescapedat
t
hatti
me.

[21] "I
nourj udgment ,therefore,t
heappel l
antfai
ledt o
est abl
ish a prima facie case ofnegl i
gence,and i nt hese
circumst ances the factt hatt he Commi ssionercal l
ed no
evidence, wherethefactswer epeculiarl
ywithinhisknowledge,
cannotassi sttheappellant.Wet herefor
eagr eewi t
htheCour t
ofAppealt hattheclaim againsttheCommi ssionerofPrisons
failsont hisgroundwhi ch,inanyev ent,rai
sednoquest i
onof
gener alpri
ncipl
e."

Ratcl
if
fevPl ymout
hTorbayHealthAut
hori
ty(1998)42BMLR64Fact s:
Theplaint
if
funderwentasurger
yonhi sfi
ghtankleatt hedefendants'
hospit
alandwasgivenananaesthet
ict
orel
ievepost-oper
ati
vepain.The
operat
ionitsel
fwassuccessfulbuthesuf f
eredneur ol
ogi
caldef ect
s
whichcausedhi mt obeparal
ysedont herightsidedownwar dsand
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
pr
oducedej
acul
ator
ypr
obl
ems.Thedef
endant
sledexper
tev
idence

283•
to show thattheanaest heti
sthad notbeennegl i
gent
.Thepl aint
iff
soughttorelyonthedoctri
neofr esipsal
oqui
tur
.
Held:Thefactthatamedicaloper at
ionpr
oducedanunfavour
ableresult
was notev idence ofnegligence and t
hatin mostcases involvi
ng
medicalnegli
gence,exper
topinionwouldbenecessar
y.

PerBr ookeLJatp.80: "I

ti snowpossi blet odr awsomet hreads
outofal lthismat erial, bywayofexpl anat ionoft her elevanceof
themaxi mr esi psal oqui t
urt omedi calnegl igencecases:( 1)I n
i
tspur estf or m, themaxi m appl ieswher et hepl aintiffr el
iesont he
'
res' (thet hingi t
sel f)tor aiset hei nfer enceofnegl igence,whi ch
i
ssuppor t
edbyor dinar yhumanexper ience,wi thnoneedf or
exper tev idence.( 2)I npr inci ple,t hemaxi m canbeappl iedi n
thatf ormi nsi mpl esi t uat ionsi nt hemedi calnegl igencef ield
(sur geoncut sof frightf ooti nst eadofl ef t;swabl efti noper ation
site; pat i
entwakesupi nt hecour seofsur gicaloper at i
ondespi te
gener alanaest het i
c).( 3)I n pr act ice,i n cont est ed medi cal
negl igencecasest heev idenceoft hepl aint i
ff, whichest abl i
shes
the' res',isl ikelyt obebut tressedbyexper tev idencet ot he
effectt hatt hemat tercompl ai neddoesnotor dinar ilyoccuri n
the absence ofnegl i
gence.( 4)The posi ti
on may t hen be
reachedatt hecl oseoft hepl aint iff'
scaset hatt hej udgewoul d
beent it
ledt oi nf
ernegl i
genceont hedef endant '
spar tunl esst he
def endantadducesev idencewhi chdi schar gest hisinf erence.( 5)
Thi sev idencemaybet ot heef fectt hatt her ei sapl ausible
expl anat ion ofwhatmay hav e happened whi ch does not
connot eanynegl igenceont hedef endant 'spar t
.Theexpl anat ion
mustbeapl ausi bleoneandnotat heor eticall
yorr emot el y
possi bleone, butt hedef endantcer tai nlydoesnothav etopr ov e
thathi sexpl anat i
oni smor el i
kel yt obecor rectt hananyot her.I f
thepl aintiffhasnoot herev idenceofnegl i
gencet or el
yon,hi s
claim wi l
lt henf ail.( 6)Al t ernat ively ,thedef endant '
sev i
dence
maysat i
sfyt hej udgeont hebal anceofpr obabi li
tiest hathedi d
exer cisepr opercar e.I ft heunt owar dout comei sext r emel yrar e,
ori si mpossi blet oexpl aini nt hel ightoft hecur rentst ateof
medi calknowl edge,t hej udgewi llbeboundt oexer ci
segr eat
car ei nev aluat i
ngt heev idencebef or emaki ngsuchaf i
nding,
buti fhedoesso, t hepr imaf aciei nf erenceofnegl i
gencei s
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
rebut
tedandt heplai
nti
ff
'scl
aim wi
llfai
l.Thereasonwhyt
he
court
sarewi ll
ingtoadoptthisapproach,par
ti
cular
lyi
nver
y
complexcases,ist
o
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
be found i nthe j udgment s ofSt uart-
Smi t
h and Dill
on LJJ in
DelaneyvSout hmeadHeal thAut hoHty[1995]6MedLR355.( 7)I
t
fol
lowsf r
om allt histhat,alt
houghi nverysimpl esit
uati
onst he
'
res'mayspeakf ori t
selfattheendoft helayevi
denceadducedon
behalfoft heplaintif
f,i
npr acticetheinferenceisthenbut t
ressed
byexper tev i
denceadducedonhi sbehalf,andi fthedefendant
weret ocallnoev idence,thej udgewoul dbedeci dingthecaseon
i
nferenceshewasent i
tl
edt odr awfrom thewholeoft heevidence
(i
ncludingt heexper tevidence),andnotont heappl i
cati
onoft he
maximi nit
spurestf orm."

Andatp.81:" Int hi
scase,howev er ,thej udgemadet heposi tive
fi
ndi ngt hatt heanaest hetisthadper for medt hespi nali nject ioni n
theappr opriatepl acewi thal lpropercar e.I nt hoseci rcumst ances,
anypossi blei nf erenceofnegl i
gencef all
sawayand,unl esst his
fi
ndi ngwer esetasi de,t hepl aint i
ff'
scasewasboundt of ail.Mr
Bur net tgal lantlysetoutt oper suadeust hatt hej udgehadnot
eval uatedt heev idencei nt hispar toft hecasecar ef ull
yenough,
andt hati fhehad,hewoul dnothav emadet hef i
ndi nghedi d.He
said,f ori nst ance,t hatatt he t ri
ali n Jul y 1996,DrBoaden
accept edt hathehadnodi rectr ecol l
ect i
onofMrRat cliffeorhi s
oper ation, andt hatthi swassur prising, gi v
ent hathehadbeenf i
rst
toldaboutMrRat cl
if
fe'spai nfulsy mpt omsonl y12day saf tert he
oper ation.I twascommongr oundt hat ,atanear lyst ageoft he
l
iti
gat ion,DrBoadenhadmi stakenl yt houghtt hatananaest het i
c
regist r
arcal l
edDrBy attehadbeenpr esentt hroughout , andt hathe
hadf orgot tent hatDrCl ement swaspr esent .Hehadal somadeno
posi ti
v eav er mentpr iort ot het ri
alt hati twashehi msel fwhohad
admi nisteredt hespi nali njection.Thi swassai dt ocastdoubton
hisev i
denceundercr oss- exami nat i
ont hati twascl eari nhi smi nd
att het imet hathehadper formedt hei njection,andt hatt hat
memor yhad beenwi thhi m ev ersi nce.MrBur net tal so dr ew
attent i
on t o mi nori nconsi stenci es oroddi ti
es in DrBoaden' s
earlierconductori nhi sear l
ierexpl anat ionsofwhathadt aken
place,andhemadeanumberofot herpoi nt sinanat temptt o
satisf y us t hatt he j udge shoul d hav er ejected DrBoaden' s
evidenceandconcl udedei thert hatt hepl aintiffhadpr ov edt hat
thei njectionwasadmi nisteredatt hewr ongl evel,ort hatt he
defendant shadf ail
edt opr ovet hati twasi ndeedadmi ni ster edat

295"
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
t
heL3/
L4l
evel
.

"MrBur netthadt omaket hesechal lengesi fhiscl ientwast o

have any r ealhope ofsucceedi ng i n hi s appeal .In my
j
udgment ,howev er,they wer e al lmat tersf or t he v er
y
experienced j udge t o ev al
uat e.He had t he i nest i
mable
advant age,deni edt othiscour t,ofseei ngDrBoaden( who
wasi nt hewi t
ness-boxforav eryl ongt ime)andDrCl ements
giveev idence,andhewasent i
tledt oacceptwhatt heyt ol
d
him.I twasnotasi ft hepl ai
nt iff'
sexper twi tnesseshad
present ed a l ogical
ly coher entexpl anation ofwhathad
probabl yhappened,andDrNur i
ck' st hesis,whi cht hej udge
wasent itl
edt orej
ect,hadl eftanumberofpi ecesofev i
dence
wholly unexpl ai
ned.I tf oll
ows t hatonce t he j udge was
disposed t o beli
ev e DrBoaden,and t o believ et hatDr
Clement s'
snot ewasanaccur atecont empor aryr ecord of
whatt ookpl ace,hisfi
ndingt hatt hei njecti
onwasi nsertedin
thecor rectspaceatt hechosenl evelwasr eallyi nevit
able,
andhi sappr oacht otheappl icabi lityoft hedoct riner esipsa
l
oqui t
urcannot ,i
nmyj udgment ,bef ault
ed."

PerHobhouseLJatpp.82and83:Resi psal oquituri sno

mor et hanaconv eni
entLat inphr aseusedt odescr i
bet he
proofoff actswhi charesuf f
icienttosuppor taninferencet hat
adef endantwasnegl igentandt her
eforetoest abli
shapr ima
faciecaseagai nsthim.Thecl assicdescri
pt i
onisandr emai ns
thatgi venbyEr l
eCJi nScot tvLondon&#38;StKat herine
DocksCo( 1865)3 596at601,[ 1861-73]Al lERRep
246at248: 'Theremustber easonableev i
denceofnegl igence,
but,wher et het hi
ngi sshownt obeundert hemanagementof
thedef endant ,orhi sservants,andt heacci denti
ssuchas,i n
theor dinarycour seoft hi
ngs,doesnothappeni fthosewho
hav ethemanagementoft hemachi neryusepr opercar e,it
affordsr easonabl eevidence, i
nt heabsenceofexpl anationby
thedef endant ,thattheaccidentar osefrom wantofcar e.'

"
The bur
den ofprovi
ng t
he negli
gence oft
he def
endant
r
emai
nst hr
oughoutupont
heplaint
if
f.Thebur
denisont he

296"
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
plai
nti
ffatthestartoft het r
ialand,absentanadmi ssionby
thedefendant,i
sst i
llupont hepl ai
nti
ffatt heconcl
usionof
thetri
al.Attheconclusionoft hetri
althejudgehastodeci de
whether,uponal ltheev idenceadducedatt hetri
al,hei s
sati
sfi
edupont hebal anceofpr obabil
i
t i
esthatthedefendant
wasnegl i
gent

"
286
andthathisnegli
gencecausedthepl
aint
iff
'sinj
ury
.Ifheisso
sat
isf
ied,he gi
ves judgmentf
orthe pl
aint
if
f:ifnot,he gi
ves
j
udgmentforthedefendant
.

"Whet herornott hepl aintiffhasatsomeear l

i
erst ager el
iedupon
apr imaf aciecasedoesnotal terthisposi ti
on.Thepl aint i
ffmayor
maynothav eneededt ocal lev i
dencet oest ablishapr i
maf acie
case.Theadmi t
tedf actsmaysuf fi
cef ort hatpur pose:seeNg
Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat[ 1988]RTR 298.Conv ersely,t he
def endantmayhav echosent ocal lnoev i
dence, inwhi chcaset he
cour twi llhav et odeci dewhet hert heev i
denceadducedbyt he
plainti
f fsuf fices t o sat isfyt he cour t,int he absence ofany
ev i
dencet ocont radicti t,thatt hedef endantwasnegl i
gentand
thathi s negl igence caused t he plainti
ff'si njury.I n al lt hese
situations, t
het askoft hej udgeatt heendoft het r
ialist hesame.
Theonl ydi fferencei sthathemaybel eftwi thoutdi rectev i
dence
ofwhatoccur r
edandmayhav et oactuponi nferencest obe
drawnf rom i ncompl eteev idence.Wher et hedef endanti si na
posi ti
ont oadduceev i
denceast owhatoccur r
edbuthasr efrained
from doi ngso,t hecour twi llbemor ewi ll
ingt odr aw i nferences
adv erset ot hedef endantt hanmi ghtot herwisebet hecase.Wher e
thepl aintif
fi snoti naposi t
ionhi msel ftogi veanaccountofwhat
occur redandwher ether elev antsituationwasundert hecont rol of
thedef endantandt her elev antf actsar eknownt ot hedef endant ,
thecasemaycomef air
lyandsquar el
ywi thinthest atementofEr le
CJquot edabov e.Buti tdoessobecauset hef actspr ovedhav e
givenr iset oani nferencet hatt hedef endantwasnegl igent .Wher e
ther eisdi rectev idenceast owhatoccur r
edt herei snoneedt o
relyuponi nfer ences:seeBar kwayvSout hWal esTr anspor tCoLt d
fl
950]1 Al lER 392,[ 1950]AC 185.Ther ei s no r ulet hata

297"
 CaseBr
ief
s:7heLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
def
endantmustbel iableforanyaccidentforwhi chhecannotgi ve
acompleteexplanation.Ev enift
hereisani nferencethat,absent
someexplanati
on,ther epr obabl
ywasnegl i
gence,thedef endant
canal
way s,byshowi ngt hathenev ert
helesst ookallreasonable
car
e,persuadethecour tthatont heevidenceadducedi tshould
notbesat i
sfi
edt hatt hedef endantwasi nf actnegligent
:see
WoodsvDuncan[ 1946]1Al lER420,[1946]AC401.
"Medi
calnegl
igence cases havethe pot
ent
ialto giv
eri
se t
o
consi
der
ati
onswhethertheplai
nti
ffhasmadeoutaprima

298"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

faci ecaseandwhet herornott hedef endanthaspr ovided

anadequat eanswert odi splacet hei nfer encet obedr awn
from t he pl aintiff
's Pr ima f aci e case. Fur ther,iti s
commonpl acet hatthepl ainti
ffwi l
lnot ,hi msel forher self,
hav ef ul
lyknownwhatoccur r
ed,par ticularlyi fther el
evant
procedur ewasanoper ationcar ri
edoutunderanaest hetic.
Thepr ocedur eswer eundert hecont roloft hedef endant
andwhatt hedef endantdi dordi dnotdoi sexcl usively
wi thint he di r
ectknowl edge oft he def endant .But ,in
pract i
calt er ms,f ew,i fany ,medi calnegl igencecasesar e
broughtt ot ri
alwi t
houtf ulldiscov ery hav ingbeengi v en,
par ticularshav ingbeenobt ai
nedwher enecessar yoft he
def endant 's pl eading,wi t
ness st atement s hav i
ng been
ex changedandexper ts' reportsl odged.Ther efore,thet r
ial
opens noti nt he v acuum ofav ailable ev idence and
ex planat ionassomet i
mesoccur si nr oadt rafficaccident
cases,butwi thexper tev idenceonbot hsi desanddef ined
bat tlel
inesdr awn.Theaspect soft hef act sandaet i
ology
whi ch can and cannotbe expl ained wi thr easonable
cer tainty wi l
l hav e been i dent i
fied and t he r ival
ex planat ions mar shalled. The v i
abl e al legations or
i
nf er encesofnegl igencewi l
lhav ebeeni dent i
fied,andt he
par tiesandt het ri
al j
udgewi l
lhav ear easonabl eideaoft he
speci f
icf actuali ssues whi ch ar e goi ng t o hav et o be
i
nv est igat edanddet ermi nedatt het rial."

Kyr
iakouvBarnetandChaseFar
msHospi
tal
NHS
Tr
ust[2006]Al
l
ER(D)285
Facts:Aftergivi
ng birt
h,t he plainti
ffunderwenta sur gical
operati
on att he defendant'
s hospi taltor emover etained
products ofconcepti
on.Af tert he operat
ion,she coul
d not
menst r
uate and itwas f ound t hatshe no longerhad an
endomet r
ium lay
eron t hesur faceofherut erus.Shesued
rel
yingonr esi
psaloquit
ur.Thedef endant
sledexpertevi
dence
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

tot heef fectt hatthelossofherendomet r

ium hadbeencaused
byani nfection.
Held:Thepr incipl
eofr esipsawoul dappl
ybutt hedefendant'
s
exper tev idencet hatthel osswascaused byi nf
ect i
on had
rebut t
edt hei nferenceofnegligence.
Principle:Wher et hepri
ncipl
eappl ies,i
tputstheonusofpr oof
ont hedef endantandt hedef endantcanescapel iabil
it
yby
showi ng t hatt heaccidentcoul d haveoccur r
ed withouthis
negl i
gence.

Chapel
vHar
t[199912LRC341
Fact
s:Thedef
endant
,anENTspeci
ali
stper
for
medasur
gical
oper
ati
on

•
288
ont heplai nt
if
ft oremov eapouchf rom heroesophagus.I nthe
causeoft heoper ation,heroesophaguswasper f
oratedandan
i
nfectionseti nwhi chaf fectedherv oi ce.Thecour tf oundthat
alt
houghshehadbeent oldaboutt her iskoft heperforati
on,she
wasnott oldaboutt heef fectonherv oiceandt hathadshe
known she woul d nothav e undergone t he surgery att he
defendant '
s place butwoul d have soughtan exper i
enced
surgeon.The def endantar gued thatt here was no causal
connectionbet weent hewar ningandt hei njurysuffered.
Held:Thepr i
ncipleofr esi psawoul dappl yandshi f
tthebur den
ofpr ooft ot hedef endantt oshow t hatt herewasnocausal
connectionbet weent hewar ningandt hei njuryandhav ingfail
ed
todischar gethisonus, hewasl i
able.
Princi
ple:Wher et hepr incipleappli
es,i tshi ft
st hebur denof
prooftot hedef endant .

PerKi r
byJatpp.377and378,par .93( 8):" Onemeans
ofal l
evi
ati
ngt hebur dencastbyl aw onapl aint
ifft o
establ i
shacausalr el ati
onshipbet weent hebr eachand
thedamageconcer nst heev i
dent iar yonus.Aust rali
an
lawhasnotembr acedt het heor ythatt hel egalonusof
proofshi ftsdur ingat ri
al( seeAnchorPr oduct sLtdv
Hedges( 1966)115CLR493at500, Nomi nalDef endant
vHas/ bauer(1967)117CLR448at456and
Gov ernmentI nsur anceOf ficeofNew Sout h Wal esv
Fredr i
chberg( 1968)118CLR 403at413- 414;cfLt dv
Dev ine[1969]2Al lER53at58.Seegener al
lyAt iyah:
ResI psaLoqui turi nEngl and andAust rali
a( 1972)35
MLR337at345) .Nev er
theless, ther ealisticappr eciati
on
oft heimpr ecisionanduncer t
aint yofcausat ioni nmany
cases—i ncluding t hose i nvolv i
ng al l
eged medi cal
negl i
gence—has dr iven cour tsi nt his count ry ,as i n
Engl and,toacceptt hattheev ident iaryonusmayshi f
t
duringt hehear ing.Onceapl aintiffdemonst ratest hata
breachofdut yhasoccur r
edwhi chi scl osel yf ollowedby
damage,apr i
maf aciecausalconnect ionwi l
lhav ebeen
establ i
shed( seeBet tsvWhi ttings/ owe( 1945)71CLR
637at649) .I tist henf ort hedef endantt oshow,by
evidence and ar gument ,thatt he pat ientshoul d not
recov erdamages.I n McGhee vNat i
onalCoalBoar d
[1972]3Al lER1008at1012,[ 1973]1WLR1at6,a
Scot ti
sh appeal ,Lor d Wi l
ber f
or ce expl ained whyt his
was so.Al though Lor d Wi l
ber for ce's st atement i n
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
McGhee has proved contr
oversi
alin Engl
and (
see
Wil
shervEssexAr
eaHealthAuthori
ly[
1988]1Al
lER871
at879,
881—882),i
thasrecei
vedsupporti
nthi
s

cour t( seeegMar chvSt ramar e( E&MH)Pt yLt d( 1991)

171 CLR 506 at514 and Bennet tv Mi ni sterof
Communi t
yWel fare( 1992)176CLR408at420- 421) .
It
spr i
nci plehasal sobeenaccept edbyi nternat ional
exper t s such as Pr of essor Gi esen. I f ind Lor d
Wi lber force'sexposi ti
on compel li
ng ( [1972]3 Al lER
1008at1012) :'thequest i
onr emai nswhet herapur suer
mustnecessar il
yf ailif, afterhehasshownabr eachof
dut y,inv olvingani ncr easeofr iskofdi sease, hecannot
posi ti
v elypr ov et hatt hisi ncr easeofr iskcausedor
mat eriall
y cont ribut ed t o t he di sease whi l
e hi s
empl oy erscannotposi ti
v elypr ovet hecont rary .Int his
i
nt ermedi at ecaset her ei sanappear anceofl ogi ci nt he
view t hatt hepur suer ,onwhom t heonusl i
es,shoul d
fail—al ogicwhi chdi ct atedt hej udgment sbel ow.The
quest i
oni swhet herweshoul dbesat i
sf i
edi nf act ual
situat i
onsl iket hepr esent ,wi ththislogi cal appr oach.I n
my opi nion, t her e ar e f urther consi derat ions of
i
mpor tance.Fi rst,i tisasoundpr inci plet hatwher ea
per sonhas,bybr eachofadut yofcar e,cr eat edar isk,
andi njur yoccur swi thi nt hear eaoft hatr isk,t hel oss
shoul dbebor nebyhi m unl essheshowst hati thad
someot hercause.Secondl y ,from theev ident ialpoi nt
ofv i
ew, onemayask, whyshoul damanwhoi sabl et o
show t hathi s empl oy ershoul d hav et aken cer t
ai n
precaut ions, becausewi thoutt hem ther ei sar isk, oran
added r isk,ofi nj ury ordi sease,and who i nf act
sust ainsexact l
yt hati nj uryordi sease,hav et oassume
thebur denofpr ov i
ngmor e:namel y,t hati twast he
addi tiont ot her isk, causedbyt hebr eachofdut y ,whi ch
causedormat eriallycont ri
but edt ot hei nj ury?I nmany
casest hisi si mpossi blet opr ove,justbecausehonest
medi calopi nioncannotsegr egatet hecausesofan
i
llnessbet weencompoundcauses.Andi foneasks
whi choft hepar t i
es,t hewor kmanort heempl oy ers,
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
shouldsuff
erfrom t
hisinherentevi
dent
ialdif
fi
cul
ty,t
he
answerasamat t
erofpol i
cyorjust
iceshouldbethatit
i
st hecreatorofther i
skwho,exhy pothesi
,mustbe
takentohav efor
eseent hepossibi
li
tyofdamage,who
shouldbearit
sconsequences'."

Jenny(AMinor
)vNor
thLi
ncol
nshi
reCount
yCounci
l
[20001LGR269
Facts:Thepl
ainti
ff8-
year-
oldpupi
linaschoolmanagedbythe
defendantl
efttheschooldur i
nganafter
noonbreakandwas
knockeddownbyacaront hemainroadabout1000metres
from t
heschool.Theschoolhadapoli
cyofcl
osi
ngallgat
esbut
therewasnoonei nchar
geofclosi
ngthem.

"
290
Theteacherscl
osedthem whenev ertheysawt hem opened.
Held:Themaxim ofr esipsal oquit
urwouldappl yandputt he
onusont hedef
endanttoexplainhowt heplainti
ffcamet obeby
theroadsi
dewhenshewasnotsupposedt obet here,andhavi
ng
fai
ledtodothat
,theywereli
able.
Pri
ncipl
e:The onus i s on t he def endant to explainthe
cir
cumstancesofthecauseofinjurytotheplaint
iff
.

PerHenr yLJatp.274,par s.19— 21:19." Wet akethe

basicl aw to be as f oll
ows:Wher et he schoolhas
acceptedt hecareofchi l
drenwhowoul dbeatr i
skiflef
t
alonebesi deahi ghway,ifachi l
dint heircareisinj
ured
as a r esult of being wher e he shoul d not be
(unaccompani ed,byahi ghway )thent heonusi sont he
schoolt oshow how i twast hatheorshecamet obe
wher eheorsheshoul dnotbe,andt oshow t hatthat
stateofaf f
air
shadcomeaboutt hroughno f aultof
their
s( see Car marthenshire CountyCounci lvLewi s
[1955]AC549, atpp561—562, 566,568and570) .

22."Thisist he appli
cat
ion ofthe maxim res ipsa
/oquit
ur,whi ch merel
y descri
bes t
he stat
e of t he
evi
dencef rom whi
chitwaspropertodrawaninference
ofnegl i
gence.Iti
s:'nomor ethanar ul
eofev idence
aff
ectingonus.Itisbasedoncommonsense,andi ts
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
purposeistoenabl ejusti
cetobedonewhent hef acts
beari
ngoncausat ionandont hecareexercisedbyt he
defendantareattheout setunknowntothepl ai
nti
ffand
areoroughttobewi thintheknowledgeofthedefendant
(Charl
esworthandPer cyonNegl i
gence9thed( 1997)5-
88,citi
ng Lord Normand i n BarkwayvSout h Wal es
Transport[
1950]AC185) .
'

23."Theschoolsi mplycoul dnotsayhow i twast hat

Ryancamet obeont heA18,1, 000met r
esf rom t he
school.Iftheirsystem andt heirsuper vi
sionhadwor ked,
thenheshoul dnothav ebeent her e.Theycoul dthr owno
l
ightonhow hel eft,becauseno- onehadseenhi m.But
thejudgeaccept edt her ear ecaseswher e,despi tet he
factthatt hedef endantcant hr ow nol i
ghtonhow t he
accidenthappened,hecanst i
llsat isfythecour tthathe
wasnotnegl i
gent ,thati st osayt hattheschoolhad
takenallreasonabl epr ecautionst opr eventchil
drenwho
woul dbeatr i
ski funaccompani edi ntraff
icfrom bei ng
there(seet hefactuallyv er
ydi ffer entcasesofBar kwayv
SouthWal esTr anspor t

291n

Co( supra)andLudgat evLov ett[1969]1WLR1016) .

Butf orsuch ev idence t o be effecti
v e,i tmustbe
compl ete— i tmustbe a compl ete answert ot he
negli
gencecl ai
m( seeHender sonvHenr yEJenki ns&
Sons [ 1970]AC 282,303g) .Ther e,a pi pe int he
hydraulicbraki
ngsy stem ofal orryf ailed,causinga
brakef ai
lureandaf atalinj
ury.Thedef endant ssought
toshow t hatthef ail
urewasanunobser vabl
el at
ent
defect.Butsuchf ail
uresoccur redwhencer t
aintypesof
usercausedear lycor r
osionoft hepipe.Thedef endants
fai
led to callev i
dence el iminati
ng such user .Their
defencewasaccor dinglyincompleteandf ai
l
ed."

Mel
O'Rei
l
lyvSeamusLav
ell
e[19901I
R372
Fact
s:Thepl
aint
if
fwasdr i
vi
ngonahighwaywhenhi svehi
cle
col
li
dedwi
thf
resi
ancalfbel
ongi
ngt
othedefendant
.Hesuedfor
damagesi
nrespectofhi
scar.Att
hetr
ial
,hesoughttorel
yon
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
thepr incipleofr esipsal oquit
ural t
houghhedi dnotspecifi
call
y
pleadi t.
Hel d:Thepl ainti
ffcoul dr
elyont heprinci
plealt
houghhedi dnot
speci f
icallypleadi t;t hepri
nciplewoul dapplywhereanani mal
straysont ot hehi ghway .Thedef endantwastherefor
eliabl
e.
Principle:Tor elyont hepri
ncipleofresipsaloquit
ur,t
heplaint
if
f
need notspeci ficall
ypl ead itpr ovi
ded factsthatshow t he
appl i
cationoft hepr incipl
ehav ebeenadequat el
ypleaded.

PerJohnsonJatpp.372and373:" Ont heopeni ngof

thecasecounself ortheplaint
if
fsubmi ttedt hatwhi l
e
hehadnotspeci f
ical
lypleadedthedoct r
ineofr esipsa
/oqui
turhewasent it
ledtorelyonthedoct rinepr ovi
ded
hispl
eadingswereadequat eandt hatthef act
spr oved
show t he doctri
ne t o be appl icabl
e. Thi s was
str
enuouslyopposedbycounsel fort
hedef endant .

"Inmyopi niont hesubmi ssionsmadeonbehal foft he

plai
nti
ffarecor rectandt hel awont hisparticularpoint
oflaw hasbeenwel lstatedbyGr if
fi
nJi nMul lenv
QuinnsworthLt d[199011I R59wher ehestat esatp62
oftherepor t:'
Thisprinciplewasst atedasl ongagoas
1865byEr leCJ,i nScot tvLondonandStKat heHne
DocksCo( 1865)3H&C596.Ther etheChi efJust i
ce
saidatp601:' Theremustber easonabl
eev idenceof
negli
gence.Butwher et het hingisshownt obeunder
themanagementoft hedef endantorhisser v ant
s,and
theaccidenti ssuchasi nt heor di
narycourseoft hings
doesnothappeni fthosewho

.
.292
havet he managementuse pr opercar
e,i taffor
ds
reasonabl
eevidence,i
ntheabsenceofexplanat
ionby
thedefendant
s,thattheacci
dentarosefr
om wantof
care.
'

"
In the inst
ant case the fl
oor was under the
managementoft hedefendant
,oritsservant
s,and
t
heaccidentwassuchas,i ntheordi
narycourseof
t
hings,wouldnothappenifthefl
oorsarekeptf r
ee
f
rom spil
l
ageofthisnat
ure.Theonusistheref
oreon
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
thedefendanttoshowthatt heaccidentwasnotdue
toanywantofcar eonitspar t
.Ont heheari
ngoft he
appeal,t
hedefendantobjectedtot heplaint
if
frelyi
ng
ont hi
smaxi m becausei twasnotpl eaded.I nmy
opini
on,thisdoctr
inedoesnothav etobepl eaded
beforeaplaint
if
fmayr el
yoni t.I
ft hefactspleaded
and the facts pr
oved show t hatt he doctri
ne is
appli
cabletot he case,t hati s suff
ici
ent— see
BennettvChemical (6B)Lt d[1971]1WLR
1572."

Pat
ri
ckMer
ri
manvGr
eenhi
l
lsFoodsLt
d[199613I
R73
Facts:Theplainti
ffwasempl oy edasadr iveroft hedef endant '
s
car.Whiledri
vingitr oundacor ner,thevehicleturnedst r
aightoff
theroadandcr ashedi ntoafield,causinghi mi njuries.Hesued
thedefendanti nnegl igencerel yi
ngont hepr i
ncipleofr esipsa.
Hear guedt hatt heacci dentwoul dnothav ehappenedi fthe
defendanthad mai ntained t
he carpr oper l
y.Hel d:Since t he
plai
nti
ffdidnotknow t hecauseoft heacci dent ,thepr inci
ple
mustappl ytoputt hebur denofpr oofont hedef endant .Princi
ple:
The principl
e appl ies wher et he cause oft he acci denti s
unknownt othepl ainti
ff.

PerBl ayneyJatpp.76and78:" Thepr i

ncipalground
rel
ieduponbyt hepl ai
nti
ffi
nhi snot i
ceofappeal ,andin
theargumentbef orethisCour t,i
st hatthelearnedt r
ial
j
udgewasmi stakeni nholdingt hatthedoct ri
neofr es
i
psal oquiturdidnotappl y
.I twassubmi t
tedt hatthe
pri
ncipledi dapplybecauset het ruckwasundert he
managementoft hedefendantandt heacci dentwas
onewhi chwoul dnothappeni nt heor di
narycour seof
eventsifpropercar eweretaken.

"Onbehal foft
hedefendant,MrHedi gansubmi t
tedthat
the princi
ple di
d notappl y because there was an
explanati
onast ohow t heacci dentoccurred:ithad
beenshownbyt heevi
denceoft hepl ai
nti
ff
'switnesses
thatthecauseoftheaccidentwas

293•
•
t
hebreaki
ngoft
het
opl
eafoft
heof
fsi
def
rontspr
ing.He
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
f
urt
hersubmitt
edthat,astherewasnoexplanati
onofwhy
t
heleaffr
act
ured,
itwouldbeunf ai
rtoputonthedef
endant
t
heburdenofexpl
aini
ngtheinexpli
cabl
e.

"Fort hereasonswhi chIwi llnowel aborate,itseemst ome

thatthepl ainti
ff'
ssubmi ssionont hisi ssuei scor rect.Once
therewasnoev i
dence,aswast hecase,t hatt herewasany
negligence on t he par toft he plaintif
fwhi ch caused or
cont r
ibutedt otheacci dent ,theposi ti
ont henwas,andwas
foundbyt hel earnedt ri
alj udgesot obe,t hatt hecauseof
theacci dentwast hebr eaki ngoft het opleafoft heof f si
de
frontspr i
ng.Butt he def endanthas notpr ov ided any
explanationast o whyt hishappened.I nv iew oft hi s,it
seemst omet hatt hecasecomeswi t
hint hemuchci t
ed
principl
esetouti nt hej udgmentoft heCour tofExchequer
Chamber i n Scot t v London and St Kat herine Docks
Company( 1865)3H &C596:' Ther emustber easonabl e
ev i
denceofnegl igence.Butwhent het hi
ngi sshewnt obe
undert hemanagementoft hedef endant ,orhi sser v ants,
andt heacci denti ssuchasi ntheor dinarycour seoft hings
doesnothappeni ft hosewhohav et hemanagementuse
propercar e,itaffor dsr easonabl eev i
dence,int heabsence
ofexpl anationbyt hedef endant s,t hattheacci dentar ose
from wantofcar e.'

"MrHedi gan submi tted thatt he pri

nciple did notappl y
becauset hedef endanthadpr ovi
dedanexpl anat ionf orthe
accident
.Iam unabl et oagr ee.Theexpl anationpr of f
ered
didnotgof arenough.I tdidnotexpl ainwhyt hel eafoft he
springbroke.Andi nthisrespectt hecasei sdistinguishable
from BarkwayvSout hWal esTr ansportCoLt d11950]1Al l
ER392onwhi chMrHedi ganr eli
ed.Thef actst herewer e
that the pl ai
nti
ff'
s husband had been ki l
led whi l
ea
passengeri nthedef endant 'sbus.Theof f
sidef rontt yr
eof
thebushadbur standasar esultthebushadv eeredacr oss
the road and f allen ov eran embankment .The exper t
ev i
denceest abli
shedt hatt hecauseoft hebur stingoft he
tyrewasani mpactf ractureduet ooneormor eheav yblows
ont heoutsideoft het yreleadi ngtothedisintegrat i
onoft he
i
nnerpar ts.Itwashel dbyt heHouseofLor dst hatast he
ev i
dencehadest abl i
shedt hecauseoft heacci dent ,resipsa
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
l
oqui
turdi
dnotappl
y.Lor
dPor
ter,aft
erci
ti
ngt
hepassage
f
rom Scot
tvLondonandStKatheri
neDocksCompanyto
whi
chI

•
294

havejustrefer
red,sai
dinhisopinionatp394: '
Thedoctrine
i
sdependentont heabsenceofexpl anation,and,alt
hough
i
ti sthedut yoft hedefendants,iftheydesi r
et oprotect
themselves,togiveanadequat eexplanationoft hecause
oftheaccident,yet,i
fthefactsaresuf f
icientl
yknown,t he
questi
on ceases t o be one when t he facts speak for
themselves,andthesoluti
onist obef oundbydet ermining
whether,ont hefactsasest abli
shed,negl i
genceist obe
i
nferr
edornot .'

"AndLor dNor mandsai di nhi sopi nionatp399:' Thef act

thatanomni busl eavest her oadwayandsocausesi njury
to a passengerort o someone on t he pav ementi s
evidencer el
ev antt oinfert hatt hei njurywascausedby
thenegl i
genceoft heowner ,sot hat ,i
fnot hingmor ewer e
proved, i
twoul dbeasuf f
icientfoundat i
onf oraf i
ndingof
l
iabil
ityagainsthi m.I tcanr arelyhappenwhenar oad
accidentoccur s,t hatther eisnoot herev idence,and,i f
thecauseoft heacci denti spr ov ed,themaxi mr esipsa
l
oqui turisofl it
t l
emoment .Thequest i
ont hencomest o
bewhet hert heownerhasper for medt hedut yofcar e
i
ncumbentonhi m,orwhet herhei sbyr easonofhi s
negligencer esponsi bl
ef ort hei nj ury.Themaxi mi sno
mor et hanar uleofev idenceaf fectingonus.I tisbased
oncommon- sense, andi tspur posei st oenabl ej usti
cet o
bedonewhent hef actsbear ingoncausat i
onandont he
care exer ci
sed by t he def endantar e att he out set
unknownt othepl ainti
ffandar eoroughtt obewi thi
nt he
knowl edgeoft hedef endant .'

"Intheinstantcasethefactsbearingoncausati
onandon
thecar eexerci
sedbyt hedef endantareunknownt othe
plai
ntif
fandar eoroughttobeknownt othedefendant
.All
thattheplaint
if
fknowsist hattheleafofthespri
ngbroke.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Hedoesnotknowwhyi tbrokeandhedoesnotknowwhat
caret he defendantexer cised inthe mai nt
enance and
serv
ici
ngoft hetruck.Iam sat i
sfi
edthattoenablej
usticeto
bedonet hedoct ri
neshoul dbeappl i
edsoast othrow the
onus on t he defendantt o pr ovet hatthey wer e not
negl
igent.
"

295"

OCCUPI
ERS'
LIABI
LITY
DUTYOFCAREOWEDBYOCCUPI
ERS

A.CONTRACTUALVI
SITORS

Fr
anci
svCocker
rel
l(1870)LR5QB184
Facts:The def endantempl oyed a compet entindependent
contractorCoconst ructast andf orthepur poseofv i
ewingar ace.
Thest andwas negl igent lyconst ructedandt heplainti
ffwho
paidt ov i
ewt her acegoti njuredwhent hest andcollapsedwhi l
e
hewasoni t.
Held:Al thought hedefendantwasnothi mselfnegli
gent ,hewas
l
iableasanoccupi erfort henegl i
genceoft hecont r
actors;f
or
therewasani mpl i
edwar rantyofhi scont ractthatt
hepr emi
ses
wassaf e.
Principl
e:Aper sonwhoadmi tspeopl et ohispr emi
sesf orafee
war r
ant sthatt hepr emi sesi ssaf eandt husowesadut yofcare
tot he peopl et o ensur et heirsaf etyand t hatdut yofcar e
extendst othei ndependentcont ractorsempl oyedbyt heperson
toer ectt hebui ldi
ng.I ft heconst r
uctioni sdonewi thoutdue
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
car
e,t
heoccupi
eri
sli
abl
efort
henegl
i
genceoft
hecont
ract
or.

PerHennenJatpp.192and193: "
Int hepresentcasei t
i
snotf oundt hatthedef endantwashi mselfwantingi n
duecar e,andnopowert odr aw inferencesoff acti s
giventot heCour t;andi fitwere,weshoul dnotbeabl e
to dr aw t he i nference t hat the def endant was
personal l
ygui l
tyofanywantofcar e.He empl oy ed
compet entand pr operper sons who had ef fi
cient l
y
executed si mi l
arwor k on pr ev
ious occasi ons.The
ci
rcumst ancet hatthedef endantdidnothi mselfsur vey
orempl oyanyonet o sur veythest andafteritwas
erected,does noti ni tselfestabli
sh t he charge of
negli
gence;f oritdoesnotappeart hatt hedefectwas
suchascoul dhav ebeendi scover
edoni nspecti
on; and

•
296
The

eveni fithadbeen,i tcannotbel aiddownas

necessaril
yawant ofcar enott oi nspect,alt
houghit
wouldi nsomeci r
cumst ancesbeev idencefrom which
aj ur
ymi ghtpr operl
yf i
ndt hatduecar ehadnotbeen
taken.I tbecomes necessar y,t herefore,forus t o
considerwhet herthecont ractbyt hedef endanttobe
i
mpl i
edf rom ther elat
ionwhi chexi stedbet weenhim
andt heplaint
iffwast hatduecar ehadbeenused,not
onlybyt hedef endantand hi sser v ant
s,butbyt he
personswhom heempl oyedasi ndependentconact ors
toerectthestand."

Andatpp.193and194:" Intheor dinarycour seofthi ngs,

the passengerdoes notknow whet hert he car
ri
erhas
himselfmanuf acturedthemeansofcar r
iageorcont racted
withsomeoneel sef ori
tsmanuf acture.I fthecarr
ierhas
contractedwithsomeoneel sethepassengerdoesnot
usuallyknowwhot hatpersonis,andi nnocasehasheany
sharei nthesel ection.Theliabil
ityoft hemanuf act urer
mustdependont het er
msoft hecont ractbet weenhi m
andt hecarri
er,ofwhi chthepassengerhasnoknowl edge
andov erwhi
chhecanhav enocont rol
;whi l
ethecar r
ier
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
cani ntr
oducewhatst ipulat
ionsandt akewhatsecur i
t i
es
hemayt hinkpr oper .Fori njuryr esul t
ing tot hecar ri
er
himselfbyt hemanuf acturer
'swantofcar e,thecar ri
erhas
ar emedyagai nstthemanuf act ur
er ;butt hepassengerhas
nor emedyagai nstt hemanuf act urerf ordamagear ising
from amer ebr eachofcont ractwi tht hecar r
ier
:Longmei d
vHol l
iday.( 1)Unless,t heref
ore,t hepr esumedi ntentionof
thepar t
iesbet hatthepassengershoul d,intheev entofhi s
beinginjuredbyt hebr eachoft hemanuf acturer
'scont ract,
ofwhi chhehasnoknowl edge, bewi t
houtr emedy , t
heonl y
wayi nwhi chef f
ectcanbegi vent oadi fferentintenti
oni s
bysupposi ngt hatt hecar ri
eri st ober esponsiblet ot he
passenger ,andt ol ookf orhi sindemni t
yt ot heper son
whom he sel ected and whose br each ofcont racthas
causedt hemi schief.

"We hav e al
ready st
ated thatwe considert he same
reasoni
ngwhi chisapplicabl
etothecaseofacar rierof
passengersisappli
cabl
et othecaseofaper sonwho,l i
ke
theplaint
if
f,provi
despl acesforspect
atorsatr acesor
otherexhi
bit
ions.

"Butnotonl
ydowethi
nkthatwhenther
easonsofj
usti
ceand
conveni
enceont
heonesi
deandontheot
herarewei
ghed,t
he

297•
bal
anceincl
inesinfav
ouroft heplai
nti
ff
,butwearealso
ofopi
nionthattheweightofauthori
tyi
sont hepl
aint
if
f'
s
si
de."

(
Onf ur
therappealtot
heExchequerChamberi
nFr
anci
s
vCockr
ell(1870)LR5QB501)

PerKell
yCBatpp.5( )
8and509:" Theonlyremai
ning
pointwhi
chwasmadei sthatt hi
sdefecti
nt hi
sstand
was occasioned bythe wantofski l
land care of
Messrs.Eassie,bywhom thest andwaser ect
ed.But
i
nconf ormitywiththeprinciplelai
d downi nthese
casestowhi chIhaveadverted,and,aboveall
,tothe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
disti
nct i
ont akeni nt hi sv erycaseoft heacci dentat
thePol ytechni cI nst itution,uponwhi chMr .Mat thews
haschi eflyr el i
ed,t hedef endanti sl i
ablef orany thing
thathemustbesupposedt ohav econt r
act edf or ;and
hecont ract edf ort hesuf ficiencyoft hi
sst and,whi ch
wasi nhi sownpossessi onandcont rol
,andwhi ch,as
i
nt hecaseoft her ailwaybr idgei nGr otevChest erand
Holy head Pg. Co. ( 1) ,t hough not er ect ed and
const ructedbyhi msel f,waser ectedandconst ruct ed
underhi sdi rect ionandf orhi sbenef itbyacont ractor
hehadempl oy ed.Thel iabi li
tyext ends,notonl yt oa
stander ect edbyt hedef endanthi msel f,t heper son
whoent ersi nt oacont r actoft hisnat ure,butt oa
stander ect edbyanot herwhohadcont ract edf ort he
erectionofi twi tht hedef endant .Iam,t her ef ore,of
opiniont hatt her ewasacont r
actbet weent hepl aintif
f
andt hedef endant-ani mpl iedcont r
actindeed, buty et
abi ndingcont ract-andt hatt hatcont ractdi d, inef fect,
extend t ot his,t hat t he st and,upon whi ch t he
defendanthadengagedt hatt hepl ainti
ffshoul denj oy
aseati nconsi der ationof5s.dur ingt hest eepl echase,
wasr easonabl yf itf ort hepur posef orwhi chi twast o
beused,andf orwhi cht heseatwascont ract edt obe
suppl i
ed t ot hepl ai nt i
ff.I twasnotso f it,and t he
defect was no unseen and unknown and
undiscov er abl edef ect ,buti twasadef ectoccasi oned
byt henegl igenceandwantofcar eandski lloft hose
with whom t he def endanthad cont racted f ort he
erectionoft hest and. "

PerMarti
nBatpp.510and511:" Butthedefendant
rel
iesupont hef actthatMessr
s.Eassi
e,thecontractors,
buil
tthestand.Thef act
swere,t
hatashortti
mebeforet he
race,Messrs.Eassie wereempl
oyedbythedefendantand
othersfort
hepurposeof

"
298
'
l
he

er
ect
ingt
hisst
and,andt
hecasef
indst
hatMessr
s.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Eassiewer ev er ycompet entandpr operper sonst obe
empl oyedf ort hepur poseofer ect i
ngasuf fi
cientand
properst and;andi twascont endedbyMr .Mat thews
thatt he pl aintiffwoul d hav e had a r ightofact ion
againstMessr s.Eassi e.Inmyopi nionhewoul dnot .
SupposeMessr s.Eassi ehadbui ltthisst andaccor ding
toanor dergi venbyt hedef endant, t
oer ectthisst andi n
amannerpoi nt edout , andt heyhadst rictlyfulfi
ll
edt heir
under t
aking, ander ect edi taccordi ngt ot heor der, could
anyper soncont endt hatt herewoul dbeanyl i
abilit
yt o
theplaintiffont hepar tofMessr s.Eassi ef oranydef ect
i
nt hest and?Howcani tbeasser tedt hatat hirdper son,
who af terwar ds ent er ed i nto a cont ract wi tht he
defendantwhohadadmi t
tedhi m, woul dhav eanyact ion
against Messr s. Eassi e i n respect of what t hey
contractedt odo?Iconsi dert hatMessr s.Eassi est ood
i
nt oor emot eaposi tionf rom t hepl aintifftobel i
ablet o
anact i
onbyhi m.Thel awofEngl andl ooksatpr oximat e
l
iabili
ti
es as f aras i s possi bl
e,and endeav our st o
confinel i
abi l
i
tiest otheper sonsimmedi at el
yconcer ned;
andIappr ehendi twoul dbei mpossi blet ocont endt hat
aper son, whohader ect edabui l
dingoft hiskindst r
ictl
y
accordingt ohi scont ract ,woul dber esponsi blet oa
strangerwhohappenedt ogouponi t,ifitisfoundnott o
bef i
tfori tspur pose.

"Iam notawar eofanycaset oshow, that,wher eaman

hasent eredintoadi rectbar gainwi thanot herbyt aking
5s.toadmi thim upont hest and,t hatthel att
er ,i
nt he
eventofanymi sfort
unecomi ngt ohim byr easonoft he
i
nsufficiencyoft hest and,i st obet hrownov erupon
someper sonwhohadmadet hecont ractt obui l
dt he
stand.Iam,t herefore,clear l
yofopi nion,t hataf t
er
Messr s. Eassie had er ect ed t his st and and t he
defendanthad,t hr
ought hemanhehadpl acedt here,
takent he5s.f r
om thepl aintiffforpermi tti
nghi mt ogo
upont hest andforthepur poseofv i
ewingt her ace,the
defendanti mpli
edly cont r
act ed t hatt he st and was
reasonabl yfitandpr operf ort hepur pose;ort hatt he
defendanthadadut yimposeduponhi mt ohav east and
reasonabl yfi
tforthatpur pose,t hatis,fort her ecept i
on
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
ofthepl
aint
if
f.Ithinktheplai
nti
ffi
sclear
lyenti
tl
edt o
recov
erf
rom thedefendanti
nthesupposedcase,ei
ther
i
ncaseorcontract
.

299"

"Theonl yquest i
onr emai ningis,ist hedefendant ,under
thepecul i
arci r
cumst ances,r esponsi bl
e?Thedef endant
wasnotst ewardoft heser aces;buthehadt akenpar tin
themanagement ;hehadr eceivedt hemoney ,Ofi thad
been paidt o his creditatt he bank.Idar e say t he
defendantwoul d hav ef ound i tv ery di
ff
icultto hav e
pleadedapl eai nabat ement .Hewasacont racti
ngpar ty,
orapar t
yuponwhom t hisdutywascastwi thregardt o
theplaint
iff,
and, t
heref or
e, It
hinkthatt hi
spointalsofails,
andt hatthej udgmentoft heCour tofQueen' sBenchi s
ri
ghtandoughtt obeaf fi
rmed."

Macl
enanvsegar[
1917]2KB325
Facts:Thepl ainti
ffwasaguesti nahot elowned byt he
defendantwhenf i
rebr okeoutinthehot elcausi
ngi nj
uriesto
theplainti
ff.Thepl ainti
ffall
egedthatthef irewasduet othe
negli
genceoft hedef endantandt hatther ewasani mplied
warrantyt hatthepr emi seswassaf efort hepur pose.Hel d:
The def endantwas l iabletot he pl
aintif
ff orthe injuri
es
sustai
ned.Pr i
nci pl
e:Anoccupi erofapremi sesowesadut yof
caretot akereasonabl ecar ethatt
hepr emi sesi
ssaf ebuthe
owesno dut yt o defectsthatcouldnotbedi scoveredby
reasonablecar e.

PerMcCar dieJatpp.329and330:" Now, nocontract

atallexist
edbetweent heplainti
f fandt hedef endant
i
nt hecasesofI ndermaurvDamesandNor manv
GreatWest ern19.Co.Inthepr esentcase,howev er,
thepl ai
nti
ffwasaguestoft hedef endant ,and a
contract
ualr el
ati
onshiptherefor e existed between
them.Di dthatcontracti
mposeont hedef endanta
severerobli
gati
onthanwashel dt oexistinIndermaur
vDamest owardsamer ei nvitee?I n hismast erl
y
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
treat
iseont heLaw ofTor tsSi rFr eder i
ckPol lock
apparentl
ydr awsnodi stincti
onbet weencaseswher e
a cont r
actexi sts bet ween t he pl ainti
ff and t he
defendant and cases wher et herei s no such
contract
ualr el
ati
onshi p:seePol l
ockonTor t
s,10t h
ed.,pp.530-538.Mor eov er ,
inMar neyvScot tBigham
J.usedt hef oll
owingwor ds:'Idonott hinkthatt he
questionast owhet hert hedef endant 'sli
abili
tyarises
outofcont r
actoroutoft or
tisr eall
ymat eri
al,f
ort he
measur eoft hatli
abili
tywoul d,inmyopi nion,bet he
samei neit
hercase. 'Fr om al aterpassagei nt he
samej udgmenti tseemst obecl eart hathedr awsno
l
inewhat everbet weent hecaseswher eacont ract
existsandcaseswher ei tdoesnotexi st.Het reats
IndermaurvDamesasonewi t
hFr anci svCockr ell
.(3)
Wi t
h

"
300
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

allrespectt osodi st i
nguishedaj udgeandt ot heemi nent
j
ur i
st,Si rFr ederickPol lock,whosev i
ewsheadopt ed,I
am unabl etoagr eewi tht hedictum ofBi ghamJ.I nmy
opiniont heexi stenceofacont r
actbet weent hepl aintif
f
andt hedef endanti nsuchacaseast hatnowbef or eme
i
sofgr eati mpor tance,fori tmayl eadt othei mplicat ion
ofa war r
antywhi ch car ri
est he dut yofa def endant
subst ant i
all
y bey ond t he obl igati
on i ndicat
ed i n
Indermaur v Dames.It hink thatt he obser vat
ion of
Hami ltonL. J.inLat ham vJohnsoni swell foundedwher e
hesay s:' Contractualobl i
gat i
onsofcour sest andapar t
.'
Wher et hepl ai
ntiffi saguestatt hedef endant 'sinnt he
dutyoft hedef endantcannotbel essthant hedut yl aid
downi nI nder maurvDames;buti tmaybesubst ant iall
y
greater .Towhatext entdoesi texceedt heI ndermaur v
Damesobl i
gation?Thepl ainti
ffassertsthatt hereisher e
awar rant yimpl i
edbyl awagai nstt hedefendantt hathi s
hotelwasassaf easr easonabl ecar eandski l
lcoul d
makei t.Isthiscont enti
onsound? "

Andatpp.332and333:" Sot ooast opr emi sesgener all

y
ther ule,It hi
nk,ist hesame,andupont hedeci si
onsas
theyst andmaybest atedasf ollows,namel y:Wher et he
occupi erofpr emi sesagr eesf orr ewar dt hataper son
shallhav ether i
ghtt oent eranduset hem f oramut uall
y
cont empl atedpur pose,t hecont ractbet weent hepar ti
es
(unlessi tpr ovi
dest ot hecont rary)cont ainsani mpl i
ed
warr antyt hatthepr emi sesar eassaf ef ort hatpurpose
asr easonabl ecar eandski llont hepar tofanyonecan
maket hem.Ther ulei ssubj ectt ot hel imi t
ationthatt he
defendanti snott obehel dr esponsi blef ordef ectswhi ch
couldnothav ebeendi scov er
edbyr easonabl ecar eor
skil
lon t he partofany per son concer ned wi t
ht he
const ruction,alteration,r epair,ormai nt enance oft he
premi ses;andt hehead- notet oFr anci svCockr ellmust
tothi sext entbecor rect ed.Butsubj ectt ot hisli
mi t
at i
on
i
tmat t
ersnotwhet hert hel ackofcar eorski llbethatof
thedef endantorhi sser v ants,ort hatofani ndependent
cont ractororhi sser vant s,orwhet hert henegl i
gence
takes pl ace befor e oraf tert he occupat ion by t he
defendantoft hepr emi ses.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"I
nmyopi ni
onthisrul
eappl
iestot hepr
esentcase.The
princi
pleisbasi
candappl i
esaliketopremi sesandto
vehicl
es.Itmatter
snotwhet herthesubjectbear ace-
stand,atheat
re,
oran
301
i
nn;whet heritbeat axi
cab,anomni bus,orar ail
way
carri
age.Thewar rant
yineachcasei sthesame, andf ora
breacht hereofanact i
onwi lll
ie.Inmyv iew thel aw is
i
ndicatedwi thclearnessandpr ecisi
onbyMr .Sal mondi n
hisv i
gorousandacut et r
eati
seont heLaw ofTor ts,4th
ed.,p.399.Her et hejur
yhav efound, andright
lyf ound, i
n
theplainti
ff'
sfav ourthatthepr emiseswer enotassaf e
asreasonabl ecareandski ll
couldmaket hem."

Gi
l
lmor
evLondonCount
yCounci
l[1938]4Al
lER331
Fact s:Thepl ainti
ffpai
dt ojoi
naphy si
calexerci
seor ganisedby
thedef endant.Inthecourseoft heexerci
se,theplainti
ffslipped
andf el
lowi ngt oahighl
ypol i
shedfl
oor.Hesuf fer
edi nj
uri
esand
sued.
Hel d:Thedef endantswereli
ableforfail
i
ngtopr ovi
deaf it
tingf l
oor
fort heexercise.
Principle:Aper sonwhoadmi tspeoplet ohispremisesf oraf ee
owes t hem adut yofcaretoensurethatthepr emiseisf i
tfort he
purpose.

PerDuPar cqLJatp.335:" Ifonel ookst oseewhatt hat

condit
ionwas,i tisnotv erydi f
ficultt ofindi t,because
whatdi stinguishedt hisfloorf rom ot herfloorswast hatit
wasaf airlyhi ghlypol ishedf l
oor,sui tablef ordancing.I
am boundt osay ,ont hef act s,thati tdoesnotseem t o
met obev er ysuitablef ort hissor tofphy sicalexercise.
Nodoubty oumi ghthav epeopl et heredayaf terdayand
weekaf t
erweekandnobodymi ghtf allandhur thimsel f
.
Nevertheless,i twas a mat terwhi ch obv iouslyst r
uck
peoplef r
om t hef ir
stasonewhi chneededconsi der
ation,
becausei twasdebat edwhet heritwoul dbewi set oput
downsomesor tofdr uggetormat ting,andi twast hought ,
andIt hinkr i
ghtly,thati twoul dbebet ternott odoso.I t
wascer t
ai nlyfeltbyMrCr ane,t hei nst r
uctoract uall
yi n
charge of t his cl ass, t hat t his f loor was whol l
y
unsuit
abl e—and,i ndeed,danger ous—f orwhathecal led
gymnast icwor k,althoughhehadcomet ot heconclusi on
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

thati twassaf ef ort hepar t

icularexercisewhi chwas
beingper formedatt het ime.Idonott hinkthatitwas
safe.Ithinkthati twasdanger ous,andt hatthi
sacci dent
hascer tainl
yprov edthati twasdanger ous.Thequest ion
thatremai nsis,therefore,whet hertherewasabr eachof
thewar rantythati tshoul dber easonablysafe.Ishoul d
notsayf oramomentt hat,becausemanypeopl emi ght
thi
nkt hatasof t•
v voodf l
oorwasbet t
erthanahar d-wood
fl
oor ,because a har d-wood f loorwas mor e sli
pper y
,
therefor
et herewasanynegl i
gencei nhav i
ng

•
302
ahar d-woodfl
oor.I
tisachoi ce,Iwi l
lnotsayofev i
ls,
butbet weentwonotperf
ectsur faces.Howev er,where
yougethar dwoodpluspoli
shoft hiskind,Idonott hi
nk
thatitispossi
bletosaythatitwasr easonablysafe.It
certai
nlywasnotsaf eont hef act sasIhav ef ound
them, andIdonotthi
nkthatitisrighttosayt hati
twas
reasonablysaf
e."

Bel
lvTr
avcoHot
elsLt
d[1953]1QB473
Facts:Thepl ai
nti
ffwasapay i
ngguestatt hedef endant'
shotel
whof el
landsuf f
eredi njuri
eswhileonaf ootpat
hi nthehot el
.
Thef all
wasasar esultofsli
pperystonesont hefootpath.
Held:Si ncethepat hwasr easonablysafef orpeoplet owal kon,the
defendantwasnotl iable.
Pri
nciple:Thedutyofcar eanoccupierowestoacont r
actual
invit
eeis
toensur ethatt
hepr emi sesissaf
eforinvi
tees.

PerLordGoddardCJatp.478: "Nowaday s,i

fsomebody
i
sunf ort
unateenought omeetwi t
hanacci dentfrom
whichsomei nj
uryresul
ts,i
tisalwayst houghtt hatthere
oughttobesomebodyt opay .Ithi
nkt hatt hatideai s
getti
ngfartoocommon.I tisnotforev er yinjurythata
personmaysust aininthecour seofev erydayl if
et hat
heorshecanr ecovercompensat ion;i tcanonl ybe
recover
edifthatinj
uryisduet othef aultofsomebody
whoowesadut ytothatperson."

Andatp.479:"
Formysel
f,Icannotsayt
hatbecausei
t
mightbepossi
blet
of i
ndt hatonepartofadr i
ve,a
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

quar terofami lelong,wassl ipper y-andIam pr epared

toacceptt hati twassl i
ppery-oneoughtt ohol dthat
thisdr i
vewasdanger ous,ort hatt hatini tselfwasany
evidencet hatt hepremi seswer enotr easonabl ysaf efor
theuseoft heguest satt hehot el.Ithinkthatt hisisjust
oneoft hosecaseswher eaper sononanev eningwal k
meet swithami sfort
une.Themer efactthatt hepl ai
ntif
f
sli
pped because,i t was f ound,t here wer e some
polishedst onescausedbyor dinar yweari nthisdr iv
e, i
s
noj usti
fi
cati
onf orholdingt hatt hiswasadanger ous
place, orthatreasonabl ecarehadnotbeenusedt osee
thatt hepremi seswer er easonabl ysaf e.Thedut yoft he
def endantswast ouser easonabl ecar etoseet hatthe
premi seswer er easonabl ysafe.Idonott hinkt hatthere
wasanyev idenceofl ackofr easonabl ecar e;Idonot
thinkt hatitwasr i
ghtt oholdont hesef actst hatt he
premi ses

303•
werenotreasonabl
ysafe;andf orthesereasonsIthi
nk
t
hatthejudgecamet oawr ongconclusi
on,andthathi
s
j
udgmentoughttoberev
er sed."

GearyvJDWet her spoonPl c[ 2011]EWhc1506

Facts:The def endantr efurbished an ol d gent
leman'
s
houseintoapubandl eftuntouchedanopengr andstai
rcasewi t
h
sweepingbanist ersonbot hsi des.Thedef endantwhoat tended
thepubwi t
hhercol leaguessuf f
er edinj
uri
eswhenshef el
lwhen
try
ingtouseoneoft hebani sters.
Held:Sincethepl ainti
ffassumedt heri
skthatresult
edintheinjur
y
hersel
f,thedefendant swer enotl iable.

PerCoul son J atpar.37:[ 37]" Ther

e are numerous
authorit
ies fort he pr
oposit
ion thata Cl ai
mantwho
voluntari
lyassumesanobv i
ousrisk,whichsubsequentl
y
eventuates,wil
l,saveinparti
cul
arci r
cumstances,belef
t
withoutar emedy.Forpresentpur
posesi ti
snecessaryto
ci
teonl yfour.

HisLordshi
pthendealtwi
ththeauthor
iti
esandconti
nued
atpars.45—47:[45]"
Inmyv iew,
thereisnodif
fer
encein
pri
nci
ple between Tomli
nson and t he pr
esent case.
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Similarl
y, I al so concl ude t hat t hi
s case i s
i
ndistinguishablefrom Poppleton.BothMrPoppl et
onand
theCl ai
mantdel i
berat
elyt
ookt heriskthattheymi ghtf
all
.
Neither intended t o fal
lbut ,due t o a moment ary
misjudgement ,t hey both did.And i n both cases the
Defendanthadt akensomest epstodealwi t
ht heprobl
em
(i
nPoppl etont heyhadpr ovidedsaf etymat s,herethey
hadwar nedwoul d-besli
dersawayf rom thebani st
ers)
,
andcoul dnotr easonablybeexpectedt odomor e.

[46]" I
nthel i
ghtoft heClaimant '
scandi devidenceabout
theobv i
ousr iskthatsher an,itseemst omet hatthe
principl
eofv olunt
aryassumpt i
onofr isk,setouti nthe
casesnot edabov e,isfatalt ohercl aim.TheCl ai
mant
freelychose t o do somet hing which she knew t o be
danger ous.Becauseoft heconv er
sationsabout' Mar y
Poppi ns'
,therewasev enadegr eeofpr e-
planning.She
knew t hatsli
dingdownt hebani ster
swasnotper mit
ted,
butshechoset odoi tany way.Shewast her ef
orethe
aut horofherownmi sfortune.TheDef endantowedno
dut ytoprotectherfrom suchanobv i
ousandi nherentri
sk.
Shemadeagenui neandi nfor
medchoi ceandt heri
sk
thatshechoset orun

•
•304
mat
eri
ali
sedwi
tht
ragi
cconsequences.

[47]"
Inthoseci
rcumstances,Iconsidert
hat,onthe
l
aw,Iam boundt ofi
ndthatthisclaim mustfai
l.I
t
would be contraryto binding authori
tyt o do
other
wise.
"

Andatpar .58:"I
nv iew oft heCl aimant'sunqual i
fied
accept anceoft her iskt hatsher an,theabsenceof
anythingonwhi chr esponsi bil
i
tyorr el
i
ancecoul dbe
based,andt hetrendoft heaut horit
iesnotedabov e,I
am unabl et oconcludet hattherewasanyr elevant
assumpt ion ofr esponsi bil
it
y on t he partoft he
Defendant .I
nparticular
,t herewer enospeci f
icf acts
which suggest ed a v ol
untary assumpt ion of
responsi bil
it
yont hepar toft heDef endant,andt here
wasnoev i
denceofr eli
anceatal l.Inshor t
,therewas
nothingwhi chcoul dallow t heCl ai
mantt odr aw an
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

analogy wit
h t hose (few) cases i
n which an
assumptionofresponsibi
li
tyhadbeenfoundonthe
partoftheDefendant,despi
tetheobv
iousri
skbei
ng
runbytheClai
mant .
"

A. I
NVI
TEES

I
ndemaurvDames(
1866)LR1cp274
Fact s:Thedef endantwasasugarr ef
inerand had ahol e
throughwhi chsugarwascar r
iedtoandf rom theupperf loors
oft hebui ldi
ng.Thepl aint
if
fwhohadf i
xedagasr egulatoron
thepr emi seswentt her eforthepurposesofi nspect i
onand
whi leont hepr emises,t hr
oughnof aultofhisf el
lthr ought he
holeandgoti njured.
Hel d:Si ncethepl ai
nt i
ffwason t hepr emisesf oral awf ul
purposeandt hehol ewasi nthecir
cumst ancesunr easonabl y
danger ousf orvisit
ors,thedefendantwasl i
able.
Principle:Theoccupi erofpr emisesowesadut yofcar et o
persons who come on t he premises fort he pur poses of
businesst opr eventdamagef rom unusualdangerofwhi chhe
i
sawar e.

PerWi l
lesJatp.285:" Thecapacityi nwhi cht he
plai
ntiffwast herewast hatofaper sononl awful
business,int
hecour seoff ul
fi
ll
i
ngacont ractinwhi ch
botht heplai
ntif
fandt hedef endanthadani nt er
est,
andnotuponbar epermission.Nosounddi stincti
on
wassuggest edbet weenthecaseoft heser vantand
thecaseoft heempl oyer,ifthelatt
erhadt hought
proper

305.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

to go i n person;norbet ween t he case ofa per son

engagedi ndoingt hewor kforthedef endantpur suantt o
hisempl oyment ,andt hatofaper sont est
ingt hewor k
whi chhehadst ipulatedwi t
hthedef endantt obepai df or
i
fitst oodt hetest;wher ebyimpliedlyt hewor kmanwast o
be al lowed an onst and to appl yt hat test,and a
reasonabl eoppor tunityofdoi ngso.Anydut yt oenabl e
thewor kmant odot hewor kinsaf et y,seemsequal l
yt o
existdur ingtheaccessor yempl oymentoft est
ing:and
anydut ytoprovidef orthesafetyoft hemast erwor kman,
seemsequal l
yowi ngt otheser vantwor kmanwhom he
mayl awf ull
ysendi nhi splace.
"

Andatp.287:" Theaut hor itiesr espect i

ngguest sand
otherbar el icensees,andt hoser espect ingser vant sand
other s who consentt oi ncura r i
sk,bei ng t herefore
i
nappl i
cabl e,wear etoconsi derwhati st hel awast ot he
dutyoft he occupi erofa bui lding wi thr ef erence t o
personsr esor tingt heretoi nt hecour seofbusi ness, upon
hisi nvitation,expr essori mpl ied.Thecommoncasei s
thatofacust omeri nashop:buti ti sobv i
oust hatt hisis
onlyoneofacl ass;f or,whet hert hecust omeri sact uall
y
chaf feri
ng att het i
me,oract ual l
ybuy sornot ,hei s,
accor ding t o an undoubt ed cour se ofaut hor i
ty and
pract i
ce, ent i
tl
edt ot heexer ciseofr easonabl ecar ebyt he
occupi ert o pr eventdamage f r
om unusualdanger ,of
whi cht heoccupi erknowsoroughtt oknow,suchasa
trap-door l eft open,unf enced,and unl ighted. ..Thi s
protect i
ondoesnotdependupont hef actofacont r
act
being ent er ed int oi nt he way oft he shopkeeper '
s
busi nessdur i
ngt hest ayoft hecust omer ,butupont he
factt hatt he cust omerhas come i ntot he shop i n
pursuanceofat acitinvitat i
ongi v enbyt heshopkeeper ,
wi t
hav iewt obusi nesswhi chconcer nshi msel f .And, ifa
cust omerwer e,af terbuy inggoods,t ogobackt ot he
shop i n or dert o compl ain oft he qual i
ty,ort hatt he
changewasnotr i
ght,hewoul dbej ustasmucht here
uponbusi nesswhi chconcer nedt heshopkeeper ,andas
muchent i
tledt opr otectiondur ingt hisaccessor yv isi
t,
thoughi tmi ghtnotbef ort heshopkeeper 'sbenef it,as
duringt hepr i
ncipalv i
sit,whi chwas.Andi f,inst eadof
goinghi msel f,thecust omerwer et osendhi sser vant,the
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

servantwoul dbeent i
tl
edt othesameconsi derat
ionas
themast er .Thecl asst owhi cht hecust omerbel ongs
i
ncludes per sons who go notas mer ev olunteers,or
l
icensees,Ofguest s,orser vants,orper sons whose
empl oymenti ssucht hatdangermaybeconsi deredas
bargainedf or,butwhogouponbusi nesswhi chconcer ns
theoccupi er,anduponhi sinvi
tati
on,expr essori mplied.
And, withr espectt osuchav i
sit
oratleast, weconsi derit
settl
edl aw,t hathe,usi ngr easonablecareonhi spar tfor
hisownsaf ety,isent i
tledt oexpectt hatt heoccupi er
shallonhi spar tuser easonabl ecaretopr eventdamage
from unusualdanger ,whi chheknowsoroughtt oknow;
andt hat ,
wher ethereisev i
denceofneglect ,t
hequest i
on
whet hersuchr easonabl ecar ehasbeent aken,bynot i
ce,
l
ighting,guar di
ng,orot herwise,andwhet hert herewas
contributory negl igence i n t he sufferer, must be
determi nedbyaj uryasmat teroffact

"Itwasabl yinsistedf orthedef endantt hathecoul donly

be boundt okeephi splaceofbusi nessi nt hesamecondi t
ion
asotherpl acesofbusi nessoft helikeki nd,accor di
ngt othe
bestknownmodeofconst ruct
ion.Andt hisar gumentseems
concl
usi v
et opr ov ethatther ewasnoabsol ut edutytoprevent
danger,butonl yadut yt omaket hepl aceasl i
ttl
edanger ous
assuchapl acecoul dr easonabl ybe,hav ingr egardtot he
contr
ivancesnecessar i
l
yusedi ncar ryingont hebusiness.But
wethinkt hear gumenti sinapplicablet othef actsoft hi
scase;
fi
rst
,becausei twasnotshewn, andpr obablycoul dnotbe, t
hat
ther
ewasanyusagenev ert ofenceshaf t
s;secondl y,because
i
twaspr ov ed,t hat,whent heshaf twasnoti nuse,af ence
mightber esor tedt owi thouti nconvenience:andnousage
coul
dest ablisht hatwhatwasi nf actunnecessar i
lydangerous
wasinl awr easonabl ysaf e,asagai nstper sonst owardswhom
ther
ewasadut ytobecar eful.
"

Onappeal
tot
heExchequerChamberi
nIndemaurvDames
(
1867)LR2CP311
Hel
d:Si
ncet heplaint
if
fwasnotamer evolunt
eerbutwasther
e
onl
awfulbusinessuponacont
ract
,thedef
endantwasli
abl
e.

PerKel
l
yCBatpp.312and313:"Thequest
ionhasbeen
rai
sedwhet
hert
heplai
nti
ffatt
het i
meoft heacci
dent
,
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

andundert hespeci
alcir
cumstancesoft
hecase,was
moret hanamer evolunt
eer
:letusseewhatthecase
real
lywas.TheworkhadbeendoneonSat ur
day,
andat
theconclusi
onofitanappointmentwasmadef ort
he
plai
nti
ff'
semploy
erorsome

307"

otherworkmantocomeont hef ol
lowi
ngTuesdayt oseeif
theworkwasi nproperor
der,andallthepartsofitact
ing
ri
ghtl
y.Thepl ai
nti
ffbyhismast er'
sdirect
ionswentf or
thatpurpose,and Iown Ido notsee anydi sti
nct
ion
betweenthecaseofa

wor kman goi ng upon t he pr emi ses t o per form hi s

empl oy er '
s cont r
act ,and t hatofhi s goi ng af t ert he
cont r
acti scompl eted,butf orapur posei ncident alt ot he
cont r
act ,and so i ntimat elyconnect ed wi thi t,t hatf ew
cont r
act sar ecompl et edwi t
houtasi milaractbei ngdone.
Thepl ai ntiffwentunderci rcumst ancessuchast hosel ast
ment ioned,and hecomes,t herefore,st r
ictlywi thint he
l
anguageusedbyWi ll
es,J.,' aper sononl awf ulbusi ness
i
nt hecour seoff ulfill
i
ngacont r
acti nwhi chbot ht he
pl
aint i
ffanddef endanthav eani nterest.'Whatt heni st he
dutyi mposedbyl aw ont heowneroft hesepr emi ses?
Theywer eusedf ort hepur poseofasugarr ef iner y,andi t
mayv eryl ikel
ybet r
uet hatsuchpr emi sesusual lyhav e
holesi nt hef l
oorsoft hedi fferentst orey s,andt hatt hey
arel eftwi t
houtanyf enceorsaf eguar ddur ingt heday
whilet hewor kpeopl e,whoi tmaywel lbesupposedar e
acquai nt edwi ththedanger ouschar acteroft hepr emi ses,
areabout ;butifaper sonoccupy ingsuchpr emi sesent ers
i
ntoacont r
act,int hef ulfil
mentofwhi chwor kmenmust
comeont hepremi seswhopr obabl ydonotknowwhati s
usuali n such pl aces,and ar e unacqual nt ed wi tht he
dangert heyar elikelyt oincur ,ishenotboundei thert oput
upsomef enceorsaf eguar daboutt hehol e,or ,ifhedoes
not,togi vesuchwor kmenar easonabl enot i
cet hatt hey
mustt akecar eandav oidt hedanger ?It hinkt hel awdoes
i
mposesuchanobl igat i
ononhi m. "
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Grif
fit
hsvSmi th[1941]AC170
Facts:Theheadmast erofanel ement aryschoolwi t
ht heauthor
it
y
oftheschoolmanager s, t
hedef endants, i
ssuedinvit
ati
onst osome
peopleincludi
ngt heplaintift
oat tendanex hi
bit
ionofwor kdoneby
thepupils.Thepl ai
ntif
f?ssonwasoneofsuchpupi ls.Whil
ei nt
he
room wher etheexhibiti
onwast akingpl ace,t
hef l
oorcoll
apsedand
theplai
ntiffwasinjured.
Held:Thepl ainti
ffwasani nvi
teeandwasowedadut yofcareby
thedefendant stoensur ethatthef l
oorwasr easonablysafefort
he
purposebutt heact i
onfailedonl i
mi t
ationoftime.

PerVi
scountSi
monLCatpp.172and173:
"Ther
eisno
disputet hatthef l
oorwasi nadanger ouscondi ti
on.The
schoolbui l
ding was near l
y a hundr ed y ears ol
d;t he
met hodofsuppor toft hef l
oorwasqui teobsolete;the
defectsint hest r
ucturewer eobv i
oust oi nspecti
on;there
hadbeennosur veyoft hebui l
dingfort hir
tyyearspr i
orto
theacci dent.TuckerJ.f oundasaf actt hatthosewho
wer echar gedwi tht hedut yofkeepi ngt hepremisesi n
repairhadnott akenr easonabl ecaretodi schargethatduty.
Thisv i
ewoft hemat terhasnot ,It
hink,beenchal l
engedi n
anyst ageoft helit
igation, andont heundi sputedevidence
noot herv i
ewi spossible."

Andatp.175:" Counself ortheappel lantsputt heircl aim

ont hebasi sthatt hemanager shadi nv i
tedMr s.Gr iffi
t hst o
comeuponpr emi ses,whi cht hemanager soccupi edand
controlled, wi thout war ning her of t hei r danger ous
condi t
ionandwi thoutput ti
ngt hem i napr operst at eof
repair.Sost at ed,t hecl ai
mi st oenf orceacommonl aw
l
iabili
tywhi chi sgener all
yi l
lustratedbyr efer ringt ot he
decision,givenmor ethansev ent yy ear sago,byt heCour t
ofExchequerChamberi nt hel eadingcaseofI nder maur v
Dames( 1).TuckerJ.f oundt hi scl aim pr ov ed,ci tingi n
suppor toft he v iew thatt he manager s mustf ort his
purposeber egar dedasoccupi ers,anunr epor teddeci sion
ofSi ngletonJ.i nTi erneyvSmi t
h( 2),whi chdeal twi th
i
njuriessust ainedbyanot herpl ai
nt i
ffar isingoutoft he
sameacci dent .TheCour tofAppealt ookt hesamev iew,
and,apar tf rom t he defence r aised undert he Publ i
c
Author i
tiesPr ot ect i
onAct ,1893,bot hthecour t
sbel ow
woul dhav edeci dedi nfavouroft hepr esentappel l
ant s.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"Ientirel
yconcurandent ertainnodoubtt hatifMr .andMr s.
Grif
fit
hshadi ssuedtheirwr itmor epr ompt ly,theywoul dhave
hadanef fecti
vecauseofact ionagai nstthemanager s(she,on
accountoft heinjuri
esshesust ainedowi ngt ot heirbreachof
duty,andhe,becauseoft her esul
t i
ngl ossofhi swi f
e'siervi
ces
whileshewasi ncapacit
ated) .Butt hewr itwasi ssuedonOct ober
12,1936,t wenty-t
wo mont hs af ter the acci dent ,and t he
manager st hushav etheoppor t
unityofpl eadingt hattheywer e
protectedbyt hePublicAut hor i
ti
esPr otecti
onAct ,1893.Thesol e
questionint heappealiswhet herthispleashoul dpr ev ai
l.
"

309u
PerVi scountMaugham atp.182:" Theappel l
anthadt o
showt hatthemanager swer einoccupat ionandcont rolof
thepr emises,andwer et hereforeunderacommonl aw
dutyt ot heinviteetotaker easonabl ecaret oprev
enti nj
ury
tot hel att
erf rom ahi ddendangerofwhi chasoccupi ers
theyshoul dhav ebeenawar e, ortowar nt heinvi
teeoft he
existenceoft hedanger .Thust heclaimi ssimplyont he
wellknownpr incipl
eofI ndermaur vDames.MyLor ds,for
thepr esentpur posewemustassumet hattheappel l
antis
ri
ght lyasser t
ingt hatthemanager swer einoccupat i
onof
theschoolpr emi sessot hatthepr incipl
eappl i
es;andIwi l
l
addt hatf ormypar tasatpr esentadv i
sedIt hinkt he
cont entionwasj usti
fi
ed."

PerLordWr ightatp.189:"OnthesefactsbothTuckerJ.
andtheCour tofAppealri
ghtl
yheldthattheappell
antwas
notmer el
yaguestorl i
censeebutan' invi
tee'towhom
wasowedt heduty,defi
nedinInder
maur vDames,andi n
Fair
man'scase( 2)
.Thatdutywascl earl
ybroken.Indeed,
that i
t was br oken was not contested beforey our
Lordshi
ps.
"

Pear
sonvCol
emanBr
other
s[1948]2KB359
Facts:Thepl aint
if
fwentwi thhersi
stertoaci r
cusownedand
managed by t he def
endants wher
et hey pai
dt o wat ch the
performance.Inthecourseoftheper
formanceshefeltl
ikeeasing
herselfandwentoutoft hetenti
nsearchofasecludedplaceand
fi
nallycamet oaspotnearaf encedl
ion'
scage.Thelionwasabl e
toreachoutf rom thecageandmaulher .I
twasf oundthatthere
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wer enomar kingst owarnherthattheplacewaspr ohi

bited.
Held:Thatthepl ainti
ffwasaninvit
eeandhadgoneoutoft hetent
forareasonabl epur poseandthusthedefendantbreachedt hei
r
dutybynotwar ningherofthedangersoft heplace.
Princi
ple:A per son who ent ers a pr
emi ses as an i
nv i
tee and
wandered ar ound f ora reasonabl
e pur pose cont
inues in his
capacit
yasani nv i
teeandnotat r
espasser.

PerLordGr eeneMRatpp.372—376:" Thisisnotacase,

asitseemst ome, whi
chissimil
art
ot hecommoncl assofcase
wherechil
drenbei ngonA' sl
andoront hepubli
chighwaygo on
toB'slandinci r
cumst ancessuchthattheywoul dnormall
ybe
tr
espassers.Inthatclassofcasethef actsmayl eadthecourt
toinf
eraninvitat
ionoral i
cencebytheowneroft heland
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

togoont ohi sland.Suchani nference,ofcour se,ismuch

mor e easi ly dr awn wher e wi tht he knowl edge oft he
l
andl ordchi ldrenhav ebeeni nt hehabi toft respassi ngon
hisl and.I ncasesoft hatki nd, thepr obl em i st of i
ndoutt he
poi nti n pl ace ort ime atwhi ch t he chi l
dr en become
trespasser s.Her ei tseems t o me t hatt he pr obl em i s
ent ir
el ydi fferent.Thepr obl em i snott of indoutwhent he
l
itt l
egi rlbecameat respasser ,butt of i
ndoutwhenshe
ceasedt obeani nvitee.Shebeganasani nv itee;shepai d
hershi lli
ng; shewasi nv i
tedt oapl acewher eany onewoul d
know t hatamongt hespect at or si naci rcusoft hatki nd
ther ewoul dbebound, fr
om t imet ot i
me, tobepeopl ewho
woul df i
ndi tnecessar yt ogoout sidesomewher eand
relievet hemsel ves.Nopl acewaspr ov i
dedf ort hatpur pose.
Itdoesnotsur prisemeorshockmei nt hel eastt osuppose
thatatwhati sinef fectacount ryci rcusputdowni naf ield
thepat ronsar eexpect edt ol ookaf tert hemsel vesandf i
nd
somepl acewher et heycansat isfyt hei rneeds.Thi si snot
aLondonci nema,i tisacount ryci rcusi naf ield,andt he
rust i
c and pr i
mi ti
ve met hod ofdeal ing wi th such an
emer gency woul d be per f
ect ly nat ur aland what t he
propr ietorswoul dcont empl ate.Thatbei ngso,wehav e
gott hecasenotofanadul tbutofal ittl
egi r lconf ront ed
wi thsuchanecessi tydoi ngwhatwast henat uralt hingf or
hert odo.Shegoesout sidet heci r
cust entandf inding
her sel fout si de,shel ooks,ast hej udgesay s,f oraqui et
place,andshedoesnotf indoneunt ilshecomest ot he
runway ,eitherf rom t henor thorf rom t hesout h.Whatdoes
shef indwhensheget sther e?Shef inds, ast hephot ogr aph
shows, whatwoul dtoal ittl
egi rlofsev enbet hei dealpl ace
forherpur pose,al i
ttlespacei nt owhi chshecoul dcr awl ,
dowhatshewant edt odo,andt hencomeoutwi thout
bei ngseen.Ihav ement i
onedwhatseemst omet obet he
cr ucialf act,t hatshest ar tsbybei ngani nvitee,andt he
ar gumentwast hatatacer t
ai npoi ntsheceasest obean
i
nv i
teeandbecomesat respasser .Thatsuchat hingcan
happen, ofcour se, i
sper fect l
ymani fest , butt hequest ioni s:
Didi thappeni nt hiscase? ...Icannothel pt hi nkingt hat,
wi th al lt he car e whi ch t he deput ycount ycour tj udge
obv i
ousl ypai dt ot his case,he mi sdi rect ed hi msel fi n
thinki ng t hat Rober tAddi e & Sons ( Col l
ieries) Ld. v
Dumbr eck( 1)wasanaut hor i
tywhi ch, ont hef act s, j
ust ifi
ed
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

orcompel
ledhi mt of indt hatt hepl aintiffwasat respasser
atthatpar ti
cul arst age ofhersear ch.Tur ni ng t ot he
l
anguagethatheused,hesay s:"Ther ewasnoi nv itat i
on
311•
expr essori mpl iedt ot hepl ai ntifft oappr oachor
passundert her unway .Ihol dt hatt hepl ai ntiffwas
notatt hepoi ntwher et hei njur yoccur redpr esent
t herewi tht hel eav eandl i
cenceoft hedef endant s.I
f urtherhol dt hatatt het i
mesheappr oachedand
endeav ouredt opassundert her unwayt hepl aintiff
becameat r espasseranddi sent itledf rom r ecov ering
damages. "Ir eadt hatasmeani ngt hatdownt ot he
poi ntwhenshewascl ose t ot her unwayshewas
act ing i n accor dance wi tht he or iginali nvitation.
whet herornott hati swhatt hel ear nedj udgemeant ,
t hat appear st o me t o be t he onl y possi ble
concl usionf rom t hef acts:Shewasi nv itedt oapl ace
wher et herewasnol av atory,seeki ngf oroneand
mov i
ngwi thi nt hepar tcont rolledbyt hedef endant s,
and notf inding any pl ace,she ar rived neart he
r unway .Itseemst omei mpossi bl et hent osayt hat
shewasat respassert hemomentshegotoutoft he
ci r
cust ent.Whatwasshet odo?Mr .Rees- Dav ies
coul donl ysuggestt hatshemi ghthav ef oundan
at tendant .Wedonotknow whatat tendant swer e
t here,wher et heywer elocat ed,andwhet heri twas
possi blef oral ittlechi ldt ogethol dofonei nwhatI
dar esaywasacr owdedci rcust ent .Shecoul dnot
r emai nwher eshewas,and,t her ef or e,i tseemst o
met heonl ypr operi nfer encewas( andIt hinkt he
judgei sdr awi ngi t)that,atanyr at eupt ot hecr uci al
poi ntwhenshedeci dedt ocr awlundert her unway ,
shewast her epur suantt ot heor igi nal i
nv itat i
on.

"Now therecomeswhat ,tomymi nd,ist her eall

y
i
mpor t
antpointand, f
rom thel
egalpointofv iew,the
mostinteresti
ngpar tofthiscase.Thedef endants
havegottwoadj oini
ngpiecesofland,thecircusand
thezoo,andtherewasani nvit
ati
ontot hesechi l
dren
togotot hecircus.Apersonwhohast wopi ecesof
l
andandi nvi
testhepublictocomet ooneoft hem
can,ofcourse,ifhechooses,l i
mittheinvitati
ont o
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

thatone;buti ftheot herpi ecei scont i

guoust ot hat
oneandhedoesnoti ndicat et ohi si nv i
teest hathi s
i
nv itationi sconf inedt ot heonepi eceofl and,he
cannotbesur pr isedi ft heyt reathi si nvitationas
extendi ngt obot hpi eces.I nmyopi nion,i fal and
owner i s mi nded t o make par tof hi sl and a
prohi bitedar eahemusti ndi catet hist ohi si nv i
tees
byappr opr i
at e means.I ti s no good hi s comi ng
afterwar dsandsay ing' Youwer enotal l
owedt ogo
ont hatpi ece' i
f,inpoi ntoff act ,hehasdonenot hing,
ornot hingadequat e,t oshowt hatt hesecondpi ece
ofl andi sapr ohi bitedar ea.Whet herornotpr oper
andsuf ficientst epshav ebeent akent odel i
mi tthe
prohi bited ar ea mustIappr ehend depend on t he
factsi neachcase.Looki ngatt hezoo,whi chi nt hi
s
casei ssai dt obeapr ohi bitedar ea,If i
ndwhatIhav e
descr ibedasar oughandr eadymannerofmar kingi t
offandi ndicat i
ngt hatnobodyoughtt ogoi nt here
unlesshegoest hr ought hepr operent rance.I tisa
roughandr eadymet hodofdoi ngi tandt oanadul tit
mightv er ywel lber egar dedassuf ficienti ndi cat i
on
thatt hear eaoft hezooi sapr ohibitedar eaandi s
nott obeaccessi blet oany onewhodoesnotgo
throught hepr operent r
ance.Butwear enotdeal i
ng
herewi t hanadul tbutwi thachi ldwhoi snotmov i
ng
aboutoutofmer ecur i
osi tyorwi thoutanyr eason.
Wear edeal i
ngwi thachi l
di nacondi tionwhi cht he
propr ietor smusthav econt empl at
edasr easonabl y
possi ble,namel y,t hecondi tionofbei ngunderan
urgentnecessi tyt of indaqui etpl acei nwhi cht o
rel
iev eher self .

"Iaskmy sel
f,havingr egardtot hefactt hatamongt he
i
nv i
tees ofthe def endantsthere wer elikelyto be
chil
dren needing tor eli
evet hemselv es,whet herin
rel
ationtothatclassofper son,thest epst akenatthe
pointinquestiont odel i
mi tt
hepr ohibitedar eaofthe
zoower eadequat e.Inmyopi nion,thef actsspeakfor
themselves.So farf rom indicat
ing suf fi
cientl
ytoa
chil
dbentonsuchaner r
andt hatshemustnotgoi n,
there is displayed bef ore her what ,f rom the
photograph, i
s cl earl
y not a pr ohi bi
ti
on, but a
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

tempt at
ion.I tis quite obvi
ous thatt oal itt
le gi r
l
seeki ngf oraquietplacehereistheideal qui
etpl ace.It
seems t o me qui tei mpossiblet o say t hat t he
prohi bit
ed ar ea had,as r egards a chi l
di nt hose
circumst ances,been adequat elymar ked offbyt he
def endant sf r
om thear eai nt
o whicht hechi l
dwas
ent i
tl
edt ogo.Howev erthemat termi ghthavest ood
wi t
hr egar dtosomebodywhocameont othefieldasa
trespasserandchoset ogoi ntothatpl ace,thef act
thatt hel i
ttl
egirlst
artedasani nvit
eecanonl yleadt o
theconcl usionthattheinvit
ati
onext ends,impliedlyat
l
east ,t oapl acetowhi chshewoul dr easonablygot o
meetherneed. "

PerWr ot t
esl
eyLJatpp.377and378:" Onthef acts
narr
ated by my Lor d,Ihav e al
so come t ot he
conclusion t
hatthe learned county cour
tj udge in
fi
nding,inhisver
ycarefuljudgment,t
hattherewasno
i
nvit
at i
onexpressori
mpl i
ed, di
dnotapplyhi
s

313•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

mi ndt othet ruetestint hepecul iarci

rcumst ancesoft hiscase, the
truet estbei ng:Di dt hi
schi ld,hav i
ngbeeni nvi
tedont ot hese
premi ses,behav elikeanor malchi l
dandr easonabl y?Weknow
thatshet ri
edt ofindwhatshecal l
edal avator y,andweknowt hat
shecoul dnotf i
ndone.Thosewer eherv erywor dsandnone,
i
ndeed,i sshownont hepl an.Weal soknowt hatinthesear chshe
camewi t
hinr angeofal i
on'spawandt hatshegott her einoneof
twoal ternativeway s.Sheei therwal kedr oundt hetopornor thside
oft hecircust entandr oundt hezool ager,andsocamet oahol ein
askel etonf encewi thoutr ungs, thecour sewhi chthelear nedj udge
thoughtt hemor epr obabl ei nt hecircumst ancesoft hecase,or
else,hav i
nggoner oundt het ent,shecamet ot heplacei ndicated
ont hephot ograph,f rom whi chshecoul dpassundert her unway
andsor eacht hespotwher eshewashur t.I tdoesnot ,ast he
l
ear nedj udgesai d,reallymat t
erwhi chr outeshet ook.I nei t
her
ev entshecl earlycamenat urallyandr easonabl yonasecl uded
cor nersuchasshewant ed, andt hereshewasmaul ed."

PerEv ershedLJatp.279and280: " AsIf ol

lowhi sj udgment[ oft he
cour tbel ow] ,henot edt hel ay-outoft hezooandcamet ot he
concl usiont hatanyper sonwhohadgoti nt ot hezooot herwi se
than t hrough t he pr operent r
ance f oranypur pose mustbe a
trespasseratt he poi ntwher et his acci dentoccur red.I f,f or
exampl e,anadul thadcr eptundert hecanv asscr eeni nor dert o
viewt hel i
ons'cagewi thoutgoi ngt hrought hepr operent ranceso
ast oav oidanyr iskofhav ingt opayanent r
ancef eehemusthav e
beenf oundt obeat r
espasser ,andi tmustt her efor efollowt hatal l
per sons,what evert heirageorpur pose,mustal sobet respasser s.
Inmyv iew,t hatwasaner roneousconcl usionofl aw.Itseemst o
met hati fIi nvi
t eper sonsont omyl and,Icannotsayt hatan
i
nv iteebecomesat respasseratsomepar toft hatl andi ft hat
per sonhasgoneont ot hatpar ti nt her easonabl eandnat ur al
cour seofev ents,hav ingr egar dt oal ltheci rcumst ancesi ncludi ng
theageoft hei nv i
teeandt hepur posef orwhi chhegoest ot hat
par toft hel and.I fItakest epscl ear l
yt omar kof fanddi stingui sh
thatpar tofmyl andaswhatt heMast eroft heRol l
shascal l
eda
'
pr ohibitedar ea',theni tmaywel lbet hatanyper sonofwhat ever
age f ound t hereon woul d be a t respasser ,because i nt hose
circumst ances itwoul d notbe r easonabl e ornat uralf ort hat
per sont ohav egonet her e.

Butt
her
ewasi
nthi
scasemani
fest
lynosuchdel
i
mit
ati
on
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
ofapr ohibi
tedar
ea,andi
tseemst ome,t
heref
ore,
thatthi
schil
d,
whohadbegunasani nvi
tee,di
dnotbecomeat respasserby
reasonofhergoi ngtothisplacefort
hepurposeshedi dand
getti
ngt herebyameansofaccesswhichwasper fect
lynatur
al
forachild."

WalkervMidl
andRail
wayCompanyLt
d.[
1886— 90]Al
lER
Rep202;(
1866)55LT489
Facts:Thedeceasedwasaguesti nani nnandwant edt ousethe
waterclosetint hemi ddleofthenight.Alt
hought herewer eeasil
y
accessiblecloset sinthesamecor ri
dorinpr operl
ylightedplaces,
thedeceasedl eftther
eandwentt oadar kser vi
ceroom andf elli
n
anunguar dedwel lofali
fti
ntheroom anddi ed.
Held: The def endant had not been negl igent under t he
cir
cumst ances.
Pri
nci pl
e:Thedut yoftheoccupierofpremisest otakecar eofthe
safetyofhi sinviteesdoesnotextendt oallpartsoft hepremises
atallhour sbutonl yt
hosepartsandatsucht i
mest hataper son
mayr easonabl ygo undera r easonable beli
efthathe wasso
enti
tledtogo.

PerEarlSel borneatp.204:" Wrongf ulnegl ectordef ault

therecoul dnotbe, unlessadut y,whichwasnotper for med, was
prev i
ousl yowi ng byt her espondent st owar dst heappel l
ant'
s
husband, ortowar dsper sonsi nt hesamesi tuation, i
nr espectof
thepl acewher et heacci denthappened.Pr imaf acie,t herewas
nosuchdut y,fortheser vi
cer oom wasapl acei nwhi chnoguest
oft hehot elhadanyr i
ghtorl egiti
mat eoccasi ont obe,andi nto
whi chnosuchguestwasexpr esslyori mpl i
citl
yi nvitedt ogo.I
thinki timpossi bletohol dt hatthegener aldut yofani nnkeeper
tot akepr opercar efort hesaf etyofhi sguest sext endst oev er
y
room i nhishouse, atallhour sofni ghtorday ,ir
respect iv
eoft he
quest ionwhet heraguestmayhav ear ight,orsomer easonable
cause,t obet her e.Thedut ymust ,Ithink,bel imi t
edt ot hose
placesi nt
owhi chguest s mayr easonabl ybesupposedt obe
l
ikelyt ogo,i nt hebelief,reasonabl yent ertained,t hatt heyare
ent i
tl
edori nvitedt odoso.Unl esst herewasev idencef i
tforthe
consi derati
onofaj uryt hatanyguesti nt heposi tionoft he
deceased woul d,int he dar kness ofni ght ,hav er easonabl e,
groundf orbeliev i
ngthisser v
icer oom t obeawat er-closet,and
foract ingashedi d,therei snot hingelsei nt hecasewhi ch,asi t
seemst ome, couldmake
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

315"

therespondents'omission to pr
ovideagainstdanger
s
wit
hinthatservi
ceroom wr ongf
ultowardstheappel
lant
'
s
husbandorgener al
l
ytowar dsthei
rguests;fort
herewas
noothergroundonwhi chthepresenceofanyguestther
e
coul
dr easonabl
ybeexplainedorexcused

"Woul dther espondent shav ebeenwr ongdoer stowardshim, al

othercircumst ancesbei ngt hesame,i fhehadcomet oast eep
stair
casei nsteadoft heunguar dedwel lofal i
ft
,andhadf all
en
downi t?It hinknot;and,i fnot ,Idonott hinktheycanbel i
able
becausei twast hewel lofal if
twi t
hirondoor s,whichhadbeen
purposel yori nadvertentl
y,l ef
tuncl osed.Themagni tudeofa
parti
culardanger ,t
oany onewhomayhappent ocomei nt he
wayofi tunawar es,maydoubt lessenhancet her esponsi
bil
ityof
theper sont owhom i tisimput abl
e,forthenegl ectofanydut y
whichheowest oper son, whom hel eav esexposedt oit
;butIdo
notseehow i tcancr eat
esuchadut y,whent hepersonwho
sufferswoul dnot ,i
nthepr operandor dinarycourseofthings,or
withouthi sownunaut horizedandunr easonabl eact,havebeen
withinther eachoft hedangeratal l
."

Mer seyDocksandHabourBoar dvProcter[19231AC253

Facts:Thedef endantsowedt wodocks,theEastandWestFl oats.
Thef loatswer eguar dedbyal i
neofchai nbutwhi chhadbeen
takenof ffortheconv eni enceofsomepeopl ewor ki
ngt here.While
thedeceasedwaswor kingf oracontractoronashi pint heEast
Float,heleftforthelat ri
neatat imewhent her ewasat hickfog.He
wasnev erseenagai nandhi sbodywasl aterfoundinaWestFl oat.
Held:Sincet heplainti
f fhadgonet oapar toft hedockwher ehewas
notsupposedt obeanddef endant
sdidnotbr eachanydut yowedt o
thedeceasedbyt aki
ngdownt hechai
ns,theact ionmustf ai
l.
Princi
ple:Theoccupi erofapr emise'
sdut yisnott ogiveabsol ute
protecti
ont oinv i
teesi nwhat everpartoft hepr emi
sest heymi ght
be butt o use reasonabl e car eto ensur e hi
s safet
ywhi l
e he
remainsont helandact i
ngincompl i
ancewi t
hhisinvi
tati
on.

PerViscountCav
eLCatp.260and261: "I
tisimportantto
bearinmindtheexactnat
ureoftheappell
ants'dut
yt othe
deceased.Itwasnott ogiv
ehi m absol
uteprotecti
oni n
whateverpartoftheappellant
s'premiseshemi ghtbe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
found, butonl ytouser easonabl ecar ef orhissaf etywhi l
e
hewasupont hei rl andandact ingi ncompl i
ancewi th
theirinv itation;andt hisdut ymustbel imited,asLor d
Selbor nepoi ntedouti nWal kerv Mi dland19' .Co. ,to
thosepl acest owhi chhemi ghtr easonabl ybeex pect edt o
go i nt he bel ief,r easonabl yent ertained,t hathe was
entitl
ed ori nv it
ed t o do so.I ft hist esti s appl ied,it
appear st omet hatt herewasnobr eachofdut yont he
partoft heappel lant s.Thedeceasedwasnoti nvitedor
entitl
edt ogot o t hequay sideoft heWestFl oat ;hehad
nobusi nesst her e, andi twasnear lyf i
ftyy ardsawayf rom
hispr operr out et oandf r
om hi sshi p.Norcoul dt hedock
companybeexpect edt of oreseet hathewoul dwanderso
farf r
om hi sway ,ev eni naf og,andt o pr ov i
def orhi s
safetyi nsodoi ng.I fitbet hef actt hathel ostal lsenseof
dir
ect i
oni nt hef ogand, missi ngt her ailsandl ampswhi ch
woul dhav egui dedhi mt ot hebr i
dge,andnotseei ngany
oft heobst aclesl yingaboutt hear eaofgr oundorev en
thest anchi onsoneachsi deoft hespacef r
om whi cht he
chainhad beenr emov ed,wal ked st r aightt hr ought his
narrow openi ngi ntot hedock,t hiswasanext raor dinary
mischancewhi chno onecoul dbeexpect edt of oretellOf
prov i
def or;andIdonot t hinkt hatt hef ailureoft he
companyt odosoar guesanywantofr easonabl ecar eon
theirpar t.

"Itissai dthatwhat ev ermaybet hecasei not herdocky ards,wher e

thedocksar egener allyleftunf enced,thef actthati nt hiscaset he
areaov erwhicht hedeceasedhadt opasswasi nf actpr otectedby
chai ns,makesadi f
ference,andaccor dinglyt hathewasent i
tl
edt o
expectt hatthechai nswoul dremai nup;andt he' tr
ap'casesar e
referr edt o.Inmyopi niont hepr i
nciple oft hosedeci sionshasno
appl icat i
ontothi scase.Whenaper sonisinv i
tedorl icensedt opass
byapar ti
cul
arway ,andt hel andownerwi thoutwar ningt ohi m does
somet hing which makesi tdanger ousf orhi m t o use t hatway ,
l
iabi l
itymaynodoubtbei ncurred.Butthisisbecauset heuseoft he
permi ttedwayi tselfissubj ectedt oanunknownandunexpect ed
danger ; andwher e,asher e, thedangerzonei sfarremov edf rom the
permi ttedway ,thesameconsi derat
ionsdonotappl y.Tosay t hata
l
andownerwhoper mi tsanel ementofdangert oexi stinapl acet o
whi chhenei t
heri nvitesnorexpect saper sont ogot her ebyset sa
trapf ort hatper sonwoul dappeart omet obeast r
angeuseof
l
anguage. "
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

317"

PerLor dSumneratp.272and273:" It hi
nkt hev er yidea
ofan i nv itat ion t o come upon t he Boar d's pr emi ses,
consi der ing t heirchar acterand ex t
ent ,connot essome
l
ocall i
mi twi thint hem.Af reer angeov ert hewhol eest ate
i
s notgi v en t o ev eryi nvited wor kman.The l eadi ng
disti
nct ionbet weenani nviteeandal icenseei st hat ,int he
caseoft hef ormer ,inv i
torandi nv i
teehav eacommon
i
nt erest ,whi le,int hel atter,l icensorandl icenseehav e
none.Thecommoni nter esther ei sthatshi psi nt hedocks
shoul d,whennecessar y ,beabl et oempl oyboi ler maker s
onboar doft hem.I nt heot hercase,t hel icenseehasan
i
ndi viduali nt eresti n bei ng al lowed t o pass,whi let he
l
icensor ,t hel eav ebei nggr atuitous,hasnoi nt eresti nt he
mat teratal l,sol ongast hel icenseedoesnotgeti nto
troubl e ori nt o mi schi ef.Icannotsee whatcommon
i
nt erestbet weent heBoar dandt hedeceasedi si nv olv ed
i
nhi sexpat iat i
ngatwi llov ert heopengr oundbet weent he
EastandWestFl oat s.Hewasi ndeedatl ibertyt ocr ossi t
toGee' sDi ni ngRoom, butweknowt hathewasnotgoi ng
there and nev erdi d go t her e.The common i nterest ,
i
nv olved i n hi sbei ng abl et o do hi swor ki n comf ort,
ex t
endedt ohi sv isiti
ngt hel atrine, buthewasnotact ual l
y
visit
ing t he l atr
ine on t hi s occasi on,t hough he was
probabl yt ry ingt odoso.Hewasact uallygoi ngwher ehe
hadnobusi nesst ogoatt het i
meoft heacci dent ,though
hismi stakewasal ikei nnocentandacci dent al.Howcana
wor kmanext endt heBoar d'sl iabili
ti
es,i ndicat edbyt his
term ' inv i
t ation' ,bymaki ng a mi stakeofhi sown and
get t
ingl osti naf og?Whatl egalr easoncant her ebef or
theBoar d's' inv it
ing' himt ogosomewher ei naf og,wher e
hedoesnotwantt ogoatal landwoul dcer tainlynotbe
i
nv it
edt ogoi ncl earweat her ,andwher e,mor eov er,t he
Boar dhasnoi nterestordesi ret oi nvitehi m atanyt i
me?
Ther ei s none:t he suggest ion i s a mer ei mpul se of
compassi on. "

Ri
skvRoseBr
ufor
dcol
l
ege[
20131EWHC3869
Fact
s:Thepl ai
nti
ffatt
endedanev ent'
sdayatthedramaschoolof
thedefendantasanat tendee.Theacti
vi
ti
esincl
udedaninf
lat
able
poolandtheplaint
if
fwhi l
edivingi
ntothepoolwentwit
hheadfir
st
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
andfacedownsucht hathisheadi mpactedthesideoft hepool
andhesustai
nedinjur
ies.Held:Theplai
nti
ffexer
cisedaninfor
med
choi
cewhichresult
edint heinj
uri
esandhav ingbroughtt
hatinj
ury
tohi
mself
,thedefendantwasnotl i
able.

Pri
nci
ple:I
nconsideri
ngthel i
abi
li
tyofanoccupiertoaper
sonon
hi
sland,thequesti
ont hecourtmustconsiderisnotwhet
hert
he
def
endantowedadut yofcar etotheplaint
if
fbutwhethert
he
def
endantowedapar ti
culardut
yofcaret
ot heplai
nti
ff
.

PerJayJatpar s.85and86:[ 85]"Ienti

rel
yagr eewi t
hMr
Wal kert hatthecor rectstart
ing-pointist oconsi dernot
whet hert heDef endantowedt heCl aimantadut yofcar e
(thegener aldutyunders2( 2)oft heOccupiers'Liabil
i
ty
Act1957i sadmi tt
ed)butwhet hertheDef endantoweda
par t
iculardutyt opr otecttheCl ai
mantf r
om t her i
skhe
took.TheCl aimantchar act
erisesthi spart
icul
ardut yasa
'
pr otectiveduty'andIam cont enttoadoptt heCl aimant'
s
termi nology.

[861" So,theissuei snotast otheexistenceofadut ybut

i
t spar ti
cularscope.Ont hisapproacht hedebat eisnot
aboutbr each ofdut y,bei ng asecondar yquest i
on,but
ratheraboutt hepr i
mar yoneofwhet heradut yoft he
relevantbreadthorambi tappl i
estot hecircumstancesof
theCl aimant'saccident.Ifthedutydoesnott rav
elfarand
wideenough( fortheCl ai
mant '
spur poses),theinevi
tabl
e
concl usi
oni st hatthecl aim fai
l
satf ir
stbase:v izthe
absenceofanyr el
evantdut yofcare.
"

And at par s.108 and 109:" [

108]I n my j udgment
assumpt ion ofr esponsibil
it
yi nt hi
s sense r equires an
exami nati
onnotofwhatt heDef endantoughtt ohav edone
butofwhati tinf actdid.TheDef endantdi dnott akeany
i
nterestinheal t
handsaf etymat tersatt heseev ents.True
i
tist hatthisomi ssionwoul dnotabsol vetheDef endantif
thelawi mposedadut yofcar euponi t,butatt hisst ageof
thear gumentwear econsi der i
ng t her esponsi bili
tythe
Defendantdi dassume,notwhati tshouldhav eassumed.
Knowl edge oft he risk i
si rrelevantt ot hati ssue (i
t
becomesar elevantconsiderationi nr el
ationtot hei ssueof
breach).The Cl ai
manti s on sl i
ght l
yf ir
mergr ound in
seekingtobr ingintoconsider ationt heDef endant 'sHealth
andSaf etypol i
cy,butasIhav eal r
eadypoi nt
edoutt hi
sis
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
nqui t
egeneralt
ermsanddoesnotspecifi
call
yrequi
rethe
taki
ng of pr
oactiv
e measures forstudent-
run events.
Clause2.
5.2oftheHeal
thandSafetyPoli
cy[2/543]i
salso
ofsomerelev
anceinthi
srespect
.

[
109]"
Iconcl
udet
hatt
hef
act
orsenumer
atedi
npar
a27of

319•
MrSool e'scl osingwr i
tt
enar gumentf allal ongwayshor t
of est ablishing t he necessar y i ngredi ents of an
assumpt i
onofr esponsi bili
ty.Whatwoul dber equiredi s
evidenceoft hev er ymat tersofwhicht heCl aimantdeni es
thepr esence:namel y,af fi
rmati
vest epsbyt heCol l
ege
throughMrWi gleyandot herstoensur et hatpr operr isk
assessment s wer e t aken and al lr el
ev ant cont rol
measur es enf or ced;Of ,att he veryl east ,affir
mat ive
statementsandr epresent ati
onsbyt heCol l
eget hatthese
specifi
cst epswoul dbet aken.Mor eover,Ial sohol dthat
i
nacasel iket hepr esentanel ementofr eli
ancebyt he
Claimantisapr e-requisit
eofadut yofcar ear isi
ngont his
suggestedbasi s, andher er eli
anceissingular l
ylacking."

B. PERSONENTERI
NGASOFRI
GHT
McGeownvNor thernIrel
andHousi ngExecut i
ve[1995]1AC233
Fact s:Thepl aint
iff'
shusbandwasat enantinanest ateownedby
thedef endant s.Theplaint
iffwhi
leusi ngaf oot
pathintheest at
eto
whi chthepubl i
chadacqui redar ightofwayt ri
ppedi nahol eand
brokeherl eg.Hel d:Si
ncet hepubl i
chadacqui redaf ightofway ,
thenanyuseroft hepathusedi tint hatcapaci
tyandt husthe
defendantowednodut ytotheplainti
ffasamemberoft hepublic.
Principle:Aper sonwhousesar ightofwayusesi tbyr i
ghtandis
notowedanydut ybytheoccupieroft heland.

PerLordKei thofKinkelatp.240:" I
nGaut retvEgert
oni t
was alleged thatt he deceased i ndiv
idualwhom t he
plai
nti
ffrepresented fel
lf r
om a br i
dge overa cutti
ng
which led to docksand wasdr owned,t hebri
dge,the
cutti
ngandt hedocksal lbeinginthepossessionoft he
defendants.Theacci dentwasal legedt obeduet ot he
faul
toft hedef endantsinf ail
i
ngt omai ntai
nthebridge
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
proper
ly,
whichhadcausedi
ttobedangerous.I
twashel d
bytheCourtofCommonPl easthatnoacti
onablebreach
ofdutyonthepartoft
hedef
endantshadbeendiscl
osed."

Andatp.243:" Theseaut hor i

ti
es, thought her ear eot her s,
aresuf f
icienttoshowt hatt her ulei nGautretvEger toni s
deeplyent r
enchedi nt hel aw.Fur ther,ther uleisi nmy
opini
onundoubt edlyasoundandr easonabl eone.Ri ght s
ofwaypassov ermanydi fferentt ypesoft errain,andi t
would pl aceani mpossi blebur denuponl andowner si f
theynotonl yhadt osubmi tt othepassageov erthem of
anyonewhomi ghtchooset oexer ciset her ightbutal so
wereunderadut yt omai ntaint hem i nasaf econdi tion.
Personsusi ngr ightsofwaydosonotwi t
ht heper mission
oftheowneroft hesol um buti nt heexer ciseofar ight .
Therei snor oom f orthev iew thatsuchper sonsmi ght
havebeenl i
censeesori nviteesoft helandownerunder
theoldl aw ort hatt heyar ehi sv isitorsundert heEngl ish
andNor thernIrishAct sof1957.Ther emayi ndeedbea
questionwhet hert heowneroft hesol um isoccupi erof
therightofwayf orthepur posesoft heseAct s.Doubt s
aboutt hatwer eexpr essedi nHol denvWhi tebuti ti s
unnecessar yforpr esentpur posest odeci dei t."

Andatp.246:" Theconceptofl icenseeorv i

si torinvol ves
thattheper soni nquest ionhasatl eastt heper missionof
ther elevantoccupi ertobei napar t
icularplace.Oncea
publicf ightofwayhas been est abli
shed,t her ei s no
quest i
onofper missionbei nggr ant edbyt heowneroft he
solum t ot hosewhochooset ousei t
.Theydosoasof
ri
ghtandnotbyv i
rtueofanyl icenceori nvit
at ion.Int he
presentcaset hepat hwayuponwhi cht hepl aint i
fffellhad
notbeenadopt edbyt hehi ghwayaut hor i
ty,andi twas
therefore notr esponsiblef ort he mai nt
enance ofi t
.
Adjoiningar eashadbeensoadopt ed,i npar ti
culart he
stri
pofgr oundi mmedi atelyadj oiningt het er racewher e
thepl ainti
ffandherhusbandl i
ved,andwhi chshehadt o
CfOSSi nor dert ogett oorf rom hi shouse.I ft hepl aintif
f
wast hel icenseeoft hedef endant supont hepat hway
wher eshef el
lshewasequal l
yt hei rlicenseeupont hat
stri
p ofgr ound.The ci rcumst ance t hatt he hi ghway
author i
ty was r esponsible under publ icl aw f or i ts
mai ntenancecannotl ogicall
ymakeanydi f
fer encet ot he
position.Thedef endantswoul dst illoweaper sonaldut y
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
tothepl ai
nti
fftomaintainthepathwayinar easonably
safeconditi
on,andbeliabletoherifshesuf f
eredinjury
owing tot he ar
ea notbei ng i
n such condi
tion.That
unreasonableresul
tcan be av oi
ded ifitis heldt hat
dedicat
ionasapubl ichighwayputsanendt oanydut y
whichmi ghtot
herwi
sebeowedbyt hehousingexecuti
ve."

Campbel
lvNor
ther
nIr
elandHousi
ngExecut
ive[
19951NI
167
Fact
s:Thedef
endant
swer
etheowner
sofanest
atewhi
cht
heyl
et

321"

outbutr et
ainedcontroloftheforecourtpremisesandt hest ai
rs.
Butt hepublicwasal l
owedtouset heforecourtandthestairssuch
thatt hepubl icacquir
edar i
ghtofwayt osuchpr emises.The
plainti
ffwhol iv
edwi t
hhisparentsinoneoft hehousesf ellfr
om a
stairduet ot hedefecti
venatureofthest airandwasi njured.He
sued.
Held:Si ncethepublichadacquiredar i
ghtofwayt ot hest ai
r,t
he
defendant sowednodut ytotheplaint
iff
.
Principl
e:Anoccupi eroflandofwhi cht hepublichasacqui reda
ri
ghtofwayowesnodut ytothepublictoensuretheirsafetywhil
e
ont heland.

PerHut tonLCJ[ HisLor dshipr ef

erredt ot heHouseof
Lords'deci si
oni nMcGeownvNor t
hernI relandHousi ng
Execut i
ve(supra)andcont inuedatp.173] :"Thereforet he
maj orityoft heHouseofLor dshel di ncleart er mst hat
wher eaper soni susi ng apubl i
cr i
ghtofway ,ast he
appel lantwasi nthiscase, t
her ecanbenoquest ionofhi m
usingt hewaybyt heper missionori nvit
ati
onoft heowner
of t he sol um.I nt his case t he appel lant,t o adopt
respect f
ull
ythewor dsofLor dKeith,wasusi ngt hesteps
'
asofr ightandnotbyv i
rtueofanyl icenceori nvit
ati
on'.
Andi tf oll
owsf rom t hi
st hatundert her ulei nGaut retv
Eger tont heexecut i
vewasundernol iabi
li
tyt ohi mf orits
negligent mi sf
easance i nf ail
i
ng t o ensur et hat t he
defect ivestepwasr epaired."

Andatp.176:"
LordKeit
hrefer
stoaper
sonusi
ngar i
ghtofway,
wher
easLordBrowne-
Wi l
ki
nsoncont
emplat
esapersonwalki
ng
onapathoverwhichther
eisapubli
cri
ghtofwaybutbeingon
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
thepath,notbecausehei susingandtakingadvantageoft he
publi
cr i
ghtofway ,butbecausehehasaccept edani nvi
tation
from t
heoccupi ertowal kalongthepath.Howev erIconsi der
thati
nt hepassageswhichIhav ecit
edLordKeit
hmakesi tclear
thatwhereaper son i
sonar i
ghtofwayhemustbet akent obe
usingtherightofwayandt hatther
eisnoroom forthev i
ewt hat
suchaper soncanber egardedasaninvi
tee."

c.
LICENSEES

MerseyDocksandHabourBoar
dvPr
oct
er[
19231AC253
Fact
sandHol di
ng:
(supr
a)
Pri
ncipl
e:Ali
censeet
akespr
emisesheent
ersashefindsi
tbut
theoccupi
ermustnotsetatr
apforhi
m orexposehi
mt omore
danger.

PerLor dSumneratp.274:" Al icenseet akespr emi ses,

whi chhei smer elyper mittedt oent er,justashef i
nds
them.Theoneexcept iont ot hisi sthat ,asitisputshor tly
,
theoccupi ermustnotl ayat rapf orhi m orexposehi mt o
adangernotobv i
ousnort obeexpect edt her eundert he
cir
cumst ances.I fthedangeri sobv ious, t
hel i
censeemust
l
ookoutf orhimsel f
:ifitisonet obeexpect ed,hemust
expecti tandt akehi sownpr ecaut ions.I fhewi l
lwal k
bli
ndf old,he wal ks athi s per il
,ev en t hough he i s
bli
ndf oldedbyt heact i
onoft heel ement s.Asusuali n
cases ofdut i
es ofcar e,t he r easonabl e man i st he
standar d on bot h sides.The l icensormustactwi th
reasonabl e dili
gence t o pr ev ent hi s pr emi ses f rom
mi sleadingorent r
appingal i
censee, whoonhi ssideuses
reasonabl ejudgmentandconductunderci rcumst ances
thatcanber easonablyfor eseen.Thel i
censeei stot ake
reasonabl ecareofhi msel fandcannotcal lat hingat rap,
theexi stenceofwhi ch a r easonabl eman woul d hav e
expect edorsuspect ed,soast oguar dhi mselff r
om f al
ling
i
nt oi t
."

Fai
rmanvPer
pet
ual
Inv
est
mentBui
l
ding[
1923]AC74
Fact s:Thedef endantsletthei
rflat
si nt hei
rhouset
ot enantsbut
retainedpossessi onandcont r
oloft hecommonst ai
rcase.The
plainti
ff'
ssister'
shusband wasat enanti nthehouseand t he
plainti
fflodgedwi ththem.Whi l
edescendi ngthestair
s,herheel
wascaughti nadepr essionthathadf ormedinthest
aircaseowing
tot hewear ingoft hecementandt heexposur eofthei r
onr ods.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Shef ell
andwasi njur
ed.
Held:Theonl ydutyowedbythedefendant
stot heplaint
if
fwasnot
toexposehert oconceal
eddangerandsincet hi
sdangerwasnot
concealed,thedefendant
sarenotl
iabl
e.
Principl
e:Theonlydutyowedbyanoccupiertol i
censeesist
otake
reasonablecarenottoexposethem t
oconcealeddanger .

PerLor
dBuckmast
eratpp.82and83:
"Twocasesi
nthe
Scot
ti
shCour
ts(
KennedyvShot
tsI
ronCo.andGr
antvJohn

323•
Flemi ng&Co. )appeart oacceptt hewi derv i
ew andt ohol d
thati nci r
cumst anceswher et hel andl ordr etainscont roland
possessi onofacommonst aircasehi sdut yt ot hepubl i
ci sto
keepi treasonabl ysaf e.Whet hersuchadut yi sonet hatit
mi ghtber easonabl etoi mposeuponl andl ordsi snotamat t
er
whi cht hi
sHousehast oconsi der .Thequest ioni s-doessuch
a dut yexi st?I tmaywel lar i
se byt he i mpl i
ed obl i
gation
bet weent hel andl ordandt enantgi v i
ngt het enantr ightsi fthe
obligat i
onbebr oken,butasbet weent hel andl ordandt he
per sons who use t he st ai rcase f orbusi ness pur poses or
becauseofamat erialint er estnosuchcont r
actualobl i
gation
canbeest ablished.Thedut yt obesought ,therefor e,mustbe
foundout sidecont ract.Thi sdut ydoesnoti nvolveaguar antee
ast ot hesaf etyofpr emi sesnorobl igat i
ont okeept hem i n
repai r.Obv i
ousdef ects,whi chont hef aceoft hem show t o
anyr easonabl eper sont hatt her ei sdanger , donotgi ver i
set o
l
iabi l
ity on t he l andlor d's par t,buti ft he def ect,t hough
appar ent,gi vesr iset oadangerwhi chi snotobv i
oust oa
per son l awf ull
yusi ng t he pr emi ses,ei theron busi ness or
hav ingamat eri
ali nteresti nt heiruse,andexer cisingor dinary
car eandpossessi ngor dinar ypower sofobser vat i
on,t hent he
l
andl or disr esponsi bl
ef oranyacci dentt hatmayoccur .The
degr eeofdanger ,andt heext entt owhi chi ti sconceal ed, may
varyf rom caset ocase,andi t
sul t
imat edet ermi nationi sa
quest ionoff actf orwhi chaj ur yisanappr opr i
atet ri
bunal .
"

(
NB:LordBuckmast erdi
ssent
ingt
hatonthef
acts,t
hedef
ect
wasnotobviousbutconceal
edandthust
hedefendant
swere
t
obeliabl
e.)
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
PerLor dAt ki
nsonatp.86:" Thepl aintiff
, bei
ngonl yal i
censee,
wast hereforeboundt ot aket hest airsasshef oundt hem, but
thelandlordwasonhi ssideboundnott oexposeher ,wi t
hout
warning,toahi ddenper il
,oft heexi stenceofwhi chheknew,
oroughtt ohav eknown.Heowedadut yt ohernott olayat rap
forher.Butev eni ft
hepl ai
ntiffwasi nt heposi t
ionofani nvitee
oft he defendant s,herr ightsand dut iesint hatchar acter
woul dbet hosedescr i
bedandmeasur edbyt hewel l
-known
passagef rom Wi ll
esJ.'sjudgmenti nI ndermaurvDames.The
fi
ndings off actoft he l earned judge who t r i
ed t he case,
ShearmanJ. ,disenti
tl
edher ,i
nmyv iew,t oanyr eli
efeitheri n
thecharacterofl i
censeeori nthatofi nviteeofthe

def
endant
s."

PerLor dWr enbur yatpp.95— 97:" Theposi tionasbet ween

theownerofpr emi sesandal i
censeei st hatper mi ssioni s
givent ocomeupont hepr emi ses,suchast heyar e,andt he
l
icenseemustt aket hem ast heyare.Theownerofdi lapidated
premi sesmaydemi set hem ast heyar e:Cav ali
ervPope:' A
l
andl ordwhol et sahousei nadanger ousst at e, i
snotl iableto
thet enant 'scust omer sorguest sf oracci dent shappenl ng
duringt het erm;f or,fraudapar t
,thereisnol awagai nstl etti
ng
atumbl edownhouse. 'PerEr leC.J.:Robbi nsvJones, appr oved
byLor dMacnaght eni nCav al
iervPope.Thel i
censeemust
taket hepr emi sesashef indst hem;butt hi
si sapar tf rom and
subjectt ot hatwhi chf ollowsast oconceal eddanger s.The
ownermustnotexposet hel i
censeet oahi ddenper i
l.Ifthere
i
ssomedangerofwhi cht heownerhasknowl edge, oroughtt o
hav eknowl edge,andwhi chi snotknownt ot helicenseeor
obv i
oust ot hel icenseeusi ngr easonabl ecar e, theownerowes
adut yt ot hel icenseet oi nform him ofi t.Ift hedangeri snot
obv i
ous, ifitisaconceal eddanger ,andt hel icenseei si njured,
theowneri sl iable.Butsomet hi
ngmustbesai dast ot he
meani ng of' obv i
ous'.Pr imar i
lyat hing isf ort hi
spur pose
obv i
ousi far easonabl eper son,usi ngr easonabl ecar e,woul d
hav eseen i t.Butt hisi snotexhaust iveunl esst hewor ds
'
reasonabl e car e'ar e pr oper l
ycont r
olled.Ther e are some
thi
ngswhi char easonabl eper sonisent i
tl
edt oassume,and
ast owhi chhei snotbl amewor t
hyi fhedoesnotseet hem
wheni fhehadbeenont heal ertandhadl ookedhecoul dhav e
seent hem.Fori nstance:i fonest epinast aircaseOfoner ung
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
nal adderhasbeenr emov edi nt hecourseoft hedayanda
manwhohadusedt hest ai
rcaseort heladderi nt
hemor ni
ng
comeshomei ntheev eningfindi
ngt hestair
caseorl addersti
ll
ostensiblyofferedf oruse,andcomesupordowni twit
hout
l
ookingoutf orthatwhi chnoonewoul dr easonablyexpect—
namel y,t hata st ep orr ung has been r emoved,he has
neverthelesssuf fer
edf rom whathasgener all
ybeencal l
ed'a
tr
ap',althoughi fhehadst oppedandl ookedhewoul dhav e
seent hatt hest eporr unghadbeenr emov ed.Hewasnot
guil
tyofnegl igence, hewasnotboundt olookoutf orsuchan
unexpect ed dangerast hat,although ifhe had pr oceeded
cauti
ousl yandl ookedouti twoul dhavebeenobv i
oust ohim.
Hewasent i
tl
edt oassumet herewasnosuch

325.
danger .An i nstance ofsuch a case i s af
forded by
Indermaurv Dames ( 1) :the gasf i
tt
erwas ent itl
ed to
assumet hatthef l
oorwast hroughoutcov eredbyf l
oori
ng
boards.Ther e was an unf loored openi ng lef
tatt he
entrancet oashaf t,andi twasnotf enced.A wor kman
habituallyempl oyedont hepremi seswoul dprobablyhave
fail
edt or ecover
.Thegasf i
tterr ecover ed,thejuryhav i
ng
found t hathe was notnegl igent .In such a case t he
quest i
onwhet hert heplaint
iffwasnegl igentornoti sone
offact."

Lower yvWal ker[

1911]AC10
Fact s:Theoccupierofl andwhi chheknew t hepubl icwasi nt he
habi tofcrossi
ngt ot herail
wayst ationputasav agehor sewhi ch
heknewwasdanger ousont hefieldwi t
houtwar ning.Thepl ai
ntiff
whi l
ecr ossi
ngthelandwasat t
ackedandbi tt
enbyt hehorse.
Held:Al t
hough t
he def endantgav e no expr essper mission tot h
plainti
ff,hi
sknowledgeoft hepubl i
ccr ossingofthel andamount ed
ani mpl i
ed permissi
onandt hedef endantwasl i
ableforput t
ingt h
ferociousanimalont helandwithoutwar ning.
Principl
e:Anoccupi erwhoal l
owspeopl et obeonhi slandmust
war nthem ofanynewdangerhebr ingstot heland.

PerLordLor eburnLCatp.12:" Againthelearnedjudge,Ithi

nk,
foundthattherewasnoexpr essleavegiv
ent otheplai
ntifft
obe
i
nt hatfi
eld;butIthinktheeffectofhisfi
nding i
st hatthe
plai
nti
ffwas t her
e withthe per missi
on oft he defendant,
becausehef indsthatthefi
eldhadbeenhabi t
uall
yusedbyt he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
publi
casashor tcut,andhesay st hatt hedefendantwasgui lty
ofnegligencei nput tingahor sewhi chheknewt obedanger ous
i
ntoaf iel
dwhi chheknew washabi t
uallyusedbyt hepublic.
Thatbei ngt hecase,weoughtnott orefi
neupont hel anguage
whichthel earnedj udgehasused.Per hapsitwoul dhav ebeen
bett
er—i ndeedIt hinkitwouldhav ebeenbet ter—hadhebeen
mor eexplicitinsay ingwhati twast hathedi df i
ndandwhati t
wast hathedi dnotf ind;butIthinki nsubst ancei tamount sto
thi
s:thatt hepl ainti
ffwasnotpr ov edt obei nt hi
sf ieldofr i
ght;
thathewast hereasoneoft hepubl icwhohabi tuallyusedt he
fi
eldtot heknowl edgeoft hedef endant ;thatthedef endantdid
nottakest epst opr ev entthatuser ;andi nthoseci rcumst ances
i
tcannotbel awf ult hatthedef endantshoul dwi thi mpuni ty
all
ow ahor sewhi chheknew t obeasav ageanddanger ous
beasttobel oosei nt hatfi
eldwithout

gi
vinganywarningwhatever,eit
hertothepl
aint
if
fort
othe
publi
c,oft
hedanger
ouscharacteroft
heani
mal.
"

PerEar lofHal sbur yatp.14:" Inhisfindi

nghehasr aised
ther ealproposi ti
onwi thwhi chwear edeal i
ng,namel y
,whet her
ornotaper sonwhoknowst hatt hepubl icaregoi ngov erhi s
ground, andgoi ngov eri thabit ual
ly,isent i
tl
edwi thoutwar ningor
notice,oranyot herprecaut ionwhat soever,toputadanger ous
beastwher eheknowsi tmaybepr obabl e,and al mostcer tainif
thet hingcont inues,t hatt hebeastwi l
lsoonerorl aterdosome
i
njuryt oper sonscr ossi ngt hegr ound,andcr ossingi tinone
sense wi t
h hi s per mi ssion — nott hathe has gi ven direct
permi ssion,butt hathe has decl ined t oi nt
erfere and so
acqui escedint heircr
ossi ngi t.Ifhehasacqui escedi nt hei
rdoi ng
so,he i sbound t ot ake the or dinarypr ecautionst o pr event
personsgoi ngi ntoadanger ouspl acewher eheknowst heyar e
going,andgoi ngbyhi sacqui escencewi t
houtnot iceorwar ning
oranyf orm ofsecur i
tyt opr ev entthei njuryhappeni ngwhi chdi d
happen. "

Mor
ganvGi
rl
s'Fr
iendl
ySoci
ety[
1936]1Al
lER404
Facts:Thedef endantwast heoccupierofabuildi
ngwhichhelet
outasof f
ices.Theplaint
if
fwhilev i
sit
ingoneofthetenant
sinthe
offi
cessaw anopendoorandt hi
nkingthatthel i
ftwasthere,
steppedtherebutshefelli
ntoashaf tandwasinj
ured.
Hel
d:Thenegl
igencewasthatofani
ndependentcont
ract
orandsi
ncet
he
def
endant
sdidnotknow,t
heywerenotli
abl
e.
Pr
inci
ple:Thedut
yowedbyanoccupi
ert
oli
censeesi
sli
mit
edt
o
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
danger
swhi
chheknowsoroughtt
oknowabout
.

PerHor ri
dgeJatp.405:" Thiscasei sanor dinarycaseof
ani ndependentcont ractor.Thenegl i
gencewast hatoft he
i
ndependent cont ractor. Not wit
hstanding t hat, t he
def endant smaybel iableonot hergrounds.Firstitissaid
thatt heyoughtt ohav ef oundt hedefectout.Idonotagr ee.
Theyempl oyed peopl ewhoknew bet terthant heyabout
l
ifts.Ido nott hinkt he def endants wer e guil
tyofany
def ault.Hav i
ngfoundt hatt hepl ai
nti
ffwasabar eli
censee,
the def endants'whol e dut ywas as descr ibed byLor d
Hai lsham i nAddi e,R,&Sons( Col
li
eri
es)vDumbr eck,at
page365.I nthiscaset hedef endantscr eat
ednot r
ap.The
trapwasnotdi scov eredbyt hepeoplewhoought
327•
•
tohavediscov
eredit.Noconceal
eddangerexist
edof
whi
chtheyknew oroughttohaveknown,becausethey
empl
oyedcompetentpeopl
etoadvi
set
hem."

Cockbi
l
lvRi
l
ey[
2013]EWHC656
Fact s:Thepl ainti
ff,a16- y
ear-ol
d boy ,attended apar tyatt he
defendant '
shousewher elit
tleamountofal coholi
cdr inkswas
serv ed.Al argepaddl i
ngpoolwaspr ovidedf ortheguest sandt he
plaint i
ffinanat temptt oper f
orm abel l
y-fl
op,jumpedi ntothepool
butmi sjudgedandl andedf irstwiththehead,sust aininginjur
ies.
Thepl ainti
ffclaimedt hatthedef endantast heoccupi eroft he
premi seshadcr eatedaf oreseeableriskandhadal lowedpeopl et o
j
umpi ntoi t
.
Held:Thedef endanthadnotcr eatedanunr easonabler iskandi t
hadnotbeenf oreseeabl ethatsomeonewoul dperform abel l
y-f
lop.
Thedef endantwast husnotl i
able.
Princi ple:Anoccupi er'
sdut yofcar eonl yarisesinci rcumstances
wher et herei ssuf fi
cientproximityandf oreseeabili
tyofdamage
andi tisf ai
r,j
ustandr easonabl ethatadut yshoul dbei mposed.

PerBeanJatpar s.49,52:[49]"Itiscommongr ound

betweencounselt hatinaccordancewi t
ht hedecisi
onof
theHouseofLor dsi nCaparoIndustr
iesvDi ckman[1990]
2AC605,[ 1990]1Al lER568,[1990]BCLC273adut yof
careonlyar
isesinci r
cumstanceswher ethereissuff
ici
ent
proxi
mityandf oreseeabi
li
tyofdamageandi tisfai
r,j
ust
andreasonablethatadutyshouldbei mposed.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
[52]"Indeed,therewasno di sputet hattheDef endant
owedt heClaimantadut yofcar e.Iaskedcounselwhat
thatdut ycompr i
sed.MrHorlocksubmi tt
edt hatitwasi n
theseterms:reasonablyt
okeepaney eonwhatwasgoi ng
on;tokeepabr eastofwhatpeoplewer edoing;ifmat t
ers
wereget t
ingoutofhand,t oi nt
ervenei nar easonable
manner ,thoughnotsoast ospoi lthepar t
y.MrTat t
ersal
l
agreed.SodoI ."

Andatpar s.55— 58:[ 55]"MrTat t

er sallsubmitst hat
simplybyset t
ingupt hepoolandall
owi ngi ttobeusedat
the par t
yt he Defendant'cr
eated a for eseeableri
skof
dangerandi nj
ury,astheDefendanthimsel frecogni
sedby
hisreferencetot helocat
ionofthesteps'.Thesubmi ssion
thatal
lowi ngtheuseofapaddl i
ngpoolatapar tyat
tended
by16-y ear-
oldfri
ends

oftheoccupier'
schildrenofit
selfcreatesaf oreseeabl
eriskof
si
gnif
icanti
njuryorj usti
fi
esaf ormalr i
skassessmenti sinmy
vi
ewqui teunreal
isti
c.NordoIconsi derthatthefactthatthe
guestswereallowedt oconsumemodestquant i
ti
esofalcohol
madet heri
skofsi gnifi
canti
njuryforeseeable.

[
56] "The hear tofMrTat tersall
's case was r eall
yt he
submi ssiont hatbynoti nterveningear l
ierandmor ef or
cefully
whent hesi xorsev enboy swer erunningandj umpi ngi ntothe
pooltheDef endant' createdasi tuati
onwi thanobv i
ousr iskof
seri
ousi njury'.Idonotacceptt hathedi d.Itwasr easonabl y
for
eseeabl et hatsomeonewoul dlosehi sf ootingandsuf f
er
minori njury.Ev enaf teranumberofboy shadj umpedi ntothe
poolfeetf irst,itwasnotr easonabl yforeseeablet hatsomeone
wouldat temptt ocar r
youtadi veorabel ly-
flop( whi chcan
ver
yeasi lyt urnintoadi v e)andt hussuf fergr avei njury.The
dangerofdi v i
ngi nt
oev enaswi mmi ngpool ofunknowndept h,
l
etaloneapaddl ingpool ,wasdescr ibedbySt uar t-
Smi t
hLJi n
Ratcli
ffvMcConnel /[ 1999]1WLR670,as' obv i
oust oany
adultandi ndeedt omostchi ldrenol denought ohav elearned
todive'.

[
57] "
Ev enifIam wr
ongaboutthi
s,Iacceptt
hesubmissi
on
ofMrHor lockthatbycal
l
ingint
heguest stohavesomefood
the Defendant had a cal
ming eff
ect on the boi
ster
ous
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
atmospherewhi chhadbuiltup.MrTat
tersal
lisofcour seri
ght
tosayt hatSarah'sfri
endsregardedMrRi l
eyasanaut horit
y
fi
gureandwoul dnodoubthav eobeyedanyi nstructi
onhe
gavethem, f
orexampl enottorunornottojumpi ntothepool .
ButIdonotacceptt hathewasunderadut yinl aw togive
suchani nstr
uction,eit
hertotheguestsingener alort othe
Clai
manti npart
icular
.

[
58] "
Int
heresul
tIam notsatisf
iedthatt
heDefendantwas
i
nbr eachofhisdutyofcaretotheClaimant.Imusttheref
ore
gi
vej udgmentf
ortheDefendantanddismissthecl
aim.IfI

hadfoundagai
nstt
heDef endant
,Iwoul
dhav eassessedt
he
Clai
mant'
scont
ri
but
orynegli
genceatt
wo-t
hir
ds."

TheCour tofAppealr
eject
edanapplicat
ionforl
eav
eto
appealinCockbil
lvRil
ey[ 2013]EWCACi v1492wher
e
TomlinsonLJstat
edatpars.14—18asf oll
ows:"
The

329.

principalt hrustofMrTat tersal l

'
ssubmi ssi
ons,bot hi nwr i
ti
ngand
ashehasdev elopedt hem mosthel pfullythisafternoon, isthatthe
j
udgef ai l
edpr oper l
yt oanal ysewhet herMrRi l
eydi schar gedthat
par tofhi sdut ywhi chi nvol vedhi m' reasonabl ykeepi nganey eon
whatwasgoi ngont okeepabr eastofwhatpeopl ewer edoi ng.'I
cannotacceptt hatthatsubmi ssionhasar easonabl epr ospectof
successi fdev elopedonaf ullappeal .Ther ear eanumberof
reasonsf ort hat .I
nor dertoest ablishliabili
tyagainstt hedef endant,
MrTat tersallwi llhavet ofindt hatther ewasi nfactabr eachbyt he
def endantofhi sdut yt or easonabl yt okeepaney eonwhatwas
goingon.Hesubmi tst hatoncet hatbr eachi sest abl i
shedi ti s
fai
r lyclearont hebasi sofMrRi l
ey '
sownev i
dencet hathadhe
obser vedwhatMrTat tersal lsay sheoughtt ohav eobser vedhe
woul dhav et akenst epst ocal lahal tt other unningandj umping
i
ntot heswi mmi ngpoolwi tht her esultt hatthecl ai
mantwoul dnot
hav eat tempt edt ol aunchhi msel fi ntot hepooli nthemanneri n
whi chhedi d,because,aswasaccept edonal lsides,t hesewer e
decent ,wel lbehav edy oungpeopl ewhowoul dhav er espectedan
i
nst ructionoft hatsor tgiv enbyt hedef endant .MrTat tersal
lwas
notent irel
ycl earont hequest i
onofwhet herornott hiscour t
shoul dbei nv i
tedt osubst itutef i
ndingsofi tsownf ort hosemade
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
bythej udgeorwhet hertheeff
ectofasuccessf ulsubmi ssionthat
thejudgehadf ailedtomakeadequat ef i
ndingswoul dnecessar il
y
bet hattherewoul dhavetobear etri
al.I
nmyj udgmenti tisplain
thatthej udgehasf oundthatthedefendantdi dnotseeany t
hing
whichshoul dhav ecausedhi mt ogi v
eani nstruct
ional ongt he
l
inesIhav ei ndicated.Furt
hermoretherei sinmyj udgmentno
basisuponwhi chi tcannow besuggest edint hel i
ghtoft he
manneri nwhi cht hecasewasr unattri
althatthedef endantought
reasonablyt ohav eseent wopar t
icul
arincidentswhi chiti ssaid
oughtt ohav eputhi m onnoti
cethatmat terswer egetti
ngoutof
hand."

HisLordshi
pthenconcludedatpars.33and34:" Inmyj udgment
thereissimply
,ont hebasi
softheev i
dencet hatwasadducedat
tri
alandthecross-
examinati
onofMrRi l
ey,nobasisuponwhi chto
assertthathewasi nbreachoft helimited dutywhichitwas
acceptedheowed, r
easonabl
ytokeepaney eonwhatwasgoi ngon
andt okeepabreastofwhatpeopleweredoi ng.Thati
seffecti
vel
y
whatthejudgefound.

Theexplicitconcl
usionofthej udgeisthatonthebasisof
whatthedef endanthadseenwhi ch,asIhav ei ndi
cated,wasa
si
tuat
ionwhi chwasbecomi ngratherboister
ousbutwasnotout
ofcontrol
,itwasnotr easonabl
yf oreseeabl
et hatanyonewould
dosomet hi
ngwi t
hsuchanobv i
ousr i
skofgr aveinjuryaswas
done by the cl aimant int he circumstances whi ch Ihave
descr
ibed.
"

PheevJamesGor donandNi ddryCast leGol fClub[20131SCLR

687Fact s:Theplainti
ff
,ani nexper i
encedgol ferwhoj oinedi na
golfgamewashi tbythegol fbal lwheni twaspl ay
edbyt hef ir
st
defendant.Asa r esul
t,hel osthisl ef teye.Hesued t hef ir
st
defendantfort
hei nj
uri
esandt heseconddef endant,t
hegol fclub,
forbreachofitsdut yasanoccupi er.Hel d:Thedef endant shad
breachedi t
sdutyi nnotpr ovidingsaf etywar ningnoticest ot he
player
satt helocuswhi chposedaf oreseeabledanger .Pr i
nciple:
Anoccupi erbr
eacheshi sdut yofcar ei fhef ail
stowar nent rants
aboutknowndanger sonhi sland.

PerLordHodgeatpp.694and695,par s.36— 38:[ 36]

"
Turningtothecaseagainstt
heclub,wear eoft heview
t
hattheLor dOrdinar
ywasentit
ledtotaket heview t
hat
t
he conf l
i
ct between pl
ayer
s at the locus posed a
for
eseeabledangerandthatt
heclubfail
edi nit
sdut yof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
caretoplayer
si nnotpr ovi
dingwar
ningnoti
ces.I
nacase
underthe1960Act ,whichusesthetestofr
easonabl
ecare
i
nt hecircumstances,itisappropr
iat
et oadoptasimil
ar
approach tothecal culusofr i
skaswi th common l
aw
negli
gence(parasabov e).

[37]" In paragraph [ 34]abov e we r ecor d MrGor don's

uncont estedev idenceofpl ayers'pr acticeatt hel ocust o
protectt hemsel vesf rom bal l
sdr i
venf rom the18t ht ee.
Thatpr acticeshowsanawar enessofar i
sk.Someoft he
club'scommi tteemember swi llhav ebeen gol f
ersand
musthav ebeenawar eoft hepr acti
ce.I tisimplici
ti nthat
pract i
cet hatgol fer sont he18t ht eewoul ddr ivewhen
playerswer eusi ng t hepat h.Thecl ub di d notneed a
recor dofar epor tedacci dentatt hel ocust obeputon
noticeofapot entialdangercr eatedbyt helayoutoft he
cour se.The exi st ence of pr ev i
ous wr it
ten not i
ce of
accident sisnotdeci siveast ot hei ssue.I nanyev ent,i
t
wasnotappar entt hatt heclub'sacci dentbookwasr eadil
y
availableforther epor tingofsuchi ncident s.

331"

"[38]Thecl ubencour agedv i

sitorst o playont hegolf
course,whet herornott heywer eexper i
encedgol f
ers.I
t
wasnotent itl
edt oassumet hatt hepeopl ewalkingont he
coursewer eawar eoft herul
esofgol forhowt or espond
toawar ningshout .I
toughtt ohav ebeenawar ethatsome
golfer
swoul dbebegi nner sorr elati
vel
yi nexperi
enced.It
wasnotent itl
edt oassumet hatal lgolf
erswoul dpl ayina
safemanneral lofthet ime.Whi leat i
mel ywar ni
ngshout
woul doftenav oi
dser i
ousi nj
ur ywhenagol fbal lwas
beinghitaconsi derabledistanceandt her ewast i
met o
reacttotheshout ,therewasagr eaterdangeri fsomeone
didnotknowhowt or espondt ot heshoutorf r
om wher e
thedangerwascomi ng."

(NB:A fur
therappeali
nPheevJamesGordonandNiddry
Castl
eGolf
Club [
20141 CSIH 50 f
ori
nter
eston t
he damages was
dismi
ssed.
)
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Pi
nchbeckvCr
aggyI
slandLt
d[2012]EWHC2745
Facts:Thepl aint
if
fattendedani ndoorcl i
mbi ngcent r
eownedby
the defendant.Af t
erdoi ng the high wal lclimbi
ng which was
supervi
sed byt wo instructor
s,t heydescended t o do the l
ow
cli
mbingwi thonlyonesuper v i
sor.Whilejumpi ngdownf rom oneof
hercli
mbs,t heplaint
ifflandedbadl yandi njuredhersel
f.Shesued,
clai
mingt hattheyhadnotbeengi vensuffi
cientinstr
ucti
onsont he
l
owcl imbing.
Held:The def endant by pr oviding instructors had assumed
responsibi
lit
yoft hepl ainti
ffandt hefailuret owarnherwasa
breachoft hei
rduty.

PerJudgeCur ranQCatpar .55:"Iagr eethat,inal lthe

cir
cumst ances,t heDef endant swer eunderadut yi nt hi
s
respectast heyhadi ndeedassumedr esponsibilit
yf orthe
safetyoft heCl aimantand, whatismor e,t
heyknewoft he
previousacci dent ,
orpossi blyaccident s,ofwhichshewas
unawar e.Mor eover,theyknewt hatshehadpr act i
sedonl y
goingupwar d(andhadbeenl ower eddownbyot hers)in
thegr eaterpar tofthet i
meshehadspentatt hepr emi ses
andhadbeencar efullymoni tor
edt hroughoutt hepr evious
oneandt hree-quarterhour s.Ifshewer ethenl efttoher
owndev i
cesatt heboul deri
ngwal lt heykneworoughtt o
haveknownt hatthatmi ghtputheratadi sadvant age.In
theci rcumst ances,ont hef act
sasIhav efoundt hem t o
be,theyf ail
edt odischar getheirdut y."

Har veyvPl y mouthCi tyCounci l fel

lfrom l and
ownedbyt hedef endantont oanadl oini
ngcarpack.Thev asabout
3.3met tesKx g\Ä andhadbeenusedasani nformal
recreationgr ound.Ther ewasonl yashor tfencebondingt hear ea.
Hesuf feredfrom braindamage.
Held:Thel icencegrantedbyt heauthori
tyt othepubli
ctopl ayon
t
hel anddi dnotext endt otheki ndofact i
vit
ywhicht hepl ai
nt i
ff
wasi nvolvedi nwhichr esul
tedinhi sfal
landt husthedef endant s
werenotl iable.
Principle:Al i
cencetousel andf orapar ti
cularpur
posei slimited
tot hatpur poseandt heriskassoci atedwi thitbutdoesnot
extendt oagener aldutyofev erythi
ngdoneont hepremises.

PerCarnwathLJatpar.16—18:[161"Thepri
nci
pali
ssue
i
nt hiscaseiswhet hertheClaimantwasan 'impli
ed
l
icensee'(
ther
e bei
ng no suggesti
on thathe was an
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
'
invit
ee'orhadexpr essl icencet obet here).MfFaul ks
seekst oarguet hat, eveni fhewasal i
censee, t
heCouncil
wasnoti nbr eachofi tsdut ytohi m,ori nanyev entits
breach did notcause t he accident.Al though as wi l
l
becomeappar enti twi llbeunnecessar ytor uleonthose
points,Ifi
ndt hesubmi ssionsurprisi
ng.Ont hefactsof
thi
scase, i
tseemshar dt oav oi
dt heviewt hattheCouncil
owedsomedut yt opr otectitsli
censeesagai nsttherisk
ofa5met ref all;thatt heexi st
enceof' at rippi
nghazar d
fortheunwar y',r athert hanapr operl
ymai ntai
nedfence
abovet heTesco' sr etainingwal l,wasabr eachoft hat
duty;andthatt hebr eachwasatl eastpartlycausati
veof
theaccident.

[
17]"Turningtot hepr incipalissue,itisnoti ndi sputethatan
ownerofl andmayconf erani mpli
edl i
cencebyconduct .
Immedi atelybef oret heenact mentoft he1957Act ,the
l
eadi ng case on t hi
si ssue was Edwar ds v Rai lway
Execut i
ve[ 1952]AC737,[ 195212Al lER430,[ 1952]2
TLR237.Thatconcer nedaboyi njuredonar ail
wayl ine.
Hehadbeenwar nednott ogoont ot hel and.I twashel d
thathe was nota l i
censee.As Lor d Goddar d said:
repeatedt respassofi tselfconfersnol i
cence...howi s
i
tt obesai dt hat( anoccupi er)hasl icensedwhathe
cannotpr ev ent.
..
.Now,t of indal icencet heremustbe
evidence ei ther of expr ess permi ssion Of t hat the
l
andownerhassoconduct edhi mselft hathecannotbe
heardt osayt hathedi dnotgi vei t
...
..Whatt henhav e
theydonei nthiscaset ol eadany onet osupposet hat
theymaygoont ot heirproper t
ytopl ay

333eu

(p.746— 7) ?'Thepr esentcasebycont rastisnotaboutl andset

apartf ortheoper at
ionalpurposesofast atutor
yunder taker,but
aboutanar eaofopenl andadj oini
ngar oadinar elati
velybui l
t-
up
area,wi t
hnot hi
ngt osuggestt hatit
susei srestri
cted.Thewor ds
ofLor dOakseyseem mor erel
evant:'I
nmyopi ni
on,inconsider i
ng
thequest i
onwhet heral i
cencecanbei nferr
ed,thestateofmi ndof
thesuggest edl i
censeemustbeconsi dered.Theci rcumst ances
mustbesucht hatthesuggestedl i
censeecoul dhavet houghtand
didt hi
nkt hathewasnott r
espassingbutwasont hepr oper t
yin
quest i
onbyt heleaveandl i
cenceofi t
sowner( p.748).
'
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
[18]"Ont heev i
dence, r
egul arusersofthel and, suchasMi ssHor e
orherpr edecessors,hadev eryreasontot hinktheywer ether ewith
thel i
cenceoft heowner s,whoev ertheywer e.Accor dingl ythe
Council'
s mor e extreme posi t
ion — in ef fectt hati towed no
occupiers'dutytoany one—wasi nmyv iewunr ealist
ic.Itmayhav e
diver
tedat tenti
onf rom t hemuchmor ei mpor tantissue,t hatis,
whether t he implied licence f or gener alr ecreationalact i
vit
y
extendedt ot hepar ti
cularact i
viti
eswhi chl edt ot heacci dentin
thi
scase. "

Atpar .22:" Apartfrom t hespeci fi

cpr ov isioni ns1( 2),theremi g
somedoubtast ohowt hiscommonl awr uler el
atest ot heli
mitati
o
thescopeoft he'commondut y'asdef i
nedbys2.Thedut yistomak
premi sesr easonablysaf ef oruse' f
ort hepur posesf orwhi ch(thev
i
si nvitedorper mit
tedbyt heoccupi ert obet her
e'.Thatappear sto
thataper sonmayr emai na' vi
sitor'wit hint hemeani ngoft heAct
whenhei susi ngthepr emi sesforapur posegoi ngbey ondt hesco
hisli
cence.Thus, arguablyi nScruttonLJ' sexampl e,av isitorwhocho
toslidedownt hebanisterwoul dbeout sidet hepr otectionoft heAc
becausehehasceasedt obea' v
isitor'
,butbecauset heoccupi erh
dutyundert he1957Actt omaket hepr emi sessaf ef ort hatunautho
activ
ity.Eitherway ,itiscl earthatt hedut yundert he1957Actdoe
extendbey ondt hescopeoft heact ivi
ti
esf orwhi cht hel icencehas
expresslyori mpl i
edlygi
v en."

Andatpars.27and28:[
27]"
Ihavesomedif
fi
cul
ty,
wit
hrespect
,in
underst
andi
ngwhatpr
ecisel
yhemeantby'
such

conduct( butnot )thedet ailofi t'

.Itwascl earfrom t he
ev i
dencethatv arioust ypesofni ght-
t i
meact i
v i
tyhadbeen
seenont hel and.Butmostoft hesecar ri
ednoobv i
ous
ri
skofacci dent .Thej udgeseemst ohav ebeent hi
nkingof
somef or
m ofv i
gor ouslateni ghthorse-playint hebushes,
i
nwhi chnotal lthepar tici
pant swoul dbesober .Yet,ev en
i
ft hatmi ghthav ebeenf oreseen,f oreseeabi l
it
ywasnot
ther el
evanttest .Indeci di
ngwhet hert heCl aimantwasa
l
icensee,t hequest i
on was,notwhet herhi sact ivi
tyor
similaractiv
iti
esmi ghthav ebeenf oreseen,butwhet her
theyhadbeeni mpliedlyassent edtobyt heCounci l
.Inmy
view therewasnoev idencet osuppor tsuchaf i
nding.
Whenacounci ll i
censest hepubl i
ct ousei tslandf or
recreati
onal pur poses, i ti s consent ing t o nor mal
recreati
onalact i
vit
ies,car r
yingnor malr i
sks.Ani mplied
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
l
icenceforgener
alrecreat
ionalacti
vi
tycannot,
inmyview,
be stret
ched to coverany f orm ofact i
vi
ty,however
reckl
ess.

[
28]" Fort hese r easons,Icannotacceptt he judge's
conclusi
ont hatatt hetimeoft heaccidenttheCl aimant
wasa' vi
sitor'fort hepur posesofthe1957Act .Ont hi
s
shortpoint,t heappealmusti nmyv i
ew succeed.Ir each
this conclusi on wi th consider
abl
e sy mpathy f or the
Claimant,whosel i
fehasbeenbl i
ght
edbyat ragicaccident.
Since,howev er
,t he Counci l
'simpli
ed li
cence di d not
extendtowhathewasdoi ng,it
sfai
luretoappr eciat
ei t
s
responsibi
li
tiesf orthislandisnotenought ofoundl i
abil
it
y
underthe1957Act ."

TRESPASSERS(
THEPOSI
TIONOFTHELAW BEFORE
1972)

Addi evDumbr eck[19291AC358

Fact s:The def endantoper ated a haulage system which was
attracti
v ebutdanger oustochil
dren.I
tsservantsperi
odical
lydr ove
childrenawayf rom it.Atatimewheni twasnotwel lguarded,a
serv antofthedef endantseti
tinmot ionwithoutl
ookingoutt osee
i
fanychi l
dwast hereandt hef oury earoldsonoft hepl ainti
ff
,
beingi nt heterminal,wascrushedt odeath.Held:Sincethechi ld
wasat respasser,thedefendantsowedhi m nodutyofcar eand
thust hedef endantsarenotli
able.
Principle:Anoccupi erowesnodut yofcar etoat r
espasserexcept
thatheshal lnoti nfl
ictan i
ntenti
onalhar m oracti nr eckless
disregar dofthe

335•
•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawof
Tor
tsi
nGhana
"
Ihe

t
respasser
'spr
esence.

PerLordHai lsham LC atp.365:" Towar dst het respassert he

occupi
erhasnodut yt ot akereasonablecar eforhi sprotect ionor
even t
o pr ot
ecthi m f rom concealed danger .The t respasser
comesont ot hepr emi sesathi sownr isk.Anoccupi erisinsucha
caseli
ableonlywher et heinjuryisduet osomewi lf
ul actinv olv
ing
somethingmor ethant heabsenceofr easonablecar e.Ther emust
besomeactdonewi tht hedeliberat
ei nt
entionofdoi nghar mt o
thetr
espasser ,oratl eastsomeactdonewi thr ecklessdi sregard
ofthepresenceoft het respasser."

And atpp.369 and 370:" The onl yquest i

on,t herefor e,that
remai nsf ordeci sioni nt hi
scasei swhet her ,upont hef indingsof
factoft heCour tofSessi on( whi char enotopent or ev i
ew) ,the
respondent '
ssonmaypr oper lyber egar dedashav ingbeenatt he
wheelatt het imeoft heacci dentwi tht hel eav eandl icenceoft he
appel l
ant s.Ift hishadbeenpr ov ed, Ishoul dhav ebeenpr eparedt o
hol dt hatt hewheel , whi chwasatt i
messt at i
onar yandwhi chwas
start edwi t
houtanywar ning,andwhi chwas,i nt hewor dsoft he
Cour tofSessi on,' danger ous and at tractivet o chi l
dr en and
i
nsuf ficient l
ypr otect edatt het i
meoft heacci dent ',amount edtoa
trap,andt hatt her espondentwoul dt heref orehav ebeenent itl
ed
tor ecov er.Buti nmyopi nion,t hef indingsoff actef fectuall
y
negat ivet hatv i
ew.I ti sf oundt hatt heappel lant swar nedchi ldren
outoft hef i
eldandr eprov edadul tswhocamet her e,andal lthat
canbesai dist hatt hesewar ningswer ef requent lynegl ect edand
thatt her eWasagapi nt hehedget hr oughwhi chi twaseasyt o
passont ot hef i
eld.Icannotr egar dt hef actt hatt heappel lants
didnotef f
ectivelyf encet hef iel dOft hef actt hatt heirwar nings
wer ef requent l
ydi sr egar dedassuf f
icientt oj ust ifyani nference
thatt heyper mi tt
edt hechi l
dr ent obeont hef i
el d,and,i nt he
absenceofsuchaper mission,i ti scl eart hatt her espondent '
s
chi l
dwasmer elyat r espasser .Thesy mpat hywhi chonecannot
hel pf eel ingf ort heunhappyf at hermustnotbeal l
owedt oal t
er
one' sv iew oft he l aw,and Ihav e no doubtt hati nl aw t he
respondent '
ssonwasamer et respasser ,andt hatassucht he
appel l
ant sowedhi m nodut yt opr otecthi mf r
om i nj ury.Ont hese
groundsIam ofopi niont hatt hisappealsucceedsandmustbe
allowedwi thcost s, andImov ey ourLor dshi ps
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawof
Tor
tsi
nGhana

accor
dingl
y"

Bi
rdvHol
dbr
ook(
1828)130ER911
Fact s:Thedef endantsetaspr i
ngguni nhi
sf armf orthepur poseof
prot ect
ingt hefarm afterexperienci
ngsomet heftsint hefarm.The
farm waswal l
ed.Thepl ai
ntif
fwhowaschasi ngast rayfowlclimbed
ov erthewal landthespr i
nggunwentof fandi
nj ur
edhi m.
Hel d:Sincet hedefendantsett hespr i
nggunf orthesol epur poseof
causi nginjuri
ngtoanother,hewasl i
abl
e.
Pr i
nciple:Anoccupi erofl andmustnotacti nr ecklessdisregardof
trespasser swhosepr esenceheknowsoroughtt oknowof ,andmust
givenot iceofanydanger stosuchper sons.

PerBestCJatp.916:" Ithasbeenar guedt hatt hel aw does

notcompelev eryl ineofconductwhi chhumani tyorr eli
gi on
mayr equire;butt her ei snoactwhi chChr ist
ianityf orbids, that
thel aw wi l
lnotr each:i fi twer eot herwise,Chr istianitywoul d
notbe,asi thasal way sbeenhel dt obe,par toft hel aw of
Engl and.Iam t her efor eclearlyoft heopi nionthathewhoset s
spr i
nggunswi thoutgi vingnot iceisgui ltyofani nhumanact ,
andt hatifi njuri
ousconsequencesensue,hei sl iablet oy ield
redress t ot he suf ferer.Butt his case st ands on gr ounds
distinctf r
om anyt hathav epr ecededi t.I
ngener al, springguns
hav ebeensetf ort hepur poseofdet erri
ng;andt hedef endant
placedhi sf ort heexpr esspur poseofdoi ngi njury ;for,when
calledont ogi venot ice,hesai d, '
I
fIgi venot i
ce, Ishal lnocat ch
him. 'Hei ntendedt her efor e,
thatt hegunshoul dbedi schar ged
andt hatt hecont ent sshoul dbel odgedi nt hebodyofhi s
victim,f orhecoul dnotbecaughti nanyot herway .Ont hese
principlestheact ioni sclearlymai ntainable,andpar ti
cularlyon
thel att
ergr ound. "

Andatp.917:" Butwewantnoaut hori

tyinacasel i
kethe
present;weputi tont hepri
ncipl
ethatitisinhumant ocatcha
manbymeanswhi chmaymai m hi
m orendangerhi sli
fe,and,
asf arashumanmeanscango,i ti
st heobj ectofEngl i
shlaw
touphol dhumani ty,andthesancti
onsofr eligion.Itwoul dbe,
i
ndeed,a subj ectofr egr
et,ifa par tywer e notl i
ablein
damages,who,i nsteadofgivi
ngnot i
ceoft heempl oymentof
adest ruct
iveengi ne,orremov i
ngit,atleast ,duri
ngt hesay ,
expressedar esolutiont
owi t
hholdnot i
ce,l
est ,byaffordi
ngit,
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawof
Tor
tsi
nGhana
337•
•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

heshoul
dfai
ltoent
raphi
svi
cti
m."

PerPar kJatp.917:" I
thasbeencont ended,t hatt hough
noticemaydepr iveapar tywhohasr ecei v
edi tofanyr ight
tor ecov er,yett hati thasnowher ebeendeci dedt hati tis
i
mper ativeont hepar tyusingt heengi
net ogivenot ice.But
i
n1/ 10/vWi lks,t heCour t,oneand al l,decideont he
groundofnot i
ce,andAbbot tCJcl oseshi sjudgmentt hus:
'
Consi deringt hepr esentact ionmer el
yont hegr oundof
notice, andl eavingunt ouchedt hegener alquest i
onst ot he
l
iabilityincurredbypl aci
ngsuchengi nesast hese, wher eno
noticei sbr oughthomet ot hepar t
yi njured,Iam oft he
opiniont hatthisact ioncannotbemai nt ai
ned.'Ithasbeen
asked,wher ehasi tbeenl ai
ddownt hatnot icemustbe
given?Ianswer ,byAbbot tCJi nthepassageIhav ej ust
read, andbyBay leyJi nthesamecase:' Althoughi tmaybe
l
awf ult oputt hosei nstrument sonman' sowngr ound,y et
,
ast heyar ecal culatedt opr oducegr eatbodi l
yi njuryt o
i
nnocentper sons( f
ormanyt respassersar ecompar at
ively
i
nnocent ),iti snecessar ytogi veasmuchnot i
cet ot he
publ i
casy ou can,so ast o putpeopl eon t heirguar d
againstt hedanger ."'

Excel si orWi reRopeCo.vCal l

an[ 1930]AC404
Fact s:Thedef endant soperated apul leysy st
em wi thropesf or
mov ingt rucksal ongasi di
ng.Chi ldr
enf requent edt hepl aceand
play ed ar ound t ot he knowl edge of t he def endant s wi thout
i
nt errupt ion exceptwher et he machi ne was t o be used.The
def endant s'servantswentt odriveawaychi l
dreninor dertost artthe
machi nebutwhent heywentbackt hechildrenretur ned.Whent hey
star t
edt hemachi ne,theysawal i
tt
legirlononeoft her opesandt he
machi necr ushedherhand.Herl it
tlebrotherwhowentt osav eher
wasal soi nj
ured.
Hel d:Thedef endantswer eliable,for,knowi ngt hatchi l
drenwer e
l
ikel yt obear ound,theywer eunderadut ytoensur et hat,atthet i
me
themachi newasputi nmot i
on,t heyhadt akenst epst opr event
i
njur yt oanychi ldr
en.Theyf ai
ledint hi
sdut y.
Princi ple:Anoccupi ermustnotacti nrecklessdi sregar doft he
presenceofat r
espasser.

PerLord Buckmast eratp.410:"My Lor

ds,ifIhave
adequat
elyexpl
ainedthef
act
sastheypr
esentt
hemsel
ves
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

tomymi nd,t heyanswert hewhol epr oposit

ion.Tot he
knowl edge oft he Excelsi
orWi re Rope Companyt hese
chil
drenpl ayeduni nt
err
uptedlyr oundthispost;therewas
nothingt opr eventt hem doingi t
,andIcannotf i
ndt hat
therei sanyev idencet oshow t hat,exceptatthemoment
whent hi
smachi newasgoi ngt obeseti naction,theywer e
everdr i
ven away .Itwas t herefore wellknown t ot he
appellantst hatwhent hi
smachi newasgoi ngtost ar
titwas
extr
emel yl ikelyt hatchi
ldrenwoul dbet her
eand,wi tht he
wireinmot ion,woul dbeexposedt ogravedanger .
"

PerViscountDunedi natp.411:" Assuming,asdi dScrutt

on
L.J.
,thatthechildrenwer etrespasser
s,Ithinkt hat
,touse
the words ofVi scountHai lsham in Addi e'
s case,the
appell
ants'servantsact ed'withreckl
essdi sregardofthe
presenceoft het respasser'
;or,tousemyown,' t
hatthe
acti
ngwassor ecklessast oamountt omaliciousacting'
.
"

PerLor dWar ringtonofCl y f

featpp.411and412:" Ther eis
ampl eev idencet hat,t ot heknowl edgeoft heser v antsof
theappel lant s,childrenwer einthehabi t,notonl yofpl aying
aroundt hissheav eandusi ngi tforpur posesconnect ed
witht heirgames,butwer eactual l
yint hehabi tofpl aying
witht hemachi ne, andt her opesandsof orthat t
achedt oit
,
sot hati twasf oundnecessar y,whent heywer eaboutt o
uset hemachi ne, toseet hatithadnotbeenputoutofgear
byt hechi l
dr en.Undert hoseci r
cumst ances, itseemst ome
quite plaint hatt here was a dut y upon t he pr esent
appellants,byt heirser vants,whent heywer eaboutt oput
thismachi nei nmot ion,sot hatitwoul dbecomeadanger
toanychi ldrenwhomi ghtbei nt heneighbour hood,t osee
whet herornotatt hatmomentt herewer echi ldreninsuch
aposi t
ion ast o beexposed t o danger .Thatdut ywas
plainl
ynegl ect ed,andundert heci rcumst ancesIt hinkt he
appellantshav er i
ghtlybeenhel dl i
able."

Vi
deanvBr
it
ishTr
anspor
tCor
por
ati
on[
196312QB650
Facts:Thedeceasedwasast ati
onmasterint heemployoft he
defendant.Thesecondpl ai
nti
ffinfantwasthesonoft hestation
mast er
.Thesecondpl ainti
ffwentont other ai
lwayt
rackwhi lea
power -
dri
ventr
oll
eywasappr oachingattopspeed.Thedr i
verbeing
unabletounderstandallsignal
snott oinjur
et hechi
ld,thefather
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wentont otherail
waytosav ethechi
ldandwaski l
ledwhil
ethechi l
d
wassev erel
yinj
ured.
Held:Si
ncet hesecondplainti
ffwasat r
espasserandthedefendant
couldnothav ereasonabl
yforeseenhispresenceonthetr
ackatt he
ti
me, t
he

339•
defendantswerenotl
iabletohim.Butt hedefendantswer eliabl
eto
the deceased si
nce his pr
esence on t he t
rack was wi thinthe
contemplati
onofthedefendant
s.
Princi
ple:Anoccupi
erowesnodut yofcar et otrespasserswhose
presenceonhispremisesisnotreasonablyfor
eseeable.

PerLor dDenni ngMRatpp.665and666:" Seeingt hereforet hat,

i
nr egar dt oact ivi
tiesonl and,nodi stinct ioncanl egiti
mat elybe
drawn bet ween t he dut yofan occupi erand t he dut yofa
cont ract ororany one el se who car ries on t he act ivi
ty,t he
quest ionr emai ns:Whati st hedut y ?Hei scl ear l
yunderadut y
towar dsal lper sonsl awful lyont hel and.Heowest hem adut yto
user easonabl ecar ei ndoi nghi swor knott oi njuret hem.But
whati shi sdut yt owar dsat respasser ?Theanswer ,Ithink,ist o
bef oundbyappl y
ingt het estoff or eseeabi li
tywhi chi ssoampl y
est abl i
shed i n ourl aw by Donoghue v St evenson,Hay or
Bour hi// vYoung,and Ov erseasTankshi p( U. K.)Lt d.vMor ts
DockandEngi neer i
ngCo.Li d.( TheWagonMound) .Thet rue
princi plei st hi
s:I nt heor dinar ywayt hedut yt ouser easonabl e
car eext endst oal lper sonsl awf ull
yont hel and,buti tdoesnot
ex tendt ot respasser s,fort hesi mpl er easont hathecannot
ordi nar il
ybeexpect edt of oreseet hepr esenceofat r
espasser .
Butt heci rcumst ancesmaybesucht hatheoughtt of oresee
ev ent hepr esenceofat r espasser ;andt hent hedut yofcar e
ex tendst ot het respasseral so.Chi ldren' scasesaf fordagood
i
llust ration.AsIsai di n Mi l
ler'
scase23:' Heoughtt o hav e
chi l
dr eni ncont empl ationi fheknowst hatt heyar ei nthev icinit
y
orar el ikely—t henorl ater—t obeat tract edt ot hespot .Itdoes
notav ail himt osay :'Theyar e" tr
espasser s''
,'andwashhi shands
ofal lresponsi bili
ty.Hecannott aker efugei nt het hought :'Iam
notgoi ngt obot heraboutt hem —t heyhav enoper mi ssiont obe
ther e.'Hemustbot heraboutt hem i fheknowsoroughtt oknow
thatt heyar elikelyt obeaf fect edbywhathei sdoi ng.Hemust
taker easonabl ecar etopr ev enti njuryt ot hem.Oncehef oresees
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

thei
rpr
esence,heowest hem thecommondut yofcare,nomore
andnoless.Iwoul dnotrestr
ictitt
oadut y't
otreatthem wi
th
commonhumani t
y'
,forIdonotknow qui t
ewhatt hatmeans.I
pref
ert
osayt hatheistotakereasonabl
ecare.

"
Thi
ssi
mpl
etest(
whi
chi
sbasedonf
oreseeabi
l
ity
)issuf
fi
cient

•
340
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

toexpl ainal lt hecases,t houghnotal lthest at ement scont ai nedi n

them.Youmustr emembert hat ,i nappl y i
ngt het estoff oreseeabi lity,
youhav et oconsi deral lt heci rcumst ancesoft hepar ticularcase:( 1)
Youmustt akei ntoaccount .fori nst ance,t hegr av i
tyandl ikelihoodof
thepr obabl ei njury .Ul tr
a- hazar dousact ivi
tiesr equi reamant obeul tr a-
caut iousi ncar ryingt hem out .Themor edanger oust heact ivity,t he
mor eheshoul dt akecar et oseet hatnoonei si njur edbyi t.Thusan
elect ri
ci t
ycompanywhi chcar rieshi ghl ydanger ouscur rentacr osst he
count rysidemayr easonabl ybeexpect edt of oreseet hatchi l
dr enmay
bet empt edt ot respassneari t,andshoul dt akest epst oguar dagai nst
i
njur y,ev ent ot hem:seeBuckl andvGui ldfordGasLi ghtandCoke
CompanyLt d.andThompsonvBankst ownCor por at i
on,par t i
cul arl
yby
SirOwenDi xonC. J.( 2)Youmustt akei ntoaccountal sot hechar act er
oft hei nt rusionbyt het respasser .Awander ingchi ldorast r
ay ingadul t
standsi nadi fferentposi tionf rom apoacherorabur gl
ar .Youmay
expectachi l
dwher ey ouwoul dnotexpectabur glar.Thusi nCookev
Mi dland Gr eat West ern Rai lway of I reland t he company mi ght
reasonabl ybeexpect edt of or eseet hatchi ldrenwoul dt respassand
meddl ewi tht het ur ntabl e:wher easi nGr andTr unkRai lwayofCanadav
Bar net tthecompanycoul dnotr easonabl ybeex pect edt of oreseet hat
amanwoul d'jumpal if
t' ont het rain.( 3)Youmustal sohav er egar dt o
thenat ur eoft hepl acewher ethet respassoccur s.Apubl ichi ghwayi s
differentf rom pr ivatepr oper t
yorev enf r
om ar ailwayl i
ne.Youmay
reasonabl ybeexpect edt of oreseet hatachi ldmaygetont oacar t
whi chy oul eav eunat t endedi nt hest reet( seeI yynchvNur dinort or un
behi nd a l orry( Far rugia vGr eatWest ern Rai lwayButy ou cannot
reasonabl ybeexpect edt of oreseet hatchi ldrenwi llgetont oar ail
way
l
ine,whent heyar enoti nt hehabi tofdoi ngso:seeJenki nsvGr eat
West ernRai lwayandEdwar dsvRai lwayExecut ive.( 4)Youmustal so
takei ntoaccountt heknowl edgewhi cht hedef endanthas,oroughtt o
hav e,oft hel ikel i
hoodoft respasser sbei ngpr esent .Thusi nExcel sior
Wi reRopeCo.vCa/ /
an32i twaswel lknownt ot hecompanyt hat ,when
themachi newasgoi ngt ost ar t,i twasext remel ylikel yt hatchi ldr en
woul dbet her e.Thesi gnal manhadonl yt ot ur nr oundt oseet hem.
Wher easi nRober tAddi e& Sons( Col l
ieri
es)Lt d.vDumbr eck33t he
machi newasdownahi llwher et hechi l
dr encoul dnotbeseenandi t
wasnotsol i
kel yt hatt heywoul dbet here.( SeeMour tonvPoul ter,by
Scr uttonL. J.)
341
Inshort
,al
lthecir
cumst
ancesmustbet akenint
oaccountin
ordert
oseewhethert
heconsequencei
s'withi
ntheri
skcr
eated
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

bythenegl
i
gence'
:seeRoevMini
sterofHeal
th,
quot
edbyLor
d
Pearcei
nHughesvLordAdv
ocat
e."

Mouf
lonvPoul
ter[
1930]2KB183
Facts:Thedef endantownedal andwhi chwasusedbychi l
drenasa
playgroundwi thoutlicence.Thedef endantdecidedt of el
latreeonthe
landandper iodical
lydr ov et hechil
drenont helandaway .Butatthe
parti
culart i
met hatthet reewasaboutt ofall,
thedefendantdidnotlook
outf orthechi ldr
enandt het reefel
lont heplai
nti
ffinj
uringhim.
Held: Althought heplainti
f fwasat respasserthedefendantowedhi ma
dutynott oalterthecondi tionofthelandwi t
houtwar ningandt hust
he
defendantwasl i
able.
Principle:Anoccupi erofl andshoul dnotcr eatenew danger sonthe
premi seswi thoutwar ning.

PerScr uttonLJatpp. 190and191:" Inthepr esentcaset hedefendant

wasamanexper iencedi nf el
lingt rees,whoknewt het imewhent he
treewoul dpr obabl yf al
landt hedi stancei twoul dpr obabl
ycov er
wheni tfell.Hecutt hel astr ootbywhi cht het reewassuppor ted,
knowi ng t hatt he t r
ee woul df alli n aboutt wo mi nutesand t hat
childrenwer est andi nground,wi thoutgi vinganywar ning.Ithasbeen
foundbyt hecount ycour tj udget hatt hedef endanti nsobehav i
ng
wasnegl i
gent ,andt hatthei njur ysuf feredbyt hepl ainti
ffwasduet o
thatnegl igence.Thecasemay ,It hink,becompar edt oonei nwhi ch,
whi l
ebl ast ingoper ationsar egoi ngonandpeopl ear estandinground,
amanengagedi nt hewor kf iresabl astwi thoutgi v i
nganypr evious
war ning.I tseemst omet hatt hemanf iri
ngt hebl astwoul dcl
earl
ybe
guiltyofabr eachofdut yt ot hesepeopl eev ent hought heywer e
trespasser s,becausehewoul dhav edoneanactwhi chmi ghtdo
them ani njur yandwoul dhav edonei twi t
houtwar ning.Inacasesuch
ast hatt heper sonwhoi saboutt odoadanger ousacti sunderadut y
to war n ev en t respasser s. The l i
abi l
it
yofan ownerofl and t o
trespasser sdoesnotar i
sewher et herei sont hel andacont i
nuing
trap,suchast hatwhi chwasconsi der edinacasei nt heSupreme
Cour toft he Uni ted St at es ofan i nnocentl ooki ng pond whi ch
cont ainedpoi sonousmat ter :Uni tedZi ncandChemi calCo.vBr i
tt
.( 1)
Ther e,ast hel andr emainsi nthesamest ate,at respassermustt ake
i
tashef inds

•
342
i
t,andt
heowneri
snotboundt
owar
nhi
m.That
,howev
er,i
sa
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

diff
erentcasefrom thecaseinwhi chamandoessomet hing
whichmakesachangei nthecondi
tionoftheland,aswher
ehe
start
sawheel ,fell
sat r
ee,Ofsetsoffabl astwhenheknows
thatpeoplearestandi
ngnear.I
neachofthesecasesheowesa
dutytot hesepeopleeventhoughtheyaret r
espasser
stotake
caretogivethem warni
ng."

THEPOSI
TIONOFTHE AFTER1972
Her
ri
ngt
onvBr
it
ishRai
l
wayBoar
d[19721AC877
Facts:Thedef endantownedanel ectrif
iedr aillinefencedof ffrom a
placewher echi l
drenf requentlyplayed.Par toft hef encewasbr oken
andpeopl ebeganusi ngt hatsideasashor tcut.Thedef endantwas
notifi
edaboutt hepr esenceoft hechildrenbutt ooknoact i
ont orepairit
.
Thesi x-year
-oldpl ai
nti
ff ,whil
et r
espassi ngov ert hebr okenf ence,was
i
njuredwhenhecameont heliverai
l.
Held:Thedef endantsowedadut yt ot hepl ai
nt i
ffwhi cht heybreached
andt huswer eliable.
Principl
e:Thedut yowedbyanoccupi ert oat respasseri ssubj ecti
ve
and depends on whet hera consci entious,humane man wi th his
knowl edge,skil
landr esour cescoul dr easonabl yhav eowedadut yto
ensuret hesaf etyoft het respasser.Thedut yi st husasdi ctatedby
commonsenseorcommonhumani ty.

PerLor d Rei d atpp.898 and 899:" The f irstmat tert o be

determi ned ist he nat ur
e oft he dut yowed byoccupi erst o
trespasser s.HereIt hi
nkwecangetgoodgui dancef rom Addi e'
s
case.Thedut ytherelaiddownwasadut ynott oactr ecklessly.
Reckl essnesshas, i
nmyopi nion,asubj ecti
v emeani ng: i
timpl i
es
culpabilit
y.Anact i
onwhi chwoul dber eckl
essi fdonebyaman
wi t
h adequat e knowl edge,skillorr esour ces mi ghtnotbe
recklessi fdonebyamanwi t
hl essappr eciationoforabi l
ityto
dealwi t
ht hesituati
on.Onewoul dbecul pabl e,t heot hernot .
Reckl essisadi ffi
cultword.Iwoul dsubst i
tutecul pable.Thedut y
l
ai ddowni nAddi e'scasewasahumani t
ariandut y.Nor mallythe
commonl aw appliesanobj ecti
v etest.Ifaper sonchoosest o
assumear el
ati
onshipwi t
hmember softhepubl ic,saybyset t
ing
outt odr iveacarOft oerectabui l
dingf r
ont i
ngahi ghway ,the
l
awr equireshimt oconducthimsel fasar easonabl e
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

343"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

manwi thadequateskill
,knowl edgeandr esour
ceswoul ddo.
Hewi l
lnotbehear dt
osayt hati nf acthecouldnotattainthat
standard.I fhecannotat taint hatst andardheoughtnott o
assumet heresponsi
bili
tywhi cht hatrelat
ionshi
pinvol
v es.But
anoccupi erdoesnotv oluntar i
lyassumear el
ati
onshipwi th
trespassers. By t r
espassi ng t hey f orce a 'neighbour'
relat
ionshiponhim.Whent heydosohemustacti nahumane
manner— t hatisnotaskingt oomuchofhi m — butIdonot
seewhyheshoul dber equiredt odomor e.

"Soi tappear st omet hatanoccupi er '

sdut yt ot respasser s
mustv aryaccor dingt ohi sknowl edge, abi l
it
yandr esour ces.It
hasof tenbeensai dt hatt respasser smustt aket hel andas
theyf indi t
.Iwoul dr athersayt hatt heymustt aket heoccupi er
ast heyf indhi m.Sot hequest i
onwhet heranoccupi eri sliable
i
nr espectofanacci dentt oat respasseronhi sl andwoul d
dependonwhet heraconsci ent i
oushumanemanwi thhi s
knowl edge,ski l
landr esour cescoul dr easonabl yhav ebeen
expect edt ohav edoneorr efrainedf r om doi ngbef oret he
accidentsomet hi ngwhi chwoul dhav eav oi
dedi t
.I fheknew
befor et heacci dentt hatt herewasasubst ant i
alpr obabi l
it
y
thatt respasser swoul dcomeIt hinkt hatmostpeopl ewoul d
regar dascul pabl ef ailuret ogi veanyt houghtt ot heirsaf ety.
Hemi ghtof t
enr easonabl ythink,wei ghingt heser iousnessof
thedangerandt hedegr eeofl i
kelihoodoft r
espasser scomi ng
agai nstt hebur denhewoul dhav et oincuri npr event ingt heir
entryormaki ng hi s pr emises saf e,orcur taili
ng hi s own
activitiesonhi sl and, thathecoul dnotf airl
ybeexpect edt odo
any thing.Buti fhecoul datsmal ltroubl eandexpenset ake
someef fecti
veact ion,agai nIt hinkt hatmostpeopl ewoul d
thi
nki ti nhumaneandcul pablenott odot hat .I fsomesuch
pri
nci pl ei sadopt edt her ewi l
lnol ongerbeanyneedt ost ri
ve
to i mpl ya f i
ct it
ious l i
cence. I t woul d f oll
ow t hat an
i
mpecuni ousoccupi erwi thl i
tt
leassi st anceathand woul d
often be excused f rom doi ng somet hi
ng whi ch a l ar ge
organi sat ionwi t
hampl est affwoul dbeexpect edt odo.

"IfIapplythattesttothe pr esentcase It hi
nk t hatthe
appell
antsmustbeheldr esponsiblefort
hisacci dent.They
broughtont
othei
rlandinthel i
ver ai
lalet
halandt oay oung
chil
daconcealeddanger.Itwoul dhav ebeenv eryeasyf or
them tohav
eandenfor
cear easonablesystem ofinspecti
on
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

344

andr epairoft heirboundar yfence.Theyknewt hatchi ldren

wer eentit
ledandaccust omedt oplayont heot hersi deof
thef enceandmusthav eknown,hadanyoft heirof f
icers
givent hemat terat hought,thatay oungchildmi ghteasi l
y
crossadef ectiv
ef enceandr unintogravedanger .Yett hey
didnot hi
ng.Idonott hinkthatalargeorganisationisact ing
withduer egardt ohumaneconsi derati
onifitsof ficersdo
notpaymor eattent i
ont osafety.Iwouldnotsi ngleoutt he
stati
onmast erforbl ame.Thet r
oubleappear stohav ebeen
gener alsl ackness i n the organisati
on. For t hat t he
appel l
antsar eresponsi bleandIt hi
nkint hecircumst ances
culpable.Iwoul dt her
efore holdt hem l i
ablet ot he
respondentanddi smisst hi
sappeal .
"

PerLor dMor risofBor th-y-Gestatp.909: "Yetwhent heboy

wentont ot het rackheundoubt edl ybecameat respasser .
Does t hi
s mean t hatt he st ri
ctedi ctofAddi e's case
prevent sanyki nd ofdut yf rom ar i
sing t owar dssucha
neighbour ,especi al
lyasPar l
iamenthasnotl egi slatedi n
termswhi chcov ert r
espasser s?I nmyv iew,whi l
ei tcannot
besai dt hatt her ail
way sboar dowedacommondut yof
caret ot hey oungboyi nt hepr esentcaset heydi dowet o
him atl eastt hedut yofact i
ngwi thcommonhumani t
y
towar dshi m.I nregar dt ot hewor dst hatIhav equot edf r
om
Addie'scaseIdonott hinkt hatt her ailway sboar d( thr ough
theirser vant s)di danyactwi tht hedel i
ber at eintent i
onof
doinghar mt ot heboy ;t heiromi ssionf oral ongt imet o
repairthef enceandt hei rcont inuingdi stributionofel ectri
c
poweral ongt hei rli
ver aildi dnot ,inmyv i
ew,amountt oa
'
reckless di sregar d oft he pr esence ofa t r
espasser '
.If
thosel astquot edwor dscanbesai dt ocov ert hel ikelyor
expect edorant i
cipatedpr esenceofat respasser ,t hent he
question ar ises whet hert he lament ablei nact ion oft he
rai
lway sboar di st obechar acter i
sedas' reckless' .Ast o
thi
sIhav edoubt .Thewor d' r
eckl ess' seemsmor eapposi te
i
nr eferencet oposi t
iveconductt hant oinact ion.

"Thedutythatl
ayupont her ai
lwaysboardwasal imited
one.Therewasnodut ytoensurethatnotrespassercould
enterupontheland.Andcer tai
nlyanoccupi erowesno
dutytomakehislandfi
tfortr
espasserstotrespassin.Nor
need he make survey
s ofhi sland in orderto decide
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

whet
herdangersexi
stofwhi
chhei
sunawar
e.Thegener
al
l
awremainsthat

345"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

onewhot respassesdoessoathi speril

.Butint hepr esentcaset here
wer eanumberofspeci alcircumstances-(a)thepl acewher ethef ence
wasf aultywasneart oapubl i
cpathandpubl i
cgr ound; (
b)achi ldmi ght
easilypasst hrought hef ence;(c)i
fachi lddidpasst hroughandgo
ont othet rackhewoul dbei ngravedangerofdeat horser i
ousbodi l
y
har m;(d)achi l
dmi ghtnotr eali
setheriskinvolvedi nt ouchingt hel i
ve
railOfbei nginapl acewher eatrai
nmi ghtpassatspeed.Becauseof
theseci r
cumst ances( allofthem wellknownandobv i
ous)t herewas, in
myv i
ew, adut ywhi ch,whi lenotamount i
ngtot hedut yofcar ewhi chan
occupierowest oav isitor,wouldbeadut ytot akesuchst epsas
commonsenseorcommonhumani t
ywoul ddi ctate:t heywoul dbe
stepscal culatedt oexcl udeort owar norot herwi sewi thinreasonabl e
andpr acticablelimitstor educeorav er
tdanger .
"

PerLor dDi plockatpp.939and940:" MyLor ds,Iconcl udet herefore

thatt herei snodut yowedbyanoccupi ert oanyt respasserunl esshe
actual l
yknowsoft hephy si
cal f
actsinrelationtot hest ateofhi slandor
someact i
v i
tycar riedoutuponi t,whichconst ituteaser iousdangert o
personsont hel andwhoar eunawar eoft hosef act s.
h- l
ei sunderno
dutyt oanyt respassert omakei nspect i
onsori nqui r
iest oascer tain
whet hert herei sanysuchdanger .Wher ehedoesknow ofphy sical
factswhi char easonabl emanwoul dappr eciatei nvolveddangerof
seriousi njurytot het r
espasserhi sdutyi st otaker easonabl est epst o
enabl ethet respassert oav oidthedanger .Whatconst itutereasonabl e
stepswi lldependupont hekindoft r
espassert owhom t hedut yisowed.
Ifthedut yi sowedt osmal lchil
drentooy oungt ounder standawar ning
notice the dut ymayr equi
r ethe provision ofan obst acl
et ot heir
appr oacht ot hedangersuf fici
entl
ydiff
icul ttosur mountast omakei t
cleart ot he y oungestunaccompani ed chi ldl i
kelyt o appr oach t he
danger ,thatbey ondt heobst acl
eisforbiddent erri
tory .
"

And atpp.941 and 942:" Iwoul dt hen seek to summar i

se the
characterist
icsofanoccupi er'
sdut yt otr
espassersonhi slandwhi ch
disti
nguishesi tfr
om t hest atut
ory' common dut yofcar e'owed t o
personsl awfull
yonhisl andundert heOccupi ers'Li
abi
lit
yAct1957and
from thecommonl awdut yofcareowedbyonemant ohis'nei
ghbour',
i
nt heAt kini
ansense,wher etherelationshipofoccupierandt r
espasser
doesnotsubsi stbet
weent hem.Todosodoesi nvol
ver ej
ecti
ngLor d
Hailsham L.C.'
sformulationofthedut yinAddie'
scaseasamount ingto
anexcl usiveorcompr ehensiv
est at ementofi tasitexiststoday.It
takesaccount ,asthi
sHouseast hef inalexposit
orofthecommonl aw
shouldal waysdo,ofchangesi nsoci alatti
tudesandcircumstancesand
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

gi
ves eff
ecttot he gener
alpubl
i
c sent
imentofwhati
s' r
eckless'
conductasithasexpandedoverthefor
tyyear
swhi
chhaveelapsed
si
ncethedeci
sionint
hatcase.

'
First :The dut y does notar i
se unt ilt he occupi erhas act ual
knowl edgeei theroft hepr esenceoft het respasseruponhi sl andor
off act swhi chmakei tli
kelythatt het respasserwi llcomeont ohi s
l
and;andhasal soact ualknowl edgeoff act sast ot hecondi t
ionof
hisl andorofact iviti
escar r
iedoutuponi twhi char el ikelyt ocause
per sonali nj
ur yt oat respasserwhoi sunawar eoft hedanger .Hei s
undernodut ytot het respassert omakeanyi nquiryori nspect i
ont o
ascer tainwhet herornotsuchf act sdoexi st.Hi sl iabi l
itydoesnot
ariseunt i
lheact ual l
yknowsoft hem.Secondl y :Oncet heoccupi er
hasact ualknowl edgeofsuchf acts,hi sownf ai
lur et oappr eciate
the l ikel ihood oft he t respasser 's pr esence ort he r isk t o him
i
nv ol ved,does notabsol v
et he occupi erf rom hi s dut yt ot he
trespasseri far easonabl emanpossessedoft heact ualknowl edge
oft he occupi erwoul dr ecogni se t hatl ikeli
hood and t hatr isk.
Thi rdly :Thedut ywheni tarisesi sl i
mi tedt ot aki ngr easonabl e
stepst oenabl et het respassert oav oidt hedanger .Wher et hel i
kely
trespasseri sachi ldtooy oungt ounder standorheedawr ittenora
prev ious or alwar ning,t his may i nv olve pr oviding r easonabl e
phy si cal obst acl est okeept hechi ldawayf rom t hedanger .Four thly:
Ther el ev antl ikel i
hood t o beconsi dered i soft het respasser '
s
presenceatt heact ualt i
meandpl aceofdangert ohi m.Thedegr ee
ofl i
kel i
hoodneededt ogi v
er i
set ot hedut ycannot , Ithi nk,bemor e
closel ydef ined t han asbei ng such aswoul di mpela man of
ordi nar yhumanef eelingst otakesomest epst omi ti
gat et her i
skof
i
nj uryt ot het respassert owhi cht hepar ti
cul ardangerexposeshi m.
Itwi llt hus depend on al lt he ci rcumst ances oft he case:t he
per manentori nt er mit t
entchar acteroft hedanger ;t hesev eri
tyof
thei njur ieswhi chi tisl ikelytocause;i nt hecaseofchi l
dr en,t he
attract i
v enesst ot hem

347.
ofthatwhi chconsti
tutesthedanger
ousobj ectorcondit
ionof
theland;theexpensei nvol
vedingiv
ingeffecti
vewarningofit
tothekindoft respasserli
kel
ytobei nj
ured,inrel
ati
ont othe
occupier
'sresourcesinmoneyorinlabour.
"

Kuof
ievAhmoah[ 197512GLR99
Fact
s:Thepl
aint
if
f,aschoolchi
l
dwaspl
ayi
ngont
heschoolcompound
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

duringr ecreationt i
me.Thedef endantswer eengagedi ndemol i
shinga
buildi
ngneart heschoolcompound.Thepl aint
iffandot herchildren
wer eat tr
act edt ot hesceneandwhent hef i
rstdefendantdr ovet he
bulldozerint ot hebui l
dingapi eceofbl ockf el
lont hepl ai
nti
ffinj
ur i
ng
him.
Held:Ev eni fthepl ainti
ffwasat respasser,thedefendantoughtt ohav e
knownt hatsomeoft heschoolchi l
drenwoul dbet hereatthet i
meand
thusowedt hem adut ynott ocausei njurytothem.
Principl
e:Thedut yofcar eanoccupi erowesgener all
ydoesnotext end
toat respasserbutwher etheci r
cumst ancesar esucht hattheoccupier
oughtr easonabl ytoexpectt hepr esenceoft hetrespasseront heland,
thent hedut yofcar ewi llextendt othet r
espasser.

PerWi reduJ( afterquot i

ngDenni ngMR' sposi tionatpp.665
and666i nVideanvBTC( supra))atp.105:" Appl yi
ngt hese
pri
ncipl
est ot hef actsoft hiscasei tcoul dbesai dt hatt he
defendantswer ecar ryingoutadanger ousact ivity.Thear eaof
operati
on was open t ot he chi l
dren ar ound.I twas nota
prohibi
tedarea.Itcoul dr easonabl ybef or eseent hatpeopl eor
atleastt heschoolchi l
drenwoul dbet heret hati swhyt he
defence pleaded t hat during r ecreation per iod when t he
chil
drencameoutt heoper ationhadst opped.Ont hepar ti
cular
factsofthiscasei feitherthef i
rstdef endantort hedef endant '
s
[p.1061secondwi tnesswhowaswi t
hhi m hadwat chedout
theywoul dhav eseent hepresenceoft hechi l
drenandwar ned
them of f
.Ihol dt hereforet hatthepl aintif
f'
scl aim succeeds
even as a t r
espasserand Ido notf i
nd any cont r
ibutory
negli
genceagai nsthi m. "

THETESTOFCOMMONHUMANI
TY
Her
ri
ngt
onvBr
it
ishRai
l
wayBoar
d(supr
a)

Pannet
tvMcGui
ness&Co.Lt
d[1972]2QB599

Facts:The defendants were engaged t o carry outa demol ishing

exerci
seatawar ehousenearapubl i
cparkwher echi l
drenpl
ay edaf t
er
schoolhours.Whiletheywer ebur ni
ngt her ubbish,thefi
vey earol d
plai
nti
ffwhohadcomet otheplaceandbeendr ivenawaysev er
altimes
tr
espassedt othef i
reandwasbur nedsev erel
y .Thedefendanthad
stat
ionedthr
eepersonstolookoutandt ochaseoutt hechil
dren.
Held:Sincet
hedefendantsknewt hatchi
ldrenf r
equentedtheplacet hey
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wereunderadut ytotakecaretopreventt
hem f
rom i
njuryandthus
wereli
able,
havingr
egardt
ot heageoft
hechil
d.
Pri
nci
ple:In consi
deri
ng whetheran occupi
erowes a dut ytoa
t
respasser,
all
thecir
cumstancesoft
hecasemustbeconsider
ed.

PerLor dDenni ngMRatpp.605and606:" [T]hedut yowi ngt oa

trespasseri snotf oundbyanygener alprincipleappl i
cabl etoall
trespasser s al i
ke. I ti s a dut y whi ch depends on t he
circumst ancesofeachpar ticularcase.I fitwoul dbe' humaneor
decent 'oft heoccupi ert odosomet hing,heoughtt odoi t:per
Lor dRei d,atp.899[ inHer r ingt onvBr it
ishRai l
wayBoar d].Itis
'
a dut yt ot ake such st eps as common sense orcommon
humani t
ywoul ddi ctate':perLor dMor r
isofBor th-y-Gest,atp.
909.Ther eis'adut yt ot aker easonabl est epsnott opl aceint he
wayofsmal lchildrenpot ent iallyhur tf
ulandat tractiveobj ects'
:
perLor dWi l
berfor ce,atp.920.' ...i tisadut yt ot reatt he
trespasserwi t
hor dinar yhumani ty':perLor dPear son,atp.922.
'
Wher ehedoesknowofphy sicalf actswhi char easonabl eman
woul d appr eciatei nv olved dangerofser ious i njuryt ot he
trespasserhi sdut yi st ot aker easonabl est epst oenabl et he
trespassert oav oidt hedanger ':perLor dDi plock, atp.940.The
l
ongandshor tofi ti st haty ouhav et otakei ntoaccountal lthe
circumst ancesoft hecaseandseet henwhet hert heoccupi er
oughtt ohav edonemor et hanhedi d.(1)Youmustappl yy our
commonsense.Youmustt akei ntoaccountt hegr avityand
l
ikel i
hood oft he pr obabl ei njur y .Ul t
ra- hazardous act i
vit
ies
requir eamant obeul tr
a- caut i
ousi ncar ryi
ngt hem out .The
mor edanger oust heact ivity,t hemor eheshoul dt akest epst o
seet hatnoonei si njuredbyi t
.( 2)Youmustt akei ntoaccount
also t he char act eroft he i nt rusi on by t he t r
espasser .A
wander i
ngchi ldorast ray i
ngadul tstandsi nadi fferentposi t
ion
from apoacherorabur glar .Youmayexpectachi l
dwheny ou
maynotexpectabur glar.( 3)Youmustal sohav er egar dtot he
nat ureoft heplacewher et het respassoccur s.Anel ect r
if
ied

349•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawof
Tor
tsi
nGhana

rail
wayl i
neorawar ehousebeingdemol i
shedmayr equi
re
mor epr ecaut
ionstobet akent hanapr iv
atehouse.(4)
Youmustal sotakeint
oaccountt heknowledgewhichthe
defendanthas,oroughtt o have,oft he l
ikel
i
hood of
trespassersbeingpresent
.Themor elikel
ytheyare,the
mor eprecauti
onsmayhav etobet aken.
"

PerEdmundDav iesLJatpp.607and608:" Alt

hought hei
r
LordshipsinHer ri
ngtonvBr iti
shRai l
way sBoar d[1972]
A.C.877,expr essedthemsel vesdiff
erentl
y ,theynaturall
y
didnotat t
emptt oprescri
bet heway sinwhi chsuchdut y
ast heyhel
danoccupi erowedev entoat respassingchi l
d
i
st obeper formed.Toat temptt ocat al
ogueway sand
meanswoul dbeundesi rabl
etoat temptandi mpossibleof
attainment
.Whatdoesemer gewi thclari
tyf rom eachof
thespeechesi sthatthemanneri nwhichat r
espasseris
tobedeal twithbyanoccupi erdependsont heparticul
ar
factsofeachcase. "

Sout
her
nPor
tl
andCementvCooper[
19741AC623
Fact s:Thedef endant soper atedaquar r
yandf requentlywar ned
children t hatt he quar r
ywas danger ous.Whi le carryi
ng on an
expansi onwor k, t
hedef endantsfi
ll
edt hegr oundwi thcoarsesand
sucht hatt heel ectri
ccabl esupplyingel ectr
ici
tyt ot hequarrywas
buriedi nt hesand.Thedef endant s,seeingthedangeri tposed
request edt hecabl est ober emovedasamat terofur gency .But
thedaybef oret heschedul eddayf orther emov aloft hecable,the
thi
rteen- y
ear -
oldpl ainti
ffwentt heret opl ayint hesandandwas
i
njur edwhenhecamei ntocontactwi t
ht hecable.
Held:Si ncet hedef endantsknew chi l
drenwer el ikelytofrequent
thereandt hesi tuationposedadangert ohumanl ifeandsaf ety
,
thedef endant swer el i
able.
Principle:Wher et r
espasser sar el
ikelytobechi l
dr en,morewei ght
mustbe at tached t ot he degree ofhi dden danger sand mer e
war ningswi llnotsuf fi
ce.

PerLor d Reid atpp.642 and 643:" The fundament al

differ
ence between the r el
ati
onship of occupier and
trespasserandot herrelat
ionshipswhichgi veri
set oa
dut yofcarei st hattheoccupi er'
srelati
onshi
p witha
trespasseri
sforcedonhi m againsthi
swi l
l,
whereasother
relati
onshi
psar egener al
lyunder t
akenv ol
untar
il
y.So i t
•
357
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

cannotbesaidinthiscasethatamanoughtnott oenter
i
ntoar elat
ionshi
pwi thother
sunl esshehast heabi
l
ity
andresourcesnecessaryforthepr operper
for
manceof
theduti
eswhichthatrel
ati
onshipentai
ls.

"Thei
rLor dshipsar ebr eakingnonew gr oundinholdingt hat
thenat ureandext entofanoccupi er'
sdut ytoat r
espasser
mustbebasedonconsi derat i
onsofhumani t
y.Asl
ongagoas
1820i nI /
ottvWi l
kes( 1820)3B.&Al d.304,acasedeal ing
withinjurytoat respasserbyaspr i
nggun,BestJ.said,atp.
319:'t
hel awofEngl andwi l
lnotsanct i
onwhati si
nconsistent
with humani t
y '
.I n Grand Tr unk Rail
way Co.ofCanada v
Barnett[1911]A.C.361, t
hej udgmentoftheBoardrefers,atp.
370,to'wilf
ulorr ecklessdi sregardofordinar
yhumanityrather
thanmer eabsenceofr easonabl ecare'
.

"I
nt hei rLor dshi
ps'j udgmentt heAddi eformulati
on oft he
occupi er'
sdut yissonar r
owt hati
twillnotcovermanycases
wher ehumaneconsi derati
onswouldclearl
yimpelanoccupi er
todosomet hingtoav oidorlessendangertotrespassers.I
tis
notenough t o say thathe mustnotactr ecklessl
y or
maliciously.Hisdut ymustbef ormulat
edinbroadert erms.

"Itwas ur ged in ar gumentt hatan occupier's dutyt oa

trespassercannotbeext endedsoast omakei texceedhi s
dutyt oal icensee.Thei rLordshipsagree.Thepassagei nt he
Boar d'sj udgmenti nQui nlan'scaseonp.1083t owhi cht hei
r
Lordshi pshav ealreadyr eferr
edappear stowar rantaffording
tot respassi ng children,at l east i
n some cases,f ights
subst ant i
allyequivalentt othoseofachi ldlicensee.Itwas
therest atedt hattheBoar dwer eatonewi t
hDi xonC. J.i n
fi
nding i tunnecessar yt or esorttot he categorisati
on of
l
icenseei nor dertogi vetochildrent
helegalremedyt hatisf el
t
tobet heirdue."

And atpp.644 and 645:" Ther ightsand i nter

estsoft he
occupier musthav ef ul
lconsi deration.No unr easonable
burdenmustbeputonhi m.Wi t
hr egardt odanger swhi ch
havear i
senonhi sl
andwithouthisknowl edgehecanhav eno
obli
gation to make i
nqui
ries orinspect ion.Wi t
hr egardt o
dangersofwhi chhehasknowl edgebutwhi chhedi dnot
creat
ehecannotber equi
redt oincurwhatf orhim woul dbe
l
argeexpense.I ft
heoccupiercr eatest hedangerwhenhe
knowst hatt
hereisachancet hatt r
espasser swillcomet hat
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wayand
351•
wil
lnotseeorrealiset hedangerhemayhav etodomor e.Theremay
dif
fi
cul
tcaseswher etheoccupi erwil
lbehamper edintheconductof
ownaffai
rsifhehast ot akeelaborat
epr ecauti
ons.Buti nthepres
case i
twoul d hav e been easy t o pr
eventt he developmentof
danger
ous sit
uation whi ch caused the plaint
if
f'sinj
uries.The m
seri
ousthedangert hegr eateristheobligati
ont oavoidi t
.Andi f
danger
ous thi
ngorsomet hi
ngneari ti
sanal l
urementt ochil
drent
maygreatl
yincr
easet hechancet hatchi
ldr
enwi l
lcomet here.

"
Nextcomest hequest iont owhom doest heoccupi eroweadut y.
Thei rLordshi pshav eal r
eadyr ej
ectedt hev iewt hatnodut yisowed
unlesst headv entofat respasseri sext remel ypr obabl e.Itwas
arguedt hatt hedut ycoul dbel imitedt ocaseswher et hecomi ngof
tr
espasser si smor epr obabl et hannot .Thei rLor dshi pscanf i
nd
neitherpr i
nci plenoraut hor i
tynoranypr acticalr easont ojust ify
suchal i
mi tation.Theonl yr ationalorpr act i
calanswerwoul dseem
tobet hattheoccupi erisent itl
edt onegl ectabar epossi bil
i
tyt hat
tr
espasser smaycomet oapar t
icularplaceonhi sl andbuti sbound
atleastt ogi veconsi der ationt ot hemat t erwhenheknowsf acts
whi chshowasubst anti
alchancet hatt heymaycomet here.Such
consi der
ation shoul d be al l-embr acing.On t he one hand t he
occupi erisent i
tledtoputi nt hescal esev erykindofdi sadvant age
to hi m ifhe t akes orr ef r
ains f rom act ion f ort he benef itof
tr
espasser s.Ont heot herhandhemustconsi dert hedegr eeof
l
ikelihood oft respassers comi ng and t he degr ee ofhi dden or
unexpect eddangert owhi cht heymaybeexposedi ftheycome.He
mayhav et o gi vemor ewei ghtt ot hesef actorsi ft hepot ent ial
tr
espasser sar echi l
drenbecausegener all
ymer ewar ni ngisofl ittl
e
valuet oprot ectchi l
dren.

"I
tiseasyt obewi seaf teranaccidenthasoccur r
ed.I nconsi dering
whethert heoccupi erdidal lthatheoughtt ohav edonebef oret he
acci
dentt hecourtorj urymustendeav ourtoputi tsel
fbacki nt he
si
tuati
onwhi chconf r
ont edt heoccupi erbef oret het r
espasser s
arr
ived.I tisnotenought oconsidert hepoi ntwher etheacci dent
occurredi fther
ear eot herdangerpoi ntswhi cht heoccupi erwoul d
al
sohav ehadt opr ot
ect ."Theproblem t heni stodet erminewhat
wouldhav ebeent hedeci si
onofahumanemanwi ththef inanci al
and ot herl imit
ations oft he occupi er.Woul d he hav e done
somet hingwhi chwoul dormi ghthavepr eventedt heacci dent ,or
wouldhe,r egretf
ullyitmaybe,hav edeci dedt hathecoul dnot
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

reasonablybeexpect edtodoany thi

ng.TheirLor
dshipsadoptthe
statementofLor dUthwattinReadvJ.l yons&Co.Ltd.[1947]A.C.
156,185:' t
herei sdemandedofhi m ast andar
dofconductno
higherthanwhatar easonabl
ymi ndedoccupierofland,withdue
regardtohisowni nterest
s,mi
ghtwellagreetobefai
randnol ower
thanat respasser,...mightinaci vi
li
sedcommuni tyreasonably
expect'
."

SeeTohSi ew KeevHoAhLam Fer r

ocement( Pte)Lt d[ 201315
LRC363
Fact s:Thepl aintif
fwhowasengagedt oser vicear adaronaboat ,
whi lesear chingf ortheboat ,ent er
edashi pyar d,ownedbyt hefir
st
defendantand l eased tot he second def endant ,t hrough an
unaut horisedr oute.Theplaint i
ffknewt hepr operwaybywhi chto
entert heshi py ard.Whi l
eont heshipy ar
d,hewasi njuredbya
fouledmoor i
ngwi r
ewhent het hir
ddefendantempl oy edaboatt o
transferquar ter stoanoi lr
ig.
Hel d:Althought hef ir
sttwodef endant
swer eoccupi ers,si
ncet hey
had no cont rolov ert heactcausi ng thei njury,t heyowed t he
plainti
ffnodut yofcar einthatrespect.Butt het hir
ddef endantwas
l
iabl eforbr eachi ngadut yheowedt ot
hepl aintif
f.
Pr i
nciple:Anoccupi erowesadut yofcar et ot r
espasser sonhi s
l
andbutast owhet herthatdut yisaPr imaf aciedut yornoti sa
quest i
onoff act .

PerV K Raj ahJA atp.381,par .48:" Fort hesakeof

compl et eness,Iwoul dliketoaddt hatsi mi l
arpr oblemsof
classificati
on pl ague t he i nvitee-li
censee- trespasser
tri
chot omy .InNel son( 1998)507SE2d882at889- 890i t
wast renchantlypoi nt edout :'
Consi der,forexampl e,the
foll
owi ngscenar io:A r eal
-estateagentt respassesont o
anot her'slandtodet ermi nethev al
ueofpr opertyadj oini
ng
thatwhi chhei st r
y i
ngt osel l
;ther eal-estateagenti s
discov eredbyt hel andowner ,andthet womenengagei na
businessconv ersation wi thr espectt ot he landowner 's
will
ingness t o sel lhi s property;af tercompl eting the
businessconv ersat i
on, thet womenr eali
zet hatt heywent
tot hesamecol legeandhav eanost al
gi cconv ersati
on
aboutschoolwhi let hel andownerwal kswi tht hemanf or
oneacr eunt i
ltheygett ot heedgeoft hepr operty;lastl
y,
thet women
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

353"
standont hepr oper ty'
sedgeandspeakf oranot hert enmi nut es
aboutschool .Ifther eal-estateagentwasi njuredwhi l
etheywer e
wal kingof fthepr oper t
y ,whati shisclassi f
icati
on?Sur ely
,hei sno
l
ongerat respasser ,butdi d hisst atuschangef rom invit
eet o
l
icenseeoncet hebusi nessconv ersati
onended?Whati fhewas
hur twhi let het womenwer et al
kingatt hepr operty'sedge?Doesi t
mat t
erhowl ongt heywer etalking?'
"Thei nv i
tee-licensee- tr
espassert r
ichotomyi st husopen t ot he
sameobj ectionsenumer atedabov e:first(from t hev iewpointof
l
ogi c),i ti spot entiall
yambi guouswhet heran ent rantist o be
classi f
iedasani nv i
tee,al icenseeorat r
espasser ;andsecond
(from t he v i
ewpoi ntofpr act i
ce),the di sti
nctions bet ween t he
cat egoriescoul dt urnoni nconsequent i
aldet ail
st hatpot entiall
y
l
eadt oi njustice."

Andatpp.382and383, pars.52—54:[ 52]" Inmyv iew, thet imei s

now r ipe forSi ngaporet o cutt he Gordian knotshackl ing t he
tr
adi t
ionalcommonl aw rul
esonoccupi ers'li
abil
ity
,r athert han
attemptt o unravelit.Eliminati
ng the st ati
cdynami c dichot omy
woul dpr eventclassifi
catoryproblemsf rom ar i
singatt wol ev els:
fi
rst,att hest ati
c-dynamicl evel
;andsecond( assumi ngt hatt he
dutyowedbyt heoccupi errelat
est othest ati
c),atthest atusl evel,
wher et he t r
aditi
onalcommon l aw r ul
es di sti
nguish bet ween
i
nv it
ees,licenseesandt respassers.

53] "
[ I
nSi ngapor e,itiswel lset t
ledt hatt hel andmarkdeci sion
ofSpandeck Engi neering ( S)Pt e Lt d v Def ence Science &
Technol ogy Agency [ 2007]SGCA 37,[ 2008]4 LRC 61 has
authorit
ativelylai
doutt hef r
amewor kf orthei mposi ti
onofadut y
ofcar eincl ai
msar i
singoutofnegl i
gence.Undert hetestsetout
i
nSpandeck( r
eferredt oher einafterasei t
her' theSpandeckt est'
or'theSpandeckappr oach' )
, threeel ement smustbeest ablished
beforeadut yofcar ecanbei mposedonadef endant:(a)fact ual
foreseeabi l
i
t y
,whi cht hiscour tdescr ibedas' notanecessar y
elementi n anycl aim i n negl i
gence,[ but]j ust.a t hreshol d
quest i
onwhi cht hecour tmustbesat i
sfiedi sf ul
fil
l
ed,f ai l
ing
whi chthecl aim doesnotev ent akeof f'( myemphasi s)( see
Spandeck[ 2008]4LRC61at[ 76]);( b)sufficientlegalproximi t
y
betweent hepl ai
nti
f fandt hedef endantsoast ojusti
fyimposi ng
apr imaf aciedut yofcar eont hel atter(referredt obyt hi
scour t
i
nSpandeck[ 2008]4LRC61at[ 77]as' [t]hef ir
ststageoft he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

[Spandeck]test'
;and( c)t heabsenceofpol icyconsiderati
ons
thatoughttonegat eadut yofcare( whichisthesecondl i
mbof
theSpandeckt est)
.Wi t
hr egar
dtot heel ementofpr oximit
y,thi
s
courtstated(Spandeck[ 2008]4LRC61at[ 79]perChanSek
KeongCJ)t hatit'[
imports]thewhol econceptoft henecessary
rel
ati
onship between t he claimant and t he def endant as
descri
bedbyLor dAt ki
n[inDonoghue] '
.

[
54] "Unli
kethepositionin1957,i tisnowundeni ablet hatthe
commonl aw t
ortofnegl i
gencei s,atitscor e,supportedbya
substratum ofgener alpr i
nciplesofl aw.I tisalsoindisput abl
e
that,i
nt hecontextoft hel aw ofnegl i
gencei nSingapor e,the
Spandeck t esti sthe gr undnor m—t he sol e,ult
imat e setof
princi
plesuponwhi chadut yt otaker easonablecareundert he
l
aw ofnegl i
gencerests.Per tinently,ChanCJhel dinSpandeck
[200814LRC 61at[ 71]t hat:'[Il
nourv iew,asi nglet estis
prefer
abl einordertodet erminet hei mpositionofadut yofcar e
i
nal lclaimsarisi
ngoutofnegl i
gence,irrespecti
veoft he( ypeof
thedamagescl ai
med. "
'

And( afterr eferri

ngt ot hecasel aw f r
om Engl and,Canada,
Aust r
aliaandt heUS,Hi sLor dshipconcl uded)atp.389,par .
76:" A compar ati
ve sur vey of t he v arious common l aw
j
ur i
sdict i
onscl earl
yindicatest hatt hev astmaj or
ityoft hem
hav e,att hebar emi nimum,el i
mi nated theinv i
tee-l
icensee
dichotomy( whet herbyev olutionoft hecommonl aw orby
statute).Thi si snotamer ear gument um adv erecundiam:t he
foregoingf ortifi
esmybel i
eft hatasamat t
erofl ogic,the
princi
pl esgov erni
ngoccupi ers'li
abilit
yar eapropersubsetof
thegener alpr i
ncipl
esoft hel aw ofnegl i
gence.Thel aw in
Singapor eonoccupi ers'l
iabili
tycanandshoul dbesubsumed
undert het or tofnegl i
gence.Inowappl ytheSpandeckt estto
occupi erst odemonst r
atet his."

Andatpp.390and391, atpp.80—82:[ 80]"I

nsof arascases
of lawful ent r
ants are concer ned ( i
e, ent rants whose
ci
rcumst ances ofent r
yt o an occupi er'
s proper ty can be
defi
nit
ivelysaid,onabal anceofpr obabil
iti
es,t obel awful
),
ci
rcumst anti
alpr oxi
mityi st autologi
cally present i nt he
occupi
er -
lawfulentr
antrel
ati
onship.Toel aborate, t
hehal l
mark
ofalawf ulentr
ant'
spresenceonanoccupi er'
spr emi sesis
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

355u•

consentt ohi spr esenceont hepar toft heoccupi er;iti st his

consentwhi chgr oundst heoccupi er-lawf ulentrantr elationshipand
j
ust ifiesal egalf i
ndi ngt hatt her eispr oximi tybet weent heoccupi er
andt hel awf ulent rant .It hushol dt hatundert hefi
rstl imboft he
Spandeckappr oach,t hev astmaj ori
t yofoccupi ershav ingcont rol
oft hePr oper ö'mhi cht heyoccupyand/ ort heact ivi
ti
escar ri
edout
theredej ureoweapi maf aciedut yofcar et olawf ulentrants.Att he
samet ime, i
tbear semphasi st hatnotal l'occupi ers'(i
nt hegener ic
nont echni calsenseofper sonswhooccupypr oper ty,regar dl
essof
theext entoft heircont rolov erthepr opertyconcer nedand/ orthe
activitiescar ri
edoutt her e)oweapr i
maf aciedut yofcar et olawf ul
entrant s—essent ially,t hist urnsont hedegr eeofcont rolwhi chan
occupi erhasov ert hepr oper t
yconcer nedand/ ort heact iv
iti
es
carriedoutt her e.Ther emaybecaseswher ean' occupi er'hasso
l
ittl
econt rolov ert hepr oper t
yand/ ort heact ivi
tiescar ri
edoutt her e
that,f oral li ntentsandpur poses,heef fecti
v elydoesnothav e
cont rolov ert hatpr oper tyand/ort hoseact ivities.Leav i
ngasi de
thiscat egor yof' occupi er s',vis-
å-visoccupi erswhodohav econt rol
overt hepr oper tywhi cht heyoccupyand/ ort heact i
vitiescar ri
ed
outt her e,Ishoul demphasi set hatt heyar enott obev i
ewedas
i
nsur ersoft hesaf etyoft heirpr oper ty.Thei rdut yismer el
yt o
exer ciser easonabl ecar e.

[81]"Incont rasttoal awf ulent rant,at respasseri sonewho' goeso

thel andwi t
houti nvi
tationofanysor tandwhosepr esencei sei th
unknownt othepr opri
et orOf ,ifknown,i spr actical
lyobj ectedt o'( s
Addie[ 1929]AC 358 at371) .The t erm ' t
respasser s'denot es,
actuality,a residualcl ass ofper sons who do nothav e anyl eg
j
ust i
ficati
onf orbeingonanoccupi er'
spr emi ses.I ti
sanunsat isf
act o
proteant erm as' i
tcov ersthewi ckedandt hei nnocent ;thebur gl
ar,t
arroganti nvaderofanot her'sland, t
hewal kerbl i
thelyunawar ethathe
steppi ngwher ehehasnor i
ghtt owal k,ort hewander ingchi l
d'(perLo
Mor ri
sofBor th-
y-Gesti nHer ringtonat[ 1972]1Al lER749at762) .A
such,unl iket hecaseofl awf ulent rants,itisi mpossi bl
et ohol dt h
occupi ersdej ureoweabl anketdut yofcar et oal ltrespasser s.Int h
regard,Iam al i
vet othef actt hatt herer emai nsaspeci esofGor di
knot( albeitsmal l
erthant hatwhi chshackl edt het r
adi t
ionalcommo
l
awr ulesonoccupi er
s'li
abilit
yandt hereforemanageabl e),namel y :wh
i
s
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

a'trespasser'
?Toill
ustr
atethi ssomet i
mesawkwar ddi
fficult
y,
Irev er
tonceagai ntotheexampl egiveni nNelsonofar eal
estate agentwho i ni
ti
allyt respasses onto anot her
'sl and,
seemi nglybecomesani nv
iteebecausehest art
sabusi ness
conv ersat
ion wi
tht he occupi erand f i
nall
ymor phs intoa
l
icenseebecauseheengagesi nsocialpleasant
rieswi t
ht he
occupier(seepara[481,abov e).

[82]" Nev erthel ess,It hi nkt hatadef actodi st inctionbet ween

casesofl awf ulent rant son t heonehand and a r esidua/
categor yofent rant s whose ci rcumst ances ofent r yt o an
occupi er '
spr oper tycannotbedef ini
tiv el
ysai d, onabal anceof
probabi li
ties,t o bel awf ul('residualent rant s')on t heot her
oughtt o be mai ntained undert he Spandeck appr oach as
abolishi ngi tmaypl aceanunnecessar yandunf airbur denon
occupi er swhohav enor easont oexpectar esi dualent rant'
s
presence.Casesi nvol vingr esidualent rantswoul dr angef r
om
caseswher ei ti suncer tain(appl y i
ngt heci vi
l standar dofpr oof)
whet hert heci rcumst ancesoft hepar ti
cularent r
ant 'sent ryto
theoccupi er'spr emi sesar elawf ulto,att heot herendoft he
spect rum, caseswher ei tcanbedef initi
velysai d, onabal ance
ofpr obabi lities,t hatt heci r
cumst ancesoft heent rant 'sent r
y
areunl awf ul( see,eg,t heexampl egi venbyLor dMor risin
Heni ngt onofabur glar( atpar a[ 81],abov e)).Whet herornota
Primaf aciedut yofcar ear i
sesv i
s-a-visar esidua/ent rantmust
depend on al lci r
cumst ancesoft he case.Iwoul dl i
ke to
rei
ter atet hatt hisi snotar eturnt ot heol dcommonl awdej ure
'
categor isat ion' appr oach, under whi ch l iabili
ty t urned
dramat ical l
yonwhet hert hecour tslot t
edanent ranti ntot he
'
lawf ulv i
si tor 'ort he' trespasser 'cat egor y.Rat her ,undert he
Spandeckappr oacht ooccupi er s'liabi l
it
y ,thecour tmakesa
preli
mi nar yi nqui r yint ot hecl assi fi
cat oryi ssueofwhet hera
particul arent rant '
sci rcumst ancesofent ryt ot heoccupi er'
s
premi sesar e( onabal anceofpr obabi li
ties)l awf ul:i ftheyar e
l
awf ul ,apr i
maf aci edut yofcar ei sowedbyt heoccupi erin
cont roloft hepr emi sesi naccor dancewi tht hef ir
stl imboft he
Spandeckt est( setoutatpar a[ 53]
(b),abov e)because suf ficientl egalpr oxi mi t
y must ,by
definition,bePr esent .I ti sonl yi ncaseswher ei tcannotbe
said( onabal anceofpr obabi l
iti
es)t hatt heci rcumst ancesof
anent rant 'sent ryar el awf ul(ie,wher eanent ranti sar esidual
entrant )t hatt hecour tt hengoesont oconsi dert hei ssueof
whet hert hepar ti
cul ar
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

357•
.

factsoft hecasebef oreitj ust i

fyi mposingapr imaf acie
dut yofcar epur suantt othef irstlimboft heSpandeckt est .
Int his manner ,the Gor di an knotofcl assifi
cation i s
resol ved,andonei sl eftwi thaquest i
onoff actast o
whet heraPar t
icularoccupi eroughtt ooweapar ti
cu/ ar
ent r
antaPr i
maf aci
edut yofcar e.Putsi mply,thel awf ul
ent r
ant /residual ent r
ant di chotomy i s not a t rue
classi fi
cator ydichot omyl ogi callymandat edbySpandeck,
buti smer elyaconv enient( shor thand)wayofappl y
ingt he
Spandeck t estt o par ti
cul arf acts.In shor t,when t he
circumst ancesofanent r
ant 'sent rycannotbedef i
ni t
ivel y
said( onabal anceofpr obabi l
it
ies)tobel awf ul
,thef i
rst
l
imboft heSpandeckt esti sappl iedinf ull
—ie,insteadof
onl yconsi deringwhet herornott hecircumst ancesoft he
ent r
ant '
sent rywer el awful andwhet herornott heoccupi er
hadcont roloft hepr oper tysoast oj usti
fyt hedej ure
i
mposi t
ionofapr i
maf aciedut yofcar eont heoccupi er
(see par a[ 80],abov e),the cour twi l
lconsi deral lt he
factor srelev antt othef ir
stl i
mbofSpandeck. "

Andatpp.396and397,par s.101and102:" [101]Inthe

presentcase,t hejudgef oundasaf actthatSeeTohwasa
trespasserwho had knowi ngl
ytrespassed onto 9/11 TBC
through theseaf r
ontaccesspoi nt( at[67]
—[73]).SeeToh
knewt hatcer t
ainformali
tieshadtobecompl etedbeforeone
couldent erashipyardandt hatapasswasr equired.Iseeno
reasont o dist
urbt hi
sf i
ndingasitwasnotpl ainlywrongor
madeagai nstt
hewei ghtoftheevi
dencebeforethejudge.

[102]"Ashasal readybeenment i
oned,therei
snobl anket
ruleoflawt hatoccupier
sdonotoweapr imafaciedut yof
caret oresidualentr
ants,i
ncl
udingtr
espassers( seepar a
[82],above):al
lthecir
cumstancesoftheparti
cularcaseat
handmustbet akenint
oaccounttodet erminebot ht he
existence and the ambitofanydut yofcar ev i
s-ä-vi
s
residualent r
ants.It ur
n now to considerthe relevant
cir
cumst ancesint hi
scase.
"

Bur
keSouther
nEducat
ionandLibr
aryBoard[
20041NIQB13Facts:
Thepl
aint
if
fenter
edapremisesofthedef
endantusedasaschool
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

thr
ough one ent rance butcoul
d notgo outt hr
ough anot
her
entr
ancewhi chwasl ockedwit
hanirongatewit
hspikesonthetop
attheot herend.Thepl ai
nti
fft
ri
edcl i
mbingoverthegateand
sustai
nedi nj
uri
es.Hesued.I twasf oundthatthegatewasnot
dangerousinit
selfandwast he

ty
peusual l
yusedt opr eventintrudersandconf ormedt oBrit
ish
standards.Thepl ai
ntif
farguedt hatthedefendantwasnegl i
gentin
al
lowi ngentr
ybutbl ockingexitandal sofornotprovi
dingadequate
notices.
Held:Si ncethepl ai
ntif
fwasat respasserandt heinjur
ycaused
wasnotaf oreseeableconsequence, thedefendantswerenotli
able.
Principl
e:Anoccupi erisnotl iabletot r
espassersfordangershe
doesnotknowofandcoul dnothav ereasonablyknown.

PerJi gginsJatpar s.22,24:[ 22]"Atcommonl awnodut y

wasowedt otrespasser s.Anoccupi erwasonl yli
ablet oa
trespasseri fhedi dsomeactwi ththedel iberateintention
ofdoi nghar mt ot het respasserorwi t
hr ecklessdi sregard
oft hepr esenceoft het respasser— seeRober tAddi eand
Sons( Coll
ieri
es)Lt dvDumbr eck,supr a.Thehar shnessof
thisrulewasamel ioratedbyt hedoct rineofal l
urementi n
the case ofy oung chi ldren.Furthermor e knowl edge of
constantt respassbyy oungchi ldren,wi t
houtanyat tempt
to pr event it,mi ght be hel dt o amount t oi mplied
permi ssi
ont obeont hepr emises.

[24]"
Thusanoccupi erofpremisesowest hecommondut y
ofcaret oal
lhi
sv i
sit
ors.Thedutyistot akesuchcareasi n
allt
heci r
cumstancesofthecasei sreasonable,
t oseethat
thevisi
torwil
lbereasonablysafeinusi ngthepremisesfor
thepur poseforwhi chhei sinvit
edorper mit
tedbyt he
occupiertobet here.Anoccupi ermustbepr epar edfor
chil
dren,whoarevisi
tors,
tobelesscar efult
hanadults.
"

Andatpar s.28— 32:[ 28]"Wher et hereisar i

skofinjury
duetot hestateofthepremi ses,theoccupi erowesadut yof
careonlywherethethreeconditi
onsr eferredt oinart3(3)exi
st.
Ishall
refert
oeachinturn.Iftherewasar i
skofi njur
ybyreason
ofanydangerduet ot hest ateoft hepr emi ses,namelyt he
spl
ayedt opsofthefenceandgat e,wast hi
soccupi erawareof
suchdanger.Suchdangerwoul donl yariseifsomeonecl i
mbed
tothetopoft hefenceorgat e.Thust hequest i
onbecomes—
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wast heoccupierawarethatsomeonemi ghtcl

imbt othetop of
thegate.Itwast hepracticeoftheschoolauthorit
iestowar n
pupil
sf r
om doingso.Theywer eawareofthepossibil
it
yt hata
personmi ghtcli
mbt othev i
cini
tyofthesplayedtopsorhad
reasonablegroundstobelieveso.Thenextquesti
oni swhet her
theoccupierknewthatnon- v
isi
tor
s,l
ikethepl
ainti
ff
,

359.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

werei nthev icinityoft hedanger ,t

hatisthespl ayedt ops.There
i
sev i
dencet hatt heschoolaut hori
ti
eswer eawar et hatnon-
visi
torsent eredont hepremisesandmadet heirwayt othegate
andonf indingi tcl osedturnedback.Ther ei snoev idencethat
suchper sonst hencl imbedt hegat einor dert opr oceedwi th
thei
rj our ney,thusput t
ing themselvesi nt he v i
cinityoft he
danger .Equal l
yt her eisnoev idencethattheschoolaut hor
it
ies
hadr easonabl egr oundst obelievethatnon-visit
orswer einthe
vici
nityoft hespl ay edtops.

[29] "Thenextquest ion iswhet hert her i

skof
danger ,thati sofsomeonecl imbi ngt hegat et ot he
l
ev eloft hespl ayedt opsandi nj uringt hemsel v eson
them,wasoneagai nstwhi ch,inal lt heci rcumst ances
oft hecase,t heoccupi ermayr easonabl ybeex pect ed
toof fert henon- vi
si t
orsomepr otect ion.Ther i
skof
i
nj uryi nclimbi ngt hegat eandat tempt ingt ogetov erit,
i
sanobv iousone.I ti scer tainlyanobv iousonet oan
adul t.Isittoaf our teeny earol dandi npar ticulart ot his
four teeny earol d.Whent hepl aint i
ffgav eev i
dencei n
the t ri
alshe was 20 y ear s of age.Mr McNul t
y
submi ttedt hatt herewoul dbedi fficultyi nassessi ng
whet herther iskwasobv i
oust ot hepl ainti
ffwhenshe
wasf ourteenorf ifteeny ear sol d,att het i
meofher
i
nj ury.Whi l
et hepl aintiffgav eev idencewhenshewas
20y earsol d,nonet helesst hecour tisent it
ledt ol ookat
thecont entoft hepl aint i
ff'
sev idence, i
npar ticularwhat
shesai danddi dont heoccasi oni nquest ionandt he
l
ifest yleshel ead,i nor dert oj udgewhet hershewasa
four teeny earol dt owhom t her i
skwasanobv i
ousone
ornot .Thepl aint i
ffwasawar eoft hepr esenceoft he
gat e,whyi twaser ectedandoft hedangerofcl i
mbi ng
i
t .Shewasapupi latt hel ocalLi smor eCompr ehensi ve
School ,wher esi mi largat eshadbeener ect edsome
time pr eviousl y
.She was an av erage t eenagerwho
engagedi ndi scodanci ngcompet iti
onswi thot hergi rls,
notj ustl ocal l
yi n Cr aigav on,butas f araway as
Scot land.I nmyv i
ew shewasnotsomeoneagai nst
whom t hecounci lmi ghtr easonabl ybeexpect ed t o
of f
ersomepr otectionagai nstcl i
mbi ngt hisgat e.The
form ofpr otect i
onsuggest edwasapr otect i
v ecov ering
ov ert hegat eOfawar ningsi gnatt heent r
ancet hatt he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

gat e was closed.Such a pr otective cov eras was

suggest ed by MfSher ry was nei therf easi
ble nor
pract i
cal
.Inr el
ationt ot hewar ningsi gnIacceptt he
headmast er'sevidenceandagr eet hatsuchwar nings
aremor eusual l
yi gnored.InToml insonvCong/ eton
Bor ough Council,supr a,atpar a 46,Lor d Hof f
man
stated theci r
cumst ancesi nwhi cht hedut yofcar e
arises,int heset erms— ' A dut yt o pr ot
ectagainst
obv iousri
sksorsel finfl
ictedhar m exi stsonlyincases
i
nwhi chthereisnogenui neandi nf ormedchoi ce,asin
thecaseofempl oyeesorsomel ackofcapaci ty,such
ast heinabi
lit
yofchi l
drent orecogni sedanger .'

[30] "The plai

nti
ff was someone wel
l abl
e to
recognisedanger.Inmyv i
ew shewasawareofitonthi
s
occasion.Sheknew andr ecogni
sedt
her i
ski
nvol
vedand
decidedtotakethatri
sk.

[31] "Thedut yofcar eowedbyt heoccupi erin

respectoft her i
skofi njurybyr easonoft hespl ayed
tops( ifitexisted),istot akesuchcar easi sr easonable
i
nal ltheci rcumst ancesoft hecaset oseet hatthenon-
visit
ordoesnotsuf ferinjuryont hepr emi sesbyr eason
oft hatrisk.Whet hert heoccupi erhast akensuchcar e
i
nv olvesanassessmentoft helikelihoodt hatsomeone
maybei nj
ur edont hespl ayedtopsbycl imbi ngthegat e
from t heinsi de,aswel lasanassessmentoft hesoci al
value,i nt ermsoft hepr otecti
onoft heschoolf r
om
vandal s,tobegai nedf rom t hepr esenceoft hef ence
andgat e.Ther i
skofi njuryf r
om t hespl ay edt opswas
remot eorsl i
ght.Thedangerf rom t hem, i
ft hegat ewas
climbed,wasobv i
ous.I nt hoseci rcumst ancesi tisnot
reasonabl et oexpectanoccupi ert ot akeanyst epsto
prev entsuch a r emot e and sl ightr isk,ev en t oa
fourteeny earol d.

[
32] "
Myconcl usionisthatinthecircumst ances
oft hi
scasei thasnotbeenpr ovedthatt heschool
authorit
iesfail
edtot akesuchcar easwasr easonable
i
nal lthecircumstancestoseet hatthepl
aintiffdidnot
sufferinjur
yont heschoolpr emisesbyr easonoft he
presenceoft hesplay edtops.Thedangerf rom the
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

splay
edt opswassoobv i
ous,eventothisfour
teenyear
old,t
hatitwasnotnecessaryfortheschoolauthori
ti
es
toprovideanywar ni
ngoft hedangeroft hesplayed
tops,i
fthegatewasclimbed,eit
heratthegateitsel
for
attheschoolent
rance.
"

Toml insonvCongletonBoroughCouncil
[2004]1AC46
Facts:Thedef endantswer
et heownersandoccupi
ersofapark
thathadf or
medal akefrom anol dquarry.Thedefendant
s
regularl
ywarnedpeopl e
361
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
thatt hel akewasnotsaf eforswi mmi ngal t
hought henot i
ceswer e
most lyignoredandpeopl eswam i nthelake.Thepl ai
nti
ffwentthereone
hotaf ternoonanddi vedintoashal l
ow partoft hel
akeandst ruckhis
headont hesandybot tom,breaki
nghi sneck.
Held:Thei nj
uri
essuf f
eredbyt heplainti
ffdi
dnotar i
sefrom anybreach
ofdut yon t he par
toft he defendantsbutf rom the pl
ainti
ff
'sown
negligencei ndi
v i
ngintoashallowpar tofthelake.
Principle:Thedutyofcar eanoccupi erowest oaper sonont heland,be
he a l awfulv i
sit
orora t r
espasser,doesnotdepend sol el
yon t he
cir
cumst ancesleadi
ngt otheperson'sentryont helandbutalsowhathe
engagesi nwhil
eont heland.

PerLor dHof f
mannatp.76,par s.13—15:[ 131" Asamat terof
l
ogi c,Isee t he f orce of t hese obser v
ations.ButIhav e
nev erthelesscomet ot heconcl usiont hattheconcessi onwas
ri
ght lymade.Thedut yundert he1984Actwasi ntendedt obea
l
esserdut y,ast obot hi ncidenceandscope,t hant hedut ytoa
l
awf ulv i
sitorundert he1957Act .ThatwasbecausePar li
ament
recogni sedt hati twoul dof t enbeundul yburdensomet orequire
l
andowner st ot akest epst opr ot ectt hesaf etyofpeopl ewho
cameupon t heirland wi thouti nv i
tation orper mission.They
shoul dnotor dinari
lybeabl et of orcedut iesuponunwi ll
inghost s.
Int he appl i
cat i
on oft hatpr i
ncipl e,Ican see no di f
ference
betweenaper sonwhocomesuponl andwi t
houtper mi ssionand
onewho,hav ingcomewi t
hper mi ssi on,doessomet hi
ngwhi ch
hehasnotbeengi v enper missiont odo.I nbot hcases,t he
entrantwoul dbei mposi ngupont hel andowneradut yofcar e
whi chhehasnotexpr essl yori mpl i
edl yaccept ed.The1984Act
prov idest hatev eninsuchcasesadut ymayexi st,basedsi mply
upon occupat i
on ofl and and knowl edge orf oresightt hat
unaut hor
isedper sonsmaycomeupont helandoraut hor i
sed
personsmayusei tf orunaut horisedpur poses.Butt hatdut yis
rareranddi fferentinqual ityf rom t hedut ywhi char i
sesf r
om
expr essori mpl iedi nvitati
onorper missiont ocomeupont he
l
andandusei t .

14"I
naddi ti
on,Ithinkthatt heconcessi
onissupportedbythe
highauthori
tyofLordAt ki
ni nHill
envICI(Al
kal
i)Lt
d[1936]AC65.
Theretoo,itcouldbesaidt hatthestev
edores'
complai
ntwasthat
theyshouldhav ebeenwar nednott ogouponthehatchcoverand
thatl
ogical
lythisdutywasowedt o
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
t
hem,
ifatal
l
,whent
heywer
elawf
ull
yont
hebar
ge.

15"Iwoul dcer t
ainlyagreewi t
hLongmor eLJt hatthei nci
dence
andcont entoft hedut yshouldnotdependont heprecisemoment
atwhi chMrToml insoncr ossedt hel i
nebet weent he statusof
l
awf ulv i
sitorandt hatoft r
espasser .Butthereisnodi sput
ethat
theacti nr espectofwhi chMrToml i
nsonsay sthathewasoweda
duty,namel y,diving intot he wat er,was t o his knowledge
prohibit
edbyt hetermsuponwhi chhehadbeenadmi t
tedtothe
park.Itis,It hi
nk,forthisreasonthatt hecouncilowedhi m noduty
undert he1957Actandt hattheincidenceandcont entofanydut y
theymayhav eowedwasgov ernedbyt he1984Act .ButIshall
l
aterr eturnt othequest ionofwhet heritwoul dhav emadeany
diff
erencei fswimmi nghadnotbeenpr ohi
bit
edandt he1957Act
hadappl ied."

DonoghuevFol kestoneProperti
esLt d[ 200313Al l ER1101
Facts:Thedef endant swereowner sandoccupi er sofahar bour.The
pl
aintif
fwentf orani ghtswim aft
ermi dnightanddi vedf r
om thesl ipway
i
ntot heharbourandst r
uckhisheadagai nstasubmer gedpile,breaking
hi
sneck.Ther ewer enoti
ceswar ning peoplet hatswi mmi ng int he
harbourwasdanger ous.
Held:Sinceatt het imeoftheacci dentt hedef endanthadnor easont o
bel
ievet hatany bodywouldbeswi mmi ngi nthesl ipway,theyowedno
dutytot heplai
ntiff.
Pri
nciple:Thetestwhet heradefendantowedadut yofcaretoapl ainti
ff
mustbedet ermi nedbasedont hepr ev ail
ingcircumst ancesatt het ime
oftheal l
egedbr eachofduty.

Tacagni
vCor
nwal
lCount
yCounci
l[2013]EWCACi
v702
Fact s:Thepl ainti
ffwasr eturni
ngf rom t hepubwi thherpar t
nerafter
takingsomedr i
nks— al thoughshedeni edshewasdr unk.Itwasabout
midni ght .Thef ootpaththeyusedwasr aisedandwasf encedtoapoi nt
.
Thepl ainti
ffusedt hefenceasagui deunt ilshegott otheendwhenshe
fel
l owi ngt otheabsenceoft hef enceatt hatsi de.
Held:I twasnotr easonabl yforeseeablet hatanacci dentofthatnature
woul doccur ,andt her
ewasnosuggest i
ont hataf ur
therfenci
ngwas
necessar y.Thedef endantwast husnotliabl e.
Principle:Thecommondut yofcar eowedbyoccupi ersisli
mitedt o
i
njur i
est hatar ereasonabl yforeseeableundert hecir
cumstances.

363
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
PerMaccombeJatpar s.19— 22:[ 191" Thej udgecl earl
yhadi nmi nd
thepassaget obef oundi nt hej udgmentofLor dOakseywhi chIhav e
alreadyquot ed,stati
ng t hatan or dinarycar efulman doesnott ake
precauti
onsagai nstev eryf oreseeabl eriskbutagai nstr i
skswhi chare
l
ikelytohappen.Thej udgef oundt hati twasav eryrealpossibi
lityt
hat
somebodyusi ng thef enceasagui decoul di nadvertentl
ywal kinto
danger.Heconsi deredt hatt hiswasnotar emot epossi bil
it
ybutar eal
one,andher el
iedupont heev idenceofMrBasset t,whoseconcer n,asI
hav ement i
oned,hadbeenexpr esslyf orcy cl
ist
sand,asheputi t,young
kidsonbi kes,andalsochi ldrenwho' mightrunar oundatt hatpointand
comet ohar m'.

[20]"Therehad,howev er
,beennosuchacci dentasenv isagedbyMr
Bassett,andhewasnotenv i
sagingaper sonl iketheClaimantundert he
i
nf l
uenceofal coholusi
ngt hefenceasahandr ailatnightwithoutat or
ch
andst r
ay i
ngfrom themet all
edf ootpat
hov ergr assforoverf ourmet r
es
asf arast hedr op.Therewasnot hingtoi ndicatethatthev i
ew ofMr
Bassett'
smanagerhadbeenunr easonabl
ei nallthecircumst ancesin
thi
nkingaf ence,tomeetMrBasset t'
sactual concerns,wasunnecessar y.

[211" Thej udgesai dt hatf encingof fthev ert

icaldr opwoul dhav ebeena
propor ti
onat er eacti
ont othesi tuati
onf acedbyt hel ocal author i
tyin2001,
butt hequest i
onr emai ns:apr oporti
onater eact i
ont owhat ?Att hattime,
Penwi t
hwer ef acedwi t
hal andslipandt hecol l
apseofasmal lstret
chof
thev ergeedgeabut ti
ngt her oad.Thisbr oughtt heedgeoft hepat hvery
closet ot hecol lapsedar eaandt hedr opcr eat edbyt hecol l
apse.The
concer nthenmusthav ebeent opr eventpeopl est rayingorf al
li
ngdown
the landslipi ntot he r oad,hence t he fencing:see f orexampl et he
statementofMrMi kePet er s,para9i ntheappealbundl e,t ab16,p92.
Ther ewasnoconcer n,actual orappr ehended, att hatstageast odanger s
onot herst retchesoft hepat hway ,
bey ondt hef encedar eat owar dsHay le,
wher easubst ant i
alt wo-met rewi dev erger emai ned.Af tert helandsl i
p
areawaspassed,t herewasnot hi
ngsuggest ingt oPenwi thatt hattime
thatf urt
herf enci ngwasr equi red.Indeed,thesuggest i
onmi ghtbet hata
pathwi t
houtaf encewhi chhadadr opoft hishei ghtal way shadt obe
fencedupont heent iretyoft hel ength.
 Formypar
t,Idonotacceptt
hat
.

[22]" Inmyj udgment ,theev idencedi dnotwar r

anta
findingt hatPenwi thwer eunr easonabl ei nf ai
li
ngt o
for eseeasl i
kelyandguar dagai nstanacci dentoft he
typet hatoccur r
edher easbei ngl ikely.Formypar t
,I
cannot accept t he j udge'
s pr emi se t hat it was
necessar yt oenvisagesomeoneusi ngt hef enceasa
gui dei nt heseci r
cumst ancesort hatt her easonable
per soni nt hepositi
onofPenwi thwoul dhav eseent his
asal ikel
ypossi bil
ity
.Itwillbeobv i
oust oapedest r
ian
i
nf oll
owi ngt hefence,ast heCl aimantdi d,aft
erav ery
shor tt i
met hatheorshehaddepar tedt hemet al
led
pat h and was cr ossing a consi der able distance of
gr assed ar ea.Wi thr espectt ot he j udge,and af t
er
exer cisi
ngcaut i
oni nassessi nghi sev aluati
onoft he
case,Ido notconsi dert he ev idence war ranted a
concl usiont hatPenwi thwasi nbr eachofacommon
dut yofcar e,andf orthoser easonsIwoul dal l
ow the
appeal anddi smisstheact i
on."

Rev
il
lvNewbur
y[199611Al
lER291
Fact s:Thepl ai
ntif
fat tempt edt obreaki ntot hedefendant'
s
houseandt hedef endantf iredaguni njuri
nghi m.Botht he
plainti
ffandt hedef endantwer eprosecut edbutt heplaint
if
f
wasconv i
ctedwhi l
et hedef endantwasacqui t
ted.Theplaint
if
f
thereforesuedt hedef endantf orbreachofanoccupi er
'sduty
tohi m.
Held:Thef actthatt heplaintiffwasat respasserandengaged
i
nacr i
minalactdidnotj ust ifythedef endant'
sact i
onandt he
defendantwasl iabl
ef orbreachoft hedut y.
Principl
e:Thef actthatapl ai ntif
fisat respasserandengages
i
nacr i
minalactdoesnotpr ev enthimf r
om succeedinginan
actionforanoccupi er'
sbreachofdut y.
 PerNeilLJatp.298:" Ont heotherhand, thepr ovisions
ofs1oft he1984Actar ev eryhelpfulindef iningt he
scopeoft hedutyowedatcommonl awt oani ntruder
whocomesonpr emi sesi nthemi ddleoft heni ght
.
Indeed,though Ihav er eached myconcl usi
on bya
l
ongerr outethanthej udge,Iagreewi t
hhi mt hatont he
factsoft hiscasethequest i
onofl i
abi
li
tyatcommon
l
aw i stobedet er
mi nedont hesamel inesasi fone
were consi deri
ng a br each of dut y under s 1.
Accordingly,i
nconsideringwhet heradutywasowedt o
MrRev il
l,onecanf ollow thegui dancegiv enins1( 3)
ofthe1984Act ;
andi n

365eu
hesuf
fer
sandwhi
chot
her
wisehei
sent
it
ledt
orecov
erat
l
aw.

"Iti
sabundant lycl ear,i
nmyj udgment ,
t hatthet respasser/
crimi nalisnotanout law, andi tisnot ewor t
hyt hatev enthe
oldcommonl aw aut horiti
esr ecogni sedt heexi stenceof
somedut ytowar dst respasser s,ev ent hought hedut ywas
l
imi tedandst rictlydef i
nedandwasmuchl essoner ous
thant hecommonl aw dut yofcar e( seeegt hepassages
from Rober tAddi e& Sons( Collieri
es)Lt dt ,Dumbr eck
[1929]AC 358,[ 1929]Al lER Rep1whi chNei llLJhas
quot ed) .Inoteal sot hattheLawCommi ssi
on'sRepor ton
Liabilit
yforDamageorI njuryt oTr espasser sandRel ated
Quest i
onsofOccupi ers'Liabili
ty( Law Com No75)( 1976)
discussed t he ext entoft he occupi er 's dutyt owar ds
trespasser si nt hecont extof' Otherpossi blel imitat
ions
upon t he duty ofcar e'( see par as 31—35) .Iti s not
suggest ed thatno dut y ofany sor ti s owed t ot he
trespasser ,andi tf ol
lowst hatthel awr ecogni sest hatthe
plaintiffhassomer i
ghts,howev erl i
mi ted,whi cht hel aw
 does r ecognise and protect.Thi si s suffi
cient,in my
j
udgment ,toanswert hedefendant '
scont enti
ont hatthere
i
sar uleorpr incipl
eoflawwhi chr el
ieveshi m ofalll
i
abilit
y
orwhi ch,conv ersel
y,depri
vest hepl ai
nti
ffofanyr i
ghtt o
recoverdamagesi nthepresentcase.Suchar ulewoul d
makei tunnecessar ytoconsi derthepr ecisescopeoft he
defendant '
sdut ytowardsthepl ai
nti
ffort oappl ytherules
ofcont ribut
orynegl i
gence.Thecl aim woul df aili
nany
event.Thatclear l
yisnotthelaw.

•
368
 NEGLI
GENCEI
NRELATI
ONTOCHATTELS

DI
STI
NGUI
SHI
NG BET\XEEN DANGEROUS CHATTELS
ANDNON-
DANGEROUSCHATFELS

DixonvBel l(1816)105ER1023
Fact s:Thedefendantsentagi rltofet
chal oadedgun.The
girl
,af t
ertakingthegun,poi ntedthel oadedgunatt he
plainti
ff'
ssonandpul l
edt hetrigger
,causinghiminjuri
es.I
t
wasf oundt hatthedef endanthadt akenpr ecauti
onby
givinginstr
ucti
onstot hegirlaboutthegun.
Held: Thedefendantwasl iabl
e.
Principle:Apersonwhokeepsadanger ousinstrumentis
underadut ytokeepi twel landi sli
ableforanydamage
causedduet ohisbreachoft hatduty.

PerEllenbor oughCJatp.1024:" Thedefendantmi ght

andoughtt ohav egonef arther;itwasincumbenton
him,who,bychar gingt hegun,hadmadei tcapabl eof
doingmi schi ef,tor enderi tsaf eandi nnoxious.Thi s
mighthav ebeendonebyt hedi schar
geordr awingof
the cont ent;and t hough i t was t he def endant '
s
i
ntenti
ont opr evental lmi schief
,andheexpect edt hat
thi
swoul dbeef f
ect uatedbyt akingoutt hepr iming,
theev enthasunf ortunatelypr ovedthatt heor dert o
Lemanwasnotsuf fi
cient;consequent l
y,asbyt his
wantofcar e,theinst r
umentwasl efti
nast atecapabl e
ofdoi ng mi schief,t he law wi llholdt he defendant
responsible.Itisahar dcase,undoubt edly;butIt hink
theactioni smai ntainable."

Langri
dgevLev y[1832-421Al lERRep586;( 1837)150
ER863Fact s:Theplainti
ff
'sfatherwantedtobuyagun
fr
om t he defendant for hi
msel f and hi
s sons.The
defendantf
alsel
yrepr
esentedthatthegunwas
369•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

madebyNockandwasi nagoodandsaf econdition.The

defendantknewatt het i
meofsuchr epresent
ationt hatthegun
wasnotmadebyNockandwasi nfactnoti nagoodandsaf e
condi t
ion.Theplaintiff'
sfatherboughtthegunbasedont he
representati
onmadebyt hedefendantandwhi let hegunwasi n
thepossessi onoft hepl aint
if
f,i
tburstandcausedi njurytothe
plainti
ff.
Hel d:Sincethepl aintif
freli
edont hemi sr
epresentat i
onbyt he
def endanttohi sdet r
iment,hehadacauseofact ionagainst
thedef endant
Pr i
nciple:Wher eAmakesami srepresentati
ont oBwi ththe
knowl edgeori ntentionthatitwil
lbepassedt oC, andC, r
ely
ing
ont hemi srepresent ati
on,suffersdamage,A i sl i
ablet oC
althought hereisnopr i
vityofcontr
actbet weent hem.

PerPar keBatp.591:" Ifthei nst r

umenti nquest i
on,
whichi snotofi tselfdanger ous,butwhi chr equiresan
actt obedone, t
hati s,tobel oaded, i
nor dert omakei t
so,had been si mpl y del iver ed by t he def endant,
withoutanycont ractOfr epr esent ati
ononhi spar t,to
thepl aint
iff,noact ionwoul dhav ebeenmai ntainable
foranysubsequentdamagewhi cht hepl aintif
fmi ght
havesust ainedbyt heuseofi t.Buti fi thadbeen
deli
v ered byt he def endantt ot he plaintiff
,f ort he
purpose of bei ng so used by hi m, wi t
h an
accompany ing r epresent ati
on t o him t hathe mi ght
safelysousei t,andt hatr epr esent ati
onhadbeenf alse
tot hedef endant '
sknowl edge,andt hepl ainti
ffhad
actedupont hef aithofi t
sbei ngt rue,andhadr eceived
damaget her eby,thent herei snoquest ionbutt hatan
action woul d hav el ain,upon t he pr inciple of a
numer ouscl assofcases,ofwhi cht hel eadingonei s
Pas/ eyvFr eeman.Thatpr inci pleisthatamer enaked
fal
sehoodi snotenought ogi v ear i
ghtofact ion,butif

•
370
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
tbeaf al
sehoodt oldwi t
hani ntenti
ont hatitshouldbe
act eduponbyt hepar t
yi njured,andt hatactmust
producedamaget ohi m,if,insteadofbei ngdelivered
tot hepl aintif
fi mmedi atel
y ,thei nstrumenthadbeen
placedi nt hehandsofat hirdper son,fort hepurpose
ofbei ngdel i
v eredt oandt henusedbyt hepl ai
nti
ff, t
he
l
ikef alser epresent at
ionbei ngknowi nglymadet ot he
i
nt ermedi at e per son t o be communi cated tot he
plaintiff,andt hepl ai
nti
ffhadact eduponi t
,therecan
benodoubtbutt hatthepr inciplewoul dequal l
yappl y,
andt hepl aintif
fwoul dhav ehadhi sremedyf ort he
decei t;norcoul di tmakeanydi fferencethatt het hir
d
per son al so was i ntended byt he defendantt o be
decei v ed;nordoest hereseem t obeanysubst antial
distinct i
on

•
371
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
ft heinstrumentbedel i
ver ed,i
nordertobesousedby
theplaint
iff,thoughi tdoesnotappeart hatthedefendant
i
ntended t he f alse r epresent
ati
on i t
self to be
communi catedt ohi m.Ther ei saf al
serepresentati
on
madebyt hedef endant ,wi thav i
ew thatthepl aint
iff
should use t he inst r
umenti n a danger
ous way ,and,
unlessther epresent ati
onhadbeenmade, t
hedanger ous
actwoul dnev erhav ebeendone

"We,t herefore,think,t hat,asther eisf r

audanddamage,
ther esultoft hatf r
aud,notf rom anactr emot eand
consequent i
al,butonecont empl atedbyt hedef endantat
thet imeasoneofi t
sr esul t
s,thepar tyguilt
yoft hef r
aud
i
sr esponsi blet ot hepar tyinjured.Wedonotdeci de
whet herthisact ionwoul dhav ebeenmai nt ai
nablei fthe
plaint i
ffhad notknown ofand act ed upon t hef al
se
repr esentation,norwhet hert hedef endantwoul dhav e
beenr esponsi blet oaper sonnotwi thi
nt hedef endant '
s
cont empl ationatt het imeoft hesal e,towhom t hegun
mi ghthav ebeensol dorhandedov er
.Wedeci det hathe
i
sr esponsi bleint hi scasef ort heconsequencesofhi s
fraudwhi l
et hei nst r
umentwasi nt hepossessi onofa
per sont owhom hi sr epresentat i
onwasei therdirect l
yor
i
ndi rectlycommuni cat ed,andf orwhoseuseheknew i t
waspur chased."

Onaf urt
herappealt otheCour tofExchequerChamber ,
thecourtperLor dDenmanCJaf f
irmedthedecisionatp.
592asf oll
ows:" Weagr eewi ththeCour tofExchequer ,
andaf fi
rmt hejudgmentont hegr oundstat
edbyPar keB
that'ast hereisf raud,anddamage,t her esultoft hat
fraudnotf r
om anactr emot eandconsequent i
al,butone
contempl at
edbyt hedef endantatt het
imeasoneofi ts
result
s,thepartygui l
tyoft hefraudi sr
esponsibletot he
partyinj
ured."
'

Heav envPender( 1883)11QBD503

Facts:Thedef endantwasadockownerwhopr ovi
dedst aging
outsi
det hedockf orpurposesofwor ksont heshi p.Heent ered
i
ntoacont ractwi t
hashi pownert omakeast agingforuset o
workont heshi p.Theshipowneralsocont r
actedashi ppainterto
pai
ntt heoutsideoft heship.Thepl
ainti
ffwasanempl oyeeoft he
shi
ppai nterandwhi lehewasont hest agi
ngpai nti
ngt heshi p,
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

oneoft
heropesbrokeandhefel
landi
njur
edhimsel
f.
Hel
d:Thedefendantwasunderadut
ytotakecar
ethatt
her
opes
heused

371.
werefi
tforthei
rpur poseandthusliabl
etotheplai
nti
ffalt
hough
t
herewasnocont ractbetweenthem
Pr
inci
ple:A per son may owe a dut y of careto another
i
ndependentofacont r
actprov
ideditwasreasonabl
et hati
njur
y
mayresul
tfrom wantofcare.

PerBr ettMRatp.507and508:" Ifaper soncont ractswi th

anot hert o useor dinarycar eorski lltowar dshi m orhi s
proper tytheobl i
gationneednotbeconsi der edi nt hel i
ghtof
adut y;i
tisanobl i
gat ionofcont ract.Itisundoubt ed, howev er
,
thatt her emaybet heobl i
gationofsuchadut yf rom one
persont o anot heral thought her ei sno cont ractbet ween
them wi t
hr egar dtosuchdut y.Twodr i
versmeet inghav eno
cont ractwi theachot her,butundercer tainci r
cumst ances
theyhav ear eciprocaldut yt owar dseachot her.Soar et wo
shipsnav i
gat ingt hesea.Soar ailwaycompanywhi chhas
cont ractedwi thoneper sont ocar ryanot herhasnocont ract
witht heper soncar ri
edbuthasadut ytowar dst hatper son.
Sot heowneroroccupi erofhouseorl andwhoper mitsa
personorper sonst ocomet ohi shouseorl andhasno
cont ractwi th such a per son orper sons,buthasa dut y
towar ds hi m ort hem.I tshoul d be obser ved t hatt he
existence ofa cont ractbet ween t wo per sons does not
prev entt heexi stenceoft hesuggest eddut ybet weent hem
alsobei ngr ai
sedbyl awi ndependent l
yoft hecont ract,byt he
factswi t
hr egar dt owhi cht hecont ractismadeandt owhi ch
i
tappl i
es an exact lysi mil
arbuta cont r
actdut y
.. ..The
quest ionswhi chwehav etosol veint hiscasear e— whati s
thepr operdef i
niti
onoft her elationbet weent woper sons
othert han t he r elation est ablished bycont ract ,orf raud,
whi chi mposesont heoneoft hem adut yt owar dst heot her
toobser v e,wi t
hr egar dt otheper sonorpr oper t
yofsuch
other ,suchor dinarycar eorski l
lasmaybenecessar yt o
prev enti njuryt o hisper sonorpr operty;andwhet hert he
presentcasef all
swi thinsuchdef initi
on.Whent wodr iv
ersor
twoshi psar eappr oachi ngeachot her,suchar elat i
onar ises
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

betweent hem whent heyar eappr oachi ngeachot heri nsuch

amannert hat ,unl esst heyuseor dinarycar eandski l
ltoav oid
i
t,ther ewi llbet hedangerofani njur i
ouscol lisionbet ween
them.Thi sr elat i
on i s est ablished i n such ci rcumst ances
betweent hem, notonl yifitbepr ovedt hattheyact uallyknow
andt hinkoft hisdanger ,butwhet hersuchpr oofbemadeor
not.Itisest ablished,asi tseemst ome,becauseanyoneof
ordinarysensewhodi dt hinkwoul datoncer ecogni set hatif
he di d not use or dinar y car e and ski ll under such
cir
cumst ancest herewoul dbesuchdanger .Andev eryone
oughtbyt heuni versal l
yr ecogni sedr ulesofr ightandwr ong,
tothinksomuchwi thr egar dt othesaf etyofot her swhomay
be j eopardi sed by hi s conduct ;and i f
,bei ng i n such
cir
cumst ances,he does nott hink,and i n consequence
neglects,ori fhenegl ect st ouseor dinarycar eorski l
l,and
i
njury ensue,t he l aw,whi ch t akes cogni sance of and
enforcest her ulesofr ightandwr ong,wi l
lforcehi mt ogi ve
anindemni tyf ort hei njury.I nt hecaseofar ail
waycompany
carryingapassengerwi thwhom i thasnotent eredi nt ot he
contractofcar r i
aget hel awi mpl iest hedut y,becausei tmust
beobv ioust hatunl essor dinar ycar eandski l
lbeusedt he
personalsaf etyoft hepassengermustbeendanger ed.Wi th
regardt ot hecondi ti
oni nwhi chanowneroroccupi erl eav es
his house orpr oper tyot herphr aseol ogyhas been used,
whichi tisnecessar yt oconsi der .Ifamanopenshi sshopor
warehouset ocust omer si tissai dt hathei nv itest hem t o
enter,and t hatt hisi nv i
tation r aisest herelat ion bet ween
them whi ch i mposes on t he i nvitert he dut y ofusi ng
reasonabl ecar esot okeephi shouseorwar ehouset hati t
maynotendangert he per son orpr opertyoft he per son
i
nv i
ted.Thi si si nasenseanaccur atephr ase,andasappl i
ed
totheci rcumst ancesasuf f i
cient l
yaccur at
ephr ase. "

Domi
nionNat
ural
GasvCol
l
ins
Facts:Thedef endantinstall
edagasmachi neont hepremi sesof
arail
waycompanyandf i
xedt heregulatorint heblacksmithshop
i
nt herai l
waycompanyi nsteadoffixingi toutsi
det hebuilding.A
l
argequant i
tyofgasescapedandt hepl ainti
ffinanat temptt o
putoffther egul at
orgotinjuredwhenanexpl osi
onoccur r
ed.
Held:Sincet hedef endanthadbeennegl igentinthei nst
all
ationof
themachi ne, hewasl iabl
e.
Pri
nciple:Aper soninpossessionofadanger ousar t
icl
eisundera
dutytot akepr ecauti
ont oav oi
dinj
uryr esult
ingfrom it.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

PerLordDunedi natp.646:"Thegascompanywer enot

occupi
ers of t he premises on which t he accident
happened.Fur t
her,ther
ebeing no rel
ation ofcontract
between the companyand t he pl
aint
if
fs,the pl
ainti
ffs
cannotappealt oanydefectinthemachi nesuppli
edby
thedefendant
swhi chmight
373u•
const itutebr eachofcont r
act.Ther emaybe,howev er,int hecase
ofanyoneper formi nganoper ation,orset tingupandi nstalli
nga
machi ne,a r elat i
onship ofdut y .Whatt hatdut yi s wi llv ary
accor ding t ot he subj ect-matteroft he things i nvol
v ed.I thas,
howev er ,agai nandagai nbeenhel dthati nt hecaseofar ticles
danger ous i nt hemsel ves,such as l oaded f ir
earms,poi sons,
explosi ves,andot hert hi
ngsej usdem gener is,thereisapecul i
ar
dutyt ot akepr ecaut i
oni mposedupont hosewhosendf ort
hor
i
nst allsuch ar ticleswhen i tisnecessar i
lyt hecaset hatot her
partieswi l
lcomewi t
hint hei
rpr oximity.Thedut ybei ngt ot ake
precaut i
on,i tisnoexcuset osayt hattheacci dentwoul dnothav e
happenedunl esssomeot heragencyt hant hatoft hedef endant
hadi nter meddl edwi t
ht hemat ter.A l oadedgunwi l
lnotgoof f
unlesssomeonepul lsthet ri
gger ,apoi soni sinnocuousunl ess
someonet akesi t,gaswi llnotexpl odeunl essi tismi xedwi t
hai r
andt henal ighti ssett oit.Yett hecasesofDi xonvBel l,Thomasv
Winchest er,and Par ry v Smi th ar e alli ll
ust r
ati
ons ofl i
abili
ty
enfor ced.Ont heot herhand, i
fthepr oximat ecauseoft heacci dent
i
snott henegl igenceoft hedef endant ,butt heconsci ousactof
anot herv oli
tion, thenhewi l
lnotbel i
able."

Andatp.647:" Nowt hej ur yhasaf f

ir
mednegl igenceont hepar tof
thegascompanyi nr espectt hattheyi nstall
edt hesaf et
yv alve
withanemi ssi
ondi recti ntotheshopi nsteadofi ntotheopenai r
.
Thisf i
ndi
ngseemst ot hei rLordshi
psnotonl ycapabl eofsuppor t
upont heev idence,butr eallyreasonablei ni tsel
f .Forthesaf ety
valvebyi tsveryexistencewasmeantt owor kf r
om t i
met ot i
me;
andt hefrequencyofi tswor ki
ngwoul dseem t odependoncauses
which mi ghtbe qui tei ndependentofnegl igence,e. g.,sudden
pressure ofgas,and al so accumulat i
onsofdi rtwhich woul d
preventthepor tcull
i
scl osi ngt i
ght.Whent hev al
v edidwor k,gas
wasnecessar i
lyemi tted,andi twouldseem bot haneasyanda
reasonablepr ecauti
ont hatt hatemi ssionshoul dbel edt ot he
openai r,wher ei twoul dbehar mless,r athert hanputi ntot he
closedchamber ,wherei tmi ghtbecomeasour ceofdanger ."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

THEMANUFACTURER
DonoghuevSt evenson[ 19321AC562
Facts:Af ri
endoft hepl ai
ntiffpurchasedabeermanuf act uredby
thedefendantf orher .Thebeerwasi nanopaquebot t l
esucht hat
i
twasi mpossi blet oseet hecontent s.Af t
erdr inkingsomeoft he
beerthepl aintifffoundadecomposedsnai lint her emai nderof
thebeer .Thepl aintif
fsuf f
eredshockandgast r
o-enterit
tis.
Held:Si ncet hebeerwasmanuf acturedt o beconsumedand
bottl
ed wi thout any r easonable means of i nspect i
ons,t he
defendantwasl iablef ortheinjuri
essuf f
eredbyt hepl ai
nt i
ff.
Princi
ple:Amanuf acturerofpr oduct s,whi chhesel l
si nsucha
form ast o show t hathei ntendst hem t or eacht heul t
imat e
consumeri nthef ormi nwhi chtheyl ef
thim wi thnor easonabl e
possibi
lityofi ntermedi ateexami nat i
on,andwi t
ht heknowl edge
thattheabsenceofr easonabl ecar eint hepr epar at
ionorput ting
upoft hepr oduct swi llresultinani njurytot heconsumer '
sl if
eor
propert
y ,owesadut yt ot heconsumert ot aket hatr easonabl e
care.

PerLor d At kin atpp.595 and 596:" Ido notf ind it

necessar ytodi scussatl engtht hecasesdeal i
ngwi th
dutieswher et het hingi sdanger ous,or,int henar rower
categor y,bel ongs t o a cl ass of t hi
ngs whi ch ar e
danger ousi nthemsel ves.Ir egardt hedi sti
nctionasan
unnat ur alonesof arasi tisusedt oser veasal ogical
dif
fer ent i
at i
onbywhi cht odi sti
nguisht heex i
stenceor
non- exist enceofal egalr ight.InthisrespectIagr eewi th
whatwassai dbyScr uttonL. J.inHodge&SonsvAngl o-
Amer icanOi lCo.,acasewhi chwasul t
imat el
ydeci dedon
aquest ionoff act:'Per sonally,Idonotunder standt he
dif
fer encebet weenat hingdanger ousinitself,aspoi son,
andat hingnotdanger ousasa

class,butby negl igentconstructi

on danger
ous as a
particul
art hing.Thelatt
er,ifanythi
ng,seemst hemor e
danger ousoft hetwo;i tisawol finsheep'
scl othi
ng
i
nst eadofanobv i
ouswol f
.'Thenatureofthet hingmay
verywel lcallfordi
ffer
entdegreesofcare,andtheper son
dealingwi thi tmaywel lcontemplatepersonsasbei ng
withinthespher eofhisdutytotakecarewhowoul dnot
besuf f
ici
entlyproxi
mat ewithlessdangerousgoods;so
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

t
hatnotonl
ythedegreeofcarebutt
her angeofpersons
t
owhom adut yisowedmaybeext ended.Buttheyall
i
l
lust
rat
ethegener
alpri
nci
ple.
"

375.
.
Andatp.599:" MyLor ds,ify ourLor dshipsacceptt he
view t hatt hispl eading disclosesar el
evantcauseof
act i
ony ouwi llbeaf f
irmingt hepr oposi t
ionthatbyScot
andEngl ishlawal i
keamanuf acturerofpr oducts,which
hesel lsinsuchaf orm ast oshowt hathei ntendsthem
tor eacht heul ti
mat econsumeri nthefor minwhi chthey
l
ef thim wi thnor easonabl epossi bil
i
tyofi ntermedi
ate
ex aminat i
on, andwi ththeknowl edgethatt heabsenceof
reasonabl ecar eint heprepar ati
onorput t
ingupoft he
product swi llresultinani njuryt otheconsumer 'sli
feor
proper ty,owes a dut ytot he consumert ot ake t
hat
reasonabl ecar e."

Br
ownvCot
ter
il
l(1934)54TLR21
Facts:Thepl
ainti
ff,
aninf
ant
,wasinjuredbythefal
lofatombstone
whenhewasl awful
lyi
nthepremi
sesofachur chyar
d.I
twasf ound
thatthetombstonewasnegl
igent
lyerected.
Held:Since the pl
ainti
ffwas lawfull
yinthe chur
chyard,the
defendantswhoer ectedthetombst onewer
emanuf act
urersin
thatnarr
owsenseandaccor di
nglyowedadutytohim andwer e
thusli
ableforthei
njur
iessuf
fered.

PRODUCT

Gr
antvAust
ral
i
anKni
tt
ingMi
l
lsLt
d[1936]AC85
Facts:Thepl ai
nt i
ffboughtwool l
enunder wearmanuf acturedby
thef i
rstdefendantandsol dbyt heseconddef endant.Excess
sulphi
tehad been negl igentl
ylefti nt hegar mentbyt hef i
rst
defendant.Duet ot heexcesssul phit
e,t heplainti
ffcontracted
dermat i
ti
swhenhewor ethegarment .Hesuedbot hdefendant s.
Itwasf oundthatt hesul
phitewasahi ddenandl atentdefectthat
couldnotbedet ectedbyreasonableexami nat
ion.Held:Thef i
rst
defendantbreachedadut yt heyowedt otheplainti
ffandwer e
thusli
ablefortheirnegli
gence.
Princi
ple:Theliabili
tyofamanuf acturertoaconsumerappl ies
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

onl
ywheret hedefectintheproductishi
ddenandcannotbe
di
scov
ered byreasonabl
e examinat
ion.A pr
oductin pr
inci
ple
i
ncl
udesthi
ngsusedinter
nall
yandthi
ngsusedext
ernal
l
y.

PerLor dWr i
ghtatpp.104— 106:" I
tisobv ioust hatt he
pri
ncipl est husl aiddowni nvolveadut ybasedont he
simplef act sdet ailedabov e,adut yqui teunaf f
ect edby
anycont ract sdeal ingwi ththet hi
ng, f
ori nstance, ofsal e
bymakert or et ail
er,andagai nbyr etail
ert oconsumeror
totheconsumer 'sf r
iend.Itmaybesai dt hatt hedut yis
dif
ficultt odef ine, becausewhent heactofnegl igencei n
manuf actur e OCCUf St here was no speci fi
c per son
towar dswhom t hedut ycouldbesai dtoexi st :thet hing
mightnev erbeused:i tmi ghtbedest royedbyacci dent ,
Ofitmi ghtbescr apped,ori nmanyway sf ai lt ocome
i
nto usei nt henor malway :i n ot herwor dst hedut y
cannotatt he t ime of manuf act ure be ot hert han
potent i
alorcont ingent ,andonl ycanbecomev estedby
thef actofact ualusebyapar ticularper son.Butt he
samet heor eticaldi ff
icult
yhasbeendi sr egardedi ncases
l
ikeHeav envPender ,Ofinthecaseoft hingsdanger ous
perseOfknownt obedanger ous,wher et hirdpar ti
es
have been hel d ent i
tled t
or ecov eron t he pr inciples
explainedi nDomi nionNat uralGasCo. ,Ld.vCol li
ns&
Perkins.I nDonoghue' scaset het hingwasdanger ousi n
fact,thought hedangerwashi dden,andt het hingwas
danger ousonl ybecauseofwar yofcar ei nmaki ngi t;as
LordAt kinpoi nt souti nDonoghue' scase,t hedi stinction
between t hi ngs i nher entl
ydanger ous and t hings onl y
danger ousbecauseofnegl i
gentmanuf act urecannotbe
regardedassi gnifi
cantf orthepur poseoft hequest i
ons
hereinv olv ed.

"Onefur t
herpoi ntmaybenot ed.Thepr i
ncipleofDonoghue' s
casecanonl ybeappl i
edwher et hedefecti shi ddenand
unknownt ot heconsumer ,
otherwisethedirectnessofcause
andef f
ecti sabsent:t hemanwhoconsumesOfusesat hing
whichheknowst obenoxi ouscannotcompl ai
ni nrespectof
whatevermi schieffollows,becauseitfoll
owsf rom hisown
consciousv ol i
ti
oninchoosi ngtoincurtheriskorcer tai
ntyof
mischance.I ft hefor egoi
ng aret heessent i
alf eatur
esof
Donoghue' s case,t hey are also to be f ound,i nt hei
r
Lordships'j
udgment ,inthepresentcase.Thepr esenceoft he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

del
eteri
ous chemi cali nthe pant s,due t o negligence in
manufacture,wasahi ddenandl atentdefect,
justasmuchas
werether emai nsoft hesnailintheopaquebot tl
e:itcould
notbedet ect
edbyanyexami nationt hatcoul
dr easonabl ybe
made.Not hi
ng happened bet ween t he maki ng of t he
garmentsandt heirbeingwornt ochanget heirconditi
on.The
garmentswer emadebyt hemanuf actur
ersfort hepur pose
ofbeing wor n exactlyast heywer e worni nf actbyt he
appel
lant:
i
twasnotcont emplatedthattheyshoul dbefirstwashed.I ti
s

377.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
mmat erialt
hatt heappell
anthasacl aimincont r
actagai
nstthe
ret
ail
ers,becauset hatisaqui t
eindependentcauseofact i
on,
basedondi ff
erentconsiderati
ons,eventhoughthedamagemay
be the same.Equal l
yi r
relevantis any question ofl
iabi
lit
y
betweent heretail
ersandthemanuf act
urersont hecont
ractof
sal
e between t hem.The t or
tl i
abi
li
tyisi ndependentofany
questi
onofcont ract.

"I
twasar gued,butnotper hapsv er
ystrongly,thatDonoghue' s
casewasacaseoff oodordr inkt obeconsumedi nter
nall
y,
wher easthepant sherewer et obewor nexternally.Nodisti
ncti
on,
howev er
,can be l ogicall
ydr awn fort his purpose between a
noxious t hing taken internal
ly and a noxi ous t hi
ng appli
ed
externall
y:t hegar mentswer emadet obewor nnextt heskin;
i
ndeed Lor d Atkin specifi
call
y puts as exampl es ofwhati s
cover ed by the pr i
nciple he is enunciati
ng t hings oper
ati
ng
externall
y,such as ' an ointment,a soap,a cl eani
ng fl
uid or
cl
eani ngpowder '
."

SALE
Hasel dinevDaw&Sons[ 194112KB343
Fact s:The second def endant s carr
ied outr epairwor ks on a l i
fti n
buildingownedbyt hef irstdefendant.Aser v antoft heseconddef endan
negl i
gentlyfailedt or eplacesomegl andsi nt hel i
ft
.Thepl aintif
fv i
sit
ed
thebui ldingthef oll
owi ngdayupont heinv itationofaser vanoft hef i
rst
defendantgoti njuredwhenheusedt hel iftasar esultoff ailuret o
replacet hegl ands.Thepl ai
nti
ffsued.
Held:Theseconddef endantasar epair
eroft hel i
ftwasl iabletopl ainti
ff
fort hebr eachoft hedut yt heyowedt ohim asal awf uluseoft hear ti
cle
sincet herewasnor easonabl eoppor t
unityf orexami nat i
orbef oreuse.
Principle:Ther epair erofanar t
icl
eowesadut ytoanyper sonbywhon
thear t
icl
ei sl awf ullyusedt oseet hatithasbeencar efull
yr epairedi n
casewher ether ei snor easonabl eoppor tuni tyfortheexami nat i
onoft h
arti
cl eafterther epai riscompl etedandbef orei tisused.

PerScottLJatp.363:"Itiswort
hnotici
ngthatinDonoghuev
Stev
ensonLordBuckmast ert
reat
edtherepai
rerasinconsimi
/i
casutothemanuf
actur
er.Herecogni
zedthatt
heprinci
plewhi
ch
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

.
.378
hedeni edt ot hecommonl aw must ,ifi texistsatal l
,applyt othe
repai
reraswel last othemanuf act
ur er.Thef actthather egarded
thatsi
mi larit
yasar easonf orr ej
ecti
ngt hepr i
ncipledoesnotl essen
theforceoft her easonsf orsay i
ngthat ,ifitdoesappl ytotheone, it
mustal soappl ytot heother ..
..Thef actsoft hiscase,therefore,i
n
myopi nion, clearlyshowt hatt heengineer sdidoweadut yofcar eto
anyper sonusi ngt helif
tint heor di
nar ywayupt othet i
meoft heir
nextexami nat i
onofi t
,fort heyr eali
zed,oroughtt ohav er eal
ized,
thatnoef fectiveexami nationwasi nthel eastlikelybeforethen."

PerGoddar dLJatpp.375and376:" Itistobeobser vedt hatthet wo

nobl eandl earnedLor dswhof ormedt hemi norit
yi nt hatcaset hought
thatt hedeci sionmustnecessar i
lyappl yt oar epairer.It hi nkt hati tmay
besai dt hatt hisappear st ohav ebeenoneoft her easonsf ort hei r
dissent .Lor dBuckmast ersai d:'Thepr i
nci plecont endedf ormustbet hi s:
thatt hemcnuf actur er,orindeedt her epai rer[theitali
csar emi ne],ofany
articl
e,apar tent i
relyf r
om cont ract ,owesadut ytoanyper sonbywhom
thear t
iclei slawf ullyusedt oseet hati thasbeencar ef ullyconst ruct ed',
andLor dToml i
nexpr essedt hesamev iew.Takenal one,t hesent ence
woul dst atet hepr opositiont oowi dely ,f oritomi tst heal l-i
mpor tant
qual i
ficationt hatt hel iabi l
it
yi sonl ysai dt o existwher et herei sno
reasonabl e oppor tunityfori nspect i
onoft hechat t
elbet weeni t
sleav ing
thehandsoft hemanuf act urerorr epai rerandi tsconsumpt i
onoruse.I
pauseher ef oramomentt osayt hatIt hinkt hatitisgener all
yconsi der ed
thatwhenLor dAt kinusedt heexpr essi on' r
easonabl epossi bil
it
y 'wi th
relationt oi nspect ion,hemeantpossi bili
tyi nacommer ci alsense,and,
asIv entur edtosayi nPai nevCo/ neVal leyEl ectri
citySuppl yCo. ,Ld.t he
wor d' probabi l
ity'mi ghtper hapsbeusedi nstead.Oneshoul d,Ithink, ask
onesel ft hequest ion:'Int heci rcumst ancesofanypar ticul arcaseought
thepur chaser ,or,int hecaseofr epairs, theper sonf orwhom t her epai rs
wer e done,t o hav e made i nspect ion f orhi msel f?'Apar tf rom t he
quest ionwhet herEar /vLubbocki sstillgoodl aw, thecont entionoft hese
def endant s,as Iunder st and i t
,i st hatt he t r
ue pr inci ple under lying
DonoghuevSt evensoni st hati twast ot hei nterestoft hemanuf act urer
thathi sgoodsshoul dr eacht heconsumerunopenedandi twashi s
i
nt ent i
ont hatt heyshoul d,andt hatt hiswast her easonf orpr i
v ityor
proximi ty

379•
•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ordi rectr elationshi

p,cal litwhaty ou will,bei ng
establi
shedbet weent hemanuf acturerandul t
imat e
consumer .On t he otherhand,i ti s sai
dt hatt he
governing fact ori sthe possibil
it
yorpr obabi l
it
yor
contempl ati
on t hatan inspecti
on woul dt ake place
beforethegoodswer eputi nt
ouse.Formypar t,Ithink
the latter pr opositi
on ist he truth,and f or this
conclusionIf indsuppor tint headv i
ceoft heJudi cial
Commi tt
eei nGr antvAust ral
i
anKni tti
ngMill
s, Ltd.
"

Atpp.377and378:" Onwhatsoundpr i
nciple,then,
cant hecaseofar epairerbedi stinguishedf rom t hat
ofamakerofanar ti
cle?Ofcour se,thedoct ri
nedoes
notappl yt ot her epai rofanyar ticleanymor et hant o
i
tsmanuf act ure.I fIor dermyt ai l
ort omakemeasui t,
orawat chmakert or epairmywat ch,noonewoul d
supposet hatany onebutmy selfwasgoi ngt ouset he
suitorwat ch.I ft het ailorleftal argeneedl ei nt he
l
iningandi tinjur edaper sont ow&om atsomet imeI
l
entt hecoat ,Ishoul dt hinkt hatt hel attercoul dnot
recov eragai nstt het ail
or .Ther el
ationshi pwoul dbe
alt
oget hert oo r emot e,and manyoft hesuggest ed
diffi
cultiesofDonoghuevSt ev ensondi sappeari fitis
reali
zedt hatt hedeci si
onwas,asIv enturet obel i
ev e,
essent iall
yoneont hequest i
onofr emot eness.Butt he
caseofal i
ftr epai rerisv erydi fferent.Al i
ftinabl ock
off latsi st heret o beused byt heownerand hi s
servant s,t he t enant s and t hei rser vants,and al l
personsr esortingt heretoonl awf ulbusi ness.Bl ocks
off l
at sandof fi
cesar ef requent l
yownedbyl imited
compani eswhowoul dbecont ract i
ngpar ti
eswi tht he
l
iftengi neer s.I nsuchacase,t heempl oyerwoul dbe
theone' per son' whocoul dbynopossi bili
tyuset hel i
ft.
Ifther epai r
er sdot heirwor kcar elessly,orf ai
l t
or epor t
adangerofwhi cht heyasexper tsoughtt obeawar e, I
cannotseewhyt hepr incipleofDonoghuevSt evenson

•
382
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

shoul
dnotappl
ytot
hem.
"

Andatpp.379and380: "Itis,howev er
,arguedt hati
tis
notfightt hatar epairerwho,asi nt hepr esentcase,
hasst i
pulatedwi ththeper sonwhoempl oyshimt hat
heshal lnotbel iabl
ef oracci dent s,shouldnonet he
l
essbemadel iabletoat hirdper son.Theanswert o
thi
sar gumenti st hatt hedut ytot het hirdpar t
ydoes
notariseoutoft hecont r
act ,butindependent lyofit
.It
i
s,f ori nstance,a common t hi
ng nowaday sf ora
garagepr opriet
ort ostipul atethatcust omer s'carsare
dri
venbyhi m onlyatthe

•
383
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
soler isk oft he cust omer .Buti f,whi le dr iv ing a
cust omer '
scar ,her unsi nt oandi njur esapedest rian, the
cont racthehasmadewoul daf fordnoanswert ot he
l
at ter's cl aim. To hol d t he r epai rer l iabl ei n t he
circumst ancesoft hepr esentcase,. innowayenl arges
the l iabili
ty ofa cont ract ororr epai rerwho,bei ng
empl oy edt odocer t
ainwor k, doesi tpr oper lyandhands
i
tov ert otheper sonwhoempl oy edhi m.I fadangerbe
ther ebycr eat ed, i
tisfort heempl oy ert oguar dagai nsti t.
Fori nst ance, anownerofpr oper tyengagesacont ractor
toer ectanobst ructionacr ossadr iveorpr iv at er oad
wher enonehasbef or eexi sted.Hedoeswhathei s
empl oy edt odoexact lyi nt hewayhi sempl oy erdesi res.
Nextdayat r adesmanappr oachi ngt hehousei nt hedar k
runsi ntot heunexpect edobst ruct i
onandi si nj ur ed.He
woul dhav enocl ai
m agai nstt hecont ract or,becausei t
i
st heempl oy erwhocr eat edt hedangerandt hedut yof
guar dingorwar ningagai nsti tl iesonhi m.Tor endert he
cont ract ororr epai rerl) gbl e,t her emustbe,f irst ,awant
ofcar eonhi spar tintheper for manceoft hewor kwhi ch
hewasempl oy edt odo,and,secondl y,ci rcumst ances
whi chshowt hatt heempl oy erwi llbel ef tini gnor anceof
thedangerwhi cht hel ackofcar ehascr eat ed.Suppose
al i
ftr epai r
ert oldt heownert hatapar twaswor noutso
thatwhi l
ehecoul dpat chi tuphecoul dnotl eav ei tina
saf econdi tion.I fhewer et ol dt odot hebesthecoul d,
andanacci dentt henhappened,Icannotconcei v et hat
ther epai rerwoul dbehel dl iabl e.Hehasf ulfilledhi sdut y
bywar ningt heempl oy er ,andi ft hel at ter, i
nspi teoft hat ,
choosest oal lowt hel i
f tt obeused,t hel iabi l
itywi llrest
on hi m.The acci dentwoul d be caused,notbyt he
car elessness oft he r epai rer ,butby t he empl oyer '
s
disregar doft hewar ninggi v ent ohi m.I nt hepr esent
case, thelandl or disnotl iabl et ot hepl aintiffbecausehe
hadar ightt or el yont hewor kandr epor t
soft heexper ts
heempl oyed,andnoexami nat ionoft heirwor kaf ter
compl et i
on wascont empl at ed.I twoul d,Iv ent ur et o
think,beast rangeandunj ustr esul tift hepl aint iffwho
hasbeeni njur eddi rectlybyt hecar elessper for manceof
thewor kist obel eftwi thoutar emedy ."

EvansvTripl
exSafet
yGlassLt
d[193611AllER283
Facts:Theplai
nti
ffboughtacarthewindscr
eenofwhi
chhad
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
beenmanufacturedbythedef
endant
s.Whil
etheplaint
if
fwas
dri
ving t
he caraf t
erabouta yearaf
terits pur
chase,t
he
windscr
eenbrokeint
opi
eces
381•
wit
houtanyf orcebei
ngexertedoni t,result
ingininj
urytosome
ofthepassengersinthecar.
Held:Thedef endant
swer enotl i
ablesi ncetherehadbeenan
opport
unit
yofexami nationbyt heintermediat
esel l
erandther
e
hadbeenal apseoft i
mebet weent hepur chaseoft hevehi
cle
andtheoccurrenceoftheaccident.

PerPor terJatp.286:" I
nt hiscaseIcannotdr aw the
i
nferencet hatt hecauseoft hedisintegrat i
onwast he
fault
ymanuf acture.Iti st r
uet hatt hehumanel ement
mayf ailandt hent hemanuf acturerswoul dbel i
ablefor
negligence oft heirempl oyee,butt hen t hatwasnot
provedi nthiscase.Thedi sintegrat
ionmayhav ebeen
causedbyanyacci dent.Ther ewasev eryoppor tunit
yfor
fai
lureont hepar toft hehumanel ementi nf ast
eningthe
windscr een,andIt hinkt hatthedi sintegrationwasdue
rathert ot hef itt
ing oft hewi ndscreent hant of ault
y
manuf acturehav i
ngr egardt oitsuseont her oadandt he
damagedonet oawi ndscy eeni nthecour seofuser .

"Onehast oconsi dert hequest ionoft i

me.Thepl ai
ntif
f
hadhadt hewi ndscr eenf oraboutay ear.Thent her
ei s
thepossi bili
tyofexami nati
on.Thesuppl i
ersoft hecar
hadev eryoppor tunityt oexami net hewi ndscreen.Ido
notproposet ol aydownanyr ul
eofl aw;itisaquest ion
ofdegr ee and t hese el ement s mustbe t aken into
consideration.Thi sar ti
clewasputi ntoaf rameand
screwed;onemustconsi derthat.AsIhav esai dther
ei s
theelementoft i
me,t heoppor tuni
tyofexami nationand
theoppor tunityofdamagef rom ot hercauses.Onemust
considerall t
hesef actors.

"I
nDonoghuevSt ev
ensontherewasasnai li
nt heginger
beerbot t
leandt her
ewasnooppor tunit
yofseeingi tas
you coul d not see thr
ough t he glass.In Gr ant v
Australi
anKnitt
ingMi l
l
sLtdt heart
iclepassedont othe
purchaser and i tis qui
te clear that a reasonable
exami nat
ionofthegarmentwoul dnothav ereveal
edt he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
presenceofthesul phit
e.Thatcaseisdif
ferentfrom this.
Inthatcasetherewasf oundinsomeoft hegarment san
excessofsulphitesandt hatclear
lywasthecauseoft he
i
njury.Hereareanumberofcauseswhi chmi ghthav e
caused disi
ntegration.Ido notf ind any negligence
provedagainstthedef endantsandIgivethedef endants
j
udgmentwi thcost s."

ULTI
MATECONSUMER

DonoghuevSt
evenson[
19321AC562
Fact
sandHol
ding:
supr
a
Pr
inci
ple:Thedut
yowedbyt hemanuf
act
urerofgoodsi
sowed
t
otheultimat
econsumeroft
hegoods.

PerLor dAtki
natp.595:" Ishouldhavecomet ot he
conclusi
on that,as t he manufact
urers must hav e
contemplat
edt hebottl
ebeinghandledi mmedi atel
yby
theconsumer,theyowedadut ytohimt ot akecarethat
heshouldnotbei nj
uredext
ernal
lybyexplosion,justasI
thi
nkt heyowedadut yto hi
m tot akecar et hathe
should notbe injur
ed int
ernal
ly by poison orot her
noxi
oust hi
ng."

PerLor dMacmi ll
anatp.620:" NowIhav enohesi t
ation
i
naf firmi ngt hataper sonwhof orgainengagesi nt he
businessofmanuf acturi
ngar ti
clesoff oodanddr ink
i
ntendedf orconsumpt i
onbymember soft hepubl i
ci n
thefor mi nwhi chhei ssuest hem isunderadut ytotake
carei nt hemanuf actureoft hesear ti
cles.Thatdut y,in
myopi nion,he owes t ot hose whom he i ntends t o
consume hi s pr oducts. He manuf actures hi s
commodi tiesforhumanconsumpt i
on;hei ntendsand
contempl atesthattheyshal lbeconsumed.Byr easonof
thatv eryf actheplaceshi msel finar el
ationshi pwi thall
thepot entialconsumer sofhi scommodi ties,andt hat
rel
ationshi pwhi chheassumesanddesi resf orhisown
endsi mposesuponhi m adut yt otakecar et oav oid
i
njuringt hem.Heowest hem adut ynott oconv ertbyhi s
owncar elessnessanar ti
clewhi chhei ssuest ot hem as
wholesome and i nnocent i nto an ar ticle whi ch i s
danger oust oli
feandheal th."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
StennetvHancock[ 193912Al lER518
Facts:Thef i
rstdef endantsenthi scart ot heseconddefendant
to carry outr epairs on t he wheel s.The second def endant
repair
ed itand f ixed thef lange,al bei
tnegl i
gentl
y.When t he
servantofthef i
rstdef endantwasdr i
v i
ngt hecaraft
erfewhour s,
theflangecameof fandr anont hepav ementt ohittheplai
ntiff
whowaswal kingont hepav ement .
Held:The f irstdef endantwas notl iable butthe second
defendantwas l iabl
et ot he plaintif
fundert he pri
ncipl
ei n
DonoghuevSt ev ensonsi nceheknewt hatt hevehi
clewouldbe
usedont heroadandcoul dcausei njuryto

383•
ar
oaduseri
fhewasnegl
i
gent
.
Princi
ple:A manuf act
ureri
sliabletot heulti
mateuserofhi
s
productand a r oad userquali
fies as such ul
ti
mat
e useri
n
respectofvehi
clesusedonther oad.

PerBr ansonJatp.583:" Int hiscase,asi nthatcase,

therewasanoper ati
onper f
or medbyamanwhomust
haveknown, hadheconsi der edt hemat t
erforamoment ,
thatitwasanoper ati
onwhi ch,i fhedi dnotper formi t
properly,woul dpr obabl yr esul tini njur
yt osomebody
upont heroad.Heknewt hatt helorrywasbei ngr epai
red
forthepur posesofbei ngusedont her oad.Heknew
that,i
fitwasnotr epairedwi thduecar e,withthiswheel
soassembl edast omakei tkeept oget herandnotf l
y
apartupont her oad,inal lpr obabili
tysomebodywoul d
beinjuredast her esultofhi snothav i
ngdonet hatwhi ch
he shoul d hav e done.He knew t hat the second
defendantwasnotgoi ngt ot aket hewheelof forsubmi t
i
tt oanyscr utinyt oseewhet hert hewor khadbeen
properlydone.Ther efore,i tseemst o met hatev ery
elementwhi chwasconsi der edbyt hemaj orit
yoft he
HouseofLor dsi nM' A/ ister( orDonoghue)vSt evenson
tobenecessar ytor endert hemakeroft hear t
icl
einthat
caser esponsi blet ot heul ti
mat euserofi twhowas
damagedt herebyi spresenther e."

Andatpp.583and584:" .
..
Ithi
nkitri
ghtt
osayt hat
,if
,
uponthefactsoft
hecase,
ithadappear
edthatHancock
shoul
dr easonabl
y hav
e examined t
he wheelbefore
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
putt
ingitintouse,andhadf ail
edtodoso,t henthere
wouldbeanov usact
usi ntervenienswhichwoul dbreak
thecontinuit
ynecessar yt omakePet ersliablet othe
femaleplaint
iff
.Icannott hi
nk, however,thatitwouldbe
ri
ghttosay( asIhav eal readysai d)thataper sonwho
employsaski l
ledandcompet entrepair
ertor epai
rhis
vehi
cleisomi tt
inganydut ywhi chheowest ohi mselfor
toanybodyel seifhetrustst othatmanhav i
ngdonehi s
work properl
y ,and,inr eliance upon t hat
,t akes the
vehi
cleupont heroad.
"

NO REASONABLE POSSI
BILI
TY OF I
NTERMEDI
ATE
EXAMI
NATION

Dr
ansfi
eldvBr
it
ishI
nsul
atedCabl
e
Lt
d[1937]4Al
lER382

Facts:Thedef endantsmanuf act uredar i

ngusedasanov erhead
tr
olleywirepass.Ther i
ngswer esuppl i
edt oalocalauthorit
yand
wheni tsempl oyeewaswor kingont heringhewaski lledbyt he
breakingoft her i
ng.I twasf oundt hatt heringhadnotbeen
i
nspect edbyt hedef endantsandt hatar easonabl
et estwoul d
hav edisclosedthedef ects.Thewi dowoft hedeceasedsued.
Held:Si ncet herewasr easonabl eoppor tuni
tyforintermediate
i
nspect ionbyt helocalauthority,thedefendantsarenotl i
able.
Princi
ple:Amanuf act
urer'sli
abilityunderthepr i
nci
plei sli
mited
to wher et her eis no r easonabl e possibi
li
ty ofintermediate
exami nati
onoft heproduct.

PerHawke J atp.387:" Iarri

ve,t herefore,att he
conclusiont hattheunder standi
ngofGr eerL] ,already
ref
erredt o,
oft hejudgmentofLor dAt kininM ' Ali
ster( or
Donoghue)vSt evensonisacor rectunder standing,and
appli
cabl etot he deci
sion general
lyi nt hatcase.Mr
Tucker '
scont enti
onwast hatthedutyexi stsnotmer ely
wheret her
ei san oppor tuni
tyofexami nat i
on byt he
i
ntermedi at
epar t
y,notmer el
ywhent hef ormi nwhi ch
thepr oductsar esoldtot hepurchaseri ssucht hatt he
purchaseri s,sot ospeak,pr ev
entedf r
om maki ngan
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
ntermedi ate exami nation, but al so wher e t he
manuf acturerdoesnoti nf actcontempl ate,andneednot
reasonablycont emplate,t heinter
ventionofi ntermediate
examinat i
on,andt hatt hemanuf acturerisl iable,unless
hecanr easonablycont empl atethatany bodyi sgoi ngt o
makeani ntermediatetestofanef fecti
v enat ure.Idonot
thi
nkt hatt hatisthepr inciplelai
ddowni nM' Ali
ster(or
Donoghue) v St evenson.It hi
nk t hat t he pr i
nciple
dependsonoppor t
unityofexami nati
on,and,howev er
attr
activ
eImayt hinkMrTucker '
scont ention,Idonot
feelthatIam i naposi t
iont oaccepti t
.I fi tist obe
acceptedany wher
e,itmustbeaccept edel sewher e."

Andatp.388:" Appl yi
ngthosepr inci
plest othiscase,the
manuf acturerswer enoti nt hehabitoft esti
ngt her i
ngs
beforesuppl ying t hem t o purchasers.Theyt ook,and
thoughtt hattheywer er i
ghti nt
aking,achance,whi chis
oneofMrWi lson'sanswer sgi v
ent oMrTuckeri nthe
courseofcr oss- exami nati
on.Theysai d,andIagr ee,that,
withpr opermat eri
alandt hemat eri
alofwhi chthisr i
ng
wasmadewasper fectl
ypr oper andcar ef
ulwor kmen,
therewasr eal
lynodangeri nal
lowingwel dingtogoout
withoutfurthertesting.ButIcannotf indin

thiscaseanyev i
denceofanyst epst akenbyt hem t o
preventt hepur chaserf rom test i
ngbef orer etaili
ngt he
goods, orrequiri
ngot herper sonst ouset hem.I tisnota
casei nwhi cht heuseofi ntermedi atet ests,whet her
successf ulornot ,woul ddef eatt heobj ectoft hesuppl y
.
Testscoul dbeappl i
edwhi ch, ifsuccessf ul,woul dleave
thepr oductperf ectlyfitforuse.Ther ewer e,admi t
tedly,
tests whi ch coul d easi ly hav e been made. The
empl oyeesoft heBour nemout hCor por ati
ondi dnotuse
them,because t hey sai dt hat t hey r eli
ed on t he
manuf acturers,and t hat,ift heypur chased f rom t he
manuf acturersr ings,suchast hesewer e,ofsuf fi
cient
dimensi onst obeart hest r
ai nwhi chwoul dbeputon
them,t heywoul dbeent itl
edt oassumet hatt hegoods
wer eper f
ect.Thecor por ati
onhadanengi neeringst aff,
andt heycer t
ainl yhadsuf fici
entoppor t
uni tyt oappl y
tests of whi ch t hey knew.They had,i nf act,an
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
nst rumentcal ledady namo- meter
,actuall
ysuit
abl efor
testingstrainsonmet als.Itwasnott hei
rhabit,before
thisaccident ,touset hisinstrumentf ortesti
ngsuch
things as bul l-
ri
ngs,though i twas used i nf actf or
testingmor ef lexi
blepor ti
onsoft heirsyst
em,butt hey
couldeasi lyandwel l
—Iam usi ngthewor dsofoneof
theirownwi tnesses—hav eusedi tbeforeputti
nganyof
thebul l
-r
ingsi ntouse,andIunder standthattheuseof
suchat estwoul dhavedi sclosedquiteeasi
lywhet heror
nott heweldi ngswerefitforuse.

"It
hereforethi
nkthatthereislacki
ngoneoft hefact ors
whichitisessenti
alfortheplaint
ifftopr oveinor dert o
subst
ant i
atehercase,and,howev ermuchImayr egret
i
t,Imustgi vej
udgmentagainsther .Ithi
nkt hattheonus
ofprooft hatthenecessaryrelati
onexi stsliesonher ,
andIthinkthatshehasfail
edt oprov esuchar el
ation."

Paul
i
nevCol
nev
all
ey[
1938]4Al
l
ER8803
Facts:Theseconddef endantsbuiltki osksthatwer eusedbyt he
fi
rstdefendantasanel ect
ri
calstation.Theki oskswer ej oi
nedby
i
nsulati
ngwi reandoneoft hewi reswasl efthangi ngbyt he
seconddef endant.Awor kmanoft hef i
rstdefendantcamei nt o
contactwiththelivewireandwaski lled.Theexecut ri
xsued.
Held:Sincet herewasampl eoppor tunityfori nspectionbyt he
fi
rstdefendant ,t
heseconddef endantasmanuf acturerswer e
notli
able.Pri
nciple:Amanuf actureri snotliableforinjurycaused
toaconsumeri fther
ewasr easonabl epossi bil
it
yofi ntermediate
i
nspection.

PerGoddar d LJatpp.808 and 809:' '

AsIr ead t he
l
eadi ng case,howev er,ifA suppl ies a chat telt oBi n
ci
r cumst anceswhi chshowt hatthereareoppor tunit
iesf or
Bt oexami nei t,thesuppl i
erisnott herebybr oughti nto
proxi mat erelati
onshipwi thB' sempl oyeesorsubsequent
cust omer s.Iwi l
lcit
et wopassagesf rom theopi nionofLor d
Atkin.He sai d,atp 578:' The quest i
on is whet hera
manuf acturerofan ar ti
cle ofdr i
nk sol d by hi m t oa
distributor,incircumst anceswhichpr eventthedi stributor
ort heul ti
mat epur chaserorconsumerf rom discov eri
ngby
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
nspect i
onanydef ect,isunderanyl egaldut yt
ot heul t
imate
purchaserorconsumert ot aker easonabl ecar et hatthe
arti
cleisf r
eef rom def ectli
kelyt ocausei nj
uryt ohealth.
'
Again,atp599,hesai d:'byScot sandEngl i
shl aw ali
kea
manuf actur
erofpr oduct s,whichhesel l
si nsuchaf orm as
to show t hathe i ntends t hem t or each the ul t
imate
consumeri nt he form i n whi ch they lefthim wi th no
reasonable possibil
it
y ofi ntermediate exami nation,and
withtheknowl edget hatt heabsenceofr easonablecar ein
thepreparati
onorput tingupoft hepr oductswillresulti
nan
i
njurytotheconsumer 'sl i
feOfpr oper t
y,owesadut yt othe
consumert otaket hatreasonabl ecare.'

"Itseemscl eart hat,inspeaki ngoft hepr ev ent i

on,orof
the r easonabl e possi bil
it
y,ofexami nati
on,Lor d Atkin
meantpr eventionornopossi bil
i
t yinabusi nesssense.A
per sonwhobuy s100casesoft innedsal monf r
om the
packer shasaphy sicalopportunityofexami ningeacht in.
Commer ciallyspeaki ng,i
twoul dbei mpossi blef orhimt o
doso, norwoul dany oneexpecti t,asbyopeni ngt heti
ns
hewoul dspoi lt hecont entsbef oret heycoul dbesol d.
Per haps, t herefore, wi t
hout di srespect,t he wor d
'
pr obability
' maybesubst i
tutedf or'possibili
ty '
.Iftherebe
suchapr obability,t
her el
ationshipbet weenmanuf acturer
andul ti
mat euserorconsumerwi llnotbepr oximate.
Somet hingi sint er
posedwhi chpr eventsthef or gi
ngofa
l
inkbet weent het wo.Someday ,per haps,itmaybehel d
that ,ifa man negl i
gentl
y const ructs orcompounds
somet hi
ngwhi chheknowst heempl oyeesorcust omer s
ofhi scust omermustuse,hewi l
lnotbeal lowedt orely
ont hefactt hathi scustomeroughtt ohaveexami nedthe
goodsanddi dnotdoso.Idonott hink,howev er,
387•
•
thatIhav eanyr ightso t
o hol
d,and Imustr egard
M'A/i
ster(orDonoghue)vStev
ensonasshowingthat,i
f
ther
ei s a probabil
i
tyofexaminat
ion,the pr
oxi
mat e
rel
ati
onshipofthemanufactur
erwil
lnotext
endbey ond
hiscustomer.

"
Herethesecond def
endant
swerenotempl oyed t
o
i
nst
all
,butonl
ytomakeanddeli
ver
,theki
osk.I
thadin
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
factbeendel i
v eredsomet woy ear sbef or
et heacci dent,
andhadbeenatt hef i
rstdef endant s'premisesev er
since.Thedut yi mposedbyt heFact or yandWor kshop
Act1901wasont hef i
rstdef endant s,andi twasf or
them t osat isfyt hemselvest hatt heki oskcompl iedwi th
thatAct .Thei rengi neersf ixedi t,and, ifnoonet roubled
toseet hati twassaf ef ort hei rment ouse( andt hey
knewbet terthanany oneel secoul dknowt hemet hods
whi chwoul dbeadopt edandt het oolswhi chwoul dbe
used) ,they wer e,in my opi nion,gui lt
y ofa v ery
consi derablebr eachofdut yt ot heirwor kmen.Fort hese
reasons Imusthol dt hatt her e was no pr oximat e
relationshipbet weent heseconddef endantsandt he
deceased,and i n so hol ding Iam suppor t
ed byt he
deci sionofAt kinsonJi nOt t
ovBol ton&Nor ri
s."

AswanEngineer
ingEstabl
ishment
Co.vLupi
dineLtd[1987]1All
ER135
Facts:Thepl ai
ntif
fboughtal i
quidwat erpr
oofmat eri
alfrom the
fi
rst def endant. The mat eri
als wer e put in pl asti
c pai l
s
manuf actur
edbyt heseconddef endaht.Themat er
ialswer esent
toKuwai tandwer el efti nthesun.Thepl ast
iccoll
apsedandt he
mat erialswer elost.Itwasf oundt hatthecoll
apsewasduet o
themanneri nwhi cht hemat eri
alshadbeenpacked.
Held:Theseconddef endantmanuf acturerswerenotl i
ablesince
i
twasnotr easonablyf oreseeablethatthedamaget hatoccurred
woul dhav eoccur r
ed.
Principle:Amanuf actur er'
sdut yextendsonl yt
odamaget hatis
reasonabl yforeseeabl e.

PerLloydLJatp.153:" Butt hatisnotthet est.The

questi
onisnotwhet hertheconsequencewasofat ype
whichwasf oreseeable,butwhet heritwasofat ype
whichwasr easonablyf oreseeable.Thescopeoft he
manufacturer'
sdut yofcar edoesnotex tendbey ond
thatpoint
.I nthepr esentcaset heLupguardsuf fered
damagebecauset hepai l
swer estackedsixhighand
l
eftformanyday si ntemper aturesof70degr eesC.
Wast hatdamageoft het ypewhi chwasr easonably
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
foreseeable?I nmyopi niontheansweri sacategoricNo.
Counself ort heappellantsreli
edont heabsenceofany
ev i
dencet hatei t
herthev oyaget oKuwai tortheleavi
ng
oft hecont ainersonthequay sidewer eabnor
mali nany
way .Indeed,t he j
udge f ound byi nfer
ence thatthe
transitwas nor mal.Counself ort he appel
lants al
so
reli
ed,inthi sconnection,ont hedatasheet .Atthev er
y
l
east ,hesai d,thedat asheetshoul dhav econtaineda
war ni
ngt hatt hepail
scoul dnotbest ackedsixhighat
temper at
ur esinexcessoft hest atedrange.

"Iacceptt hatt hev oyaget o Kuwai tmaynothav ebeen

abnor malf orav oyaget oKuwai t
.Buti tbynomeansf ol
lows
thatt hecondi tionst owhi chthepai l
swer esubj ectedwer e
condi ti
ons whi ch Thur garBol l
e shoul dr easonabl y hav e
foreseen.NorwasIper suadedt hatt hedat asheetassi sts
counself ort he appel l
ant s'ar gumenton f oreseeabi l
ity
.
Thur garBol l
ewer eobl iged,asmanuf acturers,t oexer cise
reasonabl ecar et oensur et hatthepai lswer erobustenough
towi thstandt heor dinaryst r
essesandst rainsofanexpor t
transact i
on,wi thoutt hel idcomi ngof fandwi thoutl eaking.
Butt het ypeofdamagewhi choccur r edandt hecondi ti
ons
i
nwhi chitoccur redwer eal t
oget herout sidet her angeof
whatwasr easonabl yforeseeabl e,andt hereforeout sidet he
scopeoft heirdut yofcar e.Tohol dot her wiseont hef actsof
thepr esentcasewoul dbet oimposeont hemanuf acturers
al i
abilit
ynotf arshor toft hatofani nsur er.
"

Andatpp.153and154:" Therei sanot herappr oachwhi ch

l
eads t ot he same r esult.Lor d At kin'
sf ormul ati
on i n
DonoghuevSt evenson[1932]AC562, [1932]AllERRep1of
themanuf acturer'
sdut yofcar eexcl udest hecasewher e
ther
ehasbeenar easonableoppor t
uni t
yofi ntermedi ate
examinati
on.Thosewor dshav ebeent hesubj ectofmuch
subsequentanal ysis,almostasi ftheyf or
medpar tofa
stat
ute.Somet imest heyaretreatedasi ftheyimposeont he
plai
nti
ffani ndependentr equir
ementwhi chhemustsat isfy
,
ahoopt hroughwhi chhemustpass, beforehisact i
oni nt or
t
cansucceed.Counself ort heappel l
ant sarguest hatt he
plai
nti
ffherecanpasst hrought hathoopwi thoutdi ff
iculty
,
becausenoi nter
medi at
eexami nationwoul dhav er evealed
thedefectinthepails,otherthanat est
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
389u•

todest ruction.Thi scannothav ebeenwhatLor dAt ki

nhadi n
mind.Iagr eet hatiti
sunl ikel
yt hatLor dAt kinhadsuchat estin
mindwhenher efer
redt oi ntermedi ateexami nation.Butt hat
doesnotdi sposeoft hedi f
ficulty.Thewor ds' nor easonabl e
possibili
tyofi ntermedi at
eexami nation'takecol ourf rom t he
precedingwor ds' whichhesel lsi nsuchaf orm ast oshowt hat
hei ntendst hem t oreacht heul ti
mat econsumeri nt hef ormi n
whi chtheyl efthim' (
see[ 1932]AC562at599, [
1932]Al lERRep
1at20) .Theydonoti mposeani ndependentr equirementwhi ch
thepl ai
nti
ffmustsat isf
y .Theyar ef actors,usuallyveryimpor tant
factors,whi cht hecourthast ot akei ntoaccounti ndeter mining
whet hert he damage t o person orpr opertywas r easonabl y
foreseeable.

"Int he pr esentcase i twas notcont empl ated ( to use Lor d

Wr i
ght '
sexpr essi oni nGr ant vAust ralianKni ttingMi l
lsLt d[ 1936]AC85
at105,[ 1935]Al lERRep209at218)t hatthepai l
swoul dbet estedt o
dest r
uction.Butt hatsomef urt hert est i
ngwascont empl atedi sclear
from t hef actt hatt hef irstor derwasat rialor der.Att hev eryleast,
Thur garBol l
ewer eent itled t o assumet hatt her ewoul d besome
furtherdiscussi onbet weenThur garBol l
eandLupdi nei ft hepai lswer e
goingt obeputt osomespeci al use.I famanuf actur ersel lsadef ective
tyrewhi chi sf it
tedasor iginalequi pmentt oacar ,heowesadut yof
caret otheul timat econsumer , becauset heconsequenceoft hedef ect
doesnotdependi nanywayont het y peofcart owhi cht he t yreis
fi
tted.But ,ifasoundt yreint endedf oruseonacari sf ittednott oacar
butt oabus, themanuf act urerowesnodut yofcar e, notbecauset here
wasanoppor tunityofi nter medi ateexami nationi nanyor dinar ysense,
butbecauset heuset owhi cht het y rewasputwasnotr easonabl y
foreseeabl e.Indeed, i
nsuchacasei tisar ti
f i
cialtot hinkoft het yreas
beingdef ecti
v eordanger ousatal l.Thedangerar isesnotf r
om any
defecti nt hety re,butsol el yasar esul toft heuset owhi cht het yreis
put.Thati sessent i
allythesameast heposi t
ionher e.Sowhet herone
appr oaches t he pr esentcase as one i n whi ch Lupdi ne had an
oppor tunityofi ntermedi at eexami nat ioni nar atherl oosesenseor
whet her( asIwoul dprefer )oneaskst hesi mpl equest ion:Whet hert he
damage was r easonabl yf oreseeabl e? Iwoul dr each t he same
concl usi
on
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
McTearvI mperialTobaccoLt d.(2005)Ti mes, 14June
Fact s:Thehusbandoft heplainti
ffdiedofl ungcanceratage48
aftersmoki ng cigar et
tesmanuf actured byt he def endantf or
almost30y ears.Thepl ai
ntif
fsuedt hatt hemanuf acturerwas
l
iabl einnegl i
gencef orapr oducthar mf ultoheal t
horf orsell
ing
them wi thoutadequat ewar ning.Held:Si ncet hedeceasedknew
oft heheal t
hr i
sksassoci at
edwi thsmoki ng, t
hedef endantswer e
notl i
able.
Principle:Wher eaper sonusesapr oductwi tht heknowl edgeof
thedef ectinthepr oductort herisktoheal th,themanuf act ur
eris
notal iable.Li
abilit
yi sli
mi t
edt olatentdef ectsi nthepr oductand
thuswher eaper sonhasknowl edgeoft hedef ect,therewasno
dutyont hemanuf acturertowar noft hedanger s.

PerLor dNi mmo- Smit h:"Theev i

dencehadshownt hat
MrMcTearhadbeenawar e,incommonwi ththegener al
publ ic,wel lbefore1971,and by1964,when hehad
star tedsmoki ng,oft hepubl ici
tyaboutt heheal thr i
sks
associ atedwi t
hsmoki ngandi npar ti
cul arther i
skof
l
ungcancer .Hi sLordshi psai dt hatev eni fithadbeen
prov edt hatcigarett
esmoki ngcoul dcausel ungcancer ,
ther ewasnoaut hori
tyf orthepur suer '
spr oposit
iont hat
assoonast heybecameawar eoft hatt hedef enders
wer eunderadut ytoceasemanuf acture.Therecoul d
only hav e been such a dut yi ft he l aw was t hata
manuf acturerhadt oensur et hesaf etyoft heconsumer .
Thecasesdi dnotsuppor tthatappr oach.Thedut yupon
aper sonwhoputont hemar ketadanger ousarticlewas
tot aker easonablest epsi nal loft heci rcumst ances:see
Hol mesvAshf ord( [1950]2 Al lER 76) .Anessent ial
feat ure of t he speci es of l iabili
ty i n negl igence
est abli
shedbyDonoghuevSt evenson( 1932SC( HI)31;
[1932]Al lERRep1,[ 1932]AC562)wast hatitwast he
l
at ency oft he def ecti n a car elessly manuf actured
productwhi chconst i
tut edt hemi schi ef.

"Therewasnodoubtt hatapersonwhowasi njuredthrough

consumi ngOfusingapr oductthedefecti
v enat ureofwhi ch
hewaswel lawar
ehadnor emedyagai nstthemanuf acturer:
seeGr antvAustral
ianKnitt
ingMi ll
s([
1935]Al lERRep209,
[1936]AC85)andMur phyvBr entwoodDi str
ictCounci l(The
Times,July27,1990,[1990]2Al lER908,[ 1991]1AC398) .
Therewasnodut ytowar nofr isksofwhi cht heor dinary
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
memberoft herel
evantclassofpeopl emi ghtr easonablybe
assumedt obeawar eof .Therehadbeennosuggest i
ont hat
thecigarettes391•
manuf actured by the def enders had at any t ime
contai
ned anysubst anceot herthanwhatt hepubl i
c
wouldnor mall
yhav eexpect edasaconst it
uentofa
cigar
ette.Therecouldnotbesai dt ohavebeenadef ect
inthepr oductsofwhi chtheconsumer swer enotal so
aware.Aper sontowhom apr oductwassuppl i
edf or
consumpt ioncouldbepr esumedt ober easonable:see
McWi //i
amsvSi r Co( 1962SC ( HI.
)70;
[1962]1Al lER623,[1962]1WLR295) .

"A subj ect i

vev iew byan i ndividualt hati tmi ghtbe
diffi
cultforhi mt ogi veupsmoki ngdi dnotabsol vehi m
ofhi sresponsi bili
ti
esundert hecommonl aw.Adul tsof
fullageandnotsuf feri
ngf r
om l egali ncapaci tyhadt he
responsi bili
tyofmaki ngreasonabl echoi ces, notl easti n
mat ter
saf fect
ingt heirhealt
h,saf etyandwel fare.Ther e
wasnodut ytosav epeopl ef rom t hemsel ves:seeLor d
Hof fman' sspeechi nToml i
nsonvCong/ etonBor ough
Counci l( TheTi mesAugust1,2003,[ 200313Al lER
1122,[ 2004]1AC 46) .I
f,int heknowl edget hatt hey
wer etakingachance, t
heyexposedt hemsel vest oar i
sk
ofhar m,t herewasnobr eachofanydut yofcar e:see
Titchener vBr it
ishRai l
waysBoar d( 1984 SC ( HL)34;
[
1983]3Al lER770, [
1983]1WLR1427) ."

Baxhal
lSecur
it
iesLt
dvShear
d
WalshawPart
nershi
p(af
ir
m)
[
20021
EWCACi v09
Facts:Thepl aint
if
fswer et heoccupi ersofani ndustri
alhouse.
Thedev eloperofthebui l
dingempl oy edthedef endantarchi
tects
todesignt heroofdrainagesy stem.Thesy stem designedbyt he
defendantsandi nstal
leddi dnothav eov erfl
owsandf oll
owinga
heavydownpour ,
theplaint
iff'
spr emiseswer ef l
ooded.
Held:Sincet heabsenceoft heov erfl
owswasappar entand
could hav e been det ected by t he pl ai
nt i
ff by reasonable
examination,thedefendantswer enotl i
able.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Pri
nci
ple:Amanufact
ureri
snotli
abl
eforappar
entdefect
swhi
ch
canbeident
if
iedandremediedbyr
easonabl
eexaminati
on.

PerDav i
dSt eel Jatpar s.45— 48:" Theemphasi si s
accor dingl yondef ectswhi char elatenti nt hesense
thatt heycoul d notbedet ected bysuchr easonabl e
exami nat ionast hedef endantt othecl ai m mi ght,i fhe
hadgi v enanyt houghtt oit,reasonablyant i
cipat ewoul d
be conduct ed.Thi s approach i s conf i
rmed by t he
decisionoft hePr ivyCouncil inGrantvAust raliaKni tting
Mill
s[ 1936]AC85.Atpage105,Lor dWr ightsai das
foll
ows:' Thepr incipleofDonoghue' scasecanonl ybe
appliedwher et hedef ecti
shi ddenandunknownt ot he
consumer ,ot her wiset hedirectnessofcauseandef fect
i
sabsent :themanwhoconsumesorusesat hi ngwhi ch
heknowst obenoxi ouscannotcompl aininr espectof
what ev ermi schi eff oll
ows,becausei tf oll
owsf r
om hi s
ownconsci ousv oli
tioninchoosi ngt oi ncurt her iskor
certainty of mi schance. Ift he foregoi ng ar et he
essent ialf eat uresofDonoghue' scase,t heyar ealsot o
bef ound,i nt heirLor dshi
ps'j udgment ,int hepr esent
case.Thepr esenceoft hedel eteri
ouschemi cali nt he
partsduet onegl i
gencei nmanuf acture,wasahi dden
andl atentf eat ure,justasmuchaswer et her emai nsof
thesnai lint heopaquebot tle:itcouldnotbedet ect ed
byanyexami nat i
ont hatcouldr easonabl ybemade. '

"Theconceptofal at
entdef ecti snotadi f
f i
cultone.I t
meansaconceal edf l
aw.Whati saf law?I ti st heact ual
def ecti nt he wor kmanshi p ordesi gn,nott he danger
present edbyt hedef ect.(Agoodexampl eoft hedi st inction
i
scont ainedi nNi t
riginEir eannTeor ant avI ncoAl loy sLt d
[1992]1WLR498)Towhatext entmusti tbehi dden?I nmy
j
udgment ,itmustbeadef ectthatwoul dnotbedi scov ered
followi ngt henat ureofi nspectiont hatt hedef endantmi ght
reasonabl yant i
cipatet he ar ti
cle woul d be subj ect ed t o.
Ther ei s,accor dingly,a quest ion her e ofdegr ee.The
consumerofaf i
zzydr i
nkwi l
lnot,inthenor mal cour se, bring
i
nanexper tt oi
nspectt hegoodshepur chased.I nmar ked
cont rast ,thebuy erofabui l
dingal mosti nvariablywoul d.
Cer tainlyi nt hecommer cialcont ext
,adef ectwoul dnotbe
l
at enti fithadbeenr easonabl ydi scoverablebyt hecl aimant
witht hebenef i
tofsuchski lledthirdpartyadv iceashemi ght
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
beexpect edtor et
ain.Thecl assi
cdefini
tionoflatentdefect
i
nt hef ieldofcar r
iageofgoodsbyseai st hatcontai
nedi n
RiverstoneMeatPO!Lt dvLancashi r
eShi ppingCompanyLt d
[1961]AC807,perLor dKei thofAv onholm atpage871:' He
willbepr otectedagainstlatentdefects,i
nt hestri
ctsense,in
wor kdoneonhi sship,thatist osay,def
ect snotduet oany
negligentwor kmanshi pofr epair
ersorot hersempl oyedby
ther epairersand,asIseei t
,againstdef ect
smaki ngf or
unseawor thi
ness int he shi p,howev ercaused,bef orei t
becamehi sshi p,i
fthesecoul dnotbediscov er
edbyhi m, Of
compet entexperts

393.
.
employedbyhi
m,byt heexerci
seofduedi
l
igence.
'(A si
mil
arapproachi
s
adoptedint
heinsur
ancefi
eld:seeTheCar
ibbeanSea [1981]Ll
oydsRep
338.
)"

Andatpar s.53and54:" Insummar y,Iwoul dputt hemat teri n

thisway .Wher e,i nt henor malcour seofev ents,asur vey or
woul dbeengagedi nasur veyofabui l
dingf orapur chaser ,and,
witht heexer ciseofduedi ligence,t hatsur vey orwoul dhav e
discovered a def ect ,thatdef ecti spat entwhet herornota
surveyori sinf actengagedand,i fengaged,whet herornott he
surveyorper f
or mshi st askcompet entl
y .Itf ollowst hati nmy
j
udgment ,t
hej udgewasr ightt oconcl udeasf ollows:' 108.I nthe
presentcase, thepr eci
sedef ecthadnotbeendi scover edbef or e
the floods,butt her e had been atl eastone pr evious f lood
evidencedbymar kingsont hef l
oori nthebui lding.I nmyopi nion,
thedut yoft hedef endant st ot hecl aimant smustdependont he
question," Wast her ear easonabl eoppor tunityof .inspect i
onof
thedr ainagesy stem and di scov eri
ng thedef ect sbef oret he
fl
oods? "I ft he cl aimant s had a r easonabl e oppor tunity of
i
nspect ing the dr ainage sy st em and di scov ering t he def ect s
beforet hey suf fered damage,i twoul d notbe f ai rj ustOf
reasonabl et ohol dt hedef endant sl i
ablef ort hatdamagenor
woul ditbef i
ghtt osayt hatt her ewasapr ox imat er elationshi p
betweent heclaimant sandt hedef endants.

"Therewasar easonableopport
unit
yofi
nspecti
ngt hebuil
ding
beforetheclai
mant stookalease.I
twoul
dbenor malprocedure
foranyi ncomi
ngt enanttohav ethebui
l
dinginspectedbyt he
surveyor,and thatis whattheydid.Al
though the cl
aimants
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
receiv ed war nings f rom bot ht he sur vey ors and f rom Mr
Meikl ejohnofadanger ,t heywer enott oldwhatwast hepr eci se
problem.Thesur v ey orscoul d,andi nmyv iewshoul d,hav et old
thecl ai mant st hatt her ewer enoov er flows,andt hatov er
flows
shoul dbepr ov ided.Thecostofov er flowswasv er ysmal landi f
thecl aimant shadbeenadv isedt oi nst allt hem t henIcannot
thi
nkt hatt heywoul dhav ef ail
edt odoso.I fLamber tSmi th
Hampt onhadbeenmor eassi duousi nt heper formanceoft heir
duties,t hecl aimant swoul dhav ebeenexpr essl ywar nedoft he
absenceofov erflowsandt hef loodswoul dnothav eoccur red.
Towhatext enti st hecl aimant s'cl ai m af fect edbyt heact sof
thei
rpr of essi onaladv iser s?Ar et heyent i
tledt o say ,ast hey
mighti nr esponset oadef enceofcont ribut or ynegl i
gence,t hat
theyt ookski lledadv iceandar eent itledt or elyont hatadv ice?I
donott hinkt hatt hati st her i
ghtappr oach.
"Idonott hi nkt hati ti sf airj ustOfr easonabl et hatt he
ext entoft hel iabi l
ityoft hedef endant sshoul ddepend
on t he assi dui tyoft he sur v
ey or si nst ruct ed byt he
clai mant s. The cl ai mant s had t he oppor tuni t
yt o
discov er t he absence of ov er flows by r easonabl e
inspect i
on by pr of essi onal adv iser s who mi ght
reasonabl ybeexpect edt obei nst ruct ed:whet hert hat
reasonabl eoppor t
uni tyi nf actr ev ealedt hedef ecti s
irrelev ant .Becauset her ewasar easonabl eoppor t
uni t
y
toi nspect ,t he def endant s wer e noti n a pr oximat e
relat ionshi pt ot hecl ai mant ssof arasconcer nsdef ects
whi chcoul dhav ebeendi scov er edbyt hati nspect i
on,
namel y ,t he absence ofov erflows.ButIr epeatmy
pr ev ious f i
ndi ng t hatnei thert he cl aimant s nort heir
sur v ey ors coul d r easonabl y be expect ed t o hav e
discov eredt heunder desi gnoft hedr ainagesy stem. "In
myj udgmentt he j udge' s anal ysi si s cor r
ect .Act ual
knowl edgeoft hedef ect,oral t er nat i
v elyar easonabl e
oppor tunityf ori nspect iont hatwoul dunear tht hedef ect,
wi llusual lynegat ivet hedut yofcar eoratl eastbr eak
thechai nofcausat i
onunl ess( asi snotsuggest edint he
pr esentcase)i ti sr easonabl ef ort hecl aimantnott o
remov et hedangerposedbyt hedef ectandt or unt he
riskofi njur y:seeTar get /vTomaenBC[ 1992]3Al lER
27perSi rDonal dNi chol l
sV- Cat
p.
37.
"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
WANTOFREASONABLECARE
DonoghuevSt
evenson(
supr
a)
Fact
sandHol
ding:
supr
a
PerLor dMacmi ll
anatp.619:" Todescendf rom these
generali
ti
estot hecircumst ancesoft hepresentcase,I
do nott hi
nkt hatanyr easonabl emanoranyt welve
reasonable men woul d hesi tat
et o holdt hat,ift he
appell
antest abli
shes heral legati
ons,t he respondent
has exhibit
ed car el
essness i nt he conduct of hi s
business.Foramanuf acturerofaer at
edwat ert ostore
hisempt ybottl
esinapl acewher esnail
scangetaccess
tot hem,and t of i
l
lhi s bot tl
es withoutt aking any
adequate precauti
ons by i nspection orot herwise to
ensurethat

395•
•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

they contai
n no deleter
ious for
eign mat t
er, may
reasonabl
ybechar act
eri
zed ascarelessnesswit
hout
applyi
ngtooexact
ingastandar
d."

GrantvAust
ral
i
anKni
tt
ingMil
ls
(supr
a)Fact
sandHol
ding:
supra
PerWr ightJatp.105:" I
nDonoghue' scaset hething
wasdanger ousinf act
,thoughthedangerwashi dden,
andt het hingwasdanger ousonlybecauseofwantof
carei nmaki ngit
;asLor dAtkinpoint
soutinDonoghue' s
case, t he di sti
nct i
on bet ween t hi
ngs i nher
ent l
y
danger ous and t hings only dangerous because of
negligentmanuf acturecannotberegardedassignif
icant
forthepur poseofthequest ionsherei
nvolv
ed."

Aboagy evKumasi Br eweryLimited[ 1964]GLR2242

Fact s:Thepl aintif
f,whiletaki
ngabot tl
eofbeermanuf acturedby
thedef endantwi t
hsomef ri
endsf oundar ottennuti nt hebeer
afterconsumi ngabouthal foft hecont ent.Hel aterv omi tedand
hadf r
equentst ools.Thedoct orwhoexami nedhi mt est i
fiedthat
hehadf oodpoi soning.Thedef endantar guedt hatt heyhada
foolproofsy stem andt hustheywer enotnegl igent.
Hel d:Si ncet hedef endant'
ssy stem wasoper ated byhuman
beings, oneoft hem hadf ail
edtoexer ci
sepr opercar er esul t
ingin
thepr esenceoft henuti nthebeer ,andt hedef endantwast hus
l
iabl e.
Principle:Themanuf actur
erisliablei fhef ail
st oexer cisepr oper
carei nthemanuf actureofthepr oduct .

PerDj
abanorJatpp.245and246:" Iam sat
isf
iedfr
om
whatIhav e seen and hear
dint hi
s case thatthe
def
endant
s'plantist he bestpossibl
e pl
ant.Iam
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

sati
sf i
edt hatnopossi bleat tackcanbemadeont hei r
i
mpl ement s,theirmachi neryOft hegener alwayi nwhi ch
thei
rbusi nessi scar riedon;andi ndeedt hisisav er y
substantialandmoder nplaceofbusi ness.Thewhol e
system ofwor kshoul dreallybedescr ibedasf ool-
proof ,
butf orthef act,asadmi t
tedbyMr .Hor stmanhi msel f,
thatwhen t hese machi nes and pr ocesses ar e being
operatedbyhumanbei ngsonecannotbeal way scertain.
Howev er
,thedef endantsar esay ingf ollowingt hecase
ofDani el
sandDani el
sv .R.Whi te&Sons,Lt d.
,3thatby
adopt i
ngaf ool-
pr oofpr ocessandbycar ryingoutt hat
processunderpr opersuper vision,theyhad

•
•396
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

takenreasonablecar etoseet hatt hebeergoi ngoutoft heir

factor
ywasf reef r
om contaminationofanyki nd, andthatt hey
haddischargedt heburdenont hem.Butt hepl ainti
ffi
nef fect
i
ssay ing:Ihavenodoubtt haty ourmachi nerymaybeupt o
dateort hatyourprocessesareal sooft hebest .Butt heyar e
mannedbyhumanbei ngswhomaynegl i
gentl
y, deli
beratelyor
evenabsent -
mindedlyfault
er.Thesi ghter
scoul dhav emi ssed
thatonebot tl
econt ai
ningthatnutj ustassomef ew bot tles
havebeenknownt ohavepassedt hroughallthesepr ocesses
andcomeoutst i
llsmell
ingofkerosene. "

Andatp.247:i nt hi
scaseIhav efoundt hatt henutwasi nthe
beerwhent hepl aintiffdr anki t
.Ihav ebeent ol dandhav eseen
theup- to- dat emachi ner yand pr ocesst hatt hedef endant s
havei nt hei rfact or yf orbr ewi ngandbot tl
ingt hei
rbeert o
preventt hi ngsl i
keanutf rom ent eri
ngorr emai ni
ngi nt he
bott
lesofbeert hatt heysel loutt ot heircust omer s.Allthat
showst hati fallthewor kmendi dt hewor kt hatwasexpect ed
ofthem t henutshoul dnev erhav er emai nedi nthebot t
le.
Somebodyi nthedef endant s'empl oy mentf ailedt odohi sdut y
onthisoccasi onandal lowedt hebeerwi tht henuti nittopass
outoft hef actory .Inmyv iew( aswast hev iewofLor dDunedi n
i
nBal lardvNor thBr it
ishRai l
wayCo.( supra) )t hedef endant s
hadt oshow how t henutcoul dhav egoti ntot hebot tl
eand
remainedt here,inspi teoft heirsy stem ofwor k,ifsomebody
hadnotbeennegl i
gent .Itismyv i
ewt hattheyf ai l
edtodot hat.
Iti
smyf urtherv i
ewt her eforet hatthepl aintiffhaspr ovedthat
thenutwasi nt hebeerwhenhedr anki t
,andt hatitcouldnot
havebeent her eift hedef endant swer enotnegl igent.
"

AcheampongvOv erseasBr eweries[1971]GLR7

Facts:The pl ai
ntifft ook a bot tl
e ofbeermanuf act ur
ed by t he
defendants.Heal legedt hattherewasker oseneint hebeerandt hatthe
presenceoft heker osenewasduet ot henegl igenceoft hedef endant
.
Thedef endant sar guedt hattheirsy st
em ofoper ationwasf oolpr
oof
andt hustherecoul dnotbeanynegl igenceat tr
ibutedt othem.
Held:Si nce the initialst ages oft he washi ng oft he bottl
es wer e
managedbyhumanbei ngs,thef oolproofsy stem oft hedef endants
wasnotguar ant eed, andt hust heyareliable.
Principl
e:A manuf act urerisl i
ablef orhisf ai
luret ot aker easonable
care
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

397•
•
i
nthemanuf
act
ureofhi
spr
oduct
.

PerAnnanJatpp.12and13:" Thedut yasl aiddowni stotake

reasonablecareint hemanuf actur
eoft hepr oductanditisthe
fai
luret otakesuchcar ethatwi llrenderhi m li
abletot he
consumerwho i si nj
ured.Negl i
gence therefore has to be
establ
ished agai nst the manuf acturer bef or
e l i
abil
i
tyi s
establ
ishedandt hemet hodofpr oofi sthesameasi nany
othercaseofnegl i
gence.Themer epresenceoff orei
gnor
delet
eriousmat t
eri snotperseenoughandnegl i
gencehast o
beestablishedeitherbywayoft hepresumpt i
onofnegl i
gence
withresi psaloquitur,Ofwher ef actsareest abli
shedwhi ch
giveri
set oaninferenceofnegl i
gence."

Ov erseasBr eweri
esvAcheampong[ 1973]1GLR421
Fact sasabov e.Onanappealt ot heCour tofAppeal:Thedef endants
arguedt hatsincethetri
aljudgef oundt heirsyst
em tobeofv eryhigh
standar d,therewasnonegl i
genceont heirpart
.
Hel d:The f actthatt he def endants had a f ool
proofsy stem of
manuf acturedidnotnegati
venegl igence.
Principle:Once a pl ai
nti
ffpr oves wantofr easonable care byt he
presenceofanext ernalmat eri
alinthepr oduct,i
tisnotadef encet hat
thedef endanthad af ool
pr oofsy stem orav eryhigh standar d of
oper ati
ons.

PerAr cherJA atpp.429and430:" I

nt hepr esentappeal ,the
respondentdi schar gedhi sbur denofpr oofont hel i
nesi ndicated
byFi nnemor eJ.Ther espondentwasnotobl i
gedt oprov ehowt he
ker osenewenti ntot hebeer .Whet heranempt ybot tl
ewasnot
smel torwashed,i tisnothi sbusi nesst osay .Al lthathewas
ex pect edt opr ov ewast hatthe• bottleofbeerheboughtcame
from t he manuf acturers'factory and t hatt he cont ents wer e
cont ami nat ed wi th kerosene.I tist herefore notopen t ot he
appel l
antst ouset hei solat
eddeci si
oni nDani el
s'caseasat abul a
i
nnanf ragioi ntheseasofadv erseaut hority
.Itisalsonotopent o
thiscour tt osayt hatt heDani elsdeci si
onshoul dbebur iedso
secur elyt hatitsper turbed spiri
tshal lno l ongerv ext hel aw.
Nev ertheless,allthatneedbesai disthatt heDaniels'case( supr a)
i
snotadeci si
ont hatisbi ndi
ngont hecour tbelowandt hel earned
tri
alj udgewasper f
ectlyatl ibert
yt odecl i
net of oll
ow i tasa
gui dingst ari nthef i
rmamentofj udicialprecedents.Onepr inciple
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ofl
awcanbedi
scov
ered

u398
withoutdi ffi
cultyf rom al ltheot hercases:Chapr oni
erevMason
(supr a),Gr ants'case ( supra),Lockhar tv Bar r( supra),Mason v
Will
iams( supra)(toci teaf ew)namel y,thedut yofcar eexact edby
thedoct rineinDonoghuevSt evenson( supr a)i snotf ul
fil
ledbya
manuf acturerwhosucceedsi ndemonst ratingt hathehasaf ool-proof
system ofmanuf acture.Not withst anding hi sf ool-
proofsy stem,
negligencewi llbei nferredagai nsthi m unl esst her ei sev i
dencet hat
thedef ectinthemanuf act uredar ticlewaspr obabl yduet ocausesf or
whichhecannotbehel dr esponsi ble.Seef ori nst anceEv ansv .Tr i
plex
(supr a)wher et hemanuf act
urer ssuccessf ull
ypr ovedot herpr obabl e
causesf orwhi cht heycoul dnothav ebeenr esponsi ble.Inthepr esent
appeal ,theappel l
ant scannotr elyont heirfool -pr oofsy stem al onet o
escaper esponsi bil
itybecauset herewasnoev i
dencebef oret hecour t
belowast ohowt heker osenegotormi ghthav egoti ntot hebot tl
ed
beer .Itwasnott hedut yoft her espondentt opr ov ehowi tgoti ntot he
beer .Itwasr athert her esponsi bil
ityoft heappel l
ant stoexpl aint hat
theker osenemi ghthav egoti nt ot hebeerwi thoutanynegl igenceon
theirpar t.Thist heyf ailedt odoandont hepr inciplei nGr ants'case
(supr a),negligencemustbef oundasamat t erofi nference.The
l
ear nedt r
ialjudgewast herefor er i
ghti nf indi ngnegl igenceagai nst
theappel l
ants."

Tay
lorvRov
ercarco.[
1966]2Al
lER181;
[196611WLR1491
Facts:Thef irstdefendantgott heseconddef endantt omanuf acturea
chisel for t hem. The chi sel was manuf actured accor ding t o
specif
ications pr ov i
ded by t he f irst def endant f rom al loy st eel
purchasedf r
om t het hirdparty.Thet hirdpar t
yal soheat -
treat edt he
steelfortheseconddef endant.Thepl aint
if
f ,anempl oyeeoft hef i
rst
defendantsuf feredani njurytoaney ewhenheusedt hechiselduet oa
defectinthechi sel causedbyt heheat -
treatmentbyt het hi
rdpar ty.
Held:Sincet heseconddef endantempl oyedacompet enthardenert o
hardent hest eeltheyhaddi schargedt hedut yofcar eplacedont hem
andwast husnotl iable.
Princi
ple:Amanuf acturerisnotl iablei fheexer cisesduecar ei nt he
manuf actureofhi spr oduct.

PerBakerJ atp.186:"
Itseems t
o me t hatthe l
ogi
cal
concl
usi
onmustbet
hataf
ashi
onerOffabr
icator
,suchast
he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

seconddef
endant
s,whoi
snotpr
ovedt
ohav
ebeengui
l
tyof

399•
anybr eachofdut yornegl i
gencei nt hef ashioningofagui lty
tool,can onl ybe l i
ablei fthe maxi m r espondeatsuper i
or
applies.Whyshoul dhi sliabil
ity,howev er ,bedi f
ferentf r
om
thatoft heempl oyerwho,i fonef ollowsLor dMor ton,asI
respectfull
ydo,isclearlynotl i
ablef orhi sagent 'snegl i
gence?
Apassagehasbeenci t
edf rom Char /eswor t
honNegl i
gence
(4thEdn) ,para797:' Amanuf acturer'sdut yisnotlimi tedt o
thosepar tsofhispr oductwhi chhemakeshi mself.I
text ends
to componentpar t
s,suppl i
ed byhi ssub- manufact urersor
others,whi chheusesi nthemanuf actureofhi sownpr oduct s.
Hemustt akereasonablecar e,byi nspect ionorot herwi se,to
seet hatthosepar t
scanpr operlybeusedt oputhispr oducti n
acondi ti
oni nwhichi tcanbesaf elyusedorconsumedi nt he
contempl atedmannerbyt heul ti
mat euserorconsumer .'

"1seenor easont odi sagreei nanywaywi t

ht hatst at ementof
thelaw.Thei mpor tantpassagei s:'Hemustt aker easonabl e
care,byi nspect i
onorot herwi se,toseet hatt hosepar t
scan
properlybeused. .
'What ,howev er,isreasonabl ecar e?The
second def endant s wer e ent it
led to assume,i n my v i
ew,
havinggotcompet enthar dener stodot hehar deningoft hi
s
guil
tychi self ort hem,t hatthewor kwaspr oper l
ydone,andi t
wasnopar toft heirdut yinl awori ngoodsenset osetabout
thechi selwhent heyr eceivedi tfrom thehar dener sandt o
exami nei tandt estitbyhar dnesst esttoseet hatt het opwas
nomor et hanVi cker s350,andt hatthetipwasVi cker s700.I
cannott hi nkt hatt heyar el i
ablef orthehar deningbyt hei
r
hardening agent s ort heirindependentcont ractors,orcal l
them whatonemay .( Seeal soHase/ di
nevDaw &SonLt d.).
On t hese f indings and concl usions,the pl ainti
ffsucceeds
againstt he f i
rstdef endant s,and t he second def endants
succeedandar eent it
ledt ojudgmentagai nstthepl ai ntiff
."

HolmesvAshf ord
Fact s:Theseconddefendantwast hemanuf act
urerofahairdyewi t
ha
l
abelandabr ochurewarningt hati tmightbedanger oust ocer t
ain
skinsandr ecommendedat estbef or
ei t
suse.Thef ir
stdef endant
hairdresserusedthedyeont hepl aint
if
fwithoutanytestorwarningt o
thepl ai
nti
ffandtheplai
nti
ffcontracteddermat i
ti
s.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Held:Si
ncet
heseconddefendanthadt
akenr
easonabl
ecar
etowar
n
usersoft
hedanger
s,i
twasnotli
abl
e.

•
400
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Principl
e:Amanufactur
erwhoput sadangerousar t
icl
eont he
mar ketmusttake reasonabl
e st
eps to pr
ev entanyper son
comi ngint
ocontactwithitfr
om beinginj
uredal t
houghsuch
steps may notbe di rect
ed dir
ect
lytowar ds the ult
imate
consumer .

PerTuckerLJ atp.80:" "lnt he pr esentcase t he

subst ancewasnotent rust edt oacompet entper son,
buti twassuppl i
edt oahai rdresserwi ththeknowl edge
oft hemanuf acturer s,andi tmusthav ebeeni nt he
cont empl ati
onoft hemanuf act ur
er ssuppl yi
ngt hese
goods t o hairdresser st hat hai rdresser s may be
expect ed t oi nterpose t heirj udgmentand r eason
whet hert heyar egoi ngt ouseahai rdy eornot .Inmy
view,i ft hey give a war ning whi ch,i fr ead by a
hairdr esser ,is suf ficient t oi nt
imat et o him t he
pot ent ialdanger soft hesubst ancewi thwhi chhei s
goingt odeal ,thati sal lthatcanbeexpect edoft hem.I
think i twoul d be unr easonabl e and i mpossi blet o
expectt hattheyshoul dgi v ewar ni
ngi nsuchf ormt hat
i
tmustcome t ot he knowl edge oft he par ti
cul ar
cust omerwhoi sgoi ngt obet reated.Counself ort he
plaint i
ffsay st heymustt aker easonabl est epst osee
thati twi llcomet ot henot iceofanycust omer .Icannot
cont empl ateanyst epswhi chcoul dbecal culatedt o
bringamat t
eroft hi ski ndt ot heknowl edgeofany
per sonwhoi st reatedwi tht hepr epar ation.Themost
thatcanbeexpect edoft hemanuf act urersofgoodsof
thiski ndi stoseet hatt hehai rdr
esseri ssuf f
icient l
y
war ned.

"Ihavenotfounditnecessar
ytorefertothebrochure,
and the label
s on the bottl
es,because the fir
st
defendantsai
dthathehadr eadthem andunderstood
them.It hi
nktheyindicat
esuffi
cient
lytoanyper son
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

who r eads them,at any r atet o a r easonabl e

hair
dresser
, t
hatt hesubst ancehei sconcer nedwi t
hi s
ofthenatureallegedi nthest at
ementofcl aim, namel y
,
thatitisady ewhi chi s' adangerousar t
icleint hat
whenappl i
edt ot heheadsofcer tai
nper sonsi twoul d
ormi ghtcause acut e der mati
ti
s'.It hink thatt hat
quali
tyofthedy e'Inecto'wassuf f
icientl
ybr oughtt o
thenoticeoft hef i
rstdef endantbyt henot iceswhi ch
havebeenputi nev idence.Fort heser easons,It hink
thattheplaintiff
shadf ail
edt oest abli
shacaseof
l
iabil
i
tyont hepar toft heseconddef endantsandt hat
theappealshoul dsucceed. "

401z•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

KubachvHol
l
ands[
193713Al
lER
907
Fact s:Thet eacheroft hepl ai
nt i
ffboughtf rom t heseconddef endant
chemi cal smanuf act uredbyat hir
dpar tyf ormaki ngcompoundsi n
thechemi str ylabor ator y.Thet eacherwassuppl i
edwi thami xtureof
antimonysul phi deandmanganesedi oxidewhi chwasl abel
ledas
manganesedi oxide.Thet woar eindistingui shabl et ot heey e.-The
chemi calwasheat edwi thpot assium chl oratef ort hepur poseof
maki ngoxy gen,i texpl odedduet ot hepr esenceoft heant i
mony
sulphi de.Whent heseconddef endantpur chasedt hesubst ancef rom
thet hirdpar ty, i
twassol abell
edasmanganesedi oxi dewi thanot ice
whichr eadasf ol l
ows:" Theabov egoodsar eaccur ateasdescr i
bed
onl eav ingourwor ksbutt heymustbeexami nedandt estedbyuser
befor euse.Theabov egoodsar enoti nv oicedassui tableforany
purposebutt heyar eoft henat ureandqual itydescr i
bed."Not ests
wer ecar riedoutandt heseconddef endantdi dnotwar nt heteacher
aboutt hedanger s.
Held:Si ncet het hirdpar t
yt ookst epst owar nt heuser sandt he
seconddef endanthadf ailedt oexami net hepr oductal thoughi thad
ampl et imet osodo, thet hir
dpar ti
eswer enotl iable.
Pri
nci pl e:Amanuf act ureri snotl iablei fheexer cisest heduecar e
expect edofhi mi nwar ningconsumer saboutt hedanger sint he
art
icle.

PerHewar tLCJatp.911: "Themanganesedi oxi dewhi cht hethi

rd
partyoughtt ohav esuppl i
edher etotheseconddef endantmi ght
hav e been r esoldf ora v arietyofpur poses Ofi ni nnocuous
compoundsormi xtures.Theuseofi tforschoolex per i
ment swas
onlyoneoft hemanypossi bl eusesandt het hi
rdpar t
y,unl i
kethe
seconddef endant s,hadnonot iceofthei ntendeduse.Mor ethan
that,itwascommongr oundt hatav erysimpl et est,i
fithadbeen
carri
edout ,ast hethirdpar ty '
si nvoi
cepr escr i
bedandast hefir
st
defendantwasnotwar ned,woul dimmedi atelyhav eex hi bi
tedthe
factt hatant imonysul phi dehader roneousl ybeenmadeupand
delivered asmanganesedi oxide. Thesecond def endant shad
ampl eandr epeatedoppor t
uni tyofintermedi ateexami nat i
onand,
i
ft heyhadt akent hesi mpl epr ecauti
onwhi cht hei nvoicewar ned
them t ot ake,no mi schief woul d hav ef ollowed.The l i
ke
concl usi
oni si ll
ustr
atedal soi nGr antvAust r
alianKni tti
ngMi l
lsLtd.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
I
ti stobeobser ved,also,thatthejuryhaveawardeddamages
againstt
heseconddef endants,notforbr
eachofcontr
act
,butfor
negli
gence,thatistosay ,fornegli
genceinomit
ti
ngt omakeany
testforthemselvesandy etatthesamet i
meinconceali
ngfrom
thei
rpurchaserthe

warni
ngcont
ainedont
hei
nvoi
cewi
thwhi
cht
heyhadr
ecei
ved
t
hepowder.
"

Dani
elsandDani
elsvWhi
te[
193814
Al
lER258
Facts:Ahusbandpur chasedabot tleofl emonademanuf acturedby
the f i
rstdef endantf rom t he second def endant .The lemonade
contai ned38gr ainsofcar bolicaci dandt hehusbandandhi swi fe
sustainedi nj
ur i
esaf t
erconsumi ngthecont ent
.Itwasf oundasaf act
thatt hef irstdef endantadopt edaf oolproofsy stem ofmanuf acture
andhadt akenr easonabl ecaret oensur ethatnodef ectwascaused
byadopt ingapr opersuper vi
sionsy stem.
Held:Si ncet hef i
rstdefendantshadt akenr easonablecar etoensur e
that t hepr oductwasf reef r
om def ectandnoi njurywascausedt oa
consumer ,theywer enotliabl
e.
Principle:Thedut yowedbyamanuf acturertoaconsumeri snott o
ensur et hatthegoodsar eper f
ectbutt ot akereasonabl ecarethatno
i
njuryi scausedt otheconsumer .

PerLewisJatp.261:" Ihav etoremembert hatthedut y

owedt ot heconsumer ,ort heulti
matepur chaser,byt he
manufacturerisnottoensur ethathisgoodsar eperfect.All
hehast odoi stotaker easonablecaretoseet hatnoi njury
i
sdonet ot heconsumerorul t
imatepurchaser.Inot her
words,hi
sdut yistot aker easonabl
ecaretoseet hatther e
exi
stsnodef ectt
hatislikel
yt ocausesuchinj
ur y.
"

HisLordship[descri
best hemet hodofcl eaningthebottl
es
andfil
l
ingthem upwi t
ht hel emonadeandcont inuesatpp.
262and263asf ol
lows]:"Thatmet hodhasbeendescr ibed
asfool
-proof,anditseemst omeal i
tt
ledif
ficul
ttosaythat,
i
fpeoplesuppl yaf ool-
pr oofmet hodofcl eani
ng,washing
andfi
ll
ingbot t
les,t
heyhav enott akenallr
easonablecar
et o
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
preventdef ectsint heircommodi t
y.Theonlywayi nwhi chit
mightbesai dt hatthef ool-pr
oofmachinewasnotsuf fi
cient
wasi fitcoul dbeshownt hatthepeoplewhower eworkingit
weresoi ncompet entt hatt heydidnotgi vet hefoolproof
machi neachance.I tispoi ntedoutquit
er i
ght
lybyMrBusse
thatthequest i
onofsuper vi
sioncomesi n.Ify ouhav e16
gir
lsdoi ngt hisprocesswi thnosupervisi
onoft hei
rwor k,of
courseal lkindsof .
ccident smayhappen.Abot tlemaygett o
thefil
lerwi t
houtev erhav ingbeenwashedatal l.Agirl
may

403•
"
Ihe

upsetabot t
lejustafterithasbeenf il
led.Shefinds,l
etus
say ,thattwot easpoonf ul
soft heliquidhav ebeenpoured
out .Shehast of i
lli
tupf r
om somewher e,soshewal ks
alongt ot het r
olleywher ethedirtybot t
leshavebeenput ,
picksup t he fi
rstbot t
le she seest here,and poursthe
cont entsintot hel emonade.Ofcour se,thatwoul dbea
rathercur i
oust hingf oranyonet odo,buti ti
sapossi ble
thingt ohappeni fther
eisnosuper visi
oni nthi
sprocess.

"1am sat i
sfiedi nt hiscaset hatt hereissuper vision.Ihave
hadcal ledbef oremet hewor ksmanagerwhohaschar geof
allt hreef actor i
es.Thatmeans,ofcour se,thathei snotat
onef actorythewhol etime, buthehasdescr i
bedt omewhat
takespl acei nt hispar ti
cularfactory,andIam sat i
sfi
edthat
ther eisqui teadequat esuper vi
sion.Ev eni ft
het ruev i
ewbe
thatt her ewasher eacasef ort hedef endant stoanswer ,I
am qui tesat isfi
edt hattheyhav eanswer edit,andt hatthe
plaintiffs,asar esul t
,hav eent irel
yf ailedt opr ovet omy
satisfact i
ont hatt hedef endantcompanywer egui l
tyofa
breachoft hei rdutyt owar dst hepl ai
ntiffs— namel y,aduty
tot aker easonabl ecar et o seet hatt her eshoul d beno
def ectwhi chmi ghti njur
et hepl ai
ntif
fs.Fort hatr eason,I
thinkt hatt hepl ainti
ffs'claim agai nstt hef ir
stdef endant
s
fail
s. "
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Hil
lvJamesCr
owe[
1978]1Al
lER
812
Fact s:Thepl ai
ntif
fwasst andingonawoodencasemanuf acturedby
thedef endantt oloadhisl orr
ywhent hecasecol l
apsedcausi nghim
i
njur i
es.Thecol lapseofthecasewasduet oi nsuffi
cientnail
ing.The
plainti
ffsuedandt hedefendantar guedthathehadhi ghst andardsof
wor kmanshi pandsuper visionandt hushadbr eachednodut y.
Held:Si ncet hepl ai
nti
ff
'sinjurywasaf or
eseeabl econsequenceof
thenegl igentmanuf act
urebyt hedef endant,hewasl i
able.
Principle:Iti
snodef encet oallegethatamanuf acturerhasagood
system ofwor kandsuper visi
onort hatthesy stem isfoolproof.

PerMackennaJatpp.815and816:" I
nspi t
eofMrCr owe'
s
evidence,If ind thatthe acci denthappened whi lethe
plainti
ffwasst andingont hepackingcasewhi chCrowehad
made;t hatitwascausedbyt heendcav i
ngin;andt hatit
cav edinbecausei thadbeenv erybadl
ynai l
ed.Ifthecase
canbebr oughtwi thi
nther ul
ei nDonoghuevSt evenson,
l
iabi l
i
tyisest abl
ished.Ithinki
tcan.I tresemblesacasei n
theCour tofAppeal i
nwhichI

wasbr iefedmanyy ear sago,whi chwasnotr epor tedandwhose

nameIhav ef or gotten.Si rWi l
fr
edGr eeneMRpr esided.The appeal ,
whi chcamef rom t heNor thernCircuit,wasi nanact ionbr oughtbya
stev edor eagai nstt hecompanywhi chhadpacked t hegoodshewas
handl ing.Thegoodswer eheav y,andt hepacki ngconsi stedof ,orat
l
easti ncluded,pi eces ofwi re bound r ound t he Out side oft he
package.I twast hepr acticeoft hest ev edorestohandl et hegoods
bymeansoft hewi re.Oneof t hepackageshadbeenbadl ywi r
ed,
andt hewi rehadcomeof fwhi l
et hepl ainti
ffwashandl i
ngi t,sot hat
hel osthi sbal ance,f ellandi nj
uredhi mself.Hel ostint hecour tof
fi
rsti nstance,buthi sappealwasal l
owed.TheCour tofAppealhel d
thatt hedef endant swhohadputont hewi reshoul dhav ef oreseen
thepossi bili
tyt hatast evedorehandl i
ngt hepackagemi ghtbei njured
i
ft hewi r
ehadnotbeenpr operl
yf ast ened.Iseenodi fferencei n
principlebet weent hedef endants'liabi l
it
yi nthatcaseandCr owe's
l
iabi l
ityint his.

"
Counself
orCr
ower
eli
edonDani
elsandDani
elsvRWhi
te&
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
SonsLt dandTar bar d.Thepl ai
ntiffi
nthatcasehadboughtata
publi
chouseaseal edbot t
leofl emonademadebyt hedef endant
manuf acturersandsol dbyt hem t othepubl i
chouse.Thebot t
le
contained,inaddi tiont othel emonade,aquant it
yofcar bol
ic
acidwhi chi twascont endedhadcausedi nj
uryt ot hepl ainti
ff,
who sued t he manuf act ur
ers. Hi s act ion f ailed. The
manuf acturerssatisfiedLewi sJ,t hetri
aljudge,t hatt heyhada
goodsy stem ofwor kint heirfactoryandpr ov i
dedadequat e
supervision.Hesai d( [
1938]4Al lER258at263) :'1am qui te
sati
sfied,howev er,ont heev idencebef oreme,t hatt hewor kof
thi
sf actoryiscarri
edonunderpr opersuper vi
sion,and, t herefore,
thattherehasbeennof ai
l
ur eoft hedutyowedbyt hedef endant
companyt otheplaint i
ff
s.'

"
Wit
hr espect,Idonott hinkthatthi
swasasuf fi
cientreasonf or
dismi ssi
ngthecl ai
m.Themanuf actur
er'sli
abil
i
tyi nnegli
gence
didnotdependonpr oofthathehadei t
herabadsy stem ofwor k
ort hathi s superv
ision was i
nadequat e.He mi ghtalso be
vicari
ouslyli
ableforthenegli
genceofhiswor kmeni nthecourse
oft heiremployment.Iftheplai
nti
ff'
sinjuri
eswer ear easonably
foreseeableconsequenceofsuchnegl i
gence,the

405•
•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

manuf act
urer'
s liabi
li
ty would be est abli
shed under
DonoghuevSt evenson.Daniel
sandDani elsvRWhi t
e&
SonsLt dandTar bardhasbeencr it
ici
sed,Ithi
nkjustl
y,in
Char/esworthonNegl i
genceandIdonotpr oposetofoll
ow
i
t.IholdCrowel i
ableinnegl
igence.
"

Di
vyavToy
oTi
reandRubberCo.Lt
d
[
20111EWHC1993
Fact s:Thef ir
stdef endantwasamanuf actureroftyres.Thesecond
defendantwas dr ivi
ng a carwi tht yr
es manuf actured by the
defendantwhent her earoffsi
det yr
eblewoutanddef l
atedcausing
thev ehiclet o summer saultbef or
ecol lidi
ng withabar r
ier
.The
plaintiff
swhower epassenger si nthecarsuedt hedef endants
all
egi ngt hatt heacci dentwasduet othenegl igentmanuf actureof
thet yrebyt hefi
rstdef endant.
Held:Ont heev i
dence,t heaccidentwasduet ot hei ncomplete
bondi ngoft hest eelcordsint hetyr
eduet oinadequat epenetrat
ion
andt hust hedef endantwasl i
able
Princi pl
e:Amanuf actureristoexer ci
set hehighestl evelofcarein
themanuf actureofhi sproductsoast oav oi
di nj
urytoconsumer s.

PerMackayJatpar s.67,70— 72:[ 671" Fort her easons

earli
ersetoutIam sat i
sf i
edt hatt hepr obabl ecauseof
fail
ur ewasi ncompl etebondi ngoft hest eelcor dswi thin
thet yr
ewhi ch mostpr obabl yf ai
led duet oi nadequat e
penet rat
ionbyt herubberoft hosecor dsand/ oraf ailur et o
curet het yr
ef orther i
ghtt imeandatt her ighttemper atur e
and/ orpr essure..
..[7011mustbecar efulnott oappl ya
standar dofcar ewhi chamount stot hei mposi tionofst rict
l
iabilit
yont hemanuf acturerint hiscase.Butt hest andar d
ofcar er equiredandi ndeedcl aimedbyt hi smanuf act ur er
fort hisproducti nitsev idencei satt hehi ghestl evel .Iti s
alsot hecaset hataf ail
uret oat taint hatst andar dwi lll ead
tot he put ti
ng i nt
o ci rculation of a t yre whi ch can
disi
nt egrateinser vi
cewi ththemostcat ast r
ophi cr esul t
s,
ast hiscaseshowsandot hershav eshowni nthepast .The
enduserofsuchat yreexpect sandr el
iesont heint egr i
ty
ofat yr
eandt heabsenceofsuchdanger ousl atentdef ects.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
[71]"Ihaveal
readysummarisedt hev i
ewsofMrNewl and
ont histopi
cand thoseofMrI mur af orToy o and Mr
Mot t
ram,atparas60and61r especti
v ely
.ThoughIcannot
findatwhatstagethefai
lur
et oexer ciser easonabl
ecar e
occurredIdonotbel
iev
eIam r equir
edbyt heauthori
tiesto
doso.Whatcanbesai dasamat t
erofpr obabi l
it
yisthatat
somest ageofthe

•
•406
manuf acturi
ngpr ocess,t hroughwhi chtheev idencehas
takenmei nexactdet ail
,themechani sedprocedureshav e
fail
edt ocov erandpenet ratet hesecordsfull
ywi thrubber
and/ ortocur ethegreent yrepr oper
ly,andthehumansi de
oft heprocesshasf ailedt odet ectsuchfail
ureorf ai
lur
es.
Ther esultisthatthety r
ef ellbelowthehighst andardthat
Toy osetitselfandthatt heenduser sofitsproductswer e
foreseeablyentitl
edtoexpect .

[
72]"Ither
efor
econcludethatthisacci
dentwascausedby
thenegli
genceoftheFir
stDef endantToyo,andacqui
tthe
SecondDefendantofnegl
igenceentir
ely
."

Car rol
l vFearon( 1998)Ti mes, 26Januar y
Fact s:Thef ir
stdef endantwasdr ivi
ngacaront hemot or waywhen
i
twentoutofcont rolandcol l
idedhead- onwi t
ht heplai ntiff
'scar.
Theacci dentwast her esultofasuddenandcompl etet hreadst ri
p
ofar eart yr
emanuf act ur
edbyt heseconddef endant.Thepl ainti
ff
sued i n negl i
gence and t he second def endantar gued t hatthe
plainti
ffmustpr ovet heexactactorbywhom i twasnegl i
gentl
y
done.
Held: Si nce t he pl aint
iff est ablished t hat the pr ocess of
manuf acturewasdef ecti
v eandt hatr esultedint heacci dent,he
mustsucceedwi t
houtpr ovingt hepar ti
cularnegl i
gentactort he
personwhosenegl i
gencer esul
tedi nt hedef ect.
Principle:Ev i
denceest abl
ishingt hatt hepr ocessofmanuf act ur
eis
defect i
vei s enough t o establi
sh l iabil
it
y wi thoutpr oofoft he
particularactori ndivi
dual asbei ngr esponsi bleforthedef ect .

PerJudgeLJ:" I
nanappr opri
atepr
oductli
abili
tycasethe
parti
cularindiv
idualresponsibl
efort he defectint he
productneednotbei dentifi
ednorneedthepar ti
cul
aract
ofnegli
gencebespecified.Theconceptoft
hedut yofcare
andt heproblemsassociatedwithi
thadledt heHouseof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Lords on numer ous occasi ons to considert he proper
ambi t and dev elopment of t he l aw of negl i
gence.
Ulti
mat el
y,however ,i
nthevastmaj ori
tyofcases,ofwhi ch
thi
swasone, negligenceremai nedaquest ionoffacttobe
decidedintheli
ghtoft heav ai
lableev i
dence.Thetyreburst
manyy earsafteri thad leftt hef actor
yand had been
regular
lyused.It
sf ail
uremighthav er esul
tedfrom anyone
of a number of possi ble causes.But once i t was
establi
shed thatt he tyr
e di sint
egrated because ofan
i
dent i
fi
edfaulti
nt hecourseof
407r
•
i
tsmanufact
urethej
udgehadtodecidewhethert
hatf
aul
t
wast
heresul
tofnegl
i
genceatDunl
op'
sfact
ory
.

"Hedi dnothav etoi dentifyanyi ndivi

dualorgr oupof
employ eesort heact soromi ssionswhi ch r esulted in
i
nadequat e r ubber penet rati
on. I ft he manuf acturing
processhadwor kedasi ntendedt hatdef ectshoul dnot
have been pr esent.Ther e was no ev idence on whi ch
Dunlopcoul dbaseanar gumentt hatthedef ectmi ghtnot
havebeenduet oi t
snegl igence.Theor eti
calpossi bil
it
ies
mighthav eabounded.Somet hinghadgonewr ongwi t
ht he
manuf actur
ingpr ocessf orwhi cht hemanuf acturercoul d
not appar entl
y pr ovi
de any expl anat i
on. I gnoring
speculati
veconsi derati
onsandf ocusingont heev idence,
thejudgewasent it
ledt odeci det hatont hebal anceof
probabili
ti
es negl i
gence had been est abli
shed agai nst
Dunlop.The j udge f ound t hatt he tread st rip came
suddenlyandunexpect edlyuponMrFear onandi t
sef fect
wasi mmedi ateandcat astrophi
c.Nor mal l
y,andwi thout
assert
inganypr i
ncipleofl aw,i nsuchci r
cumst ancesi t
wouldbeunf airtoblameei therthedr i
verort heownerof
thecar."

PREPARATI
ONORPUTTI
NGUP

Andr
ewsvHopki
nson[
1957]1QB229
Facts:The plai
nti
ff purchased a car under a hi r
e-pur
chase
agreementfr
om t
hedef endantcardeal
er.Thedefendantwarr
anted
thatthecarwasingoodcondi ti
on.Thecarinfacthadadef ecti
ve
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
steeri
ngandt heplaintiffwasi nv olvedinanacci dentowingt ot he
defecti
vest eer i
ng,causi nghimi njur i
es.Thedef ectint hesteer i
ng
couldnotbedi scover edbyanor dinarydr i
verorownerbutcoul d
hav ebeeneasi l
ydiscov eredbyamechani c.Thedef endanthadno
reasont oant ici
patet hatt heplaintiffwoul dhavet hecarexami ned
byamechani c.
Held:Sincet hedef endantputi nci rculat
ionacart hatwasdef ect iv
e
withnor easonabl eant icipati
ont hatt hecust omerwoul dexami nei t
beforeuse,hewasl i
abl e.
Princi
ple:A per sonwhoput si ntoci rculati
onadanger ousar ticl
e
withnor easonabl eexpect ati
onofi tbeingexami nedbyacust omer
putsuporpr eparest hear t
icl
efort hepur posesoft herule.

PerMcNai
rJatpp.236and237:
"In
Her
scht
a/vStewart&

Arder nLt d.TuckerJ.hel dt hatmot ordeal erswhosuppl iedf or

the pl aintiff
's use on hi r
e-pur chase t er ms a car whi ch t hey
themsel veshadr epai red,wer el i
ablet ot hepl aint i
fff orper sonal
i
njur i
eswhi chhesuf feredwhent henearr earwheeloft hecarcame
offowi ngt of aultywor kmanshi pont hepar toft hedef endantmot or
dealers'st af fint her econdi t
ioni ngoft hecar .Thebasi soft hi s
decisionwast hatast hemot ordeal ers wer esuppl yingamot or-
vehiclet ot heircust omerf orhisownuse, t hev erycl osepr oxi mityor
rel
at i
onshi pbet weent hem wassuchast oi mposeadut yonmot or
dealerst ot aker easonabl ecar et oseet hatt hear ticlewhi cht hey
wer edel ivering,knowi ngt hatt hecust omerwasgoi ngi mmedi ately
toputi tont her oad,wasnoti nacondi ti
onwher ebyawheelmi ght
comeof fcausi ng possi blyv eryser i
ousand gr avedamage.The
j
udge,af t
eran el abor atereview oft heaut horitiesi ncludi ng and
foll
owi nguponDonoghuevSt ev enson, 7f urtherhel dt hatt het estof
l
iabili
tyi nsuchacasedependedonwhet herOfnoti tcoul dbe
reasonabl yant i
ci pat edt hatthecarwoul dbeexami nedbyt hepar ty
takingit,orot hert hirdpar ty,bef orebeingputont her oad, andnoton
whet hersuchexami nat ionwaspossi bl
e.Thoughi nHer scht a/ '
scase
8t henegl igencer eli
eduponwasnegl i
gencei nact uallyef fect i
ngt he
repair,Iseenor easonwhyt hemot ordealeri nt heabsenceofsuch
reasonabl eant icipat ionshoul dnotequal l
ybehel dl i
abl ei fheput s
i
ntoci rculat i
oni nt hehandsofhi scust omeramot or-carwhi chi si n
facti n a danger ous condi t
ion when t he def ectr ender ing t he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
condi
ti
ondanger
ousconsist
sofadefectwhichcoul
dandoughtt
o
havebeendi
scov
eredbyreasonabl
edi
l
igenceonhi
spart
.

"Therewasbef oremeabundantev idencethatinthecaseofan

old carsuch as t hist he dangerspoti si nt he steering
mechani sm andt hatt hispar ticulardefectcouldhav ebeen
discov ered bya compet entmechani ci fthe carhad been
j
ackedup.Nosuchexami nati
onwasi nfactcarri
edout ,t
hough
thedef endant, whohadt akent hecari npartexchange, hadhad
thecari nhi spossessi onf oraweekOfso.Hav ingregardt othe
extremeper ilinvol
v edinal lowinganol dcarwithadef ecti
ve
steering mechani sm t o be used on t he road,Ihav e no
hesitationinhol di
ngt hatt hedef endanti nthecircumst ances
was gui l
tyofnegl igence i nf ail
ing to make the necessar y
exami nat i
on,oratl easti nf ail
ingt owar ntheplainti
ffthatno
suchexami nation

409•

hadbeencarr
iedout.Thedefendanti
saccor
dingl
yal
sol
i
abl
e
fornegl
i
gencefort
helikedamages."

Wat sonvBuckl ey[194011Al lER174

Facts: Thef i
rstdef endantusedapr oductmanuf act uredbythet hird
defendantanddi st r
ibutedbyt heseconddef endantt ody ethehai r
of the pl ai
nt i
ff.The pr oductwas adv ert
ised by t he second
defendantascont aining4percentaci dtobedi lutedto2percent
befor euseandf ur t
herav erredthatitwassaf eandhar mlessand
did notr equire exami nation.The pl aint
iffcont racted dermat iti
s
aft
erusi ng t he pr oduct.I twasf ound t hatt he pr oductinf act
contained10percentaci d.Whent hemanuf act urersuppli
edt he
second def endant ,he r epackaged t he producti nt
o at t
ractive
container s wi thout car r
y i
ng out any exami nation. The t hird
defendanthadi nformedt heseconddef endantt hatt heproductwas
nottocont ainmor et han4percentaci d.
Held:Si ncet heseconddef endantputoutt hepr oductandexcl uded
anyi ntermedi ateexami nationbyi t
sadv erti
sement ,i
twasl i
able.
Pri
nci ple:Adi stri
but orofapr oductwhoi ntentional l
yexcludesany
i
ntermedi ateexami nat i
onoft hepr oductputsupt hepr oductand
owesadut yt otheconsumer softhepr oduct.

PerSt
abl
eJatp.182:"
Itseemst
omet
hatoner
easonwhy
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
carelessnesspl usi njuryisi nsuf f
ici
entandt hel aw demandsa
dutyaswel list hat,wher eamanuf acturermanuf actur esan
arti
cle, and, itmaybe, mont hsory earsaf t
er war ds,thatar ti
cle,by
reasonoft hecar elessmanuf acture,
doeshar mt ot heconsumer ,
i
tisext raordi naril
ydi ffi
culttoputone' sfingeront het or
tiousact
ofwhi cht hepl aintiffinsuchanact i
onwoul dcompl ain.The
sell
ingoft hear t
iclei snott heactoft hemanuf acturerort he
agent .Thear t
iclei tselfhasceasedt obet hepr opertyoft he
manuf actur er,orunderhi scont r
ol,and,becauseoft hat ,that
maywel lbet hef oundation oft heundoubt ed pr inci
plet hat
,
wher et hemanuf acturerhaspar tedwi thhispr oper tyandputi tin
cir
cul ation al lov ert he wor l
d, unl ess the consumerwho i s
ult
imat el yhar medbysomet hingwhi cht hemanuf actur erhas
negligent lydonecanest ablisht hespeci alr elati
onshi pwi ththe
manuf actur er,then,undert hel aw oft hiscount ry,noact i
onf or
tortwi l
l l
ie."

Atpp.182and183: "
IfOgeeLt d,hadbeent hemanuf act urers,
Ishoul dhav ehel dwi thoutdi fficultyher et hat ,
byt his
adv erti
sementwhi chWat sonsaw( i
tisunnecessar yt o
consi derwhatwoul dhav ebeent hecasei fhehadnotseeni t,
ori ft hecont ent shadnotbeeni mpar tedbysomeonewhohad,
f
or , inthi
scase, hesawt headv ertisement ), anduponwhi ch
her eli
ed,OgeeLt d,i
ftheyhadbeent hemanuf acturers, of
t
hei rownaccor dwoul dhav ebr oughtt hemsel vesi ntodi rect
r
el ationshipwi tht heconsumer .I tissai dt hather e, al
though
themanuf acturer swoul dowesuchadut y ,thedi st ri
but ors,
bei ngdi stri
but or sandnotmanuf act urers, areabsol ved.I t
seemst omet hatt hatst at ementmustbequal i
fied.The
numberofcasesi nwhi chadi stri
but orwoul doweadut ymust ,
It hink, becompar ativ
elyf ew.Asi thasbeensai d,dutyi snot
dut yi ntheabst ract .Onedoesnothav et osear chf ort hedut y
inv acuo, butonehast ol ookatt hef act sanddeci dewhet her
ornott helawat tachesadut youtoft hosef act s,ort ot hose
fact s.Thei niti
al torti
ousactorcar elessact —car elessness
woul dbebet ter—wast heput t
ingoft he10percentsol ut i
on
intothel otion, andf ort hatt hedi st ri
butor swer enot
r
esponsi ble.Themanuf act urerswer enott hei ragent s.They
hadnodi r
ectcont rolovert hemanuf acturer s, andIhav et o
askmy sel
fwhet her , i
nlaw, asbet weent hisconsumerandt hi
s
dist ributor,hav ingr egar dt oal ltheci r
cumst ancesoft hecase,
ther eisadut y .Itisext remel ydi ffi
cul ttoar ri
v eatal egal
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
decisionwi t
houtsomegui danceast ot hesortoft estone
appl i
esast owhet herOfnott hereisadut y.IthinkIam
thr ownbackont hewor dsofLor dThanker toninM' A/ister(or
Donoghue)vSt ev enson.Idonott hinkthatitmat t
er swhet her
themani samanuf act urerorwhet herhei sadistributor.It
seemst omet obet hesamei nthecaseofaper sont hrough
whosehandst her ehaspassedacommodi t
ywhichul timately
r eachesaconsumert ohisdet riment.Wher ethatper sonhas
int entionall
ysoexcl udedi nt
erferencewi th,orexami nati
onof ,
t hear ticl
ebyt heconsumer ,thenhehas, ofhi
sownaccor d,
br oughthi mselfi ntodi rectrelati
onshipwi ththatconsumerso
ast oberesponsi blet otheconsumerf oranyInjurythe
consumermaysust ainasar esul
toft hedistr
ibutor's
negligence.Thedut yisthere.

"
Thequest i
onisnowwhet herornotitwasthenegl
igence
ofthedistr
ibut
orwhichdi
dt hedamage.Ithi
nkt
hatitwas.
Idonott hinkthatthedi
stribut
orcanescapeli
abi
li
tyfor
grosscarel
essness,
wheretheconsumerhasbeeninjur
ed,

411"
bysay lng:'Theiniti
almi st
akewasmadebysomeonef or
whoseact ionsIam notr esponsi
ble.
'Ithinkt hat,ifther e
hadbeenanydoubtast otheduty( t
hetwoquest ionsar e
real
lyinterdependent ,butassumethedut ywast here),the
plai
nti
ffher e could hav e sued both def endants.The
negli
gentactoft hemanuf actur
erwasput t
ingi ntheaci di n
toostrongasol uti
on.Thenegl i
gentactsoft hedistri
but or
werethev ariousactsandomi ssi
onsandr epresentations
whichi ntervenedbet weent hemanuf act
ureoft hear ticle
anditsr eachingWat son."

LI
FEORPROPERTY

Candl
ervCr
aneChr
ist
mas[
1951]2KB
164
Facts:Thepl
aint
if
fdesir
edtoinvesti
nacompanyandr equest
edt
he
accountsofthecompany .TheMDoft hecompanyinstruct
edt
he
defendant
swhower etheaccountant
softhecompanyandwhowere
al
readyprepar
ingtheaccount
stospeedupwi tht
hem,informi
ngt
he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
accountantst hatt hepl ai
nti
ffwant edt oseet heaccount
sf orthe
purposesofi nv est
ment .Theaccount swer epreparedandshowedt o
theplainti
ffwho,r elyingont heaccount s,investedi
nt hecompany.
Thepl ainti
fflosthi sinvestmentast heaccount swerecar el
essl
y
preparedandcont ainedmanyi naccuracies.
Held:Int heabsenceofanycont ractualrelat
ionshi
pbetweent he
plai
nti
ffandt hedef endant,thedef endantswer enotli
ableforthe
l
ossoft hepl ainti
ff
'sinvestment.
Pri
nci
ple:I
ntheabsenceofanycontract
ualorfi
duci
aryrel
ati
onshi
p,aperson
i
snotliabl
einnegli
genceforeconomicloss.Li
abi
li
tyi
sl i
mitedtoinj
uri
esto
per
son.

PerCohenLJatpp.196—198:" InDonoghuevSt ev enson,

asi nal ltheot hercasest owhi chourat t
entionwascal led, the
breachofdut yal legedhasbeenonewhi chhasr esul tedi n
damages t ot heper sonoft hepl ainti
ff:seeHase/ dinevC.A.
Daw &SonLd. ,DennyvSuppl i
es&Tr anspor tCo.Ld.I nO/ d
Gat eEst atesLd.vTopl i
sWr ot t
esl ey,J.,refusedt oappl yt he
pri
nci ple ofDonoghue v St evenson t o a case wher ea
companyhadpai dt oomuchf orapr oper tyowi ngt oanov er
-
valuat i
onbyt hedef endant s,whohadbeeni nst ructedbyt he
promot erst ov aluei tf orthepur poseoft hepr omot i
on.The
company ,whi chwast hepl aint if
f,wasnotf ormedatt het ime
oft hev aluation.Wr ottesley ,J. ,rej ectinganar gumentbased
onDonoghuevSt evensonsai d:'Theconcept i
onwhi chr uns
throughal lthesecases,bot hi nt hoseappl icat i
onsoft he
pri
nci pleandi nthecaseofDonoghuevSt ev ensoni tself,is
thatsomet hingwasnegl igent lycr eatedorputi ntoci rcul ation
whi chwasdanger ousei t
hert ol i
feOfl imb' —t hosear e, I
thi
nk.t hev erywor dsofLor dAt ki
nhi msel fandt heot her
l
ear nedLor dswhodel iveredopi nions,ort heopi nionsoft he
maj orit
y ,inDonoghuevSt ev enson— ' orel set hatsomet hing
was car elessly handl ed,made,ormended,whi ch woul d
becomedanger oust ol i
feorl i
mborheal th.I tisast r
uet oday
asi twasi n1893, whenLeLi ev revGoul dwasdeci ded, that ,to
uset hewor dsofBowen, L.J.:'Itisi dlet oref ert ocaseswhi ch
wer edeci dedundert ot all
ydi fferentaspect s,andupont ot all
y
diff
er entconsi der at
ionsoft hel aw.Take,f orex ampl e,t he
caseofanownerofachat tel,suchasahor se,gun,ora
carriage,oranyot herinst rument ,whi chi si ni tselfofsucha
char actert hat,ifitbeusedcar elessl y,itmayi njur esomet hird
personwhoi sneart oit;theni tisaspl ainasday l
ightt hatt he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
owneroft hatchattel,whoi sr esponsibl eforitsmanagement ,
i
sboundt obecar efulhowheusesi t.Exact lyinthesameway
withr egardt ot he ownerofpr emi ses.I fthe ownerof
premi ses knows t hathi s pr emises ar ei n a danger ous
condi t
ion,andt hatpeopl ear ecomi ngt heret owor kupon
them byhi sownper missionandi nvi
t ation,ofcour sehemust
taker easonabl ecar et hatt hosepr emi sesdonoti nj
urethose
whoar ecomi ngt here..How hasi tanyappl icati
ont ot he
presentcase? '(Thatwast hecaseofacer t
ifi
categivenbyan
architect).'Onl
y,Isuppose,ont hesuggest i
ont hatamani s
responsi bleforwhathest at esinacer ti
ficat
et oanyper sont o
whom hemayhav er easont osupposet hatt hecertif
icate
maybeshown.Butt hel aw ofEngl anddoesnotgot ot hat
extent; i
tdoesnotconsi dert hatwhatamanwr it
esonpaperi s
l
ikea gun orot herdanger ousinst rument ,and,unl esshe
i
ntended t o deceiv e,t hel aw doesnot ,int heabsenceof
contract,hol d him r esponsi bl
ef ordr awing hi s cer
tif
icate
carelessly.'

"It
hinkthatthatisast ruetodayasi twaswheni twassai
dby
Bowen,L.
J.Wr ot
tesley,J.
,continued:'Ther
eis,i
nmyopi ni
on,not
hing
i
nDonoghuevSt evensonwhi chmakest hatbadlaw.Theexcept
ions
l
aiddownbyDonoghuevSt evenson'—t heexcept
ions t
otherul
ethat
amanisobligedtobecar eful
onl ytothose

413•
to whom he owes a dut y by contr
act— ' ar
e,as I
understand the decisi
on,conf i
ned t
o negli
gence which
result
sindangert oli
fe,dangertoli
mb,ordangertoheal
t h,
and,thepr esentcasenotbei ngoneoft hoseexcepti
ons,
theplaint
if
fshav e,i
nmyopi nion,nocauseofacti
onont he
analogyoft hatcase.
"'

MurphyvBrent
woodDi
str
ictCounci
l
[
1990]2All
ER908
Facts:Thepl ai
nti
ffboughtahouset hatwasbui l
tfoll
owi ngthe
approvalofthepl ansbyt hedefendantcounci l
.Thepl answer e
negli
gentl
yappr ovedandt hatresul
tedi ncracksi nthebui ldi
ng
posingadangert othesafetyofthepl ai
nti
ffandhi sfami l
y.The
plai
ntif
fwhocoul dnotbearthecostoftherepairssoldt
hebui ldi
ng
subjecttothedefect.Hethensuedtor ecoverthelosshei ncurr
ed
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
bysell
ingthehouseforlesst
hanit
smarketv
alue.
Held:Sincethedefecthadbeendetect
edbyt heplai
nti
ffandhad
notcausedanyi nj
urybutmerel
yaneconomicl osstotheplai
nti
ff
,
hecouldnotrecoveri
ndamages.
Pri
nci
ple:A manufactur
eris notli
abl
ef orpurel
yeconomicloss
suf
fer
edbyapl aint
if
fwheretheproductdidnotcauseanyphy
sical
ormateri
aldamage.

PerLor dMackayofCl ashfernLCatp.911:" AsIr eadt he

speechofLor dWi l
berfor
cet hecauseofact i
onwhi chhe
holdscoul dar i
seint hecircumst ancesoft hatcasecan
onlydosowhendamageoccur stothehousei nquest i
on
as a r esul
toft he weakness oft he f oundat i
ons and
therefor enocauseofact i
onar i
sesbef or et hatdamage
hasoccur redev eni fasar esul tofinformat ionobt ained
aboutt he f oundat
ions i
tmaybecome appar entt o an
ownert hatsuchdamagei slikely.Thepei sont owhom t he
dut yisowedi sanowneroroccupi eroft hehousewhoi s
suchwhent hedamageoccur s.Andt hereforeanowneror
occupi erwhobecomesawar eoft hepossi bil
i
tyofdamage
arisingf r
om adef ecti
vefoundat i
onwoul dnotbewi thinthe
classofper sonsonwhom t her ightofact i
oni sconf err
ed."

PerLor dKeit
hofKi nkelatp.916:"Iseenor easontodoubt
thatthepr i
ncipl
eofDonoghuevSt evensondoesi ndeed
applysoast oplacethebuilderofpremi sesunderadutyto
takereasonablecaret oavoidinj
urythroughdef ect
sinthe
premisest otheper sonorpr opertyoft hosewhom he
shouldhav ei
ncont emplati
onasl i
kelytosuf f
ersuchinj
ury
i
fcar eisnott aken.Butitisagainstinj ur
ythroughlat
ent
defectsthatt
hedut yexist
s
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

t
oguar
d."

Atp.917:" Thequest i
onwhet herr ecov erycoul dbeal l
owed
fordamaget ot hehouseandf ort hecostofput tingi tin
suchast at east obenol ongeradangert oheal thorsaf et y
wast reat edi nt hecont extoft hemeasur eofdamagesand
theanswerwassai dt of oll
ow f rom nor malpr inci ple.I t
appear st hatt he nor malpr inci ple concer ned was t hat
whi chemer gedf r
om DonoghuevSt ev enson, asext ended
tot hespher eofst at utor yf unct ionsofpubl i
cbodi esi n
HomeOf ficevDor setYachtCoLt d.Howev er,anessent ial
feat ureoft hespeci esofl iabilityi nnegl i
genceest abl i
shed
by Donoghue v St ev enson was t hat t he car el essl y
manuf act ur ed pr oductshoul d bei nt ended t or each t he
i
nj uredconsumeri nt hesamest ateast hati nwhi chi twas
putup wi th no r easonabl e pr ospectofi nt ermedi ate
exami nat ion( see[ 19321AC562at599, [
19321Al lERRep
1at20perLor dAt kin;seeal soGr antvAust ralianKni t
ting
Mi ll
sLt d[ 1936]AC85at103- 105, [1935]Al lERRep209at
217- 218perLor dWr ight ).I tist hel atencyoft hedef ect
whi chconst i
tutest hemi schi ef.Ther emayber oom f or
disput at ion whet her t he l ikelihood of i nt ermedi ate
exami nat ionandconsequentact ualdi scov er yoft hedef ect
hast heef fectofnegat i
v ingadut yofcar eorofbr eaki ng
thechai nofcausat ion( compar eFar rvBut tersBr os&Co
[1932]2 KB 606,[ 1932]Al lER Rep 339 wi th Dennyv
Suppl i
esandTr anspor tCoLt d[ 1950]2KB374) .Butt here
canbenodoubtt hat ,what evert her ational e, aper sonwho
i
si njur edt hroughconsumi ngorusi ngapr oductoft he
def ect i
v enat ureofwhi chhei swel lawar ehasnor emedy
agai nstt hemanuf act ur er .Int hecaseofabui l
di ng,i tis
fightt o acceptt hatacar elessbui lderi sl i
abl e,ont he
pr i
ncipl eofDonoghuevSt ev enson,wher eal atentdef ect
resul tsi n phy sicali nj uryt o any one,whet her owner ,
occupi er ,visit
ororpasser -by ,ort ot hepr oper tyofanysuch
per son.Butt hatpr inci plei snotaptt obr inghomel iability
towar dsan occupi erwho knowst hef ullext entoft he
def ecty etcont i
nuest ooccupyt hebui lding."

Andat918:"Thej umpwhichisher
emadef r
om l
iabil
it
y
undertheDonoghuevStev
ensonpri
nci
plef
ordamaget o
personorpar
tl
ycausedbyal at
entdef
ecti
nacarelessl
y
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

manuf act
uredarti
cletoli
abil
i
tyf
orthecostofrect
if
y i
nga
defectinsuchanar t
icl
ewhichisexhypothesinolonger
l
atentisdiff
icul
ttoaccept.As
415r
•
StampLJr ecognisedi nt hesamecase,t hereisnol iabil
ityin
tortonamanuf acturertowar dsthepurchaserf r
om ar et
ailerof
anar t
iclewhi cht urnsoutt obeusel essorv al
uelessthrough
defectsduet ocar elessmanuf actur
e(see[1972]1Al lER426at
489-490,[1972]1QB373at414- 415).Thel ossiseconomi c.I
t
i
sdi ff
icultt odr aw adi sti
nct i
oninpr i
nci
plebet weenanar ticl
e
whichi susel essorv aluelessandonewhi chsuf fer
sf rom a
defectwhi chwoul dr enderi tdangerousi nusebutwhi chi s
discoveredbyt hepur chaseri ntimetoav ertanypossi bil
ityof
i
njury.Thepur chasermayi ncurexpensei nput t
ingr i
ghtt he
defect,or,mor epr obably,discardthearti
cle.Ineit
hercaset he
l
ossi spur elyeconomi c."

Per Lor d Br idge of Har wich at pp.924 and 925:I fa

manuf act urer negl igentl
y put s i nto ci rcul ation a chat tel
cont aining a l atentdef ectwhi ch r ender si tdanger ous t o
per sons orpr oper ty,the manuf act urer,on t he wel l
-known
principlesest abl ishedbyDonoghuevSt evenson[ 1932]AC562,
[1932]Al lERRep1,wi l
lbel i
ableint ortf orinj uryt oper sonsor
damage t o pr oper ty whi ch the chat telcauses.Buti fa
manuf act urerpr oducesand sel lsachat t
elwhi ch i smer ely
def ectivei nqual ity,event otheext entt hati ti sv aluel essf orthe
pur posef orwhi chi tisintended,t hemanuf act ur er'
sl i
abili
tyat
commonl awar isesonl yunderandbyr eferencet ot het ermsof
anycont racttowhi chhei sapar tyinr elati
ont ot hechat t
el;the
commonl aw doesnoti mposeonhi m anyl iabi l
ityi nt ortto
per sonst owhom heowesnodut yi ncont r
actbutwho,hav ing
acqui redt hechat t
el,suffereconomi cl ossbecauset hechat tel
i
sdef ect iv einqual ity.Ifadanger ousdef ecti nachat telis
discov eredbef or ei tcausesanyper sonali njuryordamaget o
proper ty,becauset hedangeri snow knownandt hechat tel
cannotbesaf elyusedunl essthedef ecti sr epai red,t hedef ect
becomes mer ely a def ecti n qual ity .The chat t
eli s eit
her
capabl eofr epai rateconomi ccostori tiswor thlessandmust
bescr apped.I nei thercaset hel osssust ainedbyt heowneror
hireroft hechat telispur el
yeconomi c.I tisr ecov er abl eagainst
anypar tywhoowest heloserar elevantcont ract ualdut y.Buti t
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
s not r ecover
ablei nt or
ti nthe absence of a special
rel
ati
onshipofpr oxi
mit
yi mposi
ngont hetort
feasoradutyof
caretosafeguardtheplai
nti
fffr
om economicloss.Ther
eisno
suchspecialr
elati
onshi
pbetweenthemanufacturerofachat
tel
andar emoteownerorhi r
er.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"Ibel iev et hatt hesepr inci

plesar eequal l
yappl i
cabl eto
bui l
dings.I fabui lderer ectsast ructur econt aininga
l
at entdef ectwhi chr endersi tdanger oust oper sonsor
proper ty ,hewi l
lbel iableintor tfori njur ytoper sonsor
damage t o pr oper t
yr esult
ing f rom t hatdanger ous
def ect .But ,ifthedef ectbecomesappar entbef oreany
i
nj uryordamagehasbeencaused,t hel osssust ained
byt hebui ldingowneri spur elyeconomi c.Ift hedef ect
canber epai r
edateconomi ccost ,t hati st hemeasur e
oft hel oss.I ft hebui l
dingcannotber epai red,itmay
hav et o be abandoned as unf i
tf oroccupat ion and
ther efor e v alueless. These economi c l osses ar e
recov erabl ei ft heyf low f r
om br each ofa r elevant
cont r
act ualdut y,but ,her eagai n,i nt heabsenceofa
speci al relationshi p of pr oximi tyt hey ar e not
recov erabl ei nt ort.Theonl yqual if
icat ionIwoul dmake
tot hisi st hat,i fabui l
dinÅ st andsso cl oset ot he
boundar y of t he bui ldi
ng owner 'sl and t hat af t
er
discov er y of t he danger ous def ect i tr emai ns a
pot ent ialsour ceofi njurytoper sonsorpr oper tyon
nei ghbour ingl andoront hehighway ,t
hebui ldingowner
ought ,inpr inciple,t obeent i
tledt or ecov erint ortf r
om
thenegl igentbui l
dert hecostofobv iatingt hedanger ,
whet herbyr epai rorbydemol iti
on, sof arast hatcosti s
necessar i
lyi ncur redi nor dert opr ot ecthi msel ff r
om
pot ent ial l
iabili
tyt ot hirdpar t
ies.

Hedl
eyBy
rnevHel
l
erandPar
tner
s
[
19641AC465
Facts:Theplai
nti
ffwant
edt
oenteri
ntoanadvert
isi
ngcont
ract
wit
h a companywhose bankers werethe def
endant
s.The
pl
ainti
ffaskeditsbanktoenqui
rewhethert
hecompanywas
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wor t
hdoi ngbusinesswi th.Thedef endantsr epli
edstati
ngt hat
the companywas wor t
h doi ng busi ness with butadded a
disclaimernegat i
vinganyl iabili
tythatmayar ise.Thepl ai
nt i
ff
enteredi ntoanadv erti
singagr eementwi ththecompanybut
thecompanywasl iquidated.Itwasf oundt hattheadvicebyt he
defendant swasnegl igentlygiv enalthoughnotf raudul
ently.
Held:Thedef endantswoul dhav ebeenl iabletot hepl
aintif
ff or
thelosssuf feredbutf orthedi sclai
mer .
Principle:Pureeconomi cl ossi sdamager ecoverablei
nt het ort
ofnegl i
gence.

PerLordReidatp.583:"Areasonableman,knowi ng
thathewasbei
ngtrust
edorthathisski
ll
andjudgment
werebeingr
eli
edon,would,
Ithink,
havethreecourses
opentohim.Hecouldkeepsil
entordecl
inetogiv
et he
i
nformati
onoradvi
ce

417.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

sought:orhecouldgiv eananswerwi thaclearqualif

icat
iont hathe
acceptednor esponsibil
it
yforitort hatitwasgi venwi thoutthat
ref
lect
ionori nquir
ywhi chacar efulanswerwoul dr equire:orhe
couldsimplyanswerwi t
houtanysuchqual i
fi
cati
on.Ifhechooses
toadoptthelastcour sehemust ,Ithink,beheldtohav eaccept ed
somer esponsibi
li
tyforhisanswerbei nggivencarefull
y,ortohav e
acceptedar elati
onshipwi t
ht heinqui r
erwhichr equireshi mt o
exerci
sesuchcar east hecir
cumstancesr equir
e."

PerLor dHodsonatp.598:" Ishal llaterrefert ocer taincases

whichsuppor tt hev iew t hatapar tfrom whatar eusual l
ycal l
ed
fi
duci aryr el
ationshi pssuchast hosebet weent rust eeandcest ui
quet rust ,solicit
orandcl ient ,par entandchi ldorguar dianand
war dt her ear eot herci rcumst ancesi nwhi cht hel awi mposesa
dutyt obecar eful,whi chi snotl imi t
edt oadut yt obecar efulto
avoidper sonali nj uryori njur yt opr oper tybutcov ersadut yto
avoidi nflict
ingpecuni aryl osspr ovidedal way st hatt her eisa
sufficient l
ycl oser elat ionshi pt ogi ver i
set oadut yofcar e.The
cour tsofequi t yrecogni sedt hataf iduciaryrelati
onshi pexi sts'i
n
almostev eryshape' ,toquot ef rom Fi eldJi nPlowr ightvLamber t
((
1885) , 52LT646atp652) .Hewentont orefert oacasewhi ch
hadsai dt hatt her elat ionshi pcoul dbecr eatedv oluntari
ly,asi t
wer e,byaper soncomi ngi nt oast ateofconf i
dent ialrelati
onship
withanot herbyof feringt ogi v eadv i
cei namat t
er ,andsobei ng
disabledt hereafterf r om pur chasi ng.I tisdi ffi
cul ttoseewhy
l
iabilit
yassuchshoul ddependont henat ureoft hedamage.
LordRochei nMor risonSSCoLt dvGr eystokeCast le( Cargo
Owner s)( [194612Al lER696,atp700;[ 1947]AC265atp280)
i
nst anceddamaget oal orrybyt henegl i
genceoft hedr iverof
anot herl or r
ywhi chwhi leitdoesnodamaget ot hegoodsi nthe
secondl orrycausest hegoodsownert obeputt oexpensewhi ch
i
sr ecov erablebydi rectact ionagai nstt henegl i
gentdr i
ver."

PerLor dDev l
inatpp.602and603:" Thisiswhyt hedisti
ncti
oni s
nowsai dt odependonwhet herf
inanciallossi scausedt hr
ough
physicalinjuryorwhet heritiscauseddi rectly.Theinter
posi t
ion
ofthephy sicalinjur
yissaidt omakeadi ff
erenceofpr inci
ple.I
canf i
ndnei therlogicnorcommonsensei nt hi
s.Ifir
respecti
v eof
contract,
adoct ornegligent
lyadvisesapat ientthathecansaf el
y
pursuehi soccupat ionandhecannotandt hepat i
ent'
sheal t
h
suffersandhel oseshi sli
vel
ihood,thepatienthasar emedy .But
i
fthedoct ornegl igentl
yadv i
seshimt hathecannotsaf el
ypur sue
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
hisoccupat ionwheni nf acthecanandhel oseshisl i
veli
hood,
therei ssai dt obenor emedy .Unl ess,ofcour se,thepat i
entwas
apr ivat epat i
entandt hedoct oraccept edhal fagui neaf orhis
troubl e:t hent hepat ientcanr ecov erall
.Iam boundt osay,my
l
or ds,t hatIt hi
nkt hist o benonsense.I ti snott hesor tof
nonsenset hatcanar iseev eni nthebestsy stem oflawoutoft he
need t o dr aw ni ce di st
incti
ons bet ween bor derl
i
ne cases.I t
arises, ifitist helaw, simpl youtofar ef
usalt omakesense.The
l
inei snotdr awnonanyi ntell
i
gi bleprinci
ple.Itjusthappenst obe
thel inewhi cht hosewhohav ebeendr i
venf rom theext r
eme
asser tion t hat negl igent st atement s in t he absence of
cont ract ualorf i
duci arydut ygiv enocauseofact i
onhav ei nthe
cour seoft hei rretreatsof arreached.

"
Ishal lnow exami ne t he r elev antaut horit
ies and y our
l
or dshi pswi ll,Ihope,par donmei f,wi thoneexcept ion,I
attendonl ytot hoset hathav ebeendeci dedi nt hisHouse, for
Ihav emadei tplai nt hatIwi llnoti nt hismat tery i
eldt o
per suasi onbutonl yt ocompul sion.Theexcept i
oni sthecase
ofLeLi ev revGoul d,f ory ourl or dshipswi llnoteasi lyupset
deci sions of t he Cour t of Appeali ft hey hav e st ood
unquest ionedf orasl ongassev entyy ear s.Thef iv erelev ant
deci sionsoft hisHousear eDer r
yvPeek,Noct onvLor d
Ashbur ton,Robi nsonvNat ionalBankofScot l
and,Donoghue
vSt evenson,andMoni sonSSCoLt dvGr ey stokeCast le
(Car goOwner s).Thel astoft heseIcandealwi thatoncef or
i
tl i
esout sidet hemai nst ream ofaut hor i
tyont hispoi nt .Iti s
acasei nwhi chdamagewasdonet oashi past her esultofa
collisi
onwi thanot hershi p.Theowner sofcar goont hef i
r st
ship, whi chcar gowasnoti tselfdamaged, t
husbecamel iabl e
tot he owner s oft he f irstshi pf ora gener alav erage
cont ri
but ion.Theysuedt hesecondshi pasbei ngpar tlyt o
blame f ort he col lisi
on.Thust heywer e cl aimi ng f ort he
fi
nanci allosscausedt othem byhav ingt omaket hegener al
aver agecont ribution al t
hought heirpr oper tysust ainedno
phy sicaldamage.Thi sHousehel dt hatt heycoul dr ecov er.
Thei rl ordshi psdi dnoti nt hatcasel aydownanygener al
principleaboutl i
abi li
tyf orf inanci all ossi nt heabsenceof
phy sical damage; butt hecase

419•
i
tsel
fmakesi
timpossi
bletoar
guethatt
her
ei sanygener
al
r
uleshowi
ngt
hatsuchlossi
sofit
snatur
eir
recover
abl
e."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Riv t
owMar i
neLt dvWashi ngtonI r
onWor ks( 1973)40DLR( 3rd)
530
Fact s:Thepl ainti
f facquiredacr anei nstal
ledonal oggi ngbar ge
from t hedef endant .Duet ol at entdef ectint hecr ane,i thadt o
under gor epairsdur ingthepeakt i
meandasar esult,thepl ai
ntiff
coul d notuse i tdur ing t he peakseason.The pl aintiffsued
alleginglossar isingf rom hi sinabi l
it
yt ouset hecr anedur ingt he
peakseason.
Hel d:Al t
houghdamagesf orexpensesi ncur r
edi nrepai ringt he
def ectwasnotr ecov erable,consequent i
all ossar isi
ngf rom t he
necessi tytor epai rwasact ionabl eift hel ossar i
singf r
om t he
necessi tytor epaircoul dhav ebeenav oidedbyr easonabl ecar e;
fori ft hedef endanthadwar nedt hepl aintif
f ,ther epai rcoul d
hav ebeencar ri
edoutbef or et hepeakseason.
Pr i
nciple:Amanuf acturerofadef ecti
v earticleisnotl iablei ntor t
toanul ti
mat econsumeroruserf orthecostofr epairi
ngdamage
arisingi nthear ti
cl eitsel
fnorf orsucheconomi clossaswoul d
hav ebeensust ainedi nanyev entasar esultoft heneedt oef fect
repai r
s.Butwher eeconomi clossar i
singoutoft henecessi t
yt o
repai r could hav e been av oided by r easonabl e car e,t he
manuf acturerisliable.

Mui
rheadvI
ndust
ri
alTankSpeci
alt
ies
[
1985]3Al
lER705
Facts:Thepl aintiffneededpumpsf orhi sfi
shf arm.Thet hi
rd
defendantassembl edt hepumpi nEngl andf r
om el ectri
cmot ors
manuf acturedbyi tspar entcompanyi nFr ance.Thepumpswer e
thensol dt ot heseconddef endantsuppl ierwhosuppl i
edt hefir
st
defendantt oi nstall
.Af tert heinstallati
on,thepumpsdi dnot
wor kast heyoughtt odo,l eadingt ot helossofal argequant it
y
off ish.The def ecti nt he pump r esulted from t he v ol
tage
diff
erencei nEngl and.Thepl aint
if
fsued.
Held:Si ncet herewasnopr oximityandnor el
iancewaspl aced
ont hemanuf acturerbyt hepl ainti
ff,hecoul dnotr ecoverfor
economi clossar isi
ngf rom thedef ectivegoods.
Principle:A manuf acturerofdef ectivegoodscanbel iablein
negligencef oreconomi cl osssuf feredbyanul timatepur chaser
i
ft her eisav erycl osepr oximityorr elati
onshipbet weent he
parti
esandt heul t
imatepur chaserpl acesr ealr el
ianceont he
manuf acturerrat herthanont hevendor .

PerRober
tGof
fLJatpp.715and716:"
Ihav
eal
readyquot
ed
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
t
hepassagef
rom t
hejudgmentofthej
udgeinwhichhehel
d
t
hatt
herewasther
equi
sit
erel
iancebyt
heplai
nti
ffon
themanuf act ur ersandt hatt hemanuf act urer smustr easonabl y
havef oreseent hatanyuseri ntheUni tedKi ngdom woul dr ely
ont hem t oensur etheadequacyoft heirmot orsatl easti nt he
fundament alr espectt hatt heywoul dbesui t
abl ef oruseon
United Ki ngdom v oltages.Cer tai
nlyt his was a mat terof
fundament ali mpor tance,andwoul daf fectev er yuseroft he
mot orsi nt he Uni ted Ki ngdom.ButIf ind i ti mpossi blet o
diff
erentiatet hiscasef rom anyot hercaseofmanuf act ured
goodswhi ch,t hr oughaf undament aldef ect ,resul tinf inanci al
l
ossbei ngsuf f eredbyanul t
imatepur chaserwhobuy st hem f or
usei nhisbusi nessand,byr easonoft hedef ect,suf fersal oss
ofpr ofit
s.Fur ther mor e,t here was no ' verycl ose pr oxi mi t
y'
betweent hepl ai nti
ffandt hemanuf actur ers,int hesenset hat
therewasnov er ycloser elati
onshipbet weent hepar ties;so
thatfactor,t oo,i smi ssingf rom thecase. .AsIseet hepr esent
casei tmustf al lwithint hosecases,descr i
bedbyLor dFr aser
andLor dRoski ll,ofor dinar ypurchaseofchat t
el s,inwhi cht he
buyer,ifheseekst orecov erdamagesf orpur elyeconomi cl oss
ari
singf r
om def ectsint hegoods,mustont hel awasi tst ands
l
ook t o hi si mmedi atev endor and not t o t he ul ti
mat e
manuf actur erf orhi sremedy ."

PerNour seLJatp.719:" I
nhi sanal y
sisofJuni orBooksLt dv
Veit
chiC0Lt d[ 1982]3Al lER201,[ 1983]1AC520Rober tGoff
LJhasi dent i
fiedt hethr eef eaturesoft hatcaseonwhi cht he
decisi
on t hatt he nomi nated sub- contractorhad v olunt ar
il
y
assumed a di rectr esponsi bil
i
tyt ot he bui ldi
ng ownerwas
founded.The f ir
stt wo oft hese wer ev er
ycl ose proximi t
y
betweent hesub- contract orandt hebui l
dingownerandr eliance
byt hebui l
dingowneront hesub- contractor.Hav i
ngbeenso
decided,t hatcasecannot ,inmyr espectfulopinion,bet akent o
beaut hor it
yf ort hepr opositiont hatwher et hosef eaturesar e
absentadef endantisl iableint ortinrespectofeconomi cl oss
whichi snotconsequentonphy si
caldamaget ot heper sonor
propertyoft hepl aint
iff
....

"Int
hepresentcasetherewasnov er
ycloseproximit
ybetween
themanuf actur
ersand theplaint
iff
.Contract
uall
yt heywer e
sever
alstagesremovedf r
om eachother.Moreimportant
,there
wasnor eliancebyt heplai
nti
ffont hemanuf actur
ersint he
senseinwhichthatconceptwasappliedinJuni
orBooks.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
421

Thepeopl eonwhom t heplainti

ffrel
iedt oi nstallthe
system andt ogetther i
ghtequi pment,incl
udi ngpumps
withelectri
cmot or
swhi chworked,wer eITS.Theywer e
thepeopl ewhost oodi nt hesamef actualr elat
ionship
witht he plai
nti
ffas t he sub-contr
actordi d wi tht he
buildi
ngowneri nJuniorBooks.Thet wof eaturesofv ery
closepr oxi
mityandr eliancehav ingbeenabsent ,itis
unnecessar ytolookf ur t
herint hepr esentcase.The
plai
ntif
f'
scl ai
mi nrespectofpur eeconomi cl ossmust
fail
.Itherefor
eagreet hatt heappealshoul dbeal l
owed
tothatextent.
"

D&FEst atesLt dvChur chCommi ssioner sofEngl and[ 1988]2

AllER992
Fact s:Thet hi
rddef endant swer ethebui l
dersofblocksoff l
ats.
They subcont racted t he plaster
ing of t he buil
dings t o an
i
ndependentcont ract orwhot heybel iev edwascompet ent.The
plasteringwasact ual l
ydonenegl igent lyandt hepl aintiffwho
occupi ed t hebui l
di ng f ound thepl aster i
ng l
ooseaf tersome
years.Hebr oughtanact iontorecov ert hecostofwor ksdonei n
thedef ecti
v eplast eringandanyf utur ewor ktobedone.Hel d:
Thecostofr epairi
ngachat telnegligent l
ymanuf acturedbef ore
thechat t
el hascausedanydamaget oper sonorotherpr opertyis
notr ecov erableagai nstt hemanufact ur erandthust hepl aint
iff
's
actionhadt ofail
.
Principle:Thecostofr epai
ri
ngadef ecti nachat telbef or
ei t
causesI njuryt oper sonorot herpr oper tyisnotr ecov erabl
ein
negligenceagai nstt hemanuf actur
er .

PerLor dBr idgeofHar wichatp.1006:" Thesepr inciples

are easy enough t o compr ehend and pr obably not
dif
ficulttoappl ywhent hedef ectcomplainedofi si na
chattelsuppl i
edcompl etebyasi nglemanuf acturer.I f
thehiddendef ecti nthechat t
eli sthecauseofper sonal
i
njuryorofdamaget opr oper tyotherthant hechat tel
i
tself,themanuf acturerisliable.Buti ft
hehiddendef ect
i
sdi scov eredbef oreanysuchdamagei scaused,t her e
i
s no l ongerany r oom f ort he appli
cati
on oft he
Donoghue vSt ev enson pr inciple.The chattelis now
defectiveinqual i
ty,buti snol ongerdanger ous.Itmay
bev aluelessori tmaybecapabl eofeconomi crepair.In
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
eit
hercasetheeconomi cl
ossisr ecover
ableincont
ract
byabuy erorhi
rerofthechatt
elentit
ledtothebenef
itof
ar el
evantwarr
antyofqualit
y,buti snotrecover
abl
ei n
tor
tbyar emotebuyerorhir
erofthechattel
.

"Ifthesamepr i
nci pleappl iesi nt hef ieldofr ealpr oper tyto
thel iabilit
yoft hebui lderofaper manentst ruct ur ewhi chis
danger ouslydef ect i
ve,t hatl iabilit
ycan onl yar ise i fthe
def ectr emai nshi ddenunt ilt hedef ectivest ruct ur ecauses
per sonali njury ordamage t o pr operty ot hert han t he
struct urei tself.I ft he def ecti s di scover ed bef ore any
damagei sdone,t hel osssust ainedbyt heowneroft he
struct ure,who has t or epai rordemol i
sh i tt o av oida
pot ent i
alsour ceofdangert ot hirdpar ties,woul dseem t obe
pur ely economi c.Thus,i fIacqui r
e a pr oper ty wi tha
danger ouslydef ect ivegar denwal lwhi chi sat tributabl eto
thebadwor kmanshi poft heor i
ginalbui lder,iti sdi ffi
cultto
seeanybasi sinpr incipleonwhi chIcansust ainanact ionin
tortagai nstt hebui l
derf ort hecostofei therr epai r
ingor
demol i
shingt hewal l
.Nophy sicaldamagehasbeencaused.
Allt hathashappenedi sthatt hedef ectint hewal lhasbeen
discov eredi nt imet opr ev entdamageoccur ring.Idonot
fi
ndi tnecessar yf ort hepur poseofdeci dingt hepr esent
appealt oexpr essanyconcl udedv iewast ohowf ar,ifatall,
ther at i
odeci dendiofAnnsvMer t
onLondonBor ough[ 1977]
2Al lER492,[ 1978]AC728i nv olvesadepar turef rom t hi
s
princi pleest ablishinganew causeofact ioni nnegl igence
agai nstabui lderwhent heonl ydamageal legedt ohav e
beensuf feredbyt hepl aint i
ffi st hedi scov eryofadef ectin
thev eryst r
uctur ewhi cht hebui lderer ected."

Andatp.1007:'' I
nthei nstantcaset heonl yhiddendef ect
wasi ntheplaster.Theonl yitem pleadedasdamaget oother
property was ' cost of cl eaning car pets and ot her
possessionsdamagedordi r
tiedbyf al
li
ngpl aster:{50'.Once
i
tappear ed thatt he plasterwas l oose,any dangerof
personalinjur
yoroff urtheri nj
uryt oot herpr oper t
ycoul d
have been simpl yav oided byt he timel yr emov aloft he
defecti
veplaster.Theonl yfunct i
onofpl asteronwal lsand
ceil
ings,unl
essi tisit
sel felaboratelydecor ative,istoser ve
asasmoot hsur faceonwhi chtopl acedecor ati
v epaperor
paint.Whatevercaset heremaybef ort reati
ngadef ectin
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
somepar toft hestructureofabuil
dingascausingdamage
to'otherpr oper t
y'whensomeot herpar tofthebuildi
ngis
i
njuri
ousl yaffected,asf orexampl
ecr acki
nginwallscaused
by def ecti
vef oundati
ons,i twoul
d seem t o me ent i
rel
y
art
ifi
cialtot r
eatt hepl asterasdi
sti
nctf r
om thedecorati
ve
surf
acepl acedoni t.Ev enifitwereso t r
eated,theonly
damaget o'other

423•
•

property'causedbyt hedefecti
vepl asterwoul
dbet he
l
ossofv alueoftheex i
sti
ngdecor at
ionsoccasi
onedbythe
necessitytoremov el
ooseplasterwhi chwasindanger
off al
l
ing.Whent helooseplasterinf l
at37wasf i
rst
discovered in 1980,theflatwasi n anyeventbeing
redecorated.

"I
tseemst omecl eart hatt hecostofr eplacingt he
defecti
vepl asteritsel
f,eitherascar r
iedouti n1980or
asintendedt obecar riedouti nf uture,wasnotani t
em
ofdamagef orwhi cht hebui lderofChel woodHouse
couldpossi blybemadel i
ablei nnegl i
genceundert he
pri
ncipleofDonoghuevSt evensonoranyl egiti
mat e
developmentoft hatpr i
ncipl
e.Tomakehi m sol iablewould
bet oimposeonhi mf orthebenef itofthosewi thwhom
hehadnocont ractualr el
ati
onshi pt heobligat i
onofone
who war ranted thequal it
yoft hepl asterasr egards
mat er
ial
s,wor kmanshi pandf itnessf orpur pose.Iam
gl
adt oreacht heconcl usiont hatt hisi
snott helaw. ..
."

Fi
nesseGr oupLt dvBr ysonPr oducts[20131EWHC3273
Facts:Thepl ainti
ffpur chased from thedef endantadhesi ves
manuf acturedbyat hi
r dpar t
y.Thepl ai
ntif
fusedt headhesi vesto
makest andsf orexhi
bi ti
onbutl aterreali
sedt hattheadhesi ves
wer edef ecti
ve,causi
ngt hest andst odel aminate.Nodamage
wascausedt oanyper sonorpr oper t
y.Thepl ai
ntif
fsuedt he
defendantandt hedefendantsoughtt ojoi
nt hethir
dpar t
y.
Held:Si nceno damagewascaused t o anyper son orot her
proper ty,thet hir
d part yasmanuf acturerswer enotl iablein
negligence.
Principle:Tosucceedi nanyact ioni npr oductsliabi
li
ty,there
mustbephy sicaldamaget oaper sonort hingot herthant he
producti tself
.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
PerAkenheadJatpar s.24and25:[ 24]" Iwilladdr esst he
primar ypoi ntfir
stwhi chi swhet her,ont hef actsaspl eaded,
Finessecanhav eanycauseofact ioni nt ortagai nstBost ik.
Sav ef orcases wher et he par ti
es ar ei n a cl ose enough
relati
onshi p( such ascont r act)Ofi tcan be sai dt hatt he
all
eged t ortf
easorassumed some par ti
cularr esponsi bil
ity
towar dst hecl aimingpar ty,usual l
y,atl east,ther emustbe
phy si
caldamageori njuryot herthant othe' thi
ngi t
sel f
'.Thus,
i
nDonoghuevSt evenson[ 1932]AC562,101LJPC119,37
Com cas350,t hePl aintiffwoul dnothav ebeenent it
ledt o
recov erthecostoft hebot tleofgi ngerbeeral t
houghshe
woul dhav ebeenabl et or ecov erdamagesf orper sonali njur
ies
causedbyt heshockorot heref fectsoft hesnai lint hebot tle.
Ast heedi torsofBenj ami nont heSal eofGoodssayatpar a12
—124' Thusanact i
oni ntor tmayal sol i
eandi ndeedpr i
mar ily
l
ies agai nsta manuf act urerordi stri
but orwho put si nto
circul
ation goods whi ch cause phy sical inj ury or t he
dest r
uctionofordamaget opr oper t
y.'

[25]" Theedi t
orsgooni npar a12—128t oconsi
der,rel
ati
vely
briefly,economi cl oss relating to goods whi ch threaten
damage orar e otherwise unsat isfactory
,referr
ing tot he
HouseofLor dscaseofMur phyv[ 1991]1AC398,[ 1990]2
AllER908, [
1990]3WLR414as, i
nor dinar
ycases, r
uli
ngout
ther ecov eryofeconomi closs.Lor dsKeithandJaunceyi n
thatcasel eftoverthepossi bili
tythat'themanufacturerofa
separ atepar tofast ructureorar ti
clemaybel iabl
ei fit
prov esdef ectiv
ei nsuchawayast odamageot herpar t
sof
thest r
uct ur
eorar t i
cle,thequest ionhasnotr eallybeen
consi dered i n connect ion wi t
h goods as opposed t o
buildings'.
"

Andatpar s.28— 30:" [28]Onecanonl yjudget hedr aft

reamendmentoni t
swor ding.Itdoesnotar ti
culatespecifi
cally
whatt hedamagef ort hepur poseoft het ortact uall
yis.The
furt
hestthatt hedr aftpleadinggoesi si npar as12. 1and12. 2
(see above) whi ch t alks mai nl
y about del ami nati
on.I tis
reasonabl
ycl earfrom t hepleadingt hatt herear est ands(which
arepresumabl ymadeofwood,met alorpl asti
cofsomesor t
)to
which'panels'arest uckbyt heuseofadhesi ve.Theadhesi veis
saidtobei neffecti
vesot hatthepanel sbegi nt osepar at
ef r
om
thestands.I tisnotsuggest edt hatt hepanel sf elloffi
njuri
ng
anyoneordamagi ngany t
hingelse.Ther eisr eferencet osomeof
thepanels'displayi
ngabubbl ingorbul gi
ngef fect'whichseems
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
si
mpl
ytobeanot
hermani
fest
ati
onofdel
ami
nat
ion.

[29]"Idonotconsiderthati
tisar guablet hatthereisor
wasdamagei nthiscaseatall,ont hefactspl eaded.Itis
notbeingsuggestedint
hepleadi ngt hatthepanel sort he
standswereactuall
ydamaged; indeed, i
tseemst obe
suggestedi
npar a12thatthedamagel i
esi nthealleged
unsati
sfact
oryquali
tyorunsuitabil
ityoftheadhesi veand
thatofcour
sewoul dinanyev entbedamaget othething
i
tself(
theequiv
alentofthegingerbeerbot tl
einDonoghue) .
Evenifonecouldapplyorextendt he
425• u
thoughtpr ocessesofLor dsKei thandJaunceyi nt he
Mur phycaseandt reatt headhesi v east het hingi tself
andt hepanelasasepar atepar toft hest r
uct ure,sot o
speak,t he panel s ar e notpl eaded as hav ing been
damaged.Thef actt hatt hereissomef inanci allosssai d
tobeassoci atedwi t
hput ti
ngr i
ghtt heal legedpr obl ems
and consequences oft he adhesi vef ailure does not
conv ertt hatst ate ofaf f
air
si nto damage f ort he
purposesofacauseofact i
oni nnegl i
genceagai nst
Bost i
k.Ial sov erymuchdoubtt hatt headhesi vecoul d
besai dt obeot hert hanpar tofone' structure'andt hat
delami nati
on t herefor ei si ni tself not damage t o
anythingot herthant het hingitself.Oneal sohast obear
i
nmi ndapubl icpol icyf loodgatesar gumenti nr elat i
on
to goods such as gl ue orev en component s ofa
machi ne.Anexampl emi ghtbecar elessl ypr epar edgl ue
usedi nmaki ngashoewhi chf ailscausi ngt hesol eor
heelt odr opof f;thesuggest i
ont hatt heowneroft he
shoecoul dsuet hegl uemanuf actur eri sf anci ful.Of
course, therewoul dorcoul dbeacauseofact i
oni nt ort
againstt hemanuf act ureri nthecur rentt ypeofcasei f
asar esultofnegl igentlymanuf act uredgl uewhi chf ail
s
someel ementsupposedt obeadher edt oasubst ratum
fal
ls of finjuri
ng someone ordamagi ng an adj acent
exhibit(i
nt hecaseofanexhi biti
onst and) .

[30]"I
tfoll
owsthatforthesereasonsalonethecauseof
acti
onintortaspl
eadedi nthedraf
tre-amendmenthasno,
l
etaloneareali
sti
c,prospectofsuccess.
"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Robi
nsonvPEJones(
Cont
ract
ors)
[
2012]QB44
Fact s:Thedef endantbui lder
swer econstruct
ingabui ldingwi th
onlyonechi mneywhen t heplainti
ffagreed to pur chaset he
building.Thepar ti
esent eredintoacontractfort heconst ruction
ofanaddi t
ionalchi mney .Bothchimneyswer el aterfoundt obe
defect i
ve.Thepl ainti
ffsuedt orecoverthecostofr epairingt he
defect sint hechimney .
Held:Si ncenodamagewascausedt oanyot herpr oper t
yor
person, thepl ai
nt i
ff'
sactionfail
ed.
Principle:Thedut yowedbyamanuf act
urertoaconsumeri sto
taker easonabl ecar et hatnoi njur
yiscausedt oanyper sonor
otherpr opertyandt hus,damagesf orrepair
ingt hedef ecti
ve
productar enotr ecoverable.

PerJacksonLJatp.59,par .65:" Thefirstandcr ucial

feat
ureoft hisli
tigat
ionisthat,fort
unatel
y,thedef ecti
ve
fl
uesdidnotcauseper sonalinj
ury.Nordidt hey,orcould
they,cause damage t o otherpr opert
y.The cl ai
mant '
s
clai
mi sforeconomi clossconsequent i
alupondef ectsin
a house whi ch the defendant constructed and t he
clai
mantpur chased."

Atpp.59and60,par s.67— 69:[ 67]"Havingr evi

ewedt he
two st r
eams ofaut hori
ty setouti n Part5 abov e,my
conclusi on i s that t he relati
onship bet ween ( a) t he
manuf acturerofapr oductort hebuil
derofabui ldi
ngand( b)
thei mmedi atecli
enti spr i
mar i
lygov er
nedbyt hecont ract
betweent hosetwopar ti
es.Longest abl
ishedpr i
nciplesof
freedom ofcont ractenabl ethosepar ti
est oal l
ocater isk
betweent hemselv esast heyseef i
t.I
nt hecaseofconsumer
contract s, of cour se, t hose pr i
ncipl
es y ield t o t he
requirement softhe1977Act .Howev er
,evenint hecaseof
aconsumer ,t
hecont ract(asmodi f
iedbyt he1977Act )i s
the pr i
mar ydeterminantofeach par ty'
s obli
gations and
remedi es.

[
68] "
Absentanyassumpt i
onofr esponsi
bil
i
ty,ther
edo
notspring up between the part
ies duti
es ofcar e co-
ext
ensivewitht
heircontract
ualobl
igati
ons.Thelaw oftort
i
mposes a di f
ferent and morel imit
ed duty upon t he
manufactur
erorbui l
der.Thatmorel i
miteddutyistotake
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
reasonable car et o pr
otectthe clientagai nstsuffering
personalinjuryordamaget ootherpr operty.Thelawoft ort
i
mposes t his duty
,notonl ytowar ds the fir
stperson t o
acquirethechat telorthebuil
ding,butal sotowardsot hers
whof oreseeablyownorusei t.

[
69] "Theanal ysisint hepr ecedi ngparagraphf i
tswi th,
i
ndeed i s di
ctated by ,the House ofLor ds'decision in
DonoghuevSt evenson[ 1932]AC562,t heHouseofLor ds'
decision in Mur phy'
scase[ 1991]1 AC 398 and May J'
s
decisioni nNit
piginEireannTeor antavIncoAl l
oysLtd[1992]
1 WLR 498.Al though Ni tr
igin's case isaf i
rstinstance
decision,itcommandsr espectbecauseoft heforceoft he
reasoningi nthej udgment .Alsoi tshouldbenot edthatthe
tri
aljudgei nNitrigi
n'scasewasaspeci al
istinthisfiel
das
wellas bei ng t he then edi torofKeat ing on Bui l
ding
Contract s.
"

Andatpp.62and63,par s.83and84:[83]"
Inthepr esent
caseIseenot hi
ngtosuggestt
hatthedef
endant'assumed
responsi
bil
i
ty'
tothecl
aimanti
ntheHedl
eyByrnesense.The

427.
part
iesent er
edi ntoanor malcont ractwher ebyt hedefendant
wouldcompl etetheconst ructionofahousef ortheclai
mantt o
anagreedspeci f
icati
onandt hecl ai
mantwoul dpayt hepurchase
pri
ce.Thedef endant'swarrantiesofqual i
tywer esetoutandt he
cl
aimant'sremediesi ntheev entofbr eachofwar r
antywerealso
setout.The par t
ies were noti n a pr ofessionalrel
ati
onship
whereby,forexampl e,theclaimantwaspay i
ngt hedefendantto
giv
e adv i
ce ort o pr epar
er eport
s orpl ans upon whi ch the
cl
aimantwoul dact.

[84]" Eveni ftheagr eementdi dnotcont ainclauses8and10of

thebui l
dingcondi t
ions,Iwoul dbedi si
ncli
nedt of indthatt he
defendantowedt otheclaimantt hedut yofcar ewhi chisalleged
i
nt hiscase.Tomymi nd,howev er,clauses8and10oft he
buildingcondi t
ionsputt hemat terbey onddoubt .Thosecl auses
l
imi tthedef endant'sli
abil
it
yf orbuildingdefectst ot hefi
rstt wo
year s,afterwhi chdiff
erentpr ovisi
oni smadef ordealingwi t
h
defect s.Fort her easonssetouti nPar t6abov e,thoset wo
clausessat isfyt hetestofr easonabl enessi nthe1977Act .It
woul dbei nconsi st
entwiththewhol eschemeoft hiscontract,if
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
thelawwer etoi mposeupont hedef endantdut i
esofcar ei
nt ort
farexceedi ng the defendant'
s contractuall i
abil
iti
es.Finall
y,
clause10oft hebuildi
ngconditionsisrel ev
anti nanotherway .
Thepar t
iesexpresslyagreedthatthedef endant'sonlyli
abi
li
tyto
theclaimantshoul dbet hatari
singf r
om t heNHBCagr eement .
The parties weret her
ebyexpr esslyagr eeing to excl
ude any
l
iabil
it
yinnegligencewhichmi ghtotherwisear i
se."

PerSt anleyBur nt
onLJatpp.64and65,par s.92— 95:[ 92]" I
n
myj udgment ,i
tmustnow ber egar dedasset t
ledlaw thatt he
builder /
vendorofabui ldingdoesnotbyr easonofhi scontractto
const ructort ocompl etet hebuildingassumeanyl i
abi
li
tyint he
tortofnegl i
gencei nrelationtodef ectsint hebuildi
nggivingr i
se
topur el
yeconomi cl oss.Thesameappl iestoabui l
derwhoi s
nott hev endor ,
andt ot hesel l
erormanuf actur
erofachat tel.The
decisi on oft he House ofLor ds i n Anns v Mer ton London
BoroughCounci l[
19781AC728, l
ikei tsearli
erdecisi
oninJuni or
BooksLt d vVei tchiCo Lt d[ 1983]1 AC 520,mustnow be
regar dedasaber r
ant, i
ndeedasher etical
.Thel awi sasstatedby
LordBr i
dgeofHar wichi nD&FEst at esLidvChur chComr sf or
Engl and[ 19891AC177, 206: '
Ifthehi ddendef ectinthechat tel
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
st hecauseofper sonalinjuryOfofdamaget opr oper ty
othert hant hechat t
elitself,themanuf acturerisl iable.
Buti fthehi ddendef ecti sdiscov eredbef oreanysuch
damagei scaused,t herei snol ongeranyr oom f ort he
applicati
onoft heDonoghuevSt evensonpr i
nciple.The
chatteli snow def ecti
vei n qualit
y,buti sno l onger
danger ous.I tmaybev aluelessori tmaybecapabl eof
economi cr epair..I fthesamepr i
ncipleappliesi nt he
fi
eldofr ealpr oper t
yt ot hel i
abili
tyoft hebuilderofa
permanentst r
ucture whi ch is danger ousl
ydef ective,
thatliabili
tycanonl yarisei fthedef ectr emainshi dden
untilthedef ectivest r
uctur ecausesper sonalinjur yor
damaget opr opertyothert hant hest r
uct ur
eitself.Ifthe
defecti sdi scov er
edbef oreanydamagei s done,t he
l
osssust ainedbyt heowneroft hest r
uct ur
e,whohast o
repairordemol i
sh i tto av oid apot enti
alsour ceof
dangert o t hird parti
es,woul d seem t o be pur ely
economi c.'

[93] " Thus t he cruci

aldi stinction is between a
personwhosuppl i
essomet hingwhi chisdefectiveand
aper sonwhosuppl i
essomet hing( whetherabui l
ding,
goodsora ser v
ice)whi ch,becauseofi t
sdef ect s,
causes l oss or damage t o somet hi
ng el se. An
archi
tectowesadut yofcar enoti nr espectoft he
valueofhi sdrawi
ngsorspeci fi
cation,butinrespectof
thebui l
di ngthatist obeconst ructedwi ththem.The
personwhocont r
actswi t
hanar chitectcannotsuehi m
i
nt het ortofnegligencesimpl ybecauset heplanst urn
outtobedef ecti
veandt hereforeofnov al
ueorl ess
valuethant heyshouldbe.Thear chitectwillbeliable
tohiscl ientincontractifhisplansar ewor t
hless.The
cli
entcansuei ntort(atcommonl aw,andapar tfrom
thedut yi mposedbyt heDef ectivePr emisesAct1972)
i
fheusest heplansandt hebui l
dingconst r
uctedwi th
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

them i
sdefect
iveorcauseshiminjury.Themanaging
agentsi
nHendersonvMer r
ettSyndicatesLt
d[1992]2
AC145owedadut y
.ofcaretotheirNamesbecause
theyweremanagingtheNames'assets.

[94] "Itisimpor t
antto notet hata per son who
assumesacont ract
ualdutyofcaredoesnott hereby
assumeani denti
caldutyofcarei ntorttot heother
contr
act
ingparty
.Thedut yofcareincontractextends
toanydefecti
nthebuildi
ng,goodsOfser vi
cesuppl i
ed
underthe cont
ract,as wellas toloss Ofdamage
causedbysuchadef ecttoanotherbuil
dingOfgoods.
Thedutyofcareintort
,alt
houghsaidtoar isefr
om an
assumpti
onof

429"
 l
iabili
ty,isi mposed byt hel aw.I n casesofpur ely
fi
nanci all
oss, assumpt i
onofl i
abi l
i
tyisusedbot hasa
meansofi mposingl i
abil
it
yi nt ortandasar est r
iction
ont heper sonst owhom t hedut yisowed.Thedut yof
carei ntortappl i
est odamaget ootherpr oper t
yt han
thatsuppl i
ed, ortopersonali njuryordeat h,causedby
adef ectint hepr opert
ysuppl ied.Thepr oviderofa
service,suchasanaccount antorsol ici
tor,owesa
dutyofcar eint orttohisclientbecausehi snegl igence
maycausel ossoft heclient'sasset s.Idonott hink
thatacl ienthasacauseofact ionint ortagai nsthi s
negligentaccount antorsol i
citorsi mplybecauset he
account ant'
s orsol i
ci
tor'
s adv ice isincorr ect( and
thereforewor thlesst hant hef eepaidbyt hecl i
ent )
.
Thecl i
entdoeshav eacauseofact ionint or tift he
advicei sreli
eduponbyt hecl ientwi t
ht her esultt hat
hisasset saredi mini
shed.

[
95] "
Itfol
lowsi nmyj udgmentt hatt hefi
rstinstance
decisi
onst owhi chJacksonLJr efersinpara52ofhi s
j
udgmenti nwhichbuildi
ngcontractorswer ehel
dt ohav e
assumedadut yofcar eintor
tinr el
ationtofi
nancialloss
result
ingfrom defect
si nthebuil
dingt heyconst
ructed,in
theabsenceofdamaget ootherpr operty
,werewr ongly
decided."

Wit
tmervGebr
.WeberGmbH(
2011)
Ti
mes,6Jul
y
Facts:The f i
rstdef endantsoughtt or ecoverthe costof
remov alandr einst al
lat i
onofdef
ectiveti
lespur
chasedfrom t
he
fi
rstdefendant .Thesecondpl ai
nti
ffsoughttorecovert
hecost
ofremov alandr einst al
lat
ionofadef ecti
vewashingmachine
purchasedf rom t heseconddef endant.Held(bytheCourtof
Justi
ce of the Eur
opean Uni
on)
: That t
he cost
s wer
e
recov
erabl
e.
(NB:Thedeci
sionwasbasedonPar
li
amentandCounci
lDi
rect
ive
1999/44/
ECofMay25,1999,anEUdir
ect
ive.
)
Pri
nciple:Asell
erisunderadutyt
or emoveandrei
nst allany
defecti
veproducthesellst
oaconsumerandi fhef ails,the
consumermayr ecov
erthecostofremovalandr
einstallat
ion
fr
om thesell
er.

POSSI
BLEAPPLI
CATI
ONOFRESI
PSALOQUI
TUR
DonoguevSt
evenson(
supr
a)

PerLordMacmi
ll
anatp.622:"
The
bur
denofproofmust
alwaysbeupont heinjuredpar tytoestabl
ishthatthe
defectwhi ch caused t he injur
ywaspr esentint he
arti
clewheni tl eftthehandsoft hepart
ywhom he
sues, that the def ect was occasi oned by t he
carel
essnessoft hatparty,andt hattheci
rcumstances
aresuchast ocastupont hedef enderadutyt otake
carenottoi nj
uret hepur suer.Thereisnopresumption
ofnegligencei nsuchacaseast hepresent,noris
thereanyjusti
ficationforappl yi
ngt hemaxim,resipsa
l
oquitur
.Negl i
gencemustbebot hav er
redandpr ov
ed.
"

AboagyevKumasiBr
eweryLimi
ted
(supr
a)Fact
sandHoldi
ng:(
supr
a)
Pr
inci
ple:Thepr i
nci
pleofresi
psal
oqui
turappli
eswher
ethe
wantofreasonabl
ecareint
hemanuf
act
ureisproved.
 PerDj abanorJatp.244:" Theaut hor i
ti
esar eset tl
edi n
thev iew t hatt hemaxi mr esi psal oquiturappl i
est o
negligencei nmanuf act urewhent heci rcumst ances
aresuchast ocal lf ori tsappl ication.I nChar /eswor th
onNegl igence( 4thed. ),p.363,par a.802appear st he
foll
owi ng passage whi ch Iacceptas t he cor rect
statementoft hel aw:' Themer epr esenceofasnai lin
ast opper edandseal edbot tleofgi ngerbeerwoul d
appeart o be wi t
hi nt he maxi m because,owi ng t o
retentionofef fectivecont rolbyt hemanuf acturerunt i
l
the gi ngerbeerr eached t he consumer ,t herei sa
greaterpr obabi li
tyofnegl igenceont hepar toft he
manuf acturert hanont hepar tofanyot herper son.I n
GrantvAust ralianKni tti
ngMi l
ls[ 1936]A. C.85t he
courtappar ent l
y pr oceeded on t he v i
ew t hatt he
presenceoft hechemi cali rri
tanti nt hegar ment swas
evidenceofnegl igence
Similarly,int heear l
iercaseofChapr onierevMason
(1905)21T. L.R.633, t
hepr esenceofast onei nabat h
bunmanuf actur edbyt hedef endantwashel dt obe
withint hemaxi mr esi psal oqniturandt obeev i
dence
of negl i
gence agai nst t he manuf acturer.
'On t he
author it
iest her eforeIhol dt hatt hemaxi mr esipsa
l
oqui turappl iesi nt hiscaseandt hereforet hatapr ima
faciecaseofnegl igencehasbeenest abli
shedagai nst
thedef endant .
"

AcheampongvOv er
seasBr
ewer
iesLtd(supr
a)
Pri
nci
ple:Thepr i
nci
pleofresi
psaloquit
urappli
eswher
ethe
wantofreasonabl
ecareint
hemanufact
ur ei
sproved.

431"
PerAnnanJat.pp.12and13:"
Thedut
yasl
aiddown
 i
st ot aker easonabl ecareint hemanuf actureoft he
productandi tist hef ai
luretotakesuchcar et hatwil
l
renderhi m liablet othe consumerwho i si njur
ed.
Negl i
gencet heref orehast obeest abli
shedagai nstthe
manuf act ur
erbef orel i
abil
it
yi s establi
shed and t he
met hodofpr oofi sthesameasi nanyot hercaseof
negligence. The mer e pr esence of f oreign or
deleteriousmat teri snotPerseenoughandnegl i
gence
hast obeest abli
shedei therbywayoft hepr esumpt ion
ofnegl igencewi thr esipsaloquit
ur ,orwher ef actsare
established whi ch gi ve ri
se t o an i nference of
negligence."

Ov
erseasBr
ewer
iesLt
dvAcheampong(
supr
a)
(
Onappeal
tot
heCour
tofAppeal
)
Princi
ple:Thepr i
nci
pleofr esipsaloqui
turi
st hatwherea
productiscont ami
nated,i
tisnott hedut
yoft heplai
nti
ffto
provethesour ceofthecontaminantwhennegli
gencecanbe
establi
shedbywayoft hepresumpti
onofnegl
igencewithres
i
psal oquit
ur.

PerAr
cherJA( af
terr
efer
ri
ngt
othe
passageofLord
Macmi l
lanabove,continuingatp.427asf ol
lows) :"In1936,
i
nt hecaseofGr antvAust ral
ianKnitt
ingMi l
l
sLt d.[1936]
A.C.85,P. C.t
hepl ainti
ffhadcont ractedder mat iti
sasa
resul
tofexcess sul phitef ound in a pai rofwool len
underwearmanuf acturedbyt hedefendants.TheJudi cial
Commi tteeofthePr i
vyCounci loverr
ulingthej udgmentof
theHighCour tofAust rali
aheldt hatt hemanuf act
urers
wereliabletot heplaintiffont heprincipl
el aiddowni n
Donoghue v St evenson. Lor d Wr i
ght , deli
ver i
ng t he
 j
udgmentoft he court,stated at p.101 as f ollows:
'
Accor di ng t otheev idence,t hemet hod ofmanuf acture
wascor r ect:thedangerofexcesssul phitesbeingl ef twas
recogni sed and wasguar ded agai nst:the processwas
i
ntendedt obef oolproof.Ifexcesssul phi
teswer el eftin
thegar ment ,t
hatcouldonl ybebecausesomeonewasat
fault.Theappel l
antisnotr equir
edt ol ayhisfingeront he
exactper soni nallthechai nwhowasr esponsible,ort o
speci f
ywhathedi dwr ong.Negl i
gencei sfoundasamat ter
ofi nferencef rom theexi stenceoft hedef ectst akeni n
connect i
onwi thalltheknownci rcumst ances:ev eni ft he
manuf act urerscouldbyaptev i
dencehav er ebuttedt hat
i
nf erencet heyhav enotdoneso. 'TheGr ant

casecl ear
lyill
uminat
edt henat ur
eoftheburdenofproof
ont heplaint
iff
.LordMcMi ll
anwasamemberoft hecourt
i
nt heGr antcaseandt hereforehisdi
ctaint
heDonoghue
case( supra)asregardsthenat ur
eoftheburdenofproof
onthepl ai
ntif
fmustber egardedasobit
er.
"

And atp.429 and 430:" I

nt he pr esentappeal ,t he
respondentdi schargedhi sbur denofpr oofont hel i
nes
i
ndicat edbyFinnemor eJ.Ther espondentwasnotobl i
ged
topr ovehowt heker osenewenti ntothebeer .Whet heran
empt y bottle was notsmel torwashed,i ti s nothi s
businesst osay .All
thathewasexpect edt opr ovewast hat
thebot tl
eofbeerheboughtcamef rom t hemanuf acturers'
factoryand t hatt he contents wer e cont aminated with
kerosene...
.Itwasnott hedutyoft her espondentt oprov e
howi tgotintot hebeer.Itwasr atherther esponsibil
it
yof
theappel l
antst oex plai
nthattheker osenemi ghthavegot
i
ntot hebeerwi thoutanynegligenceont heirpart.
"
 433•

NEGLI
GENCEI
NRELATI
ONTOCHATTELS

DI
STI
NGUI
SHI
NG BET\XEEN DANGEROUS CHATTELS
ANDNON-
DANGEROUSCHATFELS

DixonvBel l(1816)105ER1023
Fact s:Thedefendantsentagi rltofet
chal oadedgun.The
girl
,af t
ertakingthegun,poi ntedthel oadedgunatt he
plainti
ff'
ssonandpul l
edt hetrigger
,causinghiminjuri
es.I
t
wasf oundt hatthedef endanthadt akenpr ecauti
onby
givinginstr
ucti
onstot hegirlaboutthegun.
Held: Thedefendantwasl iabl
e.
Principle:Apersonwhokeepsadanger ousinstrumentis
underadut ytokeepi twel landi sli
ableforanydamage
causedduet ohisbreachoft hatduty.

PerEll
enboroughCJatp.1024:" Thedefendantmight
andoughttohav egonef art
her;itwasincumbenton
him,who,bychargi
ngt hegun,hadmadei tcapableof
doingmischief
,torenderitsafeandi nnoxi
ous.This
mighthavebeendonebyt hedischar
geordr awingof
the cont
ent;and t hough it was the defendant
's
 i
ntenti
ont opreventallmi schi
ef,andheexpect edt hat
thi
swoul dbeef f
ectuatedbyt akingoutt hepr iming,
theev enthasunf or
tunatelyprovedt hattheor dert o
Lemanwasnotsuf fi
cient;consequently
,asbyt his
wantofcar e,t
heinstr
umentwasl efti
nast atecapabl e
ofdoi ng mischi
ef,the law wi l
lholdt he defendant
responsibl
e.Iti
sahar dcase,undoubt edl
y;butIt hink
theactionismaintai
nable."

Langri
dgevLev y[1832-421Al lERRep586;( 1837)150
ER863Fact s:Theplainti
ff
'sfatherwantedtobuyagun
fr
om t he defendant for hi
msel f and hi
s sons.The
defendantf
alsel
yrepr
esentedthatthegunwas

369•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

madebyNockandwasi nagoodandsaf econdition.The

defendantknewatt het i
meofsuchr epresent
ationt hatthegun
wasnotmadebyNockandwasi nfactnoti nagoodandsaf e
condi t
ion.Theplaintiff'
sfatherboughtthegunbasedont he
representati
onmadebyt hedefendantandwhi let hegunwasi n
thepossessi onoft hepl aint
if
f,i
tburstandcausedi njurytothe
plainti
ff.
Hel d:Sincethepl aintif
freli
edont hemi sr
epresentat i
onbyt he
def endanttohi sdet r
iment,hehadacauseofact ionagainst
thedef endant
Pr i
nciple:Wher eAmakesami srepresentati
ont oBwi ththe
knowl edgeori ntentionthatitwil
lbepassedt oC, andC, r
ely
ing
ont hemi srepresent ati
on,suffersdamage,A i sl i
ablet oC
althought hereisnopr i
vityofcontr
actbet weent hem.

PerPar keBatp.591:" Ifthei nst r

umenti nquest i
on,
whichi snotofi tselfdanger ous,butwhi chr equiresan
actt obedone, t
hati s,tobel oaded, i
nor dert omakei t
so,had been si mpl y del iver ed by t he def endant,
withoutanycont ractOfr epr esent ati
ononhi spar t,to
thepl aint
iff,noact ionwoul dhav ebeenmai ntainable
foranysubsequentdamagewhi cht hepl aintif
fmi ght
havesust ainedbyt heuseofi t.Buti fi thadbeen
deli
v ered byt he def endantt ot he plaintiff
,f ort he
purpose of bei ng so used by hi m, wi t
h an
accompany ing r epresent ati
on t o him t hathe mi ght
safelysousei t,andt hatr epr esent ati
onhadbeenf alse
tot hedef endant '
sknowl edge,andt hepl ainti
ffhad
actedupont hef aithofi t
sbei ngt rue,andhadr eceived
damaget her eby,thent herei snoquest ionbutt hatan
action woul d hav el ain,upon t he pr inciple of a
numer ouscl assofcases,ofwhi cht hel eadingonei s
Pas/ eyvFr eeman.Thatpr inci pleisthatamer enaked
fal
sehoodi snotenought ogi v ear i
ghtofact ion,butif

•
370
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
tbeaf al
sehoodt oldwi t
hani ntenti
ont hatitshouldbe
act eduponbyt hepar t
yi njured,andt hatactmust
producedamaget ohi m,if,insteadofbei ngdelivered
tot hepl aintif
fi mmedi atel
y ,thei nstrumenthadbeen
placedi nt hehandsofat hirdper son,fort hepurpose
ofbei ngdel i
v eredt oandt henusedbyt hepl ai
nti
ff, t
he
l
ikef alser epresent at
ionbei ngknowi nglymadet ot he
i
nt ermedi at e per son t o be communi cated tot he
plaintiff,andt hepl ai
nti
ffhadact eduponi t
,therecan
benodoubtbutt hatthepr inciplewoul dequal l
yappl y,
andt hepl aintif
fwoul dhav ehadhi sremedyf ort he
decei t;norcoul di tmakeanydi fferencethatt het hir
d
per son al so was i ntended byt he defendantt o be
decei v ed;nordoest hereseem t obeanysubst antial
distinct i
on

•
371
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
ft heinstrumentbedel i
ver ed,i
nordertobesousedby
theplaint
iff,thoughi tdoesnotappeart hatthedefendant
i
ntended t he f alse r epresent
ati
on i t
self to be
communi catedt ohi m.Ther ei saf al
serepresentati
on
madebyt hedef endant ,wi thav i
ew thatthepl aint
iff
should use t he inst r
umenti n a danger
ous way ,and,
unlessther epresent ati
onhadbeenmade, t
hedanger ous
actwoul dnev erhav ebeendone

"We,t herefore,think,t hat,asther eisf r

audanddamage,
ther esultoft hatf r
aud,notf rom anactr emot eand
consequent i
al,butonecont empl atedbyt hedef endantat
thet imeasoneofi t
sr esul t
s,thepar tyguilt
yoft hef r
aud
i
sr esponsi blet ot hepar tyinjured.Wedonotdeci de
whet herthisact ionwoul dhav ebeenmai nt ai
nablei fthe
plaint i
ffhad notknown ofand act ed upon t hef al
se
repr esentation,norwhet hert hedef endantwoul dhav e
beenr esponsi blet oaper sonnotwi thi
nt hedef endant '
s
cont empl ationatt het imeoft hesal e,towhom t hegun
mi ghthav ebeensol dorhandedov er
.Wedeci det hathe
i
sr esponsi bleint hi scasef ort heconsequencesofhi s
fraudwhi l
et hei nst r
umentwasi nt hepossessi onofa
per sont owhom hi sr epresentat i
onwasei therdirect l
yor
i
ndi rectlycommuni cat ed,andf orwhoseuseheknew i t
waspur chased."

Onaf urt
herappealt otheCour tofExchequerChamber ,
thecourtperLor dDenmanCJaf f
irmedthedecisionatp.
592asf oll
ows:" Weagr eewi ththeCour tofExchequer ,
andaf fi
rmt hejudgmentont hegr oundstat
edbyPar keB
that'ast hereisf raud,anddamage,t her esultoft hat
fraudnotf r
om anactr emot eandconsequent i
al,butone
contempl at
edbyt hedef endantatt het
imeasoneofi ts
result
s,thepartygui l
tyoft hefraudi sr
esponsibletot he
partyinj
ured."
'

Heav envPender( 1883)11QBD503

Facts:Thedef endantwasadockownerwhopr ovi
dedst aging
outsi
det hedockf orpurposesofwor ksont heshi p.Heent ered
i
ntoacont ractwi t
hashi pownert omakeast agingforuset o
workont heshi p.Theshipowneralsocont r
actedashi ppainterto
pai
ntt heoutsideoft heship.Thepl
ainti
ffwasanempl oyeeoft he
shi
ppai nterandwhi lehewasont hest agi
ngpai nti
ngt heshi p,
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

oneoft
heropesbrokeandhefel
landi
njur
edhimsel
f.
Hel
d:Thedefendantwasunderadut
ytotakecar
ethatt
her
opes
heused

371.
werefi
tforthei
rpur poseandthusliabl
etotheplai
nti
ffalt
hough
t
herewasnocont ractbetweenthem
Pr
inci
ple:A per son may owe a dut y of careto another
i
ndependentofacont r
actprov
ideditwasreasonabl
et hati
njur
y
mayresul
tfrom wantofcare.

PerBr ettMRatp.507and508:" Ifaper soncont ractswi th

anot hert o useor dinarycar eorski lltowar dshi m orhi s
proper tytheobl i
gationneednotbeconsi der edi nt hel i
ghtof
adut y;i
tisanobl i
gat ionofcont ract.Itisundoubt ed, howev er
,
thatt her emaybet heobl i
gationofsuchadut yf rom one
persont o anot heral thought her ei sno cont ractbet ween
them wi t
hr egar dtosuchdut y.Twodr i
versmeet inghav eno
cont ractwi theachot her,butundercer tainci r
cumst ances
theyhav ear eciprocaldut yt owar dseachot her.Soar et wo
shipsnav i
gat ingt hesea.Soar ailwaycompanywhi chhas
cont ractedwi thoneper sont ocar ryanot herhasnocont ract
witht heper soncar ri
edbuthasadut ytowar dst hatper son.
Sot heowneroroccupi erofhouseorl andwhoper mitsa
personorper sonst ocomet ohi shouseorl andhasno
cont ractwi th such a per son orper sons,buthasa dut y
towar ds hi m ort hem.I tshoul d be obser ved t hatt he
existence ofa cont ractbet ween t wo per sons does not
prev entt heexi stenceoft hesuggest eddut ybet weent hem
alsobei ngr ai
sedbyl awi ndependent l
yoft hecont ract,byt he
factswi t
hr egar dt owhi cht hecont ractismadeandt owhi ch
i
tappl i
es an exact lysi mil
arbuta cont r
actdut y
.. ..The
quest ionswhi chwehav etosol veint hiscasear e— whati s
thepr operdef i
niti
onoft her elationbet weent woper sons
othert han t he r elation est ablished bycont ract ,orf raud,
whi chi mposesont heoneoft hem adut yt owar dst heot her
toobser v e,wi t
hr egar dt otheper sonorpr oper t
yofsuch
other ,suchor dinarycar eorski l
lasmaybenecessar yt o
prev enti njuryt o hisper sonorpr operty;andwhet hert he
presentcasef all
swi thinsuchdef initi
on.Whent wodr iv
ersor
twoshi psar eappr oachi ngeachot her,suchar elat i
onar ises
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

betweent hem whent heyar eappr oachi ngeachot heri nsuch

amannert hat ,unl esst heyuseor dinarycar eandski l
ltoav oid
i
t,ther ewi llbet hedangerofani njur i
ouscol lisionbet ween
them.Thi sr elat i
on i s est ablished i n such ci rcumst ances
betweent hem, notonl yifitbepr ovedt hattheyact uallyknow
andt hinkoft hisdanger ,butwhet hersuchpr oofbemadeor
not.Itisest ablished,asi tseemst ome,becauseanyoneof
ordinarysensewhodi dt hinkwoul datoncer ecogni set hatif
he di d not use or dinar y car e and ski ll under such
cir
cumst ancest herewoul dbesuchdanger .Andev eryone
oughtbyt heuni versal l
yr ecogni sedr ulesofr ightandwr ong,
tothinksomuchwi thr egar dt othesaf etyofot her swhomay
be j eopardi sed by hi s conduct ;and i f
,bei ng i n such
cir
cumst ances,he does nott hink,and i n consequence
neglects,ori fhenegl ect st ouseor dinarycar eorski l
l,and
i
njury ensue,t he l aw,whi ch t akes cogni sance of and
enforcest her ulesofr ightandwr ong,wi l
lforcehi mt ogi ve
anindemni tyf ort hei njury.I nt hecaseofar ail
waycompany
carryingapassengerwi thwhom i thasnotent eredi nt ot he
contractofcar r i
aget hel awi mpl iest hedut y,becausei tmust
beobv ioust hatunl essor dinar ycar eandski l
lbeusedt he
personalsaf etyoft hepassengermustbeendanger ed.Wi th
regardt ot hecondi ti
oni nwhi chanowneroroccupi erl eav es
his house orpr oper tyot herphr aseol ogyhas been used,
whichi tisnecessar yt oconsi der .Ifamanopenshi sshopor
warehouset ocust omer si tissai dt hathei nv itest hem t o
enter,and t hatt hisi nv i
tation r aisest herelat ion bet ween
them whi ch i mposes on t he i nvitert he dut y ofusi ng
reasonabl ecar esot okeephi shouseorwar ehouset hati t
maynotendangert he per son orpr opertyoft he per son
i
nv i
ted.Thi si si nasenseanaccur atephr ase,andasappl i
ed
totheci rcumst ancesasuf f i
cient l
yaccur at
ephr ase. "

Domi
nionNat
ural
GasvCol
l
ins
Facts:Thedef endantinstall
edagasmachi neont hepremi sesof
arail
waycompanyandf i
xedt heregulatorint heblacksmithshop
i
nt herai l
waycompanyi nsteadoffixingi toutsi
det hebuilding.A
l
argequant i
tyofgasescapedandt hepl ainti
ffinanat temptt o
putoffther egul at
orgotinjuredwhenanexpl osi
onoccur r
ed.
Held:Sincet hedef endanthadbeennegl igentinthei nst
all
ationof
themachi ne, hewasl iabl
e.
Pri
nciple:Aper soninpossessionofadanger ousar t
icl
eisundera
dutytot akepr ecauti
ont oav oi
dinj
uryr esult
ingfrom it.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

PerLordDunedi natp.646:"Thegascompanywer enot

occupi
ers of t he premises on which t he accident
happened.Fur t
her,ther
ebeing no rel
ation ofcontract
between the companyand t he pl
aint
if
fs,the pl
ainti
ffs
cannotappealt oanydefectinthemachi nesuppli
edby
thedefendant
swhi chmight
373u•
const itutebr eachofcont r
act.Ther emaybe,howev er,int hecase
ofanyoneper formi nganoper ation,orset tingupandi nstalli
nga
machi ne,a r elat i
onship ofdut y .Whatt hatdut yi s wi llv ary
accor ding t ot he subj ect-matteroft he things i nvol
v ed.I thas,
howev er ,agai nandagai nbeenhel dthati nt hecaseofar ticles
danger ous i nt hemsel ves,such as l oaded f ir
earms,poi sons,
explosi ves,andot hert hi
ngsej usdem gener is,thereisapecul i
ar
dutyt ot akepr ecaut i
oni mposedupont hosewhosendf ort
hor
i
nst allsuch ar ticleswhen i tisnecessar i
lyt hecaset hatot her
partieswi l
lcomewi t
hint hei
rpr oximity.Thedut ybei ngt ot ake
precaut i
on,i tisnoexcuset osayt hattheacci dentwoul dnothav e
happenedunl esssomeot heragencyt hant hatoft hedef endant
hadi nter meddl edwi t
ht hemat ter.A l oadedgunwi l
lnotgoof f
unlesssomeonepul lsthet ri
gger ,apoi soni sinnocuousunl ess
someonet akesi t,gaswi llnotexpl odeunl essi tismi xedwi t
hai r
andt henal ighti ssett oit.Yett hecasesofDi xonvBel l,Thomasv
Winchest er,and Par ry v Smi th ar e alli ll
ust r
ati
ons ofl i
abili
ty
enfor ced.Ont heot herhand, i
fthepr oximat ecauseoft heacci dent
i
snott henegl igenceoft hedef endant ,butt heconsci ousactof
anot herv oli
tion, thenhewi l
lnotbel i
able."

Andatp.647:" Nowt hej ur yhasaf f

ir
mednegl igenceont hepar tof
thegascompanyi nr espectt hattheyi nstall
edt hesaf et
yv alve
withanemi ssi
ondi recti ntotheshopi nsteadofi ntotheopenai r
.
Thisf i
ndi
ngseemst ot hei rLordshi
psnotonl ycapabl eofsuppor t
upont heev idence,butr eallyreasonablei ni tsel
f .Forthesaf ety
valvebyi tsveryexistencewasmeantt owor kf r
om t i
met ot i
me;
andt hefrequencyofi tswor ki
ngwoul dseem t odependoncauses
which mi ghtbe qui tei ndependentofnegl igence,e. g.,sudden
pressure ofgas,and al so accumulat i
onsofdi rtwhich woul d
preventthepor tcull
i
scl osi ngt i
ght.Whent hev al
v edidwor k,gas
wasnecessar i
lyemi tted,andi twouldseem bot haneasyanda
reasonablepr ecauti
ont hatt hatemi ssionshoul dbel edt ot he
openai r,wher ei twoul dbehar mless,r athert hanputi ntot he
closedchamber ,wherei tmi ghtbecomeasour ceofdanger ."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

THEMANUFACTURER
DonoghuevSt evenson[ 19321AC562
Facts:Af ri
endoft hepl ai
ntiffpurchasedabeermanuf act uredby
thedefendantf orher .Thebeerwasi nanopaquebot t l
esucht hat
i
twasi mpossi blet oseet hecontent s.Af t
erdr inkingsomeoft he
beerthepl aintifffoundadecomposedsnai lint her emai nderof
thebeer .Thepl aintif
fsuf f
eredshockandgast r
o-enterit
tis.
Held:Si ncet hebeerwasmanuf acturedt o beconsumedand
bottl
ed wi thout any r easonable means of i nspect i
ons,t he
defendantwasl iablef ortheinjuri
essuf f
eredbyt hepl ai
nt i
ff.
Princi
ple:Amanuf acturerofpr oduct s,whi chhesel l
si nsucha
form ast o show t hathei ntendst hem t or eacht heul t
imat e
consumeri nthef ormi nwhi chtheyl ef
thim wi thnor easonabl e
possibi
lityofi ntermedi ateexami nat i
on,andwi t
ht heknowl edge
thattheabsenceofr easonabl ecar eint hepr epar at
ionorput ting
upoft hepr oduct swi llresultinani njurytot heconsumer '
sl if
eor
propert
y ,owesadut yt ot heconsumert ot aket hatr easonabl e
care.

PerLor d At kin atpp.595 and 596:" Ido notf ind it

necessar ytodi scussatl engtht hecasesdeal i
ngwi th
dutieswher et het hingi sdanger ous,or,int henar rower
categor y,bel ongs t o a cl ass of t hi
ngs whi ch ar e
danger ousi nthemsel ves.Ir egardt hedi sti
nctionasan
unnat ur alonesof arasi tisusedt oser veasal ogical
dif
fer ent i
at i
onbywhi cht odi sti
nguisht heex i
stenceor
non- exist enceofal egalr ight.InthisrespectIagr eewi th
whatwassai dbyScr uttonL. J.inHodge&SonsvAngl o-
Amer icanOi lCo.,acasewhi chwasul t
imat el
ydeci dedon
aquest ionoff act:'Per sonally,Idonotunder standt he
dif
fer encebet weenat hingdanger ousinitself,aspoi son,
andat hingnotdanger ousasa

class,butby negl igentconstructi

on danger
ous as a
particul
art hing.Thelatt
er,ifanythi
ng,seemst hemor e
danger ousoft hetwo;i tisawol finsheep'
scl othi
ng
i
nst eadofanobv i
ouswol f
.'Thenatureofthet hingmay
verywel lcallfordi
ffer
entdegreesofcare,andtheper son
dealingwi thi tmaywel lcontemplatepersonsasbei ng
withinthespher eofhisdutytotakecarewhowoul dnot
besuf f
ici
entlyproxi
mat ewithlessdangerousgoods;so
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

t
hatnotonl
ythedegreeofcarebutt
her angeofpersons
t
owhom adut yisowedmaybeext ended.Buttheyall
i
l
lust
rat
ethegener
alpri
nci
ple.
"

375.
.
Andatp.599:" MyLor ds,ify ourLor dshipsacceptt he
view t hatt hispl eading disclosesar el
evantcauseof
act i
ony ouwi llbeaf f
irmingt hepr oposi t
ionthatbyScot
andEngl ishlawal i
keamanuf acturerofpr oducts,which
hesel lsinsuchaf orm ast oshowt hathei ntendsthem
tor eacht heul ti
mat econsumeri nthefor minwhi chthey
l
ef thim wi thnor easonabl epossi bil
i
tyofi ntermedi
ate
ex aminat i
on, andwi ththeknowl edgethatt heabsenceof
reasonabl ecar eint heprepar ati
onorput t
ingupoft he
product swi llresultinani njuryt otheconsumer 'sli
feor
proper ty,owes a dut ytot he consumert ot ake t
hat
reasonabl ecar e."

Br
ownvCot
ter
il
l(1934)54TLR21
Facts:Thepl
ainti
ff,
aninf
ant
,wasinjuredbythefal
lofatombstone
whenhewasl awful
lyi
nthepremi
sesofachur chyar
d.I
twasf ound
thatthetombstonewasnegl
igent
lyerected.
Held:Since the pl
ainti
ffwas lawfull
yinthe chur
chyard,the
defendantswhoer ectedthetombst onewer
emanuf act
urersin
thatnarr
owsenseandaccor di
nglyowedadutytohim andwer e
thusli
ableforthei
njur
iessuf
fered.

PRODUCT

Gr
antvAust
ral
i
anKni
tt
ingMi
l
lsLt
d[1936]AC85
Facts:Thepl ai
nt i
ffboughtwool l
enunder wearmanuf acturedby
thef i
rstdefendantandsol dbyt heseconddef endant.Excess
sulphi
tehad been negl igentl
ylefti nt hegar mentbyt hef i
rst
defendant.Duet ot heexcesssul phit
e,t heplainti
ffcontracted
dermat i
ti
swhenhewor ethegarment .Hesuedbot hdefendant s.
Itwasf oundthatt hesul
phitewasahi ddenandl atentdefectthat
couldnotbedet ectedbyreasonableexami nat
ion.Held:Thef i
rst
defendantbreachedadut yt heyowedt otheplainti
ffandwer e
thusli
ablefortheirnegli
gence.
Princi
ple:Theliabili
tyofamanuf acturertoaconsumerappl ies
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

onl
ywheret hedefectintheproductishi
ddenandcannotbe
di
scov
ered byreasonabl
e examinat
ion.A pr
oductin pr
inci
ple
i
ncl
udesthi
ngsusedinter
nall
yandthi
ngsusedext
ernal
l
y.

PerLor dWr i
ghtatpp.104— 106:" I
tisobv ioust hatt he
pri
ncipl est husl aiddowni nvolveadut ybasedont he
simplef act sdet ailedabov e,adut yqui teunaf f
ect edby
anycont ract sdeal ingwi ththet hi
ng, f
ori nstance, ofsal e
bymakert or et ail
er,andagai nbyr etail
ert oconsumeror
totheconsumer 'sf r
iend.Itmaybesai dt hatt hedut yis
dif
ficultt odef ine, becausewhent heactofnegl igencei n
manuf actur e OCCUf St here was no speci fi
c per son
towar dswhom t hedut ycouldbesai dtoexi st :thet hing
mightnev erbeused:i tmi ghtbedest royedbyacci dent ,
Ofitmi ghtbescr apped,ori nmanyway sf ai lt ocome
i
nto usei nt henor malway :i n ot herwor dst hedut y
cannotatt he t ime of manuf act ure be ot hert han
potent i
alorcont ingent ,andonl ycanbecomev estedby
thef actofact ualusebyapar ticularper son.Butt he
samet heor eticaldi ff
icult
yhasbeendi sr egardedi ncases
l
ikeHeav envPender ,Ofinthecaseoft hingsdanger ous
perseOfknownt obedanger ous,wher et hirdpar ti
es
have been hel d ent i
tled t
or ecov eron t he pr inciples
explainedi nDomi nionNat uralGasCo. ,Ld.vCol li
ns&
Perkins.I nDonoghue' scaset het hingwasdanger ousi n
fact,thought hedangerwashi dden,andt het hingwas
danger ousonl ybecauseofwar yofcar ei nmaki ngi t;as
LordAt kinpoi nt souti nDonoghue' scase,t hedi stinction
between t hi ngs i nher entl
ydanger ous and t hings onl y
danger ousbecauseofnegl i
gentmanuf act urecannotbe
regardedassi gnifi
cantf orthepur poseoft hequest i
ons
hereinv olv ed.

"Onefur t
herpoi ntmaybenot ed.Thepr i
ncipleofDonoghue' s
casecanonl ybeappl i
edwher et hedefecti shi ddenand
unknownt ot heconsumer ,
otherwisethedirectnessofcause
andef f
ecti sabsent:t hemanwhoconsumesOfusesat hing
whichheknowst obenoxi ouscannotcompl ai
ni nrespectof
whatevermi schieffollows,becauseitfoll
owsf rom hisown
consciousv ol i
ti
oninchoosi ngtoincurtheriskorcer tai
ntyof
mischance.I ft hefor egoi
ng aret heessent i
alf eatur
esof
Donoghue' s case,t hey are also to be f ound,i nt hei
r
Lordships'j
udgment ,inthepresentcase.Thepr esenceoft he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

del
eteri
ous chemi cali nthe pant s,due t o negligence in
manufacture,wasahi ddenandl atentdefect,
justasmuchas
werether emai nsoft hesnailintheopaquebot tl
e:itcould
notbedet ect
edbyanyexami nationt hatcoul
dr easonabl ybe
made.Not hi
ng happened bet ween t he maki ng of t he
garmentsandt heirbeingwornt ochanget heirconditi
on.The
garmentswer emadebyt hemanuf actur
ersfort hepur pose
ofbeing wor n exactlyast heywer e worni nf actbyt he
appel
lant:
i
twasnotcont emplatedthattheyshoul dbefirstwashed.I ti
s

377.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
mmat erialt
hatt heappell
anthasacl aimincont r
actagai
nstthe
ret
ail
ers,becauset hatisaqui t
eindependentcauseofact i
on,
basedondi ff
erentconsiderati
ons,eventhoughthedamagemay
be the same.Equal l
yi r
relevantis any question ofl
iabi
lit
y
betweent heretail
ersandthemanuf act
urersont hecont
ractof
sal
e between t hem.The t or
tl i
abi
li
tyisi ndependentofany
questi
onofcont ract.

"I
twasar gued,butnotper hapsv er
ystrongly,thatDonoghue' s
casewasacaseoff oodordr inkt obeconsumedi nter
nall
y,
wher easthepant sherewer et obewor nexternally.Nodisti
ncti
on,
howev er
,can be l ogicall
ydr awn fort his purpose between a
noxious t hing taken internal
ly and a noxi ous t hi
ng appli
ed
externall
y:t hegar mentswer emadet obewor nnextt heskin;
i
ndeed Lor d Atkin specifi
call
y puts as exampl es ofwhati s
cover ed by the pr i
nciple he is enunciati
ng t hings oper
ati
ng
externall
y,such as ' an ointment,a soap,a cl eani
ng fl
uid or
cl
eani ngpowder '
."

SALE
Hasel dinevDaw&Sons[ 194112KB343
Fact s:The second def endant s carr
ied outr epairwor ks on a l i
fti n
buildingownedbyt hef irstdefendant.Aser v antoft heseconddef endan
negl i
gentlyfailedt or eplacesomegl andsi nt hel i
ft
.Thepl aintif
fv i
sit
ed
thebui ldingthef oll
owi ngdayupont heinv itationofaser vanoft hef i
rst
defendantgoti njuredwhenheusedt hel iftasar esultoff ailuret o
replacet hegl ands.Thepl ai
nti
ffsued.
Held:Theseconddef endantasar epair
eroft hel i
ftwasl iabletopl ainti
ff
fort hebr eachoft hedut yt heyowedt ohim asal awf uluseoft hear ti
cle
sincet herewasnor easonabl eoppor t
unityf orexami nat i
orbef oreuse.
Principle:Ther epair erofanar t
icl
eowesadut ytoanyper sonbywhon
thear t
icl
ei sl awf ullyusedt oseet hatithasbeencar efull
yr epairedi n
casewher ether ei snor easonabl eoppor tuni tyfortheexami nat i
onoft h
arti
cl eafterther epai riscompl etedandbef orei tisused.

PerScottLJatp.363:"Itiswort
hnotici
ngthatinDonoghuev
Stev
ensonLordBuckmast ert
reat
edtherepai
rerasinconsimi
/i
casutothemanuf
actur
er.Herecogni
zedthatt
heprinci
plewhi
ch
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

.
.378
hedeni edt ot hecommonl aw must ,ifi texistsatal l
,applyt othe
repai
reraswel last othemanuf act
ur er.Thef actthather egarded
thatsi
mi larit
yasar easonf orr ej
ecti
ngt hepr i
ncipledoesnotl essen
theforceoft her easonsf orsay i
ngthat ,ifitdoesappl ytotheone, it
mustal soappl ytot heother ..
..Thef actsoft hiscase,therefore,i
n
myopi nion, clearlyshowt hatt heengineer sdidoweadut yofcar eto
anyper sonusi ngt helif
tint heor di
nar ywayupt othet i
meoft heir
nextexami nat i
onofi t
,fort heyr eali
zed,oroughtt ohav er eal
ized,
thatnoef fectiveexami nationwasi nthel eastlikelybeforethen."

PerGoddar dLJatpp.375and376:" Itistobeobser vedt hatthet wo

nobl eandl earnedLor dswhof ormedt hemi norit
yi nt hatcaset hought
thatt hedeci sionmustnecessar i
lyappl yt oar epairer.It hi nkt hati tmay
besai dt hatt hisappear st ohav ebeenoneoft her easonsf ort hei r
dissent .Lor dBuckmast ersai d:'Thepr i
nci plecont endedf ormustbet hi s:
thatt hemcnuf actur er,orindeedt her epai rer[theitali
csar emi ne],ofany
articl
e,apar tent i
relyf r
om cont ract ,owesadut ytoanyper sonbywhom
thear t
iclei slawf ullyusedt oseet hati thasbeencar ef ullyconst ruct ed',
andLor dToml i
nexpr essedt hesamev iew.Takenal one,t hesent ence
woul dst atet hepr opositiont oowi dely ,f oritomi tst heal l-i
mpor tant
qual i
ficationt hatt hel iabi l
it
yi sonl ysai dt o existwher et herei sno
reasonabl e oppor tunityfori nspect i
onoft hechat t
elbet weeni t
sleav ing
thehandsoft hemanuf act urerorr epai rerandi tsconsumpt i
onoruse.I
pauseher ef oramomentt osayt hatIt hinkt hatitisgener all
yconsi der ed
thatwhenLor dAt kinusedt heexpr essi on' r
easonabl epossi bil
it
y 'wi th
relationt oi nspect ion,hemeantpossi bili
tyi nacommer ci alsense,and,
asIv entur edtosayi nPai nevCo/ neVal leyEl ectri
citySuppl yCo. ,Ld.t he
wor d' probabi l
ity'mi ghtper hapsbeusedi nstead.Oneshoul d,Ithink, ask
onesel ft hequest ion:'Int heci rcumst ancesofanypar ticul arcaseought
thepur chaser ,or,int hecaseofr epairs, theper sonf orwhom t her epai rs
wer e done,t o hav e made i nspect ion f orhi msel f?'Apar tf rom t he
quest ionwhet herEar /vLubbocki sstillgoodl aw, thecont entionoft hese
def endant s,as Iunder st and i t
,i st hatt he t r
ue pr inci ple under lying
DonoghuevSt evensoni st hati twast ot hei nterestoft hemanuf act urer
thathi sgoodsshoul dr eacht heconsumerunopenedandi twashi s
i
nt ent i
ont hatt heyshoul d,andt hatt hiswast her easonf orpr i
v ityor
proximi ty

379•
•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ordi rectr elationshi

p,cal litwhaty ou will,bei ng
establi
shedbet weent hemanuf acturerandul t
imat e
consumer .On t he otherhand,i ti s sai
dt hatt he
governing fact ori sthe possibil
it
yorpr obabi l
it
yor
contempl ati
on t hatan inspecti
on woul dt ake place
beforethegoodswer eputi nt
ouse.Formypar t,Ithink
the latter pr opositi
on ist he truth,and f or this
conclusionIf indsuppor tint headv i
ceoft heJudi cial
Commi tt
eei nGr antvAust ral
i
anKni tti
ngMill
s, Ltd.
"

Atpp.377and378:" Onwhatsoundpr i
nciple,then,
cant hecaseofar epairerbedi stinguishedf rom t hat
ofamakerofanar ti
cle?Ofcour se,thedoct ri
nedoes
notappl yt ot her epai rofanyar ticleanymor et hant o
i
tsmanuf act ure.I fIor dermyt ai l
ort omakemeasui t,
orawat chmakert or epairmywat ch,noonewoul d
supposet hatany onebutmy selfwasgoi ngt ouset he
suitorwat ch.I ft het ailorleftal argeneedl ei nt he
l
iningandi tinjur edaper sont ow&om atsomet imeI
l
entt hecoat ,Ishoul dt hinkt hatt hel attercoul dnot
recov eragai nstt het ail
or .Ther el
ationshi pwoul dbe
alt
oget hert oo r emot e,and manyoft hesuggest ed
diffi
cultiesofDonoghuevSt ev ensondi sappeari fitis
reali
zedt hatt hedeci si
onwas,asIv enturet obel i
ev e,
essent iall
yoneont hequest i
onofr emot eness.Butt he
caseofal i
ftr epai rerisv erydi fferent.Al i
ftinabl ock
off latsi st heret o beused byt heownerand hi s
servant s,t he t enant s and t hei rser vants,and al l
personsr esortingt heretoonl awf ulbusi ness.Bl ocks
off l
at sandof fi
cesar ef requent l
yownedbyl imited
compani eswhowoul dbecont ract i
ngpar ti
eswi tht he
l
iftengi neer s.I nsuchacase,t heempl oyerwoul dbe
theone' per son' whocoul dbynopossi bili
tyuset hel i
ft.
Ifther epai r
er sdot heirwor kcar elessly,orf ai
l t
or epor t
adangerofwhi cht heyasexper tsoughtt obeawar e, I
cannotseewhyt hepr incipleofDonoghuevSt evenson

•
382
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

shoul
dnotappl
ytot
hem.
"

Andatpp.379and380: "Itis,howev er
,arguedt hati
tis
notfightt hatar epairerwho,asi nt hepr esentcase,
hasst i
pulatedwi ththeper sonwhoempl oyshimt hat
heshal lnotbel iabl
ef oracci dent s,shouldnonet he
l
essbemadel iabletoat hirdper son.Theanswert o
thi
sar gumenti st hatt hedut ytot het hirdpar t
ydoes
notariseoutoft hecont r
act ,butindependent lyofit
.It
i
s,f ori nstance,a common t hi
ng nowaday sf ora
garagepr opriet
ort ostipul atethatcust omer s'carsare
dri
venbyhi m onlyatthe

•
383
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
soler isk oft he cust omer .Buti f,whi le dr iv ing a
cust omer '
scar ,her unsi nt oandi njur esapedest rian, the
cont racthehasmadewoul daf fordnoanswert ot he
l
at ter's cl aim. To hol d t he r epai rer l iabl ei n t he
circumst ancesoft hepr esentcase,. innowayenl arges
the l iabili
ty ofa cont ract ororr epai rerwho,bei ng
empl oy edt odocer t
ainwor k, doesi tpr oper lyandhands
i
tov ert otheper sonwhoempl oy edhi m.I fadangerbe
ther ebycr eat ed, i
tisfort heempl oy ert oguar dagai nsti t.
Fori nst ance, anownerofpr oper tyengagesacont ractor
toer ectanobst ructionacr ossadr iveorpr iv at er oad
wher enonehasbef or eexi sted.Hedoeswhathei s
empl oy edt odoexact lyi nt hewayhi sempl oy erdesi res.
Nextdayat r adesmanappr oachi ngt hehousei nt hedar k
runsi ntot heunexpect edobst ruct i
onandi si nj ur ed.He
woul dhav enocl ai
m agai nstt hecont ract or,becausei t
i
st heempl oy erwhocr eat edt hedangerandt hedut yof
guar dingorwar ningagai nsti tl iesonhi m.Tor endert he
cont ract ororr epai rerl) gbl e,t her emustbe,f irst ,awant
ofcar eonhi spar tintheper for manceoft hewor kwhi ch
hewasempl oy edt odo,and,secondl y,ci rcumst ances
whi chshowt hatt heempl oy erwi llbel ef tini gnor anceof
thedangerwhi cht hel ackofcar ehascr eat ed.Suppose
al i
ftr epai r
ert oldt heownert hatapar twaswor noutso
thatwhi l
ehecoul dpat chi tuphecoul dnotl eav ei tina
saf econdi tion.I fhewer et ol dt odot hebesthecoul d,
andanacci dentt henhappened,Icannotconcei v et hat
ther epai rerwoul dbehel dl iabl e.Hehasf ulfilledhi sdut y
bywar ningt heempl oy er ,andi ft hel at ter, i
nspi teoft hat ,
choosest oal lowt hel i
f tt obeused,t hel iabi l
itywi llrest
on hi m.The acci dentwoul d be caused,notbyt he
car elessness oft he r epai rer ,butby t he empl oyer '
s
disregar doft hewar ninggi v ent ohi m.I nt hepr esent
case, thelandl or disnotl iabl et ot hepl aintiffbecausehe
hadar ightt or el yont hewor kandr epor t
soft heexper ts
heempl oyed,andnoexami nat ionoft heirwor kaf ter
compl et i
on wascont empl at ed.I twoul d,Iv ent ur et o
think,beast rangeandunj ustr esul tift hepl aint iffwho
hasbeeni njur eddi rectlybyt hecar elessper for manceof
thewor kist obel eftwi thoutar emedy ."

EvansvTripl
exSafet
yGlassLt
d[193611AllER283
Facts:Theplai
nti
ffboughtacarthewindscr
eenofwhi
chhad
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
beenmanufacturedbythedef
endant
s.Whil
etheplaint
if
fwas
dri
ving t
he caraf t
erabouta yearaf
terits pur
chase,t
he
windscr
eenbrokeint
opi
eces
381•
wit
houtanyf orcebei
ngexertedoni t,result
ingininj
urytosome
ofthepassengersinthecar.
Held:Thedef endant
swer enotl i
ablesi ncetherehadbeenan
opport
unit
yofexami nationbyt heintermediat
esel l
erandther
e
hadbeenal apseoft i
mebet weent hepur chaseoft hevehi
cle
andtheoccurrenceoftheaccident.

PerPor terJatp.286:" I
nt hiscaseIcannotdr aw the
i
nferencet hatt hecauseoft hedisintegrat i
onwast he
fault
ymanuf acture.Iti st r
uet hatt hehumanel ement
mayf ailandt hent hemanuf acturerswoul dbel i
ablefor
negligence oft heirempl oyee,butt hen t hatwasnot
provedi nthiscase.Thedi sintegrat
ionmayhav ebeen
causedbyanyacci dent.Ther ewasev eryoppor tunit
yfor
fai
lureont hepar toft hehumanel ementi nf ast
eningthe
windscr een,andIt hinkt hatthedi sintegrationwasdue
rathert ot hef itt
ing oft hewi ndscreent hant of ault
y
manuf acturehav i
ngr egardt oitsuseont her oadandt he
damagedonet oawi ndscy eeni nthecour seofuser .

"Onehast oconsi dert hequest ionoft i

me.Thepl ai
ntif
f
hadhadt hewi ndscr eenf oraboutay ear.Thent her
ei s
thepossi bili
tyofexami nati
on.Thesuppl i
ersoft hecar
hadev eryoppor tunityt oexami net hewi ndscreen.Ido
notproposet ol aydownanyr ul
eofl aw;itisaquest ion
ofdegr ee and t hese el ement s mustbe t aken into
consideration.Thi sar ti
clewasputi ntoaf rameand
screwed;onemustconsi derthat.AsIhav esai dther
ei s
theelementoft i
me,t heoppor tuni
tyofexami nationand
theoppor tunityofdamagef rom ot hercauses.Onemust
considerall t
hesef actors.

"I
nDonoghuevSt ev
ensontherewasasnai li
nt heginger
beerbot t
leandt her
ewasnooppor tunit
yofseeingi tas
you coul d not see thr
ough t he glass.In Gr ant v
Australi
anKnitt
ingMi l
l
sLtdt heart
iclepassedont othe
purchaser and i tis qui
te clear that a reasonable
exami nat
ionofthegarmentwoul dnothav ereveal
edt he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
presenceofthesul phit
e.Thatcaseisdif
ferentfrom this.
Inthatcasetherewasf oundinsomeoft hegarment san
excessofsulphitesandt hatclear
lywasthecauseoft he
i
njury.Hereareanumberofcauseswhi chmi ghthav e
caused disi
ntegration.Ido notf ind any negligence
provedagainstthedef endantsandIgivethedef endants
j
udgmentwi thcost s."

ULTI
MATECONSUMER

DonoghuevSt
evenson[
19321AC562
Fact
sandHol
ding:
supr
a
Pr
inci
ple:Thedut
yowedbyt hemanuf
act
urerofgoodsi
sowed
t
otheultimat
econsumeroft
hegoods.

PerLor dAtki
natp.595:" Ishouldhavecomet ot he
conclusi
on that,as t he manufact
urers must hav e
contemplat
edt hebottl
ebeinghandledi mmedi atel
yby
theconsumer,theyowedadut ytohimt ot akecarethat
heshouldnotbei nj
uredext
ernal
lybyexplosion,justasI
thi
nkt heyowedadut yto hi
m tot akecar et hathe
should notbe injur
ed int
ernal
ly by poison orot her
noxi
oust hi
ng."

PerLor dMacmi ll
anatp.620:" NowIhav enohesi t
ation
i
naf firmi ngt hataper sonwhof orgainengagesi nt he
businessofmanuf acturi
ngar ti
clesoff oodanddr ink
i
ntendedf orconsumpt i
onbymember soft hepubl i
ci n
thefor mi nwhi chhei ssuest hem isunderadut ytotake
carei nt hemanuf actureoft hesear ti
cles.Thatdut y,in
myopi nion,he owes t ot hose whom he i ntends t o
consume hi s pr oducts. He manuf actures hi s
commodi tiesforhumanconsumpt i
on;hei ntendsand
contempl atesthattheyshal lbeconsumed.Byr easonof
thatv eryf actheplaceshi msel finar el
ationshi pwi thall
thepot entialconsumer sofhi scommodi ties,andt hat
rel
ationshi pwhi chheassumesanddesi resf orhisown
endsi mposesuponhi m adut yt otakecar et oav oid
i
njuringt hem.Heowest hem adut ynott oconv ertbyhi s
owncar elessnessanar ti
clewhi chhei ssuest ot hem as
wholesome and i nnocent i nto an ar ticle whi ch i s
danger oust oli
feandheal th."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
StennetvHancock[ 193912Al lER518
Facts:Thef i
rstdef endantsenthi scart ot heseconddefendant
to carry outr epairs on t he wheel s.The second def endant
repair
ed itand f ixed thef lange,al bei
tnegl i
gentl
y.When t he
servantofthef i
rstdef endantwasdr i
v i
ngt hecaraft
erfewhour s,
theflangecameof fandr anont hepav ementt ohittheplai
ntiff
whowaswal kingont hepav ement .
Held:The f irstdef endantwas notl iable butthe second
defendantwas l iabl
et ot he plaintif
fundert he pri
ncipl
ei n
DonoghuevSt ev ensonsi nceheknewt hatt hevehi
clewouldbe
usedont heroadandcoul dcausei njuryto

383•
ar
oaduseri
fhewasnegl
i
gent
.
Princi
ple:A manuf act
ureri
sliabletot heulti
mateuserofhi
s
productand a r oad userquali
fies as such ul
ti
mat
e useri
n
respectofvehi
clesusedonther oad.

PerBr ansonJatp.583:" Int hiscase,asi nthatcase,

therewasanoper ati
onper f
or medbyamanwhomust
haveknown, hadheconsi der edt hemat t
erforamoment ,
thatitwasanoper ati
onwhi ch,i fhedi dnotper formi t
properly,woul dpr obabl yr esul tini njur
yt osomebody
upont heroad.Heknewt hatt helorrywasbei ngr epai
red
forthepur posesofbei ngusedont her oad.Heknew
that,i
fitwasnotr epairedwi thduecar e,withthiswheel
soassembl edast omakei tkeept oget herandnotf l
y
apartupont her oad,inal lpr obabili
tysomebodywoul d
beinjuredast her esultofhi snothav i
ngdonet hatwhi ch
he shoul d hav e done.He knew t hat the second
defendantwasnotgoi ngt ot aket hewheelof forsubmi t
i
tt oanyscr utinyt oseewhet hert hewor khadbeen
properlydone.Ther efore,i tseemst o met hatev ery
elementwhi chwasconsi der edbyt hemaj orit
yoft he
HouseofLor dsi nM' A/ ister( orDonoghue)vSt evenson
tobenecessar ytor endert hemakeroft hear t
icl
einthat
caser esponsi blet ot heul ti
mat euserofi twhowas
damagedt herebyi spresenther e."

Andatpp.583and584:" .
..
Ithi
nkitri
ghtt
osayt hat
,if
,
uponthefactsoft
hecase,
ithadappear
edthatHancock
shoul
dr easonabl
y hav
e examined t
he wheelbefore
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
putt
ingitintouse,andhadf ail
edtodoso,t henthere
wouldbeanov usact
usi ntervenienswhichwoul dbreak
thecontinuit
ynecessar yt omakePet ersliablet othe
femaleplaint
iff
.Icannott hi
nk, however,thatitwouldbe
ri
ghttosay( asIhav eal readysai d)thataper sonwho
employsaski l
ledandcompet entrepair
ertor epai
rhis
vehi
cleisomi tt
inganydut ywhi chheowest ohi mselfor
toanybodyel seifhetrustst othatmanhav i
ngdonehi s
work properl
y ,and,inr eliance upon t hat
,t akes the
vehi
cleupont heroad.
"

NO REASONABLE POSSI
BILI
TY OF I
NTERMEDI
ATE
EXAMI
NATION

Dr
ansfi
eldvBr
it
ishI
nsul
atedCabl
e
Lt
d[1937]4Al
lER382

Facts:Thedef endantsmanuf act uredar i

ngusedasanov erhead
tr
olleywirepass.Ther i
ngswer esuppl i
edt oalocalauthorit
yand
wheni tsempl oyeewaswor kingont heringhewaski lledbyt he
breakingoft her i
ng.I twasf oundt hatt heringhadnotbeen
i
nspect edbyt hedef endantsandt hatar easonabl
et estwoul d
hav edisclosedthedef ects.Thewi dowoft hedeceasedsued.
Held:Si ncet herewasr easonabl eoppor tuni
tyforintermediate
i
nspect ionbyt helocalauthority,thedefendantsarenotl i
able.
Princi
ple:Amanuf act
urer'sli
abilityunderthepr i
nci
plei sli
mited
to wher et her eis no r easonabl e possibi
li
ty ofintermediate
exami nati
onoft heproduct.

PerHawke J atp.387:" Iarri

ve,t herefore,att he
conclusiont hattheunder standi
ngofGr eerL] ,already
ref
erredt o,
oft hejudgmentofLor dAt kininM ' Ali
ster( or
Donoghue)vSt evensonisacor rectunder standing,and
appli
cabl etot he deci
sion general
lyi nt hatcase.Mr
Tucker '
scont enti
onwast hatthedutyexi stsnotmer ely
wheret her
ei san oppor tuni
tyofexami nat i
on byt he
i
ntermedi at
epar t
y,notmer el
ywhent hef ormi nwhi ch
thepr oductsar esoldtot hepurchaseri ssucht hatt he
purchaseri s,sot ospeak,pr ev
entedf r
om maki ngan
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
ntermedi ate exami nation, but al so wher e t he
manuf acturerdoesnoti nf actcontempl ate,andneednot
reasonablycont emplate,t heinter
ventionofi ntermediate
examinat i
on,andt hatt hemanuf acturerisl iable,unless
hecanr easonablycont empl atethatany bodyi sgoi ngt o
makeani ntermediatetestofanef fecti
v enat ure.Idonot
thi
nkt hatt hatisthepr inciplelai
ddowni nM' Ali
ster(or
Donoghue) v St evenson.It hi
nk t hat t he pr i
nciple
dependsonoppor t
unityofexami nati
on,and,howev er
attr
activ
eImayt hinkMrTucker '
scont ention,Idonot
feelthatIam i naposi t
iont oaccepti t
.I fi tist obe
acceptedany wher
e,itmustbeaccept edel sewher e."

Andatp.388:" Appl yi
ngthosepr inci
plest othiscase,the
manuf acturerswer enoti nt hehabitoft esti
ngt her i
ngs
beforesuppl ying t hem t o purchasers.Theyt ook,and
thoughtt hattheywer er i
ghti nt
aking,achance,whi chis
oneofMrWi lson'sanswer sgi v
ent oMrTuckeri nthe
courseofcr oss- exami nati
on.Theysai d,andIagr ee,that,
withpr opermat eri
alandt hemat eri
alofwhi chthisr i
ng
wasmadewasper fectl
ypr oper andcar ef
ulwor kmen,
therewasr eal
lynodangeri nal
lowingwel dingtogoout
withoutfurthertesting.ButIcannotf indin

thiscaseanyev i
denceofanyst epst akenbyt hem t o
preventt hepur chaserf rom test i
ngbef orer etaili
ngt he
goods, orrequiri
ngot herper sonst ouset hem.I tisnota
casei nwhi cht heuseofi ntermedi atet ests,whet her
successf ulornot ,woul ddef eatt heobj ectoft hesuppl y
.
Testscoul dbeappl i
edwhi ch, ifsuccessf ul,woul dleave
thepr oductperf ectlyfitforuse.Ther ewer e,admi t
tedly,
tests whi ch coul d easi ly hav e been made. The
empl oyeesoft heBour nemout hCor por ati
ondi dnotuse
them,because t hey sai dt hat t hey r eli
ed on t he
manuf acturers,and t hat,ift heypur chased f rom t he
manuf acturersr ings,suchast hesewer e,ofsuf fi
cient
dimensi onst obeart hest r
ai nwhi chwoul dbeputon
them,t heywoul dbeent itl
edt oassumet hatt hegoods
wer eper f
ect.Thecor por ati
onhadanengi neeringst aff,
andt heycer t
ainl yhadsuf fici
entoppor t
uni tyt oappl y
tests of whi ch t hey knew.They had,i nf act,an
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
nst rumentcal ledady namo- meter
,actuall
ysuit
abl efor
testingstrainsonmet als.Itwasnott hei
rhabit,before
thisaccident ,touset hisinstrumentf ortesti
ngsuch
things as bul l-
ri
ngs,though i twas used i nf actf or
testingmor ef lexi
blepor ti
onsoft heirsyst
em,butt hey
couldeasi lyandwel l
—Iam usi ngthewor dsofoneof
theirownwi tnesses—hav eusedi tbeforeputti
nganyof
thebul l
-r
ingsi ntouse,andIunder standthattheuseof
suchat estwoul dhavedi sclosedquiteeasi
lywhet heror
nott heweldi ngswerefitforuse.

"It
hereforethi
nkthatthereislacki
ngoneoft hefact ors
whichitisessenti
alfortheplaint
ifftopr oveinor dert o
subst
ant i
atehercase,and,howev ermuchImayr egret
i
t,Imustgi vej
udgmentagainsther .Ithi
nkt hattheonus
ofprooft hatthenecessaryrelati
onexi stsliesonher ,
andIthinkthatshehasfail
edt oprov esuchar el
ation."

Paul
i
nevCol
nev
all
ey[
1938]4Al
l
ER8803
Facts:Theseconddef endantsbuiltki osksthatwer eusedbyt he
fi
rstdefendantasanel ect
ri
calstation.Theki oskswer ej oi
nedby
i
nsulati
ngwi reandoneoft hewi reswasl efthangi ngbyt he
seconddef endant.Awor kmanoft hef i
rstdefendantcamei nt o
contactwiththelivewireandwaski lled.Theexecut ri
xsued.
Held:Sincet herewasampl eoppor tunityfori nspectionbyt he
fi
rstdefendant ,t
heseconddef endantasmanuf acturerswer e
notli
able.Pri
nciple:Amanuf actureri snotliableforinjurycaused
toaconsumeri fther
ewasr easonabl epossi bil
it
yofi ntermediate
i
nspection.

PerGoddar d LJatpp.808 and 809:' '

AsIr ead t he
l
eadi ng case,howev er,ifA suppl ies a chat telt oBi n
ci
r cumst anceswhi chshowt hatthereareoppor tunit
iesf or
Bt oexami nei t,thesuppl i
erisnott herebybr oughti nto
proxi mat erelati
onshipwi thB' sempl oyeesorsubsequent
cust omer s.Iwi l
lcit
et wopassagesf rom theopi nionofLor d
Atkin.He sai d,atp 578:' The quest i
on is whet hera
manuf acturerofan ar ti
cle ofdr i
nk sol d by hi m t oa
distributor,incircumst anceswhichpr eventthedi stributor
ort heul ti
mat epur chaserorconsumerf rom discov eri
ngby
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
i
nspect i
onanydef ect,isunderanyl egaldut yt
ot heul t
imate
purchaserorconsumert ot aker easonabl ecar et hatthe
arti
cleisf r
eef rom def ectli
kelyt ocausei nj
uryt ohealth.
'
Again,atp599,hesai d:'byScot sandEngl i
shl aw ali
kea
manuf actur
erofpr oduct s,whichhesel l
si nsuchaf orm as
to show t hathe i ntends t hem t or each the ul t
imate
consumeri nt he form i n whi ch they lefthim wi th no
reasonable possibil
it
y ofi ntermediate exami nation,and
withtheknowl edget hatt heabsenceofr easonablecar ein
thepreparati
onorput tingupoft hepr oductswillresulti
nan
i
njurytotheconsumer 'sl i
feOfpr oper t
y,owesadut yt othe
consumert otaket hatreasonabl ecare.'

"Itseemscl eart hat,inspeaki ngoft hepr ev ent i

on,orof
the r easonabl e possi bil
it
y,ofexami nati
on,Lor d Atkin
meantpr eventionornopossi bil
i
t yinabusi nesssense.A
per sonwhobuy s100casesoft innedsal monf r
om the
packer shasaphy sicalopportunityofexami ningeacht in.
Commer ciallyspeaki ng,i
twoul dbei mpossi blef orhimt o
doso, norwoul dany oneexpecti t,asbyopeni ngt heti
ns
hewoul dspoi lt hecont entsbef oret heycoul dbesol d.
Per haps, t herefore, wi t
hout di srespect,t he wor d
'
pr obability
' maybesubst i
tutedf or'possibili
ty '
.Iftherebe
suchapr obability,t
her el
ationshipbet weenmanuf acturer
andul ti
mat euserorconsumerwi llnotbepr oximate.
Somet hingi sint er
posedwhi chpr eventsthef or gi
ngofa
l
inkbet weent het wo.Someday ,per haps,itmaybehel d
that ,ifa man negl i
gentl
y const ructs orcompounds
somet hi
ngwhi chheknowst heempl oyeesorcust omer s
ofhi scust omermustuse,hewi l
lnotbeal lowedt orely
ont hefactt hathi scustomeroughtt ohaveexami nedthe
goodsanddi dnotdoso.Idonott hink,howev er,
387•
•
thatIhav eanyr ightso t
o hol
d,and Imustr egard
M'A/i
ster(orDonoghue)vStev
ensonasshowingthat,i
f
ther
ei s a probabil
i
tyofexaminat
ion,the pr
oxi
mat e
rel
ati
onshipofthemanufactur
erwil
lnotext
endbey ond
hiscustomer.

"
Herethesecond def
endant
swerenotempl oyed t
o
i
nst
all
,butonl
ytomakeanddeli
ver
,theki
osk.I
thadin
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
factbeendel i
v eredsomet woy ear sbef or
et heacci dent,
andhadbeenatt hef i
rstdef endant s'premisesev er
since.Thedut yi mposedbyt heFact or yandWor kshop
Act1901wasont hef i
rstdef endant s,andi twasf or
them t osat isfyt hemselvest hatt heki oskcompl iedwi th
thatAct .Thei rengi neersf ixedi t,and, ifnoonet roubled
toseet hati twassaf ef ort hei rment ouse( andt hey
knewbet terthanany oneel secoul dknowt hemet hods
whi chwoul dbeadopt edandt het oolswhi chwoul dbe
used) ,they wer e,in my opi nion,gui lt
y ofa v ery
consi derablebr eachofdut yt ot heirwor kmen.Fort hese
reasons Imusthol dt hatt her e was no pr oximat e
relationshipbet weent heseconddef endantsandt he
deceased,and i n so hol ding Iam suppor t
ed byt he
deci sionofAt kinsonJi nOt t
ovBol ton&Nor ri
s."

AswanEngineer
ingEstabl
ishment
Co.vLupi
dineLtd[1987]1All
ER135
Facts:Thepl ai
ntif
fboughtal i
quidwat erpr
oofmat eri
alfrom the
fi
rst def endant. The mat eri
als wer e put in pl asti
c pai l
s
manuf actur
edbyt heseconddef endaht.Themat er
ialswer esent
toKuwai tandwer el efti nthesun.Thepl ast
iccoll
apsedandt he
mat erialswer elost.Itwasf oundt hatthecoll
apsewasduet o
themanneri nwhi cht hemat eri
alshadbeenpacked.
Held:Theseconddef endantmanuf acturerswerenotl i
ablesince
i
twasnotr easonablyf oreseeablethatthedamaget hatoccurred
woul dhav eoccur r
ed.
Principle:Amanuf actur er'
sdut yextendsonl yt
odamaget hatis
reasonabl yforeseeabl e.

PerLloydLJatp.153:" Butt hatisnotthet est.The

questi
onisnotwhet hertheconsequencewasofat ype
whichwasf oreseeable,butwhet heritwasofat ype
whichwasr easonablyf oreseeable.Thescopeoft he
manufacturer'
sdut yofcar edoesnotex tendbey ond
thatpoint
.I nthepr esentcaset heLupguardsuf fered
damagebecauset hepai l
swer estackedsixhighand
l
eftformanyday si ntemper aturesof70degr eesC.
Wast hatdamageoft het ypewhi chwasr easonably
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
foreseeable?I nmyopi niontheansweri sacategoricNo.
Counself ort heappellantsreli
edont heabsenceofany
ev i
dencet hatei t
herthev oyaget oKuwai tortheleavi
ng
oft hecont ainersonthequay sidewer eabnor
mali nany
way .Indeed,t he j
udge f ound byi nfer
ence thatthe
transitwas nor mal.Counself ort he appel
lants al
so
reli
ed,inthi sconnection,ont hedatasheet .Atthev er
y
l
east ,hesai d,thedat asheetshoul dhav econtaineda
war ni
ngt hatt hepail
scoul dnotbest ackedsixhighat
temper at
ur esinexcessoft hest atedrange.

"Iacceptt hatt hev oyaget o Kuwai tmaynothav ebeen

abnor malf orav oyaget oKuwai t
.Buti tbynomeansf ol
lows
thatt hecondi tionst owhi chthepai l
swer esubj ectedwer e
condi ti
ons whi ch Thur garBol l
e shoul dr easonabl y hav e
foreseen.NorwasIper suadedt hatt hedat asheetassi sts
counself ort he appel l
ant s'ar gumenton f oreseeabi l
ity
.
Thur garBol l
ewer eobl iged,asmanuf acturers,t oexer cise
reasonabl ecar et oensur et hatthepai lswer erobustenough
towi thstandt heor dinaryst r
essesandst rainsofanexpor t
transact i
on,wi thoutt hel idcomi ngof fandwi thoutl eaking.
Butt het ypeofdamagewhi choccur r edandt hecondi ti
ons
i
nwhi chitoccur redwer eal t
oget herout sidet her angeof
whatwasr easonabl yforeseeabl e,andt hereforeout sidet he
scopeoft heirdut yofcar e.Tohol dot her wiseont hef actsof
thepr esentcasewoul dbet oimposeont hemanuf acturers
al i
abilit
ynotf arshor toft hatofani nsur er.
"

Andatpp.153and154:" Therei sanot herappr oachwhi ch

l
eads t ot he same r esult.Lor d At kin'
sf ormul ati
on i n
DonoghuevSt evenson[1932]AC562, [1932]AllERRep1of
themanuf acturer'
sdut yofcar eexcl udest hecasewher e
ther
ehasbeenar easonableoppor t
uni t
yofi ntermedi ate
examinati
on.Thosewor dshav ebeent hesubj ectofmuch
subsequentanal ysis,almostasi ftheyf or
medpar tofa
stat
ute.Somet imest heyaretreatedasi ftheyimposeont he
plai
nti
ffani ndependentr equir
ementwhi chhemustsat isfy
,
ahoopt hroughwhi chhemustpass, beforehisact i
oni nt or
t
cansucceed.Counself ort heappel l
ant sarguest hatt he
plai
nti
ffherecanpasst hrought hathoopwi thoutdi ff
iculty
,
becausenoi nter
medi at
eexami nationwoul dhav er evealed
thedefectinthepails,otherthanat est
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
389u•

todest ruction.Thi scannothav ebeenwhatLor dAt ki

nhadi n
mind.Iagr eet hatiti
sunl ikel
yt hatLor dAt kinhadsuchat estin
mindwhenher efer
redt oi ntermedi ateexami nation.Butt hat
doesnotdi sposeoft hedi f
ficulty.Thewor ds' nor easonabl e
possibili
tyofi ntermedi at
eexami nation'takecol ourf rom t he
precedingwor ds' whichhesel lsi nsuchaf orm ast oshowt hat
hei ntendst hem t oreacht heul ti
mat econsumeri nt hef ormi n
whi chtheyl efthim' (
see[ 1932]AC562at599, [
1932]Al lERRep
1at20) .Theydonoti mposeani ndependentr equirementwhi ch
thepl ai
nti
ffmustsat isf
y .Theyar ef actors,usuallyveryimpor tant
factors,whi cht hecourthast ot akei ntoaccounti ndeter mining
whet hert he damage t o person orpr opertywas r easonabl y
foreseeable.

"Int he pr esentcase i twas notcont empl ated ( to use Lor d

Wr i
ght '
sexpr essi oni nGr ant vAust ralianKni ttingMi l
lsLt d[ 1936]AC85
at105,[ 1935]Al lERRep209at218)t hatthepai l
swoul dbet estedt o
dest r
uction.Butt hatsomef urt hert est i
ngwascont empl atedi sclear
from t hef actt hatt hef irstor derwasat rialor der.Att hev eryleast,
Thur garBol l
ewer eent itled t o assumet hatt her ewoul d besome
furtherdiscussi onbet weenThur garBol l
eandLupdi nei ft hepai lswer e
goingt obeputt osomespeci al use.I famanuf actur ersel lsadef ective
tyrewhi chi sf it
tedasor iginalequi pmentt oacar ,heowesadut yof
caret otheul timat econsumer , becauset heconsequenceoft hedef ect
doesnotdependi nanywayont het y peofcart owhi cht he t yreis
fi
tted.But ,ifasoundt yreint endedf oruseonacari sf ittednott oacar
butt oabus, themanuf act urerowesnodut yofcar e, notbecauset here
wasanoppor tunityofi nter medi ateexami nationi nanyor dinar ysense,
butbecauset heuset owhi cht het y rewasputwasnotr easonabl y
foreseeabl e.Indeed, i
nsuchacasei tisar ti
f i
cialtot hinkoft het yreas
beingdef ecti
v eordanger ousatal l.Thedangerar isesnotf r
om any
defecti nt hety re,butsol el yasar esul toft heuset owhi cht het yreis
put.Thati sessent i
allythesameast heposi t
ionher e.Sowhet herone
appr oaches t he pr esentcase as one i n whi ch Lupdi ne had an
oppor tunityofi ntermedi at eexami nat ioni nar atherl oosesenseor
whet her( asIwoul dprefer )oneaskst hesi mpl equest ion:Whet hert he
damage was r easonabl yf oreseeabl e? Iwoul dr each t he same
concl usi
on
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
McTearvI mperialTobaccoLt d.(2005)Ti mes, 14June
Fact s:Thehusbandoft heplainti
ffdiedofl ungcanceratage48
aftersmoki ng cigar et
tesmanuf actured byt he def endantf or
almost30y ears.Thepl ai
ntif
fsuedt hatt hemanuf acturerwas
l
iabl einnegl i
gencef orapr oducthar mf ultoheal t
horf orsell
ing
them wi thoutadequat ewar ning.Held:Si ncet hedeceasedknew
oft heheal t
hr i
sksassoci at
edwi thsmoki ng, t
hedef endantswer e
notl i
able.
Principle:Wher eaper sonusesapr oductwi tht heknowl edgeof
thedef ectinthepr oductort herisktoheal th,themanuf act ur
eris
notal iable.Li
abilit
yi sli
mi t
edt olatentdef ectsi nthepr oductand
thuswher eaper sonhasknowl edgeoft hedef ect,therewasno
dutyont hemanuf acturertowar noft hedanger s.

PerLor dNi mmo- Smit h:"Theev i

dencehadshownt hat
MrMcTearhadbeenawar e,incommonwi ththegener al
publ ic,wel lbefore1971,and by1964,when hehad
star tedsmoki ng,oft hepubl ici
tyaboutt heheal thr i
sks
associ atedwi t
hsmoki ngandi npar ti
cul arther i
skof
l
ungcancer .Hi sLordshi psai dt hatev eni fithadbeen
prov edt hatcigarett
esmoki ngcoul dcausel ungcancer ,
ther ewasnoaut hori
tyf orthepur suer '
spr oposit
iont hat
assoonast heybecameawar eoft hatt hedef enders
wer eunderadut ytoceasemanuf acture.Therecoul d
only hav e been such a dut yi ft he l aw was t hata
manuf acturerhadt oensur et hesaf etyoft heconsumer .
Thecasesdi dnotsuppor tthatappr oach.Thedut yupon
aper sonwhoputont hemar ketadanger ousarticlewas
tot aker easonablest epsi nal loft heci rcumst ances:see
Hol mesvAshf ord( [1950]2 Al lER 76) .Anessent ial
feat ure of t he speci es of l iabili
ty i n negl igence
est abli
shedbyDonoghuevSt evenson( 1932SC( HI)31;
[1932]Al lERRep1,[ 1932]AC562)wast hatitwast he
l
at ency oft he def ecti n a car elessly manuf actured
productwhi chconst i
tut edt hemi schi ef.

"Therewasnodoubtt hatapersonwhowasi njuredthrough

consumi ngOfusingapr oductthedefecti
v enat ureofwhi ch
hewaswel lawar
ehadnor emedyagai nstthemanuf acturer:
seeGr antvAustral
ianKnitt
ingMi ll
s([
1935]Al lERRep209,
[1936]AC85)andMur phyvBr entwoodDi str
ictCounci l(The
Times,July27,1990,[1990]2Al lER908,[ 1991]1AC398) .
Therewasnodut ytowar nofr isksofwhi cht heor dinary
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
memberoft herel
evantclassofpeopl emi ghtr easonablybe
assumedt obeawar eof .Therehadbeennosuggest i
ont hat
thecigarettes391•
manuf actured by the def enders had at any t ime
contai
ned anysubst anceot herthanwhatt hepubl i
c
wouldnor mall
yhav eexpect edasaconst it
uentofa
cigar
ette.Therecouldnotbesai dt ohavebeenadef ect
inthepr oductsofwhi chtheconsumer swer enotal so
aware.Aper sontowhom apr oductwassuppl i
edf or
consumpt ioncouldbepr esumedt ober easonable:see
McWi //i
amsvSi r Co( 1962SC ( HI.
)70;
[1962]1Al lER623,[1962]1WLR295) .

"A subj ect i

vev iew byan i ndividualt hati tmi ghtbe
diffi
cultforhi mt ogi veupsmoki ngdi dnotabsol vehi m
ofhi sresponsi bili
ti
esundert hecommonl aw.Adul tsof
fullageandnotsuf feri
ngf r
om l egali ncapaci tyhadt he
responsi bili
tyofmaki ngreasonabl echoi ces, notl easti n
mat ter
saf fect
ingt heirhealt
h,saf etyandwel fare.Ther e
wasnodut ytosav epeopl ef rom t hemsel ves:seeLor d
Hof fman' sspeechi nToml i
nsonvCong/ etonBor ough
Counci l( TheTi mesAugust1,2003,[ 200313Al lER
1122,[ 2004]1AC 46) .I
f,int heknowl edget hatt hey
wer etakingachance, t
heyexposedt hemsel vest oar i
sk
ofhar m,t herewasnobr eachofanydut yofcar e:see
Titchener vBr it
ishRai l
waysBoar d( 1984 SC ( HL)34;
[
1983]3Al lER770, [
1983]1WLR1427) ."

Baxhal
lSecur
it
iesLt
dvShear
d
WalshawPart
nershi
p(af
ir
m)
[
20021
EWCACi v09
Facts:Thepl aint
if
fswer et heoccupi ersofani ndustri
alhouse.
Thedev eloperofthebui l
dingempl oy edthedef endantarchi
tects
todesignt heroofdrainagesy stem.Thesy stem designedbyt he
defendantsandi nstal
leddi dnothav eov erfl
owsandf oll
owinga
heavydownpour ,
theplaint
iff'
spr emiseswer ef l
ooded.
Held:Sincet heabsenceoft heov erfl
owswasappar entand
could hav e been det ected by t he pl ai
nt i
ff by reasonable
examination,thedefendantswer enotl i
able.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Pri
nci
ple:Amanufact
ureri
snotli
abl
eforappar
entdefect
swhi
ch
canbeident
if
iedandremediedbyr
easonabl
eexaminati
on.

PerDav i
dSt eel Jatpar s.45— 48:" Theemphasi si s
accor dingl yondef ectswhi char elatenti nt hesense
thatt heycoul d notbedet ected bysuchr easonabl e
exami nat ionast hedef endantt othecl ai m mi ght,i fhe
hadgi v enanyt houghtt oit,reasonablyant i
cipat ewoul d
be conduct ed.Thi s approach i s conf i
rmed by t he
decisionoft hePr ivyCouncil inGrantvAust raliaKni tting
Mill
s[ 1936]AC85.Atpage105,Lor dWr ightsai das
foll
ows:' Thepr incipleofDonoghue' scasecanonl ybe
appliedwher et hedef ecti
shi ddenandunknownt ot he
consumer ,ot her wiset hedirectnessofcauseandef fect
i
sabsent :themanwhoconsumesorusesat hi ngwhi ch
heknowst obenoxi ouscannotcompl aininr espectof
what ev ermi schi eff oll
ows,becausei tf oll
owsf r
om hi s
ownconsci ousv oli
tioninchoosi ngt oi ncurt her iskor
certainty of mi schance. Ift he foregoi ng ar et he
essent ialf eat uresofDonoghue' scase,t heyar ealsot o
bef ound,i nt heirLor dshi
ps'j udgment ,int hepr esent
case.Thepr esenceoft hedel eteri
ouschemi cali nt he
partsduet onegl i
gencei nmanuf acture,wasahi dden
andl atentf eat ure,justasmuchaswer et her emai nsof
thesnai lint heopaquebot tle:itcouldnotbedet ect ed
byanyexami nat i
ont hatcouldr easonabl ybemade. '

"Theconceptofal at
entdef ecti snotadi f
f i
cultone.I t
meansaconceal edf l
aw.Whati saf law?I ti st heact ual
def ecti nt he wor kmanshi p ordesi gn,nott he danger
present edbyt hedef ect.(Agoodexampl eoft hedi st inction
i
scont ainedi nNi t
riginEir eannTeor ant avI ncoAl loy sLt d
[1992]1WLR498)Towhatext entmusti tbehi dden?I nmy
j
udgment ,itmustbeadef ectthatwoul dnotbedi scov ered
followi ngt henat ureofi nspectiont hatt hedef endantmi ght
reasonabl yant i
cipatet he ar ti
cle woul d be subj ect ed t o.
Ther ei s,accor dingly,a quest ion her e ofdegr ee.The
consumerofaf i
zzydr i
nkwi l
lnot,inthenor mal cour se, bring
i
nanexper tt oi
nspectt hegoodshepur chased.I nmar ked
cont rast ,thebuy erofabui l
dingal mosti nvariablywoul d.
Cer tainlyi nt hecommer cialcont ext
,adef ectwoul dnotbe
l
at enti fithadbeenr easonabl ydi scoverablebyt hecl aimant
witht hebenef i
tofsuchski lledthirdpartyadv iceashemi ght
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
beexpect edtor et
ain.Thecl assi
cdefini
tionoflatentdefect
i
nt hef ieldofcar r
iageofgoodsbyseai st hatcontai
nedi n
RiverstoneMeatPO!Lt dvLancashi r
eShi ppingCompanyLt d
[1961]AC807,perLor dKei thofAv onholm atpage871:' He
willbepr otectedagainstlatentdefects,i
nt hestri
ctsense,in
wor kdoneonhi sship,thatist osay,def
ect snotduet oany
negligentwor kmanshi pofr epair
ersorot hersempl oyedby
ther epairersand,asIseei t
,againstdef ect
smaki ngf or
unseawor thi
ness int he shi p,howev ercaused,bef orei t
becamehi sshi p,i
fthesecoul dnotbediscov er
edbyhi m, Of
compet entexperts

393.
.
employedbyhi
m,byt heexerci
seofduedi
l
igence.
'(A si
mil
arapproachi
s
adoptedint
heinsur
ancefi
eld:seeTheCar
ibbeanSea [1981]Ll
oydsRep
338.
)"

Andatpar s.53and54:" Insummar y,Iwoul dputt hemat teri n

thisway .Wher e,i nt henor malcour seofev ents,asur vey or
woul dbeengagedi nasur veyofabui l
dingf orapur chaser ,and,
witht heexer ciseofduedi ligence,t hatsur vey orwoul dhav e
discovered a def ect ,thatdef ecti spat entwhet herornota
surveyori sinf actengagedand,i fengaged,whet herornott he
surveyorper f
or mshi st askcompet entl
y .Itf ollowst hati nmy
j
udgment ,t
hej udgewasr ightt oconcl udeasf ollows:' 108.I nthe
presentcase, thepr eci
sedef ecthadnotbeendi scover edbef or e
the floods,butt her e had been atl eastone pr evious f lood
evidencedbymar kingsont hef l
oori nthebui lding.I nmyopi nion,
thedut yoft hedef endant st ot hecl aimant smustdependont he
question," Wast her ear easonabl eoppor tunityof .inspect i
onof
thedr ainagesy stem and di scov eri
ng thedef ect sbef oret he
fl
oods? "I ft he cl aimant s had a r easonabl e oppor tunity of
i
nspect ing the dr ainage sy st em and di scov ering t he def ect s
beforet hey suf fered damage,i twoul d notbe f ai rj ustOf
reasonabl et ohol dt hedef endant sl i
ablef ort hatdamagenor
woul ditbef i
ghtt osayt hatt her ewasapr ox imat er elationshi p
betweent heclaimant sandt hedef endants.

"Therewasar easonableopport
unit
yofi
nspecti
ngt hebuil
ding
beforetheclai
mant stookalease.I
twoul
dbenor malprocedure
foranyi ncomi
ngt enanttohav ethebui
l
dinginspectedbyt he
surveyor,and thatis whattheydid.Al
though the cl
aimants
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
receiv ed war nings f rom bot ht he sur vey ors and f rom Mr
Meikl ejohnofadanger ,t heywer enott oldwhatwast hepr eci se
problem.Thesur v ey orscoul d,andi nmyv iewshoul d,hav et old
thecl ai mant st hatt her ewer enoov er flows,andt hatov er
flows
shoul dbepr ov ided.Thecostofov er flowswasv er ysmal landi f
thecl aimant shadbeenadv isedt oi nst allt hem t henIcannot
thi
nkt hatt heywoul dhav ef ail
edt odoso.I fLamber tSmi th
Hampt onhadbeenmor eassi duousi nt heper formanceoft heir
duties,t hecl aimant swoul dhav ebeenexpr essl ywar nedoft he
absenceofov erflowsandt hef loodswoul dnothav eoccur red.
Towhatext enti st hecl aimant s'cl ai m af fect edbyt heact sof
thei
rpr of essi onaladv iser s?Ar et heyent i
tledt o say ,ast hey
mighti nr esponset oadef enceofcont ribut or ynegl i
gence,t hat
theyt ookski lledadv iceandar eent itledt or elyont hatadv ice?I
donott hinkt hatt hati st her i
ghtappr oach.
"Idonott hi nkt hati ti sf airj ustOfr easonabl et hatt he
ext entoft hel iabi l
ityoft hedef endant sshoul ddepend
on t he assi dui tyoft he sur v
ey or si nst ruct ed byt he
clai mant s. The cl ai mant s had t he oppor tuni t
yt o
discov er t he absence of ov er flows by r easonabl e
inspect i
on by pr of essi onal adv iser s who mi ght
reasonabl ybeexpect edt obei nst ruct ed:whet hert hat
reasonabl eoppor t
uni tyi nf actr ev ealedt hedef ecti s
irrelev ant .Becauset her ewasar easonabl eoppor t
uni t
y
toi nspect ,t he def endant s wer e noti n a pr oximat e
relat ionshi pt ot hecl ai mant ssof arasconcer nsdef ects
whi chcoul dhav ebeendi scov er edbyt hati nspect i
on,
namel y ,t he absence ofov erflows.ButIr epeatmy
pr ev ious f i
ndi ng t hatnei thert he cl aimant s nort heir
sur v ey ors coul d r easonabl y be expect ed t o hav e
discov eredt heunder desi gnoft hedr ainagesy stem. "In
myj udgmentt he j udge' s anal ysi si s cor r
ect .Act ual
knowl edgeoft hedef ect,oral t er nat i
v elyar easonabl e
oppor tunityf ori nspect iont hatwoul dunear tht hedef ect,
wi llusual lynegat ivet hedut yofcar eoratl eastbr eak
thechai nofcausat i
onunl ess( asi snotsuggest edint he
pr esentcase)i ti sr easonabl ef ort hecl aimantnott o
remov et hedangerposedbyt hedef ectandt or unt he
riskofi njur y:seeTar get /vTomaenBC[ 1992]3Al lER
27perSi rDonal dNi chol l
sV- Cat
p.
37.
"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
WANTOFREASONABLECARE
DonoghuevSt
evenson(
supr
a)
Fact
sandHol
ding:
supr
a
PerLor dMacmi ll
anatp.619:" Todescendf rom these
generali
ti
estot hecircumst ancesoft hepresentcase,I
do nott hi
nkt hatanyr easonabl emanoranyt welve
reasonable men woul d hesi tat
et o holdt hat,ift he
appell
antest abli
shes heral legati
ons,t he respondent
has exhibit
ed car el
essness i nt he conduct of hi s
business.Foramanuf acturerofaer at
edwat ert ostore
hisempt ybottl
esinapl acewher esnail
scangetaccess
tot hem,and t of i
l
lhi s bot tl
es withoutt aking any
adequate precauti
ons by i nspection orot herwise to
ensurethat

395•
•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

they contai
n no deleter
ious for
eign mat t
er, may
reasonabl
ybechar act
eri
zed ascarelessnesswit
hout
applyi
ngtooexact
ingastandar
d."

GrantvAust
ral
i
anKni
tt
ingMil
ls
(supr
a)Fact
sandHol
ding:
supra
PerWr ightJatp.105:" I
nDonoghue' scaset hething
wasdanger ousinf act
,thoughthedangerwashi dden,
andt het hingwasdanger ousonlybecauseofwantof
carei nmaki ngit
;asLor dAtkinpoint
soutinDonoghue' s
case, t he di sti
nct i
on bet ween t hi
ngs i nher
ent l
y
danger ous and t hings only dangerous because of
negligentmanuf acturecannotberegardedassignif
icant
forthepur poseofthequest ionsherei
nvolv
ed."

Aboagy evKumasi Br eweryLimited[ 1964]GLR2242

Fact s:Thepl aintif
f,whiletaki
ngabot tl
eofbeermanuf acturedby
thedef endantwi t
hsomef ri
endsf oundar ottennuti nt hebeer
afterconsumi ngabouthal foft hecont ent.Hel aterv omi tedand
hadf r
equentst ools.Thedoct orwhoexami nedhi mt est i
fiedthat
hehadf oodpoi soning.Thedef endantar guedt hatt heyhada
foolproofsy stem andt hustheywer enotnegl igent.
Hel d:Si ncet hedef endant'
ssy stem wasoper ated byhuman
beings, oneoft hem hadf ail
edtoexer ci
sepr opercar er esul t
ingin
thepr esenceoft henuti nthebeer ,andt hedef endantwast hus
l
iabl e.
Principle:Themanuf actur
erisliablei fhef ail
st oexer cisepr oper
carei nthemanuf actureofthepr oduct .

PerDj
abanorJatpp.245and246:" Iam sat
isf
iedfr
om
whatIhav e seen and hear
dint hi
s case thatthe
def
endant
s'plantist he bestpossibl
e pl
ant.Iam
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

sati
sf i
edt hatnopossi bleat tackcanbemadeont hei r
i
mpl ement s,theirmachi neryOft hegener alwayi nwhi ch
thei
rbusi nessi scar riedon;andi ndeedt hisisav er y
substantialandmoder nplaceofbusi ness.Thewhol e
system ofwor kshoul dreallybedescr ibedasf ool-
proof ,
butf orthef act,asadmi t
tedbyMr .Hor stmanhi msel f,
thatwhen t hese machi nes and pr ocesses ar e being
operatedbyhumanbei ngsonecannotbeal way scertain.
Howev er
,thedef endantsar esay ingf ollowingt hecase
ofDani el
sandDani el
sv .R.Whi te&Sons,Lt d.
,3thatby
adopt i
ngaf ool-
pr oofpr ocessandbycar ryingoutt hat
processunderpr opersuper vision,theyhad

•
•396
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

takenreasonablecar etoseet hatt hebeergoi ngoutoft heir

factor
ywasf reef r
om contaminationofanyki nd, andthatt hey
haddischargedt heburdenont hem.Butt hepl ainti
ffi
nef fect
i
ssay ing:Ihavenodoubtt haty ourmachi nerymaybeupt o
dateort hatyourprocessesareal sooft hebest .Butt heyar e
mannedbyhumanbei ngswhomaynegl i
gentl
y, deli
beratelyor
evenabsent -
mindedlyfault
er.Thesi ghter
scoul dhav emi ssed
thatonebot tl
econt ai
ningthatnutj ustassomef ew bot tles
havebeenknownt ohavepassedt hroughallthesepr ocesses
andcomeoutst i
llsmell
ingofkerosene. "

Andatp.247:i nt hi
scaseIhav efoundt hatt henutwasi nthe
beerwhent hepl aintiffdr anki t
.Ihav ebeent ol dandhav eseen
theup- to- dat emachi ner yand pr ocesst hatt hedef endant s
havei nt hei rfact or yf orbr ewi ngandbot tl
ingt hei
rbeert o
preventt hi ngsl i
keanutf rom ent eri
ngorr emai ni
ngi nt he
bott
lesofbeert hatt heysel loutt ot heircust omer s.Allthat
showst hati fallthewor kmendi dt hewor kt hatwasexpect ed
ofthem t henutshoul dnev erhav er emai nedi nthebot t
le.
Somebodyi nthedef endant s'empl oy mentf ailedt odohi sdut y
onthisoccasi onandal lowedt hebeerwi tht henuti nittopass
outoft hef actory .Inmyv iew( aswast hev iewofLor dDunedi n
i
nBal lardvNor thBr it
ishRai l
wayCo.( supra) )t hedef endant s
hadt oshow how t henutcoul dhav egoti ntot hebot tl
eand
remainedt here,inspi teoft heirsy stem ofwor k,ifsomebody
hadnotbeennegl i
gent .Itismyv i
ewt hattheyf ai l
edtodot hat.
Iti
smyf urtherv i
ewt her eforet hatthepl aintiffhaspr ovedthat
thenutwasi nt hebeerwhenhedr anki t
,andt hatitcouldnot
havebeent her eift hedef endant swer enotnegl igent.
"

AcheampongvOv erseasBr eweries[1971]GLR7

Facts:The pl ai
ntifft ook a bot tl
e ofbeermanuf act ur
ed by t he
defendants.Heal legedt hattherewasker oseneint hebeerandt hatthe
presenceoft heker osenewasduet ot henegl igenceoft hedef endant
.
Thedef endant sar guedt hattheirsy st
em ofoper ationwasf oolpr
oof
andt hustherecoul dnotbeanynegl igenceat tr
ibutedt othem.
Held:Si nce the initialst ages oft he washi ng oft he bottl
es wer e
managedbyhumanbei ngs,thef oolproofsy stem oft hedef endants
wasnotguar ant eed, andt hust heyareliable.
Principl
e:A manuf act urerisl i
ablef orhisf ai
luret ot aker easonable
care
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

397•
•
i
nthemanuf
act
ureofhi
spr
oduct
.

PerAnnanJatpp.12and13:" Thedut yasl aiddowni stotake

reasonablecareint hemanuf actur
eoft hepr oductanditisthe
fai
luret otakesuchcar ethatwi llrenderhi m li
abletot he
consumerwho i si nj
ured.Negl i
gence therefore has to be
establ
ished agai nst the manuf acturer bef or
e l i
abil
i
tyi s
establ
ishedandt hemet hodofpr oofi sthesameasi nany
othercaseofnegl i
gence.Themer epresenceoff orei
gnor
delet
eriousmat t
eri snotperseenoughandnegl i
gencehast o
beestablishedeitherbywayoft hepresumpt i
onofnegl i
gence
withresi psaloquitur,Ofwher ef actsareest abli
shedwhi ch
giveri
set oaninferenceofnegl i
gence."

Ov erseasBr eweri
esvAcheampong[ 1973]1GLR421
Fact sasabov e.Onanappealt ot heCour tofAppeal:Thedef endants
arguedt hatsincethetri
aljudgef oundt heirsyst
em tobeofv eryhigh
standar d,therewasnonegl i
genceont heirpart
.
Hel d:The f actthatt he def endants had a f ool
proofsy stem of
manuf acturedidnotnegati
venegl igence.
Principle:Once a pl ai
nti
ffpr oves wantofr easonable care byt he
presenceofanext ernalmat eri
alinthepr oduct,i
tisnotadef encet hat
thedef endanthad af ool
pr oofsy stem orav eryhigh standar d of
oper ati
ons.

PerAr cherJA atpp.429and430:" I

nt hepr esentappeal ,the
respondentdi schar gedhi sbur denofpr oofont hel i
nesi ndicated
byFi nnemor eJ.Ther espondentwasnotobl i
gedt oprov ehowt he
ker osenewenti ntot hebeer .Whet heranempt ybot tl
ewasnot
smel torwashed,i tisnothi sbusi nesst osay .Al lthathewas
ex pect edt opr ov ewast hatthe• bottleofbeerheboughtcame
from t he manuf acturers'factory and t hatt he cont ents wer e
cont ami nat ed wi th kerosene.I tist herefore notopen t ot he
appel l
antst ouset hei solat
eddeci si
oni nDani el
s'caseasat abul a
i
nnanf ragioi ntheseasofadv erseaut hority
.Itisalsonotopent o
thiscour tt osayt hatt heDani elsdeci si
onshoul dbebur iedso
secur elyt hatitsper turbed spiri
tshal lno l ongerv ext hel aw.
Nev ertheless,allthatneedbesai disthatt heDaniels'case( supr a)
i
snotadeci si
ont hatisbi ndi
ngont hecour tbelowandt hel earned
tri
alj udgewasper f
ectlyatl ibert
yt odecl i
net of oll
ow i tasa
gui dingst ari nthef i
rmamentofj udicialprecedents.Onepr inciple
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

ofl
awcanbedi
scov
ered

u398
withoutdi ffi
cultyf rom al ltheot hercases:Chapr oni
erevMason
(supr a),Gr ants'case ( supra),Lockhar tv Bar r( supra),Mason v
Will
iams( supra)(toci teaf ew)namel y,thedut yofcar eexact edby
thedoct rineinDonoghuevSt evenson( supr a)i snotf ul
fil
ledbya
manuf acturerwhosucceedsi ndemonst ratingt hathehasaf ool-proof
system ofmanuf acture.Not withst anding hi sf ool-
proofsy stem,
negligencewi llbei nferredagai nsthi m unl esst her ei sev i
dencet hat
thedef ectinthemanuf act uredar ticlewaspr obabl yduet ocausesf or
whichhecannotbehel dr esponsi ble.Seef ori nst anceEv ansv .Tr i
plex
(supr a)wher et hemanuf act
urer ssuccessf ull
ypr ovedot herpr obabl e
causesf orwhi cht heycoul dnothav ebeenr esponsi ble.Inthepr esent
appeal ,theappel l
ant scannotr elyont heirfool -pr oofsy stem al onet o
escaper esponsi bil
itybecauset herewasnoev i
dencebef oret hecour t
belowast ohowt heker osenegotormi ghthav egoti ntot hebot tl
ed
beer .Itwasnott hedut yoft her espondentt opr ov ehowi tgoti ntot he
beer .Itwasr athert her esponsi bil
ityoft heappel l
ant stoexpl aint hat
theker osenemi ghthav egoti nt ot hebeerwi thoutanynegl igenceon
theirpar t.Thist heyf ailedt odoandont hepr inciplei nGr ants'case
(supr a),negligencemustbef oundasamat t erofi nference.The
l
ear nedt r
ialjudgewast herefor er i
ghti nf indi ngnegl igenceagai nst
theappel l
ants."

Tay
lorvRov
ercarco.[
1966]2Al
lER181;
[196611WLR1491
Facts:Thef irstdefendantgott heseconddef endantt omanuf acturea
chisel for t hem. The chi sel was manuf actured accor ding t o
specif
ications pr ov i
ded by t he f irst def endant f rom al loy st eel
purchasedf r
om t het hirdparty.Thet hirdpar t
yal soheat -
treat edt he
steelfortheseconddef endant.Thepl aint
if
f ,anempl oyeeoft hef i
rst
defendantsuf feredani njurytoaney ewhenheusedt hechiselduet oa
defectinthechi sel causedbyt heheat -
treatmentbyt het hi
rdpar ty.
Held:Sincet heseconddef endantempl oyedacompet enthardenert o
hardent hest eeltheyhaddi schargedt hedut yofcar eplacedont hem
andwast husnotl iable.
Princi
ple:Amanuf acturerisnotl iablei fheexer cisesduecar ei nt he
manuf actureofhi spr oduct.

PerBakerJ atp.186:"
Itseems t
o me t hatthe l
ogi
cal
concl
usi
onmustbet
hataf
ashi
onerOffabr
icator
,suchast
he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

seconddef
endant
s,whoi
snotpr
ovedt
ohav
ebeengui
l
tyof

399•
anybr eachofdut yornegl i
gencei nt hef ashioningofagui lty
tool,can onl ybe l i
ablei fthe maxi m r espondeatsuper i
or
applies.Whyshoul dhi sliabil
ity,howev er ,bedi f
ferentf r
om
thatoft heempl oyerwho,i fonef ollowsLor dMor ton,asI
respectfull
ydo,isclearlynotl i
ablef orhi sagent 'snegl i
gence?
Apassagehasbeenci t
edf rom Char /eswor t
honNegl i
gence
(4thEdn) ,para797:' Amanuf acturer'sdut yisnotlimi tedt o
thosepar tsofhispr oductwhi chhemakeshi mself.I
text ends
to componentpar t
s,suppl i
ed byhi ssub- manufact urersor
others,whi chheusesi nthemanuf actureofhi sownpr oduct s.
Hemustt akereasonablecar e,byi nspect ionorot herwi se,to
seet hatthosepar t
scanpr operlybeusedt oputhispr oducti n
acondi ti
oni nwhichi tcanbesaf elyusedorconsumedi nt he
contempl atedmannerbyt heul ti
mat euserorconsumer .'

"1seenor easont odi sagreei nanywaywi t

ht hatst at ementof
thelaw.Thei mpor tantpassagei s:'Hemustt aker easonabl e
care,byi nspect i
onorot herwi se,toseet hatt hosepar t
scan
properlybeused. .
'What ,howev er,isreasonabl ecar e?The
second def endant s wer e ent it
led to assume,i n my v i
ew,
havinggotcompet enthar dener stodot hehar deningoft hi
s
guil
tychi self ort hem,t hatthewor kwaspr oper l
ydone,andi t
wasnopar toft heirdut yinl awori ngoodsenset osetabout
thechi selwhent heyr eceivedi tfrom thehar dener sandt o
exami nei tandt estitbyhar dnesst esttoseet hatt het opwas
nomor et hanVi cker s350,andt hatthetipwasVi cker s700.I
cannott hi nkt hatt heyar el i
ablef orthehar deningbyt hei
r
hardening agent s ort heirindependentcont ractors,orcal l
them whatonemay .( Seeal soHase/ di
nevDaw &SonLt d.).
On t hese f indings and concl usions,the pl ainti
ffsucceeds
againstt he f i
rstdef endant s,and t he second def endants
succeedandar eent it
ledt ojudgmentagai nstthepl ai ntiff
."

HolmesvAshf ord
Fact s:Theseconddefendantwast hemanuf act
urerofahairdyewi t
ha
l
abelandabr ochurewarningt hati tmightbedanger oust ocer t
ain
skinsandr ecommendedat estbef or
ei t
suse.Thef ir
stdef endant
hairdresserusedthedyeont hepl aint
if
fwithoutanytestorwarningt o
thepl ai
nti
ffandtheplai
nti
ffcontracteddermat i
ti
s.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Held:Si
ncet
heseconddefendanthadt
akenr
easonabl
ecar
etowar
n
usersoft
hedanger
s,i
twasnotli
abl
e.

•
400
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Principl
e:Amanufactur
erwhoput sadangerousar t
icl
eont he
mar ketmusttake reasonabl
e st
eps to pr
ev entanyper son
comi ngint
ocontactwithitfr
om beinginj
uredal t
houghsuch
steps may notbe di rect
ed dir
ect
lytowar ds the ult
imate
consumer .

PerTuckerLJ atp.80:" "lnt he pr esentcase t he

subst ancewasnotent rust edt oacompet entper son,
buti twassuppl i
edt oahai rdresserwi ththeknowl edge
oft hemanuf acturer s,andi tmusthav ebeeni nt he
cont empl ati
onoft hemanuf act ur
er ssuppl yi
ngt hese
goods t o hairdresser st hat hai rdresser s may be
expect ed t oi nterpose t heirj udgmentand r eason
whet hert heyar egoi ngt ouseahai rdy eornot .Inmy
view,i ft hey give a war ning whi ch,i fr ead by a
hairdr esser ,is suf ficient t oi nt
imat et o him t he
pot ent ialdanger soft hesubst ancewi thwhi chhei s
goingt odeal ,thati sal lthatcanbeexpect edoft hem.I
think i twoul d be unr easonabl e and i mpossi blet o
expectt hattheyshoul dgi v ewar ni
ngi nsuchf ormt hat
i
tmustcome t ot he knowl edge oft he par ti
cul ar
cust omerwhoi sgoi ngt obet reated.Counself ort he
plaint i
ffsay st heymustt aker easonabl est epst osee
thati twi llcomet ot henot iceofanycust omer .Icannot
cont empl ateanyst epswhi chcoul dbecal culatedt o
bringamat t
eroft hi ski ndt ot heknowl edgeofany
per sonwhoi st reatedwi tht hepr epar ation.Themost
thatcanbeexpect edoft hemanuf act urersofgoodsof
thiski ndi stoseet hatt hehai rdr
esseri ssuf f
icient l
y
war ned.

"Ihavenotfounditnecessar
ytorefertothebrochure,
and the label
s on the bottl
es,because the fir
st
defendantsai
dthathehadr eadthem andunderstood
them.It hi
nktheyindicat
esuffi
cient
lytoanyper son
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

who r eads them,at any r atet o a r easonabl e

hair
dresser
, t
hatt hesubst ancehei sconcer nedwi t
hi s
ofthenatureallegedi nthest at
ementofcl aim, namel y
,
thatitisady ewhi chi s' adangerousar t
icleint hat
whenappl i
edt ot heheadsofcer tai
nper sonsi twoul d
ormi ghtcause acut e der mati
ti
s'.It hink thatt hat
quali
tyofthedy e'Inecto'wassuf f
icientl
ybr oughtt o
thenoticeoft hef i
rstdef endantbyt henot iceswhi ch
havebeenputi nev idence.Fort heser easons,It hink
thattheplaintiff
shadf ail
edt oest abli
shacaseof
l
iabil
i
tyont hepar toft heseconddef endantsandt hat
theappealshoul dsucceed. "

401z•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

KubachvHol
l
ands[
193713Al
lER
907
Fact s:Thet eacheroft hepl ai
nt i
ffboughtf rom t heseconddef endant
chemi cal smanuf act uredbyat hir
dpar tyf ormaki ngcompoundsi n
thechemi str ylabor ator y.Thet eacherwassuppl i
edwi thami xtureof
antimonysul phi deandmanganesedi oxidewhi chwasl abel
ledas
manganesedi oxide.Thet woar eindistingui shabl et ot heey e.-The
chemi calwasheat edwi thpot assium chl oratef ort hepur poseof
maki ngoxy gen,i texpl odedduet ot hepr esenceoft heant i
mony
sulphi de.Whent heseconddef endantpur chasedt hesubst ancef rom
thet hirdpar ty, i
twassol abell
edasmanganesedi oxi dewi thanot ice
whichr eadasf ol l
ows:" Theabov egoodsar eaccur ateasdescr i
bed
onl eav ingourwor ksbutt heymustbeexami nedandt estedbyuser
befor euse.Theabov egoodsar enoti nv oicedassui tableforany
purposebutt heyar eoft henat ureandqual itydescr i
bed."Not ests
wer ecar riedoutandt heseconddef endantdi dnotwar nt heteacher
aboutt hedanger s.
Held:Si ncet het hirdpar t
yt ookst epst owar nt heuser sandt he
seconddef endanthadf ailedt oexami net hepr oductal thoughi thad
ampl et imet osodo, thet hir
dpar ti
eswer enotl iable.
Pri
nci pl e:Amanuf act ureri snotl iablei fheexer cisest heduecar e
expect edofhi mi nwar ningconsumer saboutt hedanger sint he
art
icle.

PerHewar tLCJatp.911: "Themanganesedi oxi dewhi cht hethi

rd
partyoughtt ohav esuppl i
edher etotheseconddef endantmi ght
hav e been r esoldf ora v arietyofpur poses Ofi ni nnocuous
compoundsormi xtures.Theuseofi tforschoolex per i
ment swas
onlyoneoft hemanypossi bl eusesandt het hi
rdpar t
y,unl i
kethe
seconddef endant s,hadnonot iceofthei ntendeduse.Mor ethan
that,itwascommongr oundt hatav erysimpl et est,i
fithadbeen
carri
edout ,ast hethirdpar ty '
si nvoi
cepr escr i
bedandast hefir
st
defendantwasnotwar ned,woul dimmedi atelyhav eex hi bi
tedthe
factt hatant imonysul phi dehader roneousl ybeenmadeupand
delivered asmanganesedi oxide. Thesecond def endant shad
ampl eandr epeatedoppor t
uni tyofintermedi ateexami nat i
onand,
i
ft heyhadt akent hesi mpl epr ecauti
onwhi cht hei nvoicewar ned
them t ot ake,no mi schief woul d hav ef ollowed.The l i
ke
concl usi
oni si ll
ustr
atedal soi nGr antvAust r
alianKni tti
ngMi l
lsLtd.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
I
ti stobeobser ved,also,thatthejuryhaveawardeddamages
againstt
heseconddef endants,notforbr
eachofcontr
act
,butfor
negli
gence,thatistosay ,fornegli
genceinomit
ti
ngt omakeany
testforthemselvesandy etatthesamet i
meinconceali
ngfrom
thei
rpurchaserthe

warni
ngcont
ainedont
hei
nvoi
cewi
thwhi
cht
heyhadr
ecei
ved
t
hepowder.
"

Dani
elsandDani
elsvWhi
te[
193814
Al
lER258
Facts:Ahusbandpur chasedabot tleofl emonademanuf acturedby
the f i
rstdef endantf rom t he second def endant .The lemonade
contai ned38gr ainsofcar bolicaci dandt hehusbandandhi swi fe
sustainedi nj
ur i
esaf t
erconsumi ngthecont ent
.Itwasf oundasaf act
thatt hef irstdef endantadopt edaf oolproofsy stem ofmanuf acture
andhadt akenr easonabl ecaret oensur ethatnodef ectwascaused
byadopt ingapr opersuper vi
sionsy stem.
Held:Si ncet hef i
rstdefendantshadt akenr easonablecar etoensur e
that t hepr oductwasf reef r
om def ectandnoi njurywascausedt oa
consumer ,theywer enotliabl
e.
Principle:Thedut yowedbyamanuf acturertoaconsumeri snott o
ensur et hatthegoodsar eper f
ectbutt ot akereasonabl ecarethatno
i
njuryi scausedt otheconsumer .

PerLewisJatp.261:" Ihav etoremembert hatthedut y

owedt ot heconsumer ,ort heulti
matepur chaser,byt he
manufacturerisnottoensur ethathisgoodsar eperfect.All
hehast odoi stotaker easonablecaretoseet hatnoi njury
i
sdonet ot heconsumerorul t
imatepurchaser.Inot her
words,hi
sdut yistot aker easonabl
ecaretoseet hatther e
exi
stsnodef ectt
hatislikel
yt ocausesuchinj
ur y.
"

HisLordship[descri
best hemet hodofcl eaningthebottl
es
andfil
l
ingthem upwi t
ht hel emonadeandcont inuesatpp.
262and263asf ol
lows]:"Thatmet hodhasbeendescr ibed
asfool
-proof,anditseemst omeal i
tt
ledif
ficul
ttosaythat,
i
fpeoplesuppl yaf ool-
pr oofmet hodofcl eani
ng,washing
andfi
ll
ingbot t
les,t
heyhav enott akenallr
easonablecar
et o
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
preventdef ectsint heircommodi t
y.Theonlywayi nwhi chit
mightbesai dt hatthef ool-pr
oofmachinewasnotsuf fi
cient
wasi fitcoul dbeshownt hatthepeoplewhower eworkingit
weresoi ncompet entt hatt heydidnotgi vet hefoolproof
machi neachance.I tispoi ntedoutquit
er i
ght
lybyMrBusse
thatthequest i
onofsuper vi
sioncomesi n.Ify ouhav e16
gir
lsdoi ngt hisprocesswi thnosupervisi
onoft hei
rwor k,of
courseal lkindsof .
ccident smayhappen.Abot tlemaygett o
thefil
lerwi t
houtev erhav ingbeenwashedatal l.Agirl
may

403•
"
Ihe

upsetabot t
lejustafterithasbeenf il
led.Shefinds,l
etus
say ,thattwot easpoonf ul
soft heliquidhav ebeenpoured
out .Shehast of i
lli
tupf r
om somewher e,soshewal ks
alongt ot het r
olleywher ethedirtybot t
leshavebeenput ,
picksup t he fi
rstbot t
le she seest here,and poursthe
cont entsintot hel emonade.Ofcour se,thatwoul dbea
rathercur i
oust hingf oranyonet odo,buti ti
sapossi ble
thingt ohappeni fther
eisnosuper visi
oni nthi
sprocess.

"1am sat i
sfiedi nt hiscaset hatt hereissuper vision.Ihave
hadcal ledbef oremet hewor ksmanagerwhohaschar geof
allt hreef actor i
es.Thatmeans,ofcour se,thathei snotat
onef actorythewhol etime, buthehasdescr i
bedt omewhat
takespl acei nt hispar ti
cularfactory,andIam sat i
sfi
edthat
ther eisqui teadequat esuper vi
sion.Ev eni ft
het ruev i
ewbe
thatt her ewasher eacasef ort hedef endant stoanswer ,I
am qui tesat isfi
edt hattheyhav eanswer edit,andt hatthe
plaintiffs,asar esul t
,hav eent irel
yf ailedt opr ovet omy
satisfact i
ont hatt hedef endantcompanywer egui l
tyofa
breachoft hei rdutyt owar dst hepl ai
ntiffs— namel y,aduty
tot aker easonabl ecar et o seet hatt her eshoul d beno
def ectwhi chmi ghti njur
et hepl ai
ntif
fs.Fort hatr eason,I
thinkt hatt hepl ainti
ffs'claim agai nstt hef ir
stdef endant
s
fail
s. "
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Hil
lvJamesCr
owe[
1978]1Al
lER
812
Fact s:Thepl ai
ntif
fwasst andingonawoodencasemanuf acturedby
thedef endantt oloadhisl orr
ywhent hecasecol l
apsedcausi nghim
i
njur i
es.Thecol lapseofthecasewasduet oi nsuffi
cientnail
ing.The
plainti
ffsuedandt hedefendantar guedthathehadhi ghst andardsof
wor kmanshi pandsuper visionandt hushadbr eachednodut y.
Held:Si ncet hepl ai
nti
ff
'sinjurywasaf or
eseeabl econsequenceof
thenegl igentmanuf act
urebyt hedef endant,hewasl i
able.
Principle:Iti
snodef encet oallegethatamanuf acturerhasagood
system ofwor kandsuper visi
onort hatthesy stem isfoolproof.

PerMackennaJatpp.815and816:" I
nspi t
eofMrCr owe'
s
evidence,If ind thatthe acci denthappened whi lethe
plainti
ffwasst andingont hepackingcasewhi chCrowehad
made;t hatitwascausedbyt heendcav i
ngin;andt hatit
cav edinbecausei thadbeenv erybadl
ynai l
ed.Ifthecase
canbebr oughtwi thi
nther ul
ei nDonoghuevSt evenson,
l
iabi l
i
tyisest abl
ished.Ithinki
tcan.I tresemblesacasei n
theCour tofAppeal i
nwhichI

wasbr iefedmanyy ear sago,whi chwasnotr epor tedandwhose

nameIhav ef or gotten.Si rWi l
fr
edGr eeneMRpr esided.The appeal ,
whi chcamef rom t heNor thernCircuit,wasi nanact ionbr oughtbya
stev edor eagai nstt hecompanywhi chhadpacked t hegoodshewas
handl ing.Thegoodswer eheav y,andt hepacki ngconsi stedof ,orat
l
easti ncluded,pi eces ofwi re bound r ound t he Out side oft he
package.I twast hepr acticeoft hest ev edorestohandl et hegoods
bymeansoft hewi re.Oneof t hepackageshadbeenbadl ywi r
ed,
andt hewi rehadcomeof fwhi l
et hepl ainti
ffwashandl i
ngi t,sot hat
hel osthi sbal ance,f ellandi nj
uredhi mself.Hel ostint hecour tof
fi
rsti nstance,buthi sappealwasal l
owed.TheCour tofAppealhel d
thatt hedef endant swhohadputont hewi reshoul dhav ef oreseen
thepossi bili
tyt hatast evedorehandl i
ngt hepackagemi ghtbei njured
i
ft hewi r
ehadnotbeenpr operl
yf ast ened.Iseenodi fferencei n
principlebet weent hedef endants'liabi l
it
yi nthatcaseandCr owe's
l
iabi l
ityint his.

"
Counself
orCr
ower
eli
edonDani
elsandDani
elsvRWhi
te&
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
SonsLt dandTar bar d.Thepl ai
ntiffi
nthatcasehadboughtata
publi
chouseaseal edbot t
leofl emonademadebyt hedef endant
manuf acturersandsol dbyt hem t othepubl i
chouse.Thebot t
le
contained,inaddi tiont othel emonade,aquant it
yofcar bol
ic
acidwhi chi twascont endedhadcausedi nj
uryt ot hepl ainti
ff,
who sued t he manuf act ur
ers. Hi s act ion f ailed. The
manuf acturerssatisfiedLewi sJ,t hetri
aljudge,t hatt heyhada
goodsy stem ofwor kint heirfactoryandpr ov i
dedadequat e
supervision.Hesai d( [
1938]4Al lER258at263) :'1am qui te
sati
sfied,howev er,ont heev idencebef oreme,t hatt hewor kof
thi
sf actoryiscarri
edonunderpr opersuper vi
sion,and, t herefore,
thattherehasbeennof ai
l
ur eoft hedutyowedbyt hedef endant
companyt otheplaint i
ff
s.'

"
Wit
hr espect,Idonott hinkthatthi
swasasuf fi
cientreasonf or
dismi ssi
ngthecl ai
m.Themanuf actur
er'sli
abil
i
tyi nnegli
gence
didnotdependonpr oofthathehadei t
herabadsy stem ofwor k
ort hathi s superv
ision was i
nadequat e.He mi ghtalso be
vicari
ouslyli
ableforthenegli
genceofhiswor kmeni nthecourse
oft heiremployment.Iftheplai
nti
ff'
sinjuri
eswer ear easonably
foreseeableconsequenceofsuchnegl i
gence,the

405•
•
CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

manuf act
urer'
s liabi
li
ty would be est abli
shed under
DonoghuevSt evenson.Daniel
sandDani elsvRWhi t
e&
SonsLt dandTar bardhasbeencr it
ici
sed,Ithi
nkjustl
y,in
Char/esworthonNegl i
genceandIdonotpr oposetofoll
ow
i
t.IholdCrowel i
ableinnegl
igence.
"

Di
vyavToy
oTi
reandRubberCo.Lt
d
[
20111EWHC1993
Fact s:Thef ir
stdef endantwasamanuf actureroftyres.Thesecond
defendantwas dr ivi
ng a carwi tht yr
es manuf actured by the
defendantwhent her earoffsi
det yr
eblewoutanddef l
atedcausing
thev ehiclet o summer saultbef or
ecol lidi
ng withabar r
ier
.The
plaintiff
swhower epassenger si nthecarsuedt hedef endants
all
egi ngt hatt heacci dentwasduet othenegl igentmanuf actureof
thet yrebyt hefi
rstdef endant.
Held:Ont heev i
dence,t heaccidentwasduet ot hei ncomplete
bondi ngoft hest eelcordsint hetyr
eduet oinadequat epenetrat
ion
andt hust hedef endantwasl i
able
Princi pl
e:Amanuf actureristoexer ci
set hehighestl evelofcarein
themanuf actureofhi sproductsoast oav oi
di nj
urytoconsumer s.

PerMackayJatpar s.67,70— 72:[ 671" Fort her easons

earli
ersetoutIam sat i
sf i
edt hatt hepr obabl ecauseof
fail
ur ewasi ncompl etebondi ngoft hest eelcor dswi thin
thet yr
ewhi ch mostpr obabl yf ai
led duet oi nadequat e
penet rat
ionbyt herubberoft hosecor dsand/ oraf ailur et o
curet het yr
ef orther i
ghtt imeandatt her ighttemper atur e
and/ orpr essure..
..[7011mustbecar efulnott oappl ya
standar dofcar ewhi chamount stot hei mposi tionofst rict
l
iabilit
yont hemanuf acturerint hiscase.Butt hest andar d
ofcar er equiredandi ndeedcl aimedbyt hi smanuf act ur er
fort hisproducti nitsev idencei satt hehi ghestl evel .Iti s
alsot hecaset hataf ail
uret oat taint hatst andar dwi lll ead
tot he put ti
ng i nt
o ci rculation of a t yre whi ch can
disi
nt egrateinser vi
cewi ththemostcat ast r
ophi cr esul t
s,
ast hiscaseshowsandot hershav eshowni nthepast .The
enduserofsuchat yreexpect sandr el
iesont heint egr i
ty
ofat yr
eandt heabsenceofsuchdanger ousl atentdef ects.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
[71]"Ihaveal
readysummarisedt hev i
ewsofMrNewl and
ont histopi
cand thoseofMrI mur af orToy o and Mr
Mot t
ram,atparas60and61r especti
v ely
.ThoughIcannot
findatwhatstagethefai
lur
et oexer ciser easonabl
ecar e
occurredIdonotbel
iev
eIam r equir
edbyt heauthori
tiesto
doso.Whatcanbesai dasamat t
erofpr obabi l
it
yisthatat
somest ageofthe

•
•406
manuf acturi
ngpr ocess,t hroughwhi chtheev idencehas
takenmei nexactdet ail
,themechani sedprocedureshav e
fail
edt ocov erandpenet ratet hesecordsfull
ywi thrubber
and/ ortocur ethegreent yrepr oper
ly,andthehumansi de
oft heprocesshasf ailedt odet ectsuchfail
ureorf ai
lur
es.
Ther esultisthatthety r
ef ellbelowthehighst andardthat
Toy osetitselfandthatt heenduser sofitsproductswer e
foreseeablyentitl
edtoexpect .

[
72]"Ither
efor
econcludethatthisacci
dentwascausedby
thenegli
genceoftheFir
stDef endantToyo,andacqui
tthe
SecondDefendantofnegl
igenceentir
ely
."

Car rol
l vFearon( 1998)Ti mes, 26Januar y
Fact s:Thef ir
stdef endantwasdr ivi
ngacaront hemot or waywhen
i
twentoutofcont rolandcol l
idedhead- onwi t
ht heplai ntiff
'scar.
Theacci dentwast her esultofasuddenandcompl etet hreadst ri
p
ofar eart yr
emanuf act ur
edbyt heseconddef endant.Thepl ainti
ff
sued i n negl i
gence and t he second def endantar gued t hatthe
plainti
ffmustpr ovet heexactactorbywhom i twasnegl i
gentl
y
done.
Held: Si nce t he pl aint
iff est ablished t hat the pr ocess of
manuf acturewasdef ecti
v eandt hatr esultedint heacci dent,he
mustsucceedwi t
houtpr ovingt hepar ti
cularnegl i
gentactort he
personwhosenegl i
gencer esul
tedi nt hedef ect.
Principle:Ev i
denceest abl
ishingt hatt hepr ocessofmanuf act ur
eis
defect i
vei s enough t o establi
sh l iabil
it
y wi thoutpr oofoft he
particularactori ndivi
dual asbei ngr esponsi bleforthedef ect .

PerJudgeLJ:" I
nanappr opri
atepr
oductli
abili
tycasethe
parti
cularindiv
idualresponsibl
efort he defectint he
productneednotbei dentifi
ednorneedthepar ti
cul
aract
ofnegli
gencebespecified.Theconceptoft
hedut yofcare
andt heproblemsassociatedwithi
thadledt heHouseof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Lords on numer ous occasi ons to considert he proper
ambi t and dev elopment of t he l aw of negl i
gence.
Ulti
mat el
y,however ,i
nthevastmaj ori
tyofcases,ofwhi ch
thi
swasone, negligenceremai nedaquest ionoffacttobe
decidedintheli
ghtoft heav ai
lableev i
dence.Thetyreburst
manyy earsafteri thad leftt hef actor
yand had been
regular
lyused.It
sf ail
uremighthav er esul
tedfrom anyone
of a number of possi ble causes.But once i t was
establi
shed thatt he tyr
e di sint
egrated because ofan
i
dent i
fi
edfaulti
nt hecourseof
407r
•
i
tsmanufact
urethej
udgehadtodecidewhethert
hatf
aul
t
wast
heresul
tofnegl
i
genceatDunl
op'
sfact
ory
.

"Hedi dnothav etoi dentifyanyi ndivi

dualorgr oupof
employ eesort heact soromi ssionswhi ch r esulted in
i
nadequat e r ubber penet rati
on. I ft he manuf acturing
processhadwor kedasi ntendedt hatdef ectshoul dnot
have been pr esent.Ther e was no ev idence on whi ch
Dunlopcoul dbaseanar gumentt hatthedef ectmi ghtnot
havebeenduet oi t
snegl igence.Theor eti
calpossi bil
it
ies
mighthav eabounded.Somet hinghadgonewr ongwi t
ht he
manuf actur
ingpr ocessf orwhi cht hemanuf acturercoul d
not appar entl
y pr ovi
de any expl anat i
on. I gnoring
speculati
veconsi derati
onsandf ocusingont heev idence,
thejudgewasent it
ledt odeci det hatont hebal anceof
probabili
ti
es negl i
gence had been est abli
shed agai nst
Dunlop.The j udge f ound t hatt he tread st rip came
suddenlyandunexpect edlyuponMrFear onandi t
sef fect
wasi mmedi ateandcat astrophi
c.Nor mal l
y,andwi thout
assert
inganypr i
ncipleofl aw,i nsuchci r
cumst ancesi t
wouldbeunf airtoblameei therthedr i
verort heownerof
thecar."

PREPARATI
ONORPUTTI
NGUP

Andr
ewsvHopki
nson[
1957]1QB229
Facts:The plai
nti
ff purchased a car under a hi r
e-pur
chase
agreementfr
om t
hedef endantcardeal
er.Thedefendantwarr
anted
thatthecarwasingoodcondi ti
on.Thecarinfacthadadef ecti
ve
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
steeri
ngandt heplaintiffwasi nv olvedinanacci dentowingt ot he
defecti
vest eer i
ng,causi nghimi njur i
es.Thedef ectint hesteer i
ng
couldnotbedi scover edbyanor dinarydr i
verorownerbutcoul d
hav ebeeneasi l
ydiscov eredbyamechani c.Thedef endanthadno
reasont oant ici
patet hatt heplaintiffwoul dhavet hecarexami ned
byamechani c.
Held:Sincet hedef endantputi nci rculat
ionacart hatwasdef ect iv
e
withnor easonabl eant icipati
ont hatt hecust omerwoul dexami nei t
beforeuse,hewasl i
abl e.
Princi
ple:A per sonwhoput si ntoci rculati
onadanger ousar ticl
e
withnor easonabl eexpect ati
onofi tbeingexami nedbyacust omer
putsuporpr eparest hear t
icl
efort hepur posesoft herule.

PerMcNai
rJatpp.236and237:
"In
Her
scht
a/vStewart&

Arder nLt d.TuckerJ.hel dt hatmot ordeal erswhosuppl iedf or

the pl aintiff
's use on hi r
e-pur chase t er ms a car whi ch t hey
themsel veshadr epai red,wer el i
ablet ot hepl aint i
fff orper sonal
i
njur i
eswhi chhesuf feredwhent henearr earwheeloft hecarcame
offowi ngt of aultywor kmanshi pont hepar toft hedef endantmot or
dealers'st af fint her econdi t
ioni ngoft hecar .Thebasi soft hi s
decisionwast hatast hemot ordeal ers wer esuppl yingamot or-
vehiclet ot heircust omerf orhisownuse, t hev erycl osepr oxi mityor
rel
at i
onshi pbet weent hem wassuchast oi mposeadut yonmot or
dealerst ot aker easonabl ecar et oseet hatt hear ticlewhi cht hey
wer edel ivering,knowi ngt hatt hecust omerwasgoi ngi mmedi ately
toputi tont her oad,wasnoti nacondi ti
onwher ebyawheelmi ght
comeof fcausi ng possi blyv eryser i
ousand gr avedamage.The
j
udge,af t
eran el abor atereview oft heaut horitiesi ncludi ng and
foll
owi nguponDonoghuevSt ev enson, 7f urtherhel dt hatt het estof
l
iabili
tyi nsuchacasedependedonwhet herOfnoti tcoul dbe
reasonabl yant i
ci pat edt hatthecarwoul dbeexami nedbyt hepar ty
takingit,orot hert hirdpar ty,bef orebeingputont her oad, andnoton
whet hersuchexami nat ionwaspossi bl
e.Thoughi nHer scht a/ '
scase
8t henegl igencer eli
eduponwasnegl i
gencei nact uallyef fect i
ngt he
repair,Iseenor easonwhyt hemot ordealeri nt heabsenceofsuch
reasonabl eant icipat ionshoul dnotequal l
ybehel dl i
abl ei fheput s
i
ntoci rculat i
oni nt hehandsofhi scust omeramot or-carwhi chi si n
facti n a danger ous condi t
ion when t he def ectr ender ing t he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
condi
ti
ondanger
ousconsist
sofadefectwhichcoul
dandoughtt
o
havebeendi
scov
eredbyreasonabl
edi
l
igenceonhi
spart
.

"Therewasbef oremeabundantev idencethatinthecaseofan

old carsuch as t hist he dangerspoti si nt he steering
mechani sm andt hatt hispar ticulardefectcouldhav ebeen
discov ered bya compet entmechani ci fthe carhad been
j
ackedup.Nosuchexami nati
onwasi nfactcarri
edout ,t
hough
thedef endant, whohadt akent hecari npartexchange, hadhad
thecari nhi spossessi onf oraweekOfso.Hav ingregardt othe
extremeper ilinvol
v edinal lowinganol dcarwithadef ecti
ve
steering mechani sm t o be used on t he road,Ihav e no
hesitationinhol di
ngt hatt hedef endanti nthecircumst ances
was gui l
tyofnegl igence i nf ail
ing to make the necessar y
exami nat i
on,oratl easti nf ail
ingt owar ntheplainti
ffthatno
suchexami nation

409•

hadbeencarr
iedout.Thedefendanti
saccor
dingl
yal
sol
i
abl
e
fornegl
i
gencefort
helikedamages."

Wat sonvBuckl ey[194011Al lER174

Facts: Thef i
rstdef endantusedapr oductmanuf act uredbythet hird
defendantanddi st r
ibutedbyt heseconddef endantt ody ethehai r
of the pl ai
nt i
ff.The pr oductwas adv ert
ised by t he second
defendantascont aining4percentaci dtobedi lutedto2percent
befor euseandf ur t
herav erredthatitwassaf eandhar mlessand
did notr equire exami nation.The pl aint
iffcont racted dermat iti
s
aft
erusi ng t he pr oduct.I twasf ound t hatt he pr oductinf act
contained10percentaci d.Whent hemanuf act urersuppli
edt he
second def endant ,he r epackaged t he producti nt
o at t
ractive
container s wi thout car r
y i
ng out any exami nation. The t hird
defendanthadi nformedt heseconddef endantt hatt heproductwas
nottocont ainmor et han4percentaci d.
Held:Si ncet heseconddef endantputoutt hepr oductandexcl uded
anyi ntermedi ateexami nationbyi t
sadv erti
sement ,i
twasl i
able.
Pri
nci ple:Adi stri
but orofapr oductwhoi ntentional l
yexcludesany
i
ntermedi ateexami nat i
onoft hepr oductputsupt hepr oductand
owesadut yt otheconsumer softhepr oduct.

PerSt
abl
eJatp.182:"
Itseemst
omet
hatoner
easonwhy
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
carelessnesspl usi njuryisi nsuf f
ici
entandt hel aw demandsa
dutyaswel list hat,wher eamanuf acturermanuf actur esan
arti
cle, and, itmaybe, mont hsory earsaf t
er war ds,thatar ti
cle,by
reasonoft hecar elessmanuf acture,
doeshar mt ot heconsumer ,
i
tisext raordi naril
ydi ffi
culttoputone' sfingeront het or
tiousact
ofwhi cht hepl aintiffinsuchanact i
onwoul dcompl ain.The
sell
ingoft hear t
iclei snott heactoft hemanuf acturerort he
agent .Thear t
iclei tselfhasceasedt obet hepr opertyoft he
manuf actur er,orunderhi scont r
ol,and,becauseoft hat ,that
maywel lbet hef oundation oft heundoubt ed pr inci
plet hat
,
wher et hemanuf acturerhaspar tedwi thhispr oper tyandputi tin
cir
cul ation al lov ert he wor l
d, unl ess the consumerwho i s
ult
imat el yhar medbysomet hingwhi cht hemanuf actur erhas
negligent lydonecanest ablisht hespeci alr elati
onshi pwi ththe
manuf actur er,then,undert hel aw oft hiscount ry,noact i
onf or
tortwi l
l l
ie."

Atpp.182and183: "
IfOgeeLt d,hadbeent hemanuf act urers,
Ishoul dhav ehel dwi thoutdi fficultyher et hat ,
byt his
adv erti
sementwhi chWat sonsaw( i
tisunnecessar yt o
consi derwhatwoul dhav ebeent hecasei fhehadnotseeni t,
ori ft hecont ent shadnotbeeni mpar tedbysomeonewhohad,
f
or , inthi
scase, hesawt headv ertisement ), anduponwhi ch
her eli
ed,OgeeLt d,i
ftheyhadbeent hemanuf acturers, of
t
hei rownaccor dwoul dhav ebr oughtt hemsel vesi ntodi rect
r
el ationshipwi tht heconsumer .I tissai dt hather e, al
though
themanuf acturer swoul dowesuchadut y ,thedi st ri
but ors,
bei ngdi stri
but or sandnotmanuf act urers, areabsol ved.I t
seemst omet hatt hatst at ementmustbequal i
fied.The
numberofcasesi nwhi chadi stri
but orwoul doweadut ymust ,
It hink, becompar ativ
elyf ew.Asi thasbeensai d,dutyi snot
dut yi ntheabst ract .Onedoesnothav et osear chf ort hedut y
inv acuo, butonehast ol ookatt hef act sanddeci dewhet her
ornott helawat tachesadut youtoft hosef act s,ort ot hose
fact s.Thei niti
al torti
ousactorcar elessact —car elessness
woul dbebet ter—wast heput t
ingoft he10percentsol ut i
on
intothel otion, andf ort hatt hedi st ri
butor swer enot
r
esponsi ble.Themanuf act urerswer enott hei ragent s.They
hadnodi r
ectcont rolovert hemanuf acturer s, andIhav et o
askmy sel
fwhet her , i
nlaw, asbet weent hisconsumerandt hi
s
dist ributor,hav ingr egar dt oal ltheci r
cumst ancesoft hecase,
ther eisadut y .Itisext remel ydi ffi
cul ttoar ri
v eatal egal
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
decisionwi t
houtsomegui danceast ot hesortoft estone
appl i
esast owhet herOfnott hereisadut y.IthinkIam
thr ownbackont hewor dsofLor dThanker toninM' A/ister(or
Donoghue)vSt ev enson.Idonott hinkthatitmat t
er swhet her
themani samanuf act urerorwhet herhei sadistributor.It
seemst omet obet hesamei nthecaseofaper sont hrough
whosehandst her ehaspassedacommodi t
ywhichul timately
r eachesaconsumert ohisdet riment.Wher ethatper sonhas
int entionall
ysoexcl udedi nt
erferencewi th,orexami nati
onof ,
t hear ticl
ebyt heconsumer ,thenhehas, ofhi
sownaccor d,
br oughthi mselfi ntodi rectrelati
onshipwi ththatconsumerso
ast oberesponsi blet otheconsumerf oranyInjurythe
consumermaysust ainasar esul
toft hedistr
ibutor's
negligence.Thedut yisthere.

"
Thequest i
onisnowwhet herornotitwasthenegl
igence
ofthedistr
ibut
orwhichdi
dt hedamage.Ithi
nkt
hatitwas.
Idonott hinkthatthedi
stribut
orcanescapeli
abi
li
tyfor
grosscarel
essness,
wheretheconsumerhasbeeninjur
ed,

411"
bysay lng:'Theiniti
almi st
akewasmadebysomeonef or
whoseact ionsIam notr esponsi
ble.
'Ithinkt hat,ifther e
hadbeenanydoubtast otheduty( t
hetwoquest ionsar e
real
lyinterdependent ,butassumethedut ywast here),the
plai
nti
ffher e could hav e sued both def endants.The
negli
gentactoft hemanuf actur
erwasput t
ingi ntheaci di n
toostrongasol uti
on.Thenegl i
gentactsoft hedistri
but or
werethev ariousactsandomi ssi
onsandr epresentations
whichi ntervenedbet weent hemanuf act
ureoft hear ticle
anditsr eachingWat son."

LI
FEORPROPERTY

Candl
ervCr
aneChr
ist
mas[
1951]2KB
164
Facts:Thepl
aint
if
fdesir
edtoinvesti
nacompanyandr equest
edt
he
accountsofthecompany .TheMDoft hecompanyinstruct
edt
he
defendant
swhower etheaccountant
softhecompanyandwhowere
al
readyprepar
ingtheaccount
stospeedupwi tht
hem,informi
ngt
he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
accountantst hatt hepl ai
nti
ffwant edt oseet heaccount
sf orthe
purposesofi nv est
ment .Theaccount swer epreparedandshowedt o
theplainti
ffwho,r elyingont heaccount s,investedi
nt hecompany.
Thepl ainti
fflosthi sinvestmentast heaccount swerecar el
essl
y
preparedandcont ainedmanyi naccuracies.
Held:Int heabsenceofanycont ractualrelat
ionshi
pbetweent he
plai
nti
ffandt hedef endant,thedef endantswer enotli
ableforthe
l
ossoft hepl ainti
ff
'sinvestment.
Pri
nci
ple:I
ntheabsenceofanycontract
ualorfi
duci
aryrel
ati
onshi
p,aperson
i
snotliabl
einnegli
genceforeconomicloss.Li
abi
li
tyi
sl i
mitedtoinj
uri
esto
per
son.

PerCohenLJatpp.196—198:" InDonoghuevSt ev enson,

asi nal ltheot hercasest owhi chourat t
entionwascal led, the
breachofdut yal legedhasbeenonewhi chhasr esul tedi n
damages t ot heper sonoft hepl ainti
ff:seeHase/ dinevC.A.
Daw &SonLd. ,DennyvSuppl i
es&Tr anspor tCo.Ld.I nO/ d
Gat eEst atesLd.vTopl i
sWr ot t
esl ey,J.,refusedt oappl yt he
pri
nci ple ofDonoghue v St evenson t o a case wher ea
companyhadpai dt oomuchf orapr oper tyowi ngt oanov er
-
valuat i
onbyt hedef endant s,whohadbeeni nst ructedbyt he
promot erst ov aluei tf orthepur poseoft hepr omot i
on.The
company ,whi chwast hepl aint if
f,wasnotf ormedatt het ime
oft hev aluation.Wr ottesley ,J. ,rej ectinganar gumentbased
onDonoghuevSt evensonsai d:'Theconcept i
onwhi chr uns
throughal lthesecases,bot hi nt hoseappl icat i
onsoft he
pri
nci pleandi nthecaseofDonoghuevSt ev ensoni tself,is
thatsomet hingwasnegl igent lycr eatedorputi ntoci rcul ation
whi chwasdanger ousei t
hert ol i
feOfl imb' —t hosear e, I
thi
nk.t hev erywor dsofLor dAt ki
nhi msel fandt heot her
l
ear nedLor dswhodel iveredopi nions,ort heopi nionsoft he
maj orit
y ,inDonoghuevSt ev enson— ' orel set hatsomet hing
was car elessly handl ed,made,ormended,whi ch woul d
becomedanger oust ol i
feorl i
mborheal th.I tisast r
uet oday
asi twasi n1893, whenLeLi ev revGoul dwasdeci ded, that ,to
uset hewor dsofBowen, L.J.:'Itisi dlet oref ert ocaseswhi ch
wer edeci dedundert ot all
ydi fferentaspect s,andupont ot all
y
diff
er entconsi der at
ionsoft hel aw.Take,f orex ampl e,t he
caseofanownerofachat tel,suchasahor se,gun,ora
carriage,oranyot herinst rument ,whi chi si ni tselfofsucha
char actert hat,ifitbeusedcar elessl y,itmayi njur esomet hird
personwhoi sneart oit;theni tisaspl ainasday l
ightt hatt he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
owneroft hatchattel,whoi sr esponsibl eforitsmanagement ,
i
sboundt obecar efulhowheusesi t.Exact lyinthesameway
withr egardt ot he ownerofpr emi ses.I fthe ownerof
premi ses knows t hathi s pr emises ar ei n a danger ous
condi t
ion,andt hatpeopl ear ecomi ngt heret owor kupon
them byhi sownper missionandi nvi
t ation,ofcour sehemust
taker easonabl ecar et hatt hosepr emi sesdonoti nj
urethose
whoar ecomi ngt here..How hasi tanyappl icati
ont ot he
presentcase? '(Thatwast hecaseofacer t
ifi
categivenbyan
architect).'Onl
y,Isuppose,ont hesuggest i
ont hatamani s
responsi bleforwhathest at esinacer ti
ficat
et oanyper sont o
whom hemayhav er easont osupposet hatt hecertif
icate
maybeshown.Butt hel aw ofEngl anddoesnotgot ot hat
extent; i
tdoesnotconsi dert hatwhatamanwr it
esonpaperi s
l
ikea gun orot herdanger ousinst rument ,and,unl esshe
i
ntended t o deceiv e,t hel aw doesnot ,int heabsenceof
contract,hol d him r esponsi bl
ef ordr awing hi s cer
tif
icate
carelessly.'

"It
hinkthatthatisast ruetodayasi twaswheni twassai
dby
Bowen,L.
J.Wr ot
tesley,J.
,continued:'Ther
eis,i
nmyopi ni
on,not
hing
i
nDonoghuevSt evensonwhi chmakest hatbadlaw.Theexcept
ions
l
aiddownbyDonoghuevSt evenson'—t heexcept
ions t
otherul
ethat
amanisobligedtobecar eful
onl ytothose

413•
to whom he owes a dut y by contr
act— ' ar
e,as I
understand the decisi
on,conf i
ned t
o negli
gence which
result
sindangert oli
fe,dangertoli
mb,ordangertoheal
t h,
and,thepr esentcasenotbei ngoneoft hoseexcepti
ons,
theplaint
if
fshav e,i
nmyopi nion,nocauseofacti
onont he
analogyoft hatcase.
"'

MurphyvBrent
woodDi
str
ictCounci
l
[
1990]2All
ER908
Facts:Thepl ai
nti
ffboughtahouset hatwasbui l
tfoll
owi ngthe
approvalofthepl ansbyt hedefendantcounci l
.Thepl answer e
negli
gentl
yappr ovedandt hatresul
tedi ncracksi nthebui ldi
ng
posingadangert othesafetyofthepl ai
nti
ffandhi sfami l
y.The
plai
ntif
fwhocoul dnotbearthecostoftherepairssoldt
hebui ldi
ng
subjecttothedefect.Hethensuedtor ecoverthelosshei ncurr
ed
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
bysell
ingthehouseforlesst
hanit
smarketv
alue.
Held:Sincethedefecthadbeendetect
edbyt heplai
nti
ffandhad
notcausedanyi nj
urybutmerel
yaneconomicl osstotheplai
nti
ff
,
hecouldnotrecoveri
ndamages.
Pri
nci
ple:A manufactur
eris notli
abl
ef orpurel
yeconomicloss
suf
fer
edbyapl aint
if
fwheretheproductdidnotcauseanyphy
sical
ormateri
aldamage.

PerLor dMackayofCl ashfernLCatp.911:" AsIr eadt he

speechofLor dWi l
berfor
cet hecauseofact i
onwhi chhe
holdscoul dar i
seint hecircumst ancesoft hatcasecan
onlydosowhendamageoccur stothehousei nquest i
on
as a r esul
toft he weakness oft he f oundat i
ons and
therefor enocauseofact i
onar i
sesbef or et hatdamage
hasoccur redev eni fasar esul tofinformat ionobt ained
aboutt he f oundat
ions i
tmaybecome appar entt o an
ownert hatsuchdamagei slikely.Thepei sont owhom t he
dut yisowedi sanowneroroccupi eroft hehousewhoi s
suchwhent hedamageoccur s.Andt hereforeanowneror
occupi erwhobecomesawar eoft hepossi bil
i
tyofdamage
arisingf r
om adef ecti
vefoundat i
onwoul dnotbewi thinthe
classofper sonsonwhom t her ightofact i
oni sconf err
ed."

PerLor dKeit
hofKi nkelatp.916:"Iseenor easontodoubt
thatthepr i
ncipl
eofDonoghuevSt evensondoesi ndeed
applysoast oplacethebuilderofpremi sesunderadutyto
takereasonablecaret oavoidinj
urythroughdef ect
sinthe
premisest otheper sonorpr opertyoft hosewhom he
shouldhav ei
ncont emplati
onasl i
kelytosuf f
ersuchinj
ury
i
fcar eisnott aken.Butitisagainstinj ur
ythroughlat
ent
defectsthatt
hedut yexist
s
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

t
oguar
d."

Atp.917:" Thequest i
onwhet herr ecov erycoul dbeal l
owed
fordamaget ot hehouseandf ort hecostofput tingi tin
suchast at east obenol ongeradangert oheal thorsaf et y
wast reat edi nt hecont extoft hemeasur eofdamagesand
theanswerwassai dt of oll
ow f rom nor malpr inci ple.I t
appear st hatt he nor malpr inci ple concer ned was t hat
whi chemer gedf r
om DonoghuevSt ev enson, asext ended
tot hespher eofst at utor yf unct ionsofpubl i
cbodi esi n
HomeOf ficevDor setYachtCoLt d.Howev er,anessent ial
feat ureoft hespeci esofl iabilityi nnegl i
genceest abl i
shed
by Donoghue v St ev enson was t hat t he car el essl y
manuf act ur ed pr oductshoul d bei nt ended t or each t he
i
nj uredconsumeri nt hesamest ateast hati nwhi chi twas
putup wi th no r easonabl e pr ospectofi nt ermedi ate
exami nat ion( see[ 19321AC562at599, [
19321Al lERRep
1at20perLor dAt kin;seeal soGr antvAust ralianKni t
ting
Mi ll
sLt d[ 1936]AC85at103- 105, [1935]Al lERRep209at
217- 218perLor dWr ight ).I tist hel atencyoft hedef ect
whi chconst i
tutest hemi schi ef.Ther emayber oom f or
disput at ion whet her t he l ikelihood of i nt ermedi ate
exami nat ionandconsequentact ualdi scov er yoft hedef ect
hast heef fectofnegat i
v ingadut yofcar eorofbr eaki ng
thechai nofcausat ion( compar eFar rvBut tersBr os&Co
[1932]2 KB 606,[ 1932]Al lER Rep 339 wi th Dennyv
Suppl i
esandTr anspor tCoLt d[ 1950]2KB374) .Butt here
canbenodoubtt hat ,what evert her ational e, aper sonwho
i
si njur edt hroughconsumi ngorusi ngapr oductoft he
def ect i
v enat ureofwhi chhei swel lawar ehasnor emedy
agai nstt hemanuf act ur er .Int hecaseofabui l
di ng,i tis
fightt o acceptt hatacar elessbui lderi sl i
abl e,ont he
pr i
ncipl eofDonoghuevSt ev enson,wher eal atentdef ect
resul tsi n phy sicali nj uryt o any one,whet her owner ,
occupi er ,visit
ororpasser -by ,ort ot hepr oper tyofanysuch
per son.Butt hatpr inci plei snotaptt obr inghomel iability
towar dsan occupi erwho knowst hef ullext entoft he
def ecty etcont i
nuest ooccupyt hebui lding."

Andat918:"Thej umpwhichisher
emadef r
om l
iabil
it
y
undertheDonoghuevStev
ensonpri
nci
plef
ordamaget o
personorpar
tl
ycausedbyal at
entdef
ecti
nacarelessl
y
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

manuf act
uredarti
cletoli
abil
i
tyf
orthecostofrect
if
y i
nga
defectinsuchanar t
icl
ewhichisexhypothesinolonger
l
atentisdiff
icul
ttoaccept.As
415r
•
StampLJr ecognisedi nt hesamecase,t hereisnol iabil
ityin
tortonamanuf acturertowar dsthepurchaserf r
om ar et
ailerof
anar t
iclewhi cht urnsoutt obeusel essorv al
uelessthrough
defectsduet ocar elessmanuf actur
e(see[1972]1Al lER426at
489-490,[1972]1QB373at414- 415).Thel ossiseconomi c.I
t
i
sdi ff
icultt odr aw adi sti
nct i
oninpr i
nci
plebet weenanar ticl
e
whichi susel essorv aluelessandonewhi chsuf fer
sf rom a
defectwhi chwoul dr enderi tdangerousi nusebutwhi chi s
discoveredbyt hepur chaseri ntimetoav ertanypossi bil
ityof
i
njury.Thepur chasermayi ncurexpensei nput t
ingr i
ghtt he
defect,or,mor epr obably,discardthearti
cle.Ineit
hercaset he
l
ossi spur elyeconomi c."

Per Lor d Br idge of Har wich at pp.924 and 925:I fa

manuf act urer negl igentl
y put s i nto ci rcul ation a chat tel
cont aining a l atentdef ectwhi ch r ender si tdanger ous t o
per sons orpr oper ty,the manuf act urer,on t he wel l
-known
principlesest abl ishedbyDonoghuevSt evenson[ 1932]AC562,
[1932]Al lERRep1,wi l
lbel i
ableint ortf orinj uryt oper sonsor
damage t o pr oper ty whi ch the chat telcauses.Buti fa
manuf act urerpr oducesand sel lsachat t
elwhi ch i smer ely
def ectivei nqual ity,event otheext entt hati ti sv aluel essf orthe
pur posef orwhi chi tisintended,t hemanuf act ur er'
sl i
abili
tyat
commonl awar isesonl yunderandbyr eferencet ot het ermsof
anycont racttowhi chhei sapar tyinr elati
ont ot hechat t
el;the
commonl aw doesnoti mposeonhi m anyl iabi l
ityi nt ortto
per sonst owhom heowesnodut yi ncont r
actbutwho,hav ing
acqui redt hechat t
el,suffereconomi cl ossbecauset hechat tel
i
sdef ect iv einqual ity.Ifadanger ousdef ecti nachat telis
discov eredbef or ei tcausesanyper sonali njuryordamaget o
proper ty,becauset hedangeri snow knownandt hechat tel
cannotbesaf elyusedunl essthedef ecti sr epai red,t hedef ect
becomes mer ely a def ecti n qual ity .The chat t
eli s eit
her
capabl eofr epai rateconomi ccostori tiswor thlessandmust
bescr apped.I nei thercaset hel osssust ainedbyt heowneror
hireroft hechat telispur el
yeconomi c.I tisr ecov er abl eagainst
anypar tywhoowest heloserar elevantcont ract ualdut y.Buti t
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
s not r ecover
ablei nt or
ti nthe absence of a special
rel
ati
onshipofpr oxi
mit
yi mposi
ngont hetort
feasoradutyof
caretosafeguardtheplai
nti
fffr
om economicloss.Ther
eisno
suchspecialr
elati
onshi
pbetweenthemanufacturerofachat
tel
andar emoteownerorhi r
er.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

"Ibel iev et hatt hesepr inci

plesar eequal l
yappl i
cabl eto
bui l
dings.I fabui lderer ectsast ructur econt aininga
l
at entdef ectwhi chr endersi tdanger oust oper sonsor
proper ty ,hewi l
lbel iableintor tfori njur ytoper sonsor
damage t o pr oper t
yr esult
ing f rom t hatdanger ous
def ect .But ,ifthedef ectbecomesappar entbef oreany
i
nj uryordamagehasbeencaused,t hel osssust ained
byt hebui ldingowneri spur elyeconomi c.Ift hedef ect
canber epai r
edateconomi ccost ,t hati st hemeasur e
oft hel oss.I ft hebui l
dingcannotber epai red,itmay
hav et o be abandoned as unf i
tf oroccupat ion and
ther efor e v alueless. These economi c l osses ar e
recov erabl ei ft heyf low f r
om br each ofa r elevant
cont r
act ualdut y,but ,her eagai n,i nt heabsenceofa
speci al relationshi p of pr oximi tyt hey ar e not
recov erabl ei nt ort.Theonl yqual if
icat ionIwoul dmake
tot hisi st hat,i fabui l
dinÅ st andsso cl oset ot he
boundar y of t he bui ldi
ng owner 'sl and t hat af t
er
discov er y of t he danger ous def ect i tr emai ns a
pot ent ialsour ceofi njurytoper sonsorpr oper tyon
nei ghbour ingl andoront hehighway ,t
hebui ldingowner
ought ,inpr inciple,t obeent i
tledt or ecov erint ortf r
om
thenegl igentbui l
dert hecostofobv iatingt hedanger ,
whet herbyr epai rorbydemol iti
on, sof arast hatcosti s
necessar i
lyi ncur redi nor dert opr ot ecthi msel ff r
om
pot ent ial l
iabili
tyt ot hirdpar t
ies.

Hedl
eyBy
rnevHel
l
erandPar
tner
s
[
19641AC465
Facts:Theplai
nti
ffwant
edt
oenteri
ntoanadvert
isi
ngcont
ract
wit
h a companywhose bankers werethe def
endant
s.The
pl
ainti
ffaskeditsbanktoenqui
rewhethert
hecompanywas
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

wor t
hdoi ngbusinesswi th.Thedef endantsr epli
edstati
ngt hat
the companywas wor t
h doi ng busi ness with butadded a
disclaimernegat i
vinganyl iabili
tythatmayar ise.Thepl ai
nt i
ff
enteredi ntoanadv erti
singagr eementwi ththecompanybut
thecompanywasl iquidated.Itwasf oundt hattheadvicebyt he
defendant swasnegl igentlygiv enalthoughnotf raudul
ently.
Held:Thedef endantswoul dhav ebeenl iabletot hepl
aintif
ff or
thelosssuf feredbutf orthedi sclai
mer .
Principle:Pureeconomi cl ossi sdamager ecoverablei
nt het ort
ofnegl i
gence.

PerLordReidatp.583:"Areasonableman,knowi ng
thathewasbei
ngtrust
edorthathisski
ll
andjudgment
werebeingr
eli
edon,would,
Ithink,
havethreecourses
opentohim.Hecouldkeepsil
entordecl
inetogiv
et he
i
nformati
onoradvi
ce

417.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

sought:orhecouldgiv eananswerwi thaclearqualif

icat
iont hathe
acceptednor esponsibil
it
yforitort hatitwasgi venwi thoutthat
ref
lect
ionori nquir
ywhi chacar efulanswerwoul dr equire:orhe
couldsimplyanswerwi t
houtanysuchqual i
fi
cati
on.Ifhechooses
toadoptthelastcour sehemust ,Ithink,beheldtohav eaccept ed
somer esponsibi
li
tyforhisanswerbei nggivencarefull
y,ortohav e
acceptedar elati
onshipwi t
ht heinqui r
erwhichr equireshi mt o
exerci
sesuchcar east hecir
cumstancesr equir
e."

PerLor dHodsonatp.598:" Ishal llaterrefert ocer taincases

whichsuppor tt hev iew t hatapar tfrom whatar eusual l
ycal l
ed
fi
duci aryr el
ationshi pssuchast hosebet weent rust eeandcest ui
quet rust ,solicit
orandcl ient ,par entandchi ldorguar dianand
war dt her ear eot herci rcumst ancesi nwhi cht hel awi mposesa
dutyt obecar eful,whi chi snotl imi t
edt oadut yt obecar efulto
avoidper sonali nj uryori njur yt opr oper tybutcov ersadut yto
avoidi nflict
ingpecuni aryl osspr ovidedal way st hatt her eisa
sufficient l
ycl oser elat ionshi pt ogi ver i
set oadut yofcar e.The
cour tsofequi t yrecogni sedt hataf iduciaryrelati
onshi pexi sts'i
n
almostev eryshape' ,toquot ef rom Fi eldJi nPlowr ightvLamber t
((
1885) , 52LT646atp652) .Hewentont orefert oacasewhi ch
hadsai dt hatt her elat ionshi pcoul dbecr eatedv oluntari
ly,asi t
wer e,byaper soncomi ngi nt oast ateofconf i
dent ialrelati
onship
withanot herbyof feringt ogi v eadv i
cei namat t
er ,andsobei ng
disabledt hereafterf r om pur chasi ng.I tisdi ffi
cul ttoseewhy
l
iabilit
yassuchshoul ddependont henat ureoft hedamage.
LordRochei nMor risonSSCoLt dvGr eystokeCast le( Cargo
Owner s)( [194612Al lER696,atp700;[ 1947]AC265atp280)
i
nst anceddamaget oal orrybyt henegl i
genceoft hedr iverof
anot herl or r
ywhi chwhi leitdoesnodamaget ot hegoodsi nthe
secondl orrycausest hegoodsownert obeputt oexpensewhi ch
i
sr ecov erablebydi rectact ionagai nstt henegl i
gentdr i
ver."

PerLor dDev l
inatpp.602and603:" Thisiswhyt hedisti
ncti
oni s
nowsai dt odependonwhet herf
inanciallossi scausedt hr
ough
physicalinjuryorwhet heritiscauseddi rectly.Theinter
posi t
ion
ofthephy sicalinjur
yissaidt omakeadi ff
erenceofpr inci
ple.I
canf i
ndnei therlogicnorcommonsensei nt hi
s.Ifir
respecti
v eof
contract,
adoct ornegligent
lyadvisesapat ientthathecansaf el
y
pursuehi soccupat ionandhecannotandt hepat i
ent'
sheal t
h
suffersandhel oseshi sli
vel
ihood,thepatienthasar emedy .But
i
fthedoct ornegl igentl
yadv i
seshimt hathecannotsaf el
ypur sue
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
hisoccupat ionwheni nf acthecanandhel oseshisl i
veli
hood,
therei ssai dt obenor emedy .Unl ess,ofcour se,thepat i
entwas
apr ivat epat i
entandt hedoct oraccept edhal fagui neaf orhis
troubl e:t hent hepat ientcanr ecov erall
.Iam boundt osay,my
l
or ds,t hatIt hi
nkt hist o benonsense.I ti snott hesor tof
nonsenset hatcanar iseev eni nthebestsy stem oflawoutoft he
need t o dr aw ni ce di st
incti
ons bet ween bor derl
i
ne cases.I t
arises, ifitist helaw, simpl youtofar ef
usalt omakesense.The
l
inei snotdr awnonanyi ntell
i
gi bleprinci
ple.Itjusthappenst obe
thel inewhi cht hosewhohav ebeendr i
venf rom theext r
eme
asser tion t hat negl igent st atement s in t he absence of
cont ract ualorf i
duci arydut ygiv enocauseofact i
onhav ei nthe
cour seoft hei rretreatsof arreached.

"
Ishal lnow exami ne t he r elev antaut horit
ies and y our
l
or dshi pswi ll,Ihope,par donmei f,wi thoneexcept ion,I
attendonl ytot hoset hathav ebeendeci dedi nt hisHouse, for
Ihav emadei tplai nt hatIwi llnoti nt hismat tery i
eldt o
per suasi onbutonl yt ocompul sion.Theexcept i
oni sthecase
ofLeLi ev revGoul d,f ory ourl or dshipswi llnoteasi lyupset
deci sions of t he Cour t of Appeali ft hey hav e st ood
unquest ionedf orasl ongassev entyy ear s.Thef iv erelev ant
deci sionsoft hisHousear eDer r
yvPeek,Noct onvLor d
Ashbur ton,Robi nsonvNat ionalBankofScot l
and,Donoghue
vSt evenson,andMoni sonSSCoLt dvGr ey stokeCast le
(Car goOwner s).Thel astoft heseIcandealwi thatoncef or
i
tl i
esout sidet hemai nst ream ofaut hor i
tyont hispoi nt .Iti s
acasei nwhi chdamagewasdonet oashi past her esultofa
collisi
onwi thanot hershi p.Theowner sofcar goont hef i
r st
ship, whi chcar gowasnoti tselfdamaged, t
husbecamel iabl e
tot he owner s oft he f irstshi pf ora gener alav erage
cont ri
but ion.Theysuedt hesecondshi pasbei ngpar tlyt o
blame f ort he col lisi
on.Thust heywer e cl aimi ng f ort he
fi
nanci allosscausedt othem byhav ingt omaket hegener al
aver agecont ribution al t
hought heirpr oper tysust ainedno
phy sicaldamage.Thi sHousehel dt hatt heycoul dr ecov er.
Thei rl ordshi psdi dnoti nt hatcasel aydownanygener al
principleaboutl i
abi li
tyf orf inanci all ossi nt heabsenceof
phy sical damage; butt hecase

419•
i
tsel
fmakesi
timpossi
bletoar
guethatt
her
ei sanygener
al
r
uleshowi
ngt
hatsuchlossi
sofit
snatur
eir
recover
abl
e."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
Riv t
owMar i
neLt dvWashi ngtonI r
onWor ks( 1973)40DLR( 3rd)
530
Fact s:Thepl ainti
f facquiredacr anei nstal
ledonal oggi ngbar ge
from t hedef endant .Duet ol at entdef ectint hecr ane,i thadt o
under gor epairsdur ingthepeakt i
meandasar esult,thepl ai
ntiff
coul d notuse i tdur ing t he peakseason.The pl aintiffsued
alleginglossar isingf rom hi sinabi l
it
yt ouset hecr anedur ingt he
peakseason.
Hel d:Al t
houghdamagesf orexpensesi ncur r
edi nrepai ringt he
def ectwasnotr ecov erable,consequent i
all ossar isi
ngf rom t he
necessi tytor epai rwasact ionabl eift hel ossar i
singf r
om t he
necessi tytor epaircoul dhav ebeenav oidedbyr easonabl ecar e;
fori ft hedef endanthadwar nedt hepl aintif
f ,ther epai rcoul d
hav ebeencar ri
edoutbef or et hepeakseason.
Pr i
nciple:Amanuf acturerofadef ecti
v earticleisnotl iablei ntor t
toanul ti
mat econsumeroruserf orthecostofr epairi
ngdamage
arisingi nthear ti
cl eitsel
fnorf orsucheconomi clossaswoul d
hav ebeensust ainedi nanyev entasar esultoft heneedt oef fect
repai r
s.Butwher eeconomi clossar i
singoutoft henecessi t
yt o
repai r could hav e been av oided by r easonabl e car e,t he
manuf acturerisliable.

Mui
rheadvI
ndust
ri
alTankSpeci
alt
ies
[
1985]3Al
lER705
Facts:Thepl aintiffneededpumpsf orhi sfi
shf arm.Thet hi
rd
defendantassembl edt hepumpi nEngl andf r
om el ectri
cmot ors
manuf acturedbyi tspar entcompanyi nFr ance.Thepumpswer e
thensol dt ot heseconddef endantsuppl ierwhosuppl i
edt hefir
st
defendantt oi nstall
.Af tert heinstallati
on,thepumpsdi dnot
wor kast heyoughtt odo,l eadingt ot helossofal argequant it
y
off ish.The def ecti nt he pump r esulted from t he v ol
tage
diff
erencei nEngl and.Thepl aint
if
fsued.
Held:Si ncet herewasnopr oximityandnor el
iancewaspl aced
ont hemanuf acturerbyt hepl ainti
ff,hecoul dnotr ecoverfor
economi clossar isi
ngf rom thedef ectivegoods.
Principle:A manuf acturerofdef ectivegoodscanbel iablein
negligencef oreconomi cl osssuf feredbyanul timatepur chaser
i
ft her eisav erycl osepr oximityorr elati
onshipbet weent he
parti
esandt heul t
imatepur chaserpl acesr ealr el
ianceont he
manuf acturerrat herthanont hevendor .

PerRober
tGof
fLJatpp.715and716:"
Ihav
eal
readyquot
ed
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
t
hepassagef
rom t
hejudgmentofthej
udgeinwhichhehel
d
t
hatt
herewasther
equi
sit
erel
iancebyt
heplai
nti
ffon
themanuf act ur ersandt hatt hemanuf act urer smustr easonabl y
havef oreseent hatanyuseri ntheUni tedKi ngdom woul dr ely
ont hem t oensur etheadequacyoft heirmot orsatl easti nt he
fundament alr espectt hatt heywoul dbesui t
abl ef oruseon
United Ki ngdom v oltages.Cer tai
nlyt his was a mat terof
fundament ali mpor tance,andwoul daf fectev er yuseroft he
mot orsi nt he Uni ted Ki ngdom.ButIf ind i ti mpossi blet o
diff
erentiatet hiscasef rom anyot hercaseofmanuf act ured
goodswhi ch,t hr oughaf undament aldef ect ,resul tinf inanci al
l
ossbei ngsuf f eredbyanul t
imatepur chaserwhobuy st hem f or
usei nhisbusi nessand,byr easonoft hedef ect,suf fersal oss
ofpr ofit
s.Fur ther mor e,t here was no ' verycl ose pr oxi mi t
y'
betweent hepl ai nti
ffandt hemanuf actur ers,int hesenset hat
therewasnov er ycloser elati
onshipbet weent hepar ties;so
thatfactor,t oo,i smi ssingf rom thecase. .AsIseet hepr esent
casei tmustf al lwithint hosecases,descr i
bedbyLor dFr aser
andLor dRoski ll,ofor dinar ypurchaseofchat t
el s,inwhi cht he
buyer,ifheseekst orecov erdamagesf orpur elyeconomi cl oss
ari
singf r
om def ectsint hegoods,mustont hel awasi tst ands
l
ook t o hi si mmedi atev endor and not t o t he ul ti
mat e
manuf actur erf orhi sremedy ."

PerNour seLJatp.719:" I
nhi sanal y
sisofJuni orBooksLt dv
Veit
chiC0Lt d[ 1982]3Al lER201,[ 1983]1AC520Rober tGoff
LJhasi dent i
fiedt hethr eef eaturesoft hatcaseonwhi cht he
decisi
on t hatt he nomi nated sub- contractorhad v olunt ar
il
y
assumed a di rectr esponsi bil
i
tyt ot he bui ldi
ng ownerwas
founded.The f ir
stt wo oft hese wer ev er
ycl ose proximi t
y
betweent hesub- contract orandt hebui l
dingownerandr eliance
byt hebui l
dingowneront hesub- contractor.Hav i
ngbeenso
decided,t hatcasecannot ,inmyr espectfulopinion,bet akent o
beaut hor it
yf ort hepr opositiont hatwher et hosef eaturesar e
absentadef endantisl iableint ortinrespectofeconomi cl oss
whichi snotconsequentonphy si
caldamaget ot heper sonor
propertyoft hepl aint
iff
....

"Int
hepresentcasetherewasnov er
ycloseproximit
ybetween
themanuf actur
ersand theplaint
iff
.Contract
uall
yt heywer e
sever
alstagesremovedf r
om eachother.Moreimportant
,there
wasnor eliancebyt heplai
nti
ffont hemanuf actur
ersint he
senseinwhichthatconceptwasappliedinJuni
orBooks.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
421

Thepeopl eonwhom t heplainti

ffrel
iedt oi nstallthe
system andt ogetther i
ghtequi pment,incl
udi ngpumps
withelectri
cmot or
swhi chworked,wer eITS.Theywer e
thepeopl ewhost oodi nt hesamef actualr elat
ionship
witht he plai
nti
ffas t he sub-contr
actordi d wi tht he
buildi
ngowneri nJuniorBooks.Thet wof eaturesofv ery
closepr oxi
mityandr eliancehav ingbeenabsent ,itis
unnecessar ytolookf ur t
herint hepr esentcase.The
plai
ntif
f'
scl ai
mi nrespectofpur eeconomi cl ossmust
fail
.Itherefor
eagreet hatt heappealshoul dbeal l
owed
tothatextent.
"

D&FEst atesLt dvChur chCommi ssioner sofEngl and[ 1988]2

AllER992
Fact s:Thet hi
rddef endant swer ethebui l
dersofblocksoff l
ats.
They subcont racted t he plaster
ing of t he buil
dings t o an
i
ndependentcont ract orwhot heybel iev edwascompet ent.The
plasteringwasact ual l
ydonenegl igent lyandt hepl aintiffwho
occupi ed t hebui l
di ng f ound thepl aster i
ng l
ooseaf tersome
years.Hebr oughtanact iontorecov ert hecostofwor ksdonei n
thedef ecti
v eplast eringandanyf utur ewor ktobedone.Hel d:
Thecostofr epairi
ngachat telnegligent l
ymanuf acturedbef ore
thechat t
el hascausedanydamaget oper sonorotherpr opertyis
notr ecov erableagai nstt hemanufact ur erandthust hepl aint
iff
's
actionhadt ofail
.
Principle:Thecostofr epai
ri
ngadef ecti nachat telbef or
ei t
causesI njuryt oper sonorot herpr oper tyisnotr ecov erabl
ein
negligenceagai nstt hemanuf actur
er .

PerLor dBr idgeofHar wichatp.1006:" Thesepr inciples

are easy enough t o compr ehend and pr obably not
dif
ficulttoappl ywhent hedef ectcomplainedofi si na
chattelsuppl i
edcompl etebyasi nglemanuf acturer.I f
thehiddendef ecti nthechat t
eli sthecauseofper sonal
i
njuryorofdamaget opr oper tyotherthant hechat tel
i
tself,themanuf acturerisliable.Buti ft
hehiddendef ect
i
sdi scov eredbef oreanysuchdamagei scaused,t her e
i
s no l ongerany r oom f ort he appli
cati
on oft he
Donoghue vSt ev enson pr inciple.The chattelis now
defectiveinqual i
ty,buti snol ongerdanger ous.Itmay
bev aluelessori tmaybecapabl eofeconomi crepair.In
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
eit
hercasetheeconomi cl
ossisr ecover
ableincont
ract
byabuy erorhi
rerofthechatt
elentit
ledtothebenef
itof
ar el
evantwarr
antyofqualit
y,buti snotrecover
abl
ei n
tor
tbyar emotebuyerorhir
erofthechattel
.

"Ifthesamepr i
nci pleappl iesi nt hef ieldofr ealpr oper tyto
thel iabilit
yoft hebui lderofaper manentst ruct ur ewhi chis
danger ouslydef ect i
ve,t hatl iabilit
ycan onl yar ise i fthe
def ectr emai nshi ddenunt ilt hedef ectivest ruct ur ecauses
per sonali njury ordamage t o pr operty ot hert han t he
struct urei tself.I ft he def ecti s di scover ed bef ore any
damagei sdone,t hel osssust ainedbyt heowneroft he
struct ure,who has t or epai rordemol i
sh i tt o av oida
pot ent i
alsour ceofdangert ot hirdpar ties,woul dseem t obe
pur ely economi c.Thus,i fIacqui r
e a pr oper ty wi tha
danger ouslydef ect ivegar denwal lwhi chi sat tributabl eto
thebadwor kmanshi poft heor i
ginalbui lder,iti sdi ffi
cultto
seeanybasi sinpr incipleonwhi chIcansust ainanact ionin
tortagai nstt hebui l
derf ort hecostofei therr epai r
ingor
demol i
shingt hewal l
.Nophy sicaldamagehasbeencaused.
Allt hathashappenedi sthatt hedef ectint hewal lhasbeen
discov eredi nt imet opr ev entdamageoccur ring.Idonot
fi
ndi tnecessar yf ort hepur poseofdeci dingt hepr esent
appealt oexpr essanyconcl udedv iewast ohowf ar,ifatall,
ther at i
odeci dendiofAnnsvMer t
onLondonBor ough[ 1977]
2Al lER492,[ 1978]AC728i nv olvesadepar turef rom t hi
s
princi pleest ablishinganew causeofact ioni nnegl igence
agai nstabui lderwhent heonl ydamageal legedt ohav e
beensuf feredbyt hepl aint i
ffi st hedi scov eryofadef ectin
thev eryst r
uctur ewhi cht hebui lderer ected."

Andatp.1007:'' I
nthei nstantcaset heonl yhiddendef ect
wasi ntheplaster.Theonl yitem pleadedasdamaget oother
property was ' cost of cl eaning car pets and ot her
possessionsdamagedordi r
tiedbyf al
li
ngpl aster:{50'.Once
i
tappear ed thatt he plasterwas l oose,any dangerof
personalinjur
yoroff urtheri nj
uryt oot herpr oper t
ycoul d
have been simpl yav oided byt he timel yr emov aloft he
defecti
veplaster.Theonl yfunct i
onofpl asteronwal lsand
ceil
ings,unl
essi tisit
sel felaboratelydecor ative,istoser ve
asasmoot hsur faceonwhi chtopl acedecor ati
v epaperor
paint.Whatevercaset heremaybef ort reati
ngadef ectin
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
somepar toft hestructureofabuil
dingascausingdamage
to'otherpr oper t
y'whensomeot herpar tofthebuildi
ngis
i
njuri
ousl yaffected,asf orexampl
ecr acki
nginwallscaused
by def ecti
vef oundati
ons,i twoul
d seem t o me ent i
rel
y
art
ifi
cialtot r
eatt hepl asterasdi
sti
nctf r
om thedecorati
ve
surf
acepl acedoni t.Ev enifitwereso t r
eated,theonly
damaget o'other

423•
•

property'causedbyt hedefecti
vepl asterwoul
dbet he
l
ossofv alueoftheex i
sti
ngdecor at
ionsoccasi
onedbythe
necessitytoremov el
ooseplasterwhi chwasindanger
off al
l
ing.Whent helooseplasterinf l
at37wasf i
rst
discovered in 1980,theflatwasi n anyeventbeing
redecorated.

"I
tseemst omecl eart hatt hecostofr eplacingt he
defecti
vepl asteritsel
f,eitherascar r
iedouti n1980or
asintendedt obecar riedouti nf uture,wasnotani t
em
ofdamagef orwhi cht hebui lderofChel woodHouse
couldpossi blybemadel i
ablei nnegl i
genceundert he
pri
ncipleofDonoghuevSt evensonoranyl egiti
mat e
developmentoft hatpr i
ncipl
e.Tomakehi m sol iablewould
bet oimposeonhi mf orthebenef itofthosewi thwhom
hehadnocont ractualr el
ati
onshi pt heobligat i
onofone
who war ranted thequal it
yoft hepl asterasr egards
mat er
ial
s,wor kmanshi pandf itnessf orpur pose.Iam
gl
adt oreacht heconcl usiont hatt hisi
snott helaw. ..
."

Fi
nesseGr oupLt dvBr ysonPr oducts[20131EWHC3273
Facts:Thepl ainti
ffpur chased from thedef endantadhesi ves
manuf acturedbyat hi
r dpar t
y.Thepl ai
ntif
fusedt headhesi vesto
makest andsf orexhi
bi ti
onbutl aterreali
sedt hattheadhesi ves
wer edef ecti
ve,causi
ngt hest andst odel aminate.Nodamage
wascausedt oanyper sonorpr oper t
y.Thepl ai
ntif
fsuedt he
defendantandt hedefendantsoughtt ojoi
nt hethir
dpar t
y.
Held:Si nceno damagewascaused t o anyper son orot her
proper ty,thet hir
d part yasmanuf acturerswer enotl iablein
negligence.
Principle:Tosucceedi nanyact ioni npr oductsliabi
li
ty,there
mustbephy sicaldamaget oaper sonort hingot herthant he
producti tself
.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
PerAkenheadJatpar s.24and25:[ 24]" Iwilladdr esst he
primar ypoi ntfir
stwhi chi swhet her,ont hef actsaspl eaded,
Finessecanhav eanycauseofact ioni nt ortagai nstBost ik.
Sav ef orcases wher et he par ti
es ar ei n a cl ose enough
relati
onshi p( such ascont r act)Ofi tcan be sai dt hatt he
all
eged t ortf
easorassumed some par ti
cularr esponsi bil
ity
towar dst hecl aimingpar ty,usual l
y,atl east,ther emustbe
phy si
caldamageori njuryot herthant othe' thi
ngi t
sel f
'.Thus,
i
nDonoghuevSt evenson[ 1932]AC562,101LJPC119,37
Com cas350,t hePl aintiffwoul dnothav ebeenent it
ledt o
recov erthecostoft hebot tleofgi ngerbeeral t
houghshe
woul dhav ebeenabl et or ecov erdamagesf orper sonali njur
ies
causedbyt heshockorot heref fectsoft hesnai lint hebot tle.
Ast heedi torsofBenj ami nont heSal eofGoodssayatpar a12
—124' Thusanact i
oni ntor tmayal sol i
eandi ndeedpr i
mar ily
l
ies agai nsta manuf act urerordi stri
but orwho put si nto
circul
ation goods whi ch cause phy sical inj ury or t he
dest r
uctionofordamaget opr oper t
y.'

[25]" Theedi t
orsgooni npar a12—128t oconsi
der,rel
ati
vely
briefly,economi cl oss relating to goods whi ch threaten
damage orar e otherwise unsat isfactory
,referr
ing tot he
HouseofLor dscaseofMur phyv[ 1991]1AC398,[ 1990]2
AllER908, [
1990]3WLR414as, i
nor dinar
ycases, r
uli
ngout
ther ecov eryofeconomi closs.Lor dsKeithandJaunceyi n
thatcasel eftoverthepossi bili
tythat'themanufacturerofa
separ atepar tofast ructureorar ti
clemaybel iabl
ei fit
prov esdef ectiv
ei nsuchawayast odamageot herpar t
sof
thest r
uct ur
eorar t i
cle,thequest ionhasnotr eallybeen
consi dered i n connect ion wi t
h goods as opposed t o
buildings'.
"

Andatpar s.28— 30:" [28]Onecanonl yjudget hedr aft

reamendmentoni t
swor ding.Itdoesnotar ti
culatespecifi
cally
whatt hedamagef ort hepur poseoft het ortact uall
yis.The
furt
hestthatt hedr aftpleadinggoesi si npar as12. 1and12. 2
(see above) whi ch t alks mai nl
y about del ami nati
on.I tis
reasonabl
ycl earfrom t hepleadingt hatt herear est ands(which
arepresumabl ymadeofwood,met alorpl asti
cofsomesor t
)to
which'panels'arest uckbyt heuseofadhesi ve.Theadhesi veis
saidtobei neffecti
vesot hatthepanel sbegi nt osepar at
ef r
om
thestands.I tisnotsuggest edt hatt hepanel sf elloffi
njuri
ng
anyoneordamagi ngany t
hingelse.Ther eisr eferencet osomeof
thepanels'displayi
ngabubbl ingorbul gi
ngef fect'whichseems
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
si
mpl
ytobeanot
hermani
fest
ati
onofdel
ami
nat
ion.

[31]"Idonotconsiderthati
tisar guablet hatthereisor
wasdamagei nthiscaseatall,ont hefactspl eaded.Itis
notbeingsuggestedint
hepleadi ngt hatthepanel sort he
standswereactuall
ydamaged; indeed, i
tseemst obe
suggestedi
npar a12thatthedamagel i
esi nthealleged
unsati
sfact
oryquali
tyorunsuitabil
ityoftheadhesi veand
thatofcour
sewoul dinanyev entbedamaget othething
i
tself(
theequiv
alentofthegingerbeerbot tl
einDonoghue) .
Evenifonecouldapplyorextendt he
425• u
thoughtpr ocessesofLor dsKei thandJaunceyi nt he
Mur phycaseandt reatt headhesi v east het hingi tself
andt hepanelasasepar atepar toft hest r
uct ure,sot o
speak,t he panel s ar e notpl eaded as hav ing been
damaged.Thef actt hatt hereissomef inanci allosssai d
tobeassoci atedwi t
hput ti
ngr i
ghtt heal legedpr obl ems
and consequences oft he adhesi vef ailure does not
conv ertt hatst ate ofaf f
air
si nto damage f ort he
purposesofacauseofact i
oni nnegl i
genceagai nst
Bost i
k.Ial sov erymuchdoubtt hatt headhesi vecoul d
besai dt obeot hert hanpar tofone' structure'andt hat
delami nati
on t herefor ei si ni tself not damage t o
anythingot herthant het hingitself.Oneal sohast obear
i
nmi ndapubl icpol icyf loodgatesar gumenti nr elat i
on
to goods such as gl ue orev en component s ofa
machi ne.Anexampl emi ghtbecar elessl ypr epar edgl ue
usedi nmaki ngashoewhi chf ailscausi ngt hesol eor
heelt odr opof f;thesuggest i
ont hatt heowneroft he
shoecoul dsuet hegl uemanuf actur eri sf anci ful.Of
course, therewoul dorcoul dbeacauseofact i
oni nt ort
againstt hemanuf act ureri nthecur rentt ypeofcasei f
asar esultofnegl igentlymanuf act uredgl uewhi chf ail
s
someel ementsupposedt obeadher edt oasubst ratum
fal
ls of finjuri
ng someone ordamagi ng an adj acent
exhibit(i
nt hecaseofanexhi biti
onst and) .

[32]"I
tfoll
owsthatforthesereasonsalonethecauseof
acti
onintortaspl
eadedi nthedraf
tre-amendmenthasno,
l
etaloneareali
sti
c,prospectofsuccess.
"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Robi
nsonvPEJones(
Cont
ract
ors)
[
2012]QB44
Fact s:Thedef endantbui lder
swer econstruct
ingabui ldingwi th
onlyonechi mneywhen t heplainti
ffagreed to pur chaset he
building.Thepar ti
esent eredintoacontractfort heconst ruction
ofanaddi t
ionalchi mney .Bothchimneyswer el aterfoundt obe
defect i
ve.Thepl ainti
ffsuedt orecoverthecostofr epairingt he
defect sint hechimney .
Held:Si ncenodamagewascausedt oanyot herpr oper t
yor
person, thepl ai
nt i
ff'
sactionfail
ed.
Principle:Thedut yowedbyamanuf act
urertoaconsumeri sto
taker easonabl ecar et hatnoi njur
yiscausedt oanyper sonor
otherpr opertyandt hus,damagesf orrepair
ingt hedef ecti
ve
productar enotr ecoverable.

PerJacksonLJatp.59,par .65:" Thefirstandcr ucial

feat
ureoft hisli
tigat
ionisthat,fort
unatel
y,thedef ecti
ve
fl
uesdidnotcauseper sonalinj
ury.Nordidt hey,orcould
they,cause damage t o otherpr opert
y.The cl ai
mant '
s
clai
mi sforeconomi clossconsequent i
alupondef ectsin
a house whi ch the defendant constructed and t he
clai
mantpur chased."

Atpp.59and60,par s.67— 69:[ 67]"Havingr evi

ewedt he
two st r
eams ofaut hori
ty setouti n Part5 abov e,my
conclusi on i s that t he relati
onship bet ween ( a) t he
manuf acturerofapr oductort hebuil
derofabui ldi
ngand( b)
thei mmedi atecli
enti spr i
mar i
lygov er
nedbyt hecont ract
betweent hosetwopar ti
es.Longest abl
ishedpr i
nciplesof
freedom ofcont ractenabl ethosepar ti
est oal l
ocater isk
betweent hemselv esast heyseef i
t.I
nt hecaseofconsumer
contract s, of cour se, t hose pr i
ncipl
es y ield t o t he
requirement softhe1977Act .Howev er
,evenint hecaseof
aconsumer ,t
hecont ract(asmodi f
iedbyt he1977Act )i s
the pr i
mar ydeterminantofeach par ty'
s obli
gations and
remedi es.

[
70] "
Absentanyassumpt i
onofr esponsi
bil
i
ty,ther
edo
notspring up between the part
ies duti
es ofcar e co-
ext
ensivewitht
heircontract
ualobl
igati
ons.Thelaw oftort
i
mposes a di f
ferent and morel imit
ed duty upon t he
manufactur
erorbui l
der.Thatmorel i
miteddutyistotake
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
reasonable car et o pr
otectthe clientagai nstsuffering
personalinjuryordamaget ootherpr operty.Thelawoft ort
i
mposes t his duty
,notonl ytowar ds the fir
stperson t o
acquirethechat telorthebuil
ding,butal sotowardsot hers
whof oreseeablyownorusei t.

[
71] "Theanal ysisint hepr ecedi ngparagraphf i
tswi th,
i
ndeed i s di
ctated by ,the House ofLor ds'decision in
DonoghuevSt evenson[ 1932]AC562,t heHouseofLor ds'
decision in Mur phy'
scase[ 1991]1 AC 398 and May J'
s
decisioni nNit
piginEireannTeor antavIncoAl l
oysLtd[1992]
1 WLR 498.Al though Ni tr
igin's case isaf i
rstinstance
decision,itcommandsr espectbecauseoft heforceoft he
reasoningi nthej udgment .Alsoi tshouldbenot edthatthe
tri
aljudgei nNitrigi
n'scasewasaspeci al
istinthisfiel
das
wellas bei ng t he then edi torofKeat ing on Bui l
ding
Contract s.
"

Andatpp.62and63,par s.83and84:[83]"
Inthepr esent
caseIseenot hi
ngtosuggestt
hatthedef
endant'assumed
responsi
bil
i
ty'
tothecl
aimanti
ntheHedl
eyByrnesense.The

427.
part
iesent er
edi ntoanor malcont ractwher ebyt hedefendant
wouldcompl etetheconst ructionofahousef ortheclai
mantt o
anagreedspeci f
icati
onandt hecl ai
mantwoul dpayt hepurchase
pri
ce.Thedef endant'swarrantiesofqual i
tywer esetoutandt he
cl
aimant'sremediesi ntheev entofbr eachofwar r
antywerealso
setout.The par t
ies were noti n a pr ofessionalrel
ati
onship
whereby,forexampl e,theclaimantwaspay i
ngt hedefendantto
giv
e adv i
ce ort o pr epar
er eport
s orpl ans upon whi ch the
cl
aimantwoul dact.

[84]" Eveni ftheagr eementdi dnotcont ainclauses8and10of

thebui l
dingcondi t
ions,Iwoul dbedi si
ncli
nedt of indthatt he
defendantowedt otheclaimantt hedut yofcar ewhi chisalleged
i
nt hiscase.Tomymi nd,howev er,clauses8and10oft he
buildingcondi t
ionsputt hemat terbey onddoubt .Thosecl auses
l
imi tthedef endant'sli
abil
it
yf orbuildingdefectst ot hefi
rstt wo
year s,afterwhi chdiff
erentpr ovisi
oni smadef ordealingwi t
h
defect s.Fort her easonssetouti nPar t6abov e,thoset wo
clausessat isfyt hetestofr easonabl enessi nthe1977Act .It
woul dbei nconsi st
entwiththewhol eschemeoft hiscontract,if
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
thelawwer etoi mposeupont hedef endantdut i
esofcar ei
nt ort
farexceedi ng the defendant'
s contractuall i
abil
iti
es.Finall
y,
clause10oft hebuildi
ngconditionsisrel ev
anti nanotherway .
Thepar t
iesexpresslyagreedthatthedef endant'sonlyli
abi
li
tyto
theclaimantshoul dbet hatari
singf r
om t heNHBCagr eement .
The parties weret her
ebyexpr esslyagr eeing to excl
ude any
l
iabil
it
yinnegligencewhichmi ghtotherwisear i
se."

PerSt anleyBur nt
onLJatpp.64and65,par s.92— 95:[ 92]" I
n
myj udgment ,i
tmustnow ber egar dedasset t
ledlaw thatt he
builder /
vendorofabui ldingdoesnotbyr easonofhi scontractto
const ructort ocompl etet hebuildingassumeanyl i
abi
li
tyint he
tortofnegl i
gencei nrelationtodef ectsint hebuildi
nggivingr i
se
topur el
yeconomi cl oss.Thesameappl iestoabui l
derwhoi s
nott hev endor ,
andt ot hesel l
erormanuf actur
erofachat tel.The
decisi on oft he House ofLor ds i n Anns v Mer ton London
BoroughCounci l[
19781AC728, l
ikei tsearli
erdecisi
oninJuni or
BooksLt d vVei tchiCo Lt d[ 1983]1 AC 520,mustnow be
regar dedasaber r
ant, i
ndeedasher etical
.Thel awi sasstatedby
LordBr i
dgeofHar wichi nD&FEst at esLidvChur chComr sf or
Engl and[ 19891AC177, 206: '
Ifthehi ddendef ectinthechat tel
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
st hecauseofper sonalinjuryOfofdamaget opr oper ty
othert hant hechat t
elitself,themanuf acturerisl iable.
Buti fthehi ddendef ecti sdiscov eredbef oreanysuch
damagei scaused,t herei snol ongeranyr oom f ort he
applicati
onoft heDonoghuevSt evensonpr i
nciple.The
chatteli snow def ecti
vei n qualit
y,buti sno l onger
danger ous.I tmaybev aluelessori tmaybecapabl eof
economi cr epair..I fthesamepr i
ncipleappliesi nt he
fi
eldofr ealpr oper t
yt ot hel i
abili
tyoft hebuilderofa
permanentst r
ucture whi ch is danger ousl
ydef ective,
thatliabili
tycanonl yarisei fthedef ectr emainshi dden
untilthedef ectivest r
uctur ecausesper sonalinjur yor
damaget opr opertyothert hant hest r
uct ur
eitself.Ifthe
defecti sdi scov er
edbef oreanydamagei s done,t he
l
osssust ainedbyt heowneroft hest r
uct ur
e,whohast o
repairordemol i
sh i tto av oid apot enti
alsour ceof
dangert o t hird parti
es,woul d seem t o be pur ely
economi c.'

[96] " Thus t he cruci

aldi stinction is between a
personwhosuppl i
essomet hingwhi chisdefectiveand
aper sonwhosuppl i
essomet hing( whetherabui l
ding,
goodsora ser v
ice)whi ch,becauseofi t
sdef ect s,
causes l oss or damage t o somet hi
ng el se. An
archi
tectowesadut yofcar enoti nr espectoft he
valueofhi sdrawi
ngsorspeci fi
cation,butinrespectof
thebui l
di ngthatist obeconst ructedwi ththem.The
personwhocont r
actswi t
hanar chitectcannotsuehi m
i
nt het ortofnegligencesimpl ybecauset heplanst urn
outtobedef ecti
veandt hereforeofnov al
ueorl ess
valuethant heyshouldbe.Thear chitectwillbeliable
tohiscl ientincontractifhisplansar ewor t
hless.The
cli
entcansuei ntort(atcommonl aw,andapar tfrom
thedut yi mposedbyt heDef ectivePr emisesAct1972)
i
fheusest heplansandt hebui l
dingconst r
uctedwi th
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

them i
sdefect
iveorcauseshiminjury.Themanaging
agentsi
nHendersonvMer r
ettSyndicatesLt
d[1992]2
AC145owedadut y
.ofcaretotheirNamesbecause
theyweremanagingtheNames'assets.

[97] "Itisimpor t
antto notet hata per son who
assumesacont ract
ualdutyofcaredoesnott hereby
assumeani denti
caldutyofcarei ntorttot heother
contr
act
ingparty
.Thedut yofcareincontractextends
toanydefecti
nthebuildi
ng,goodsOfser vi
cesuppl i
ed
underthe cont
ract,as wellas toloss Ofdamage
causedbysuchadef ecttoanotherbuil
dingOfgoods.
Thedutyofcareintort
,alt
houghsaidtoar isefr
om an
assumpti
onof

429"
 l
iabili
ty,isi mposed byt hel aw.I n casesofpur ely
fi
nanci alloss,assumpt i
onofl i
abi l
i
tyisusedbot hasa
meansofi mposingl i
abil
it
yi nt ortandasar est r
iction
ont heper sonst owhom t hedut yisowed.Thedut yof
carei ntor tappli
est odamaget ootherpr oper t
yt han
thatsuppl ied,ortopersonali njuryordeat h,causedby
adef ectint hepr opert
ysuppl ied.Thepr oviderofa
service,suchasanaccount antorsol ici
tor,owesa
dutyofcar eintorttohisclientbecausehi snegl igence
maycausel ossoft heclient'sasset s.Idonott hink
thatacl i
enthasacauseofact ionint ortagai nsthi s
negligentaccount antorsol i
citorsi mplybecauset he
account ant '
s orsol i
ci
tor'
s adv ice isincorr ect( and
thereforewor thl
esst hant hef eepaidbyt hecl i
ent )
.
Thecl i
entdoeshav eacauseofact ionint or tift he
advicei sr el
ieduponbyt hecl ientwi t
ht her esultt hat
hisasset sar edimini
shed.

98] "
[ Itf
oll
owsi nmyj udgmentt hatt hefi
rstinstance
decisi
onstowhi chJacksonLJr efersinpara52ofhi s
j
udgmenti nwhi chbuildi
ngcontractorswer ehel
dt ohav e
assumedadut yofcar eintor
tinr el
ationtofi
nancialloss
result
ingfr
om def ect
si nthebuil
dingt heyconst
ructed,in
theabsenceofdamaget ootherpr operty
,werewr ongly
decided.
"

Wit
tmervGebr
.WeberGmbH(
2011)
Ti
mes,6Jul
y
Facts:The f i
rstdef endantsoughtt or ecoverthe costof
remov alandr einst al
lat i
onofdef
ectiveti
lespur
chasedfrom t
he
fi
rstdefendant .Thesecondpl ai
nti
ffsoughttorecovert
hecost
ofremov alandr einst al
lat
ionofadef ecti
vewashingmachine
purchasedf rom t heseconddef endant.Held(bytheCourtof

•
434
Justi
ce of the Eur
opean Uni
on)
: That t
he cost
s wer
e
recov
erabl
e.
(NB:Thedeci
sionwasbasedonPar
li
amentandCounci
lDi
rect
ive
1999/44/
ECofMay25,1999,anEUdir
ect
ive.
)
Pri
nciple:Asell
erisunderadutyt
or emoveandrei
nst allany
defecti
veproducthesellst
oaconsumerandi fhef ails,the
consumermayr ecov
erthecostofremovalandr
einstallat
ion
fr
om thesell
er.

POSSI
BLEAPPLI
CATI
ONOFRESI
PSALOQUI
TUR
DonoguevSt
evenson(
supr
a)

PerLordMacmi
ll
anatp.622:"
The
bur
denofproofmust
alwaysbeupont heinjuredpar tytoestabl
ishthatthe
defectwhi ch caused t he injur
ywas pr esentint he
arti
clewheni tl eftthehandsoft hepart
ywhom he
sues, that the def ect was occasi oned by t he
carel
essnessoft hatparty,andt hattheci
rcumstances
aresuchast ocastupont hedef enderadutyt otake
carenottoi nj
uret hepur suer.Thereisnopresumption
ofnegligencei nsuchacaseast hepresent,noris
thereanyjusti
ficationforappl yi
ngt hemaxim,resipsa
l
oquitur
.Negl i
gencemustbebot hav er
redandpr ov
ed.
"

AboagyevKumasiBr
eweryLimi
ted
(supr
a)Fact
sandHoldi
ng:(
supr
a)
Pr
inci
ple:Thepr i
nci
pleofresi
psal
oqui
turappli
eswher
ethe
wantofreasonabl
ecareint
hemanuf
act
ureisproved.

•
435
 PerDj abanorJatp.244:" Theaut hor i
ti
esar eset tl
edi n
thev iew t hatt hemaxi mr esi psal oquiturappl i
est o
negligencei nmanuf act urewhent heci rcumst ances
aresuchast ocal lf ori tsappl ication.I nChar /eswor th
onNegl igence( 4thed. ),p.363,par a.802appear st he
foll
owi ng passage whi ch Iacceptas t he cor rect
statementoft hel aw:' Themer epr esenceofasnai lin
ast opper edandseal edbot tleofgi ngerbeerwoul d
appeart o be wi t
hi nt he maxi m because,owi ng t o
retentionofef fectivecont rolbyt hemanuf acturerunt i
l
the gi ngerbeerr eached t he consumer ,t herei sa
greaterpr obabi li
tyofnegl igenceont hepar toft he
manuf acturert hanont hepar tofanyot herper son.I n
GrantvAust ralianKni tti
ngMi l
ls[ 1936]A. C.85t he
courtappar ent l
y pr oceeded on t he v i
ew t hatt he
presenceoft hechemi cali rri
tanti nt hegar ment swas
evidenceofnegl igence
Similarly,int heear l
iercaseofChapr onierevMason
(1905)21T. L.R.633, t
hepr esenceofast onei nabat h
bunmanuf actur edbyt hedef endantwashel dt obe
withint hemax i
mr esi psal oqniturandt obeev i
dence
of negl i
gence agai nst t he manuf acturer.
'On t he
author it
iest her eforeIhol dt hatt hemaxi mr esipsa
l
oqui turappl iesi nt hiscaseandt hereforet hatapr ima
faciecaseofnegl igencehasbeenest abli
shedagai nst
thedef endant .
"

AcheampongvOv er
seasBr
ewer
iesLtd(supr
a)
Pri
nci
ple:Thepr i
nci
pleofresi
psaloquit
urappli
eswher
ethe
wantofreasonabl
ecareint
hemanufact
ur ei
sproved.

431"
PerAnnanJat.pp.12and13:"Thedut
yaslai
ddown
i
st otaker
easonabl
ecarei
nt hemanufact
ureoft
he

•
436
 productandi tist hef ai
luretotakesuchcar et hatwil
l
renderhi m liablet othe consumerwho i si njur
ed.
Negl i
gencet heref orehast obeest abli
shedagai nstthe
manuf act ur
erbef orel i
abil
it
yi s establi
shed and t he
met hodofpr oofi sthesameasi nanyot hercaseof
negligence. The mer e pr esence of f oreign or
deleteriousmat teri snotPerseenoughandnegl i
gence
hast obeest abli
shedei therbywayoft hepresumpt ion
ofnegl igencewi thr esipsaloquit
ur ,orwheref actsare
established whi ch gi ve ri
se t o an i nference of
negligence."

Ov
erseasBr
ewer
iesLt
dvAcheampong(
supr
a)
(
Onappeal
tot
heCour
tofAppeal
)
Princi
ple:Thepr i
nci
pleofr esipsaloqui
turi
st hatwherea
productiscont ami
nated,i
tisnott hedut
yoft heplai
nti
ffto
provethesour ceofthecontaminantwhennegli
gencecanbe
establi
shedbywayoft hepresumpti
onofnegl
igencewithres
i
psal oquit
ur.

PerAr
cherJA( af
terr
efer
ri
ngt
othe
passageofLord
Macmi l
lanabove,cont i
nui ngatp.427asf ol
lows) :"In1936,
i
nt hecaseofGr antvAust ral
ianKni tti
ngMi l
l
sLt d.[1936]
A.C.85,P.C.t
hepl ainti
f fhadcont ractedder mat i
tisasa
resul
tofexcess sul phitef ound i n a pai rofwool len
underwearmanuf actur edbyt hedef endants.TheJudi cial
Commi tteeofthePr ivyCounci loverr
ul i
ngthej udgmentof
theHighCour tofAust rali
ahel dt hatt hemanuf act
urers
wereliabletot hepl aintiffont hepr i
ncipl
el aiddowni n
Donoghue v St evenson. Lor d Wr ight, deli
v eri
ng t he
j
udgmentoft he cour t
,st ated at p.101 as f ol
lows:
'
Accordingtotheev i
dence, themet hodofmanuf acturewas

•
437
 cor r
ect :the dangerofexcess sul phites being l eftwas
recogni sed and wasguar ded agai nst:t he processwas
i
ntendedt obef oolproof.Ifexcesssul phiteswer eleftin
thegar ment ,t
hatcouldonl ybebecausesomeonewasat
fault.Theappel l
antisnotr equir
edt ol ayhi sfingeront he
exactper soni nallthechai nwhowasr esponsible,ort o
speci f
ywhathedi dwr ong.Negl i
gencei sf oundasamat ter
ofi nferencef rom theexi stenceoft hedef ectst akeni n
connect i
onwi thalltheknownci rcumst ances:ev eni fthe
manuf acturerscouldbyaptev i
dencehav er ebutt edthat
i
nf erencet heyhav enotdoneso. 'TheGr ant

casecl ear
lyill
uminat
edt henat ur
eoftheburdenofproof
ont heplaint
iff
.LordMcMi ll
anwasamemberoft hecourt
i
nt heGr antcaseandt hereforehisdi
ctaint
heDonoghue
case( supra)asregardsthenat ur
eoftheburdenofproof
onthepl ai
ntif
fmustber egardedasobit
er.
"

And atp.429 and 430:" I

nt he pr esentappeal ,t he
respondentdi schargedhi sbur denofpr oofont hel i
nes
i
ndicat edbyFinnemor eJ.Ther espondentwasnotobl i
ged
topr ovehowt hekerosenewenti ntothebeer .Whet heran
empt y bottle was notsmel torwashed,i ti s nothi s
businesst osay .All
thathewasexpect edt opr ovewast hat
thebot tl
eofbeerheboughtcamef rom t hemanuf acturers'
factoryand t hatt he contents wer e cont aminated with
kerosene...
.Itwasnott hedutyoft her espondentt oprov e
howi tgotintot hebeer.I
twasr atherther esponsibil
it
yof
theappel l
antst oexplai
nt hattheker osenemi ghthavegot
i
ntot hebeerwi thoutanynegligenceont heirpart.
"

•
438
 433•

DEATHI
NRELATI
ONTOTORTS

A. DEATHCREATI
NGLI
ABI
LITY

ATCOMMONLAW

BakervBol ton(1808)170ER1033
Facts:Thepl ai
ntif
flosthi
swi feinanaccidentowi ngtothe
negli
genceoft hedefendants.Hecl ai
medf ordamagesf or
,
amongot hers,t
helossofcomf ortofthewife.
Held:Damageswi llbeawar dedonl yfort helossoft he
wife'
scomf ortandt hedist
resst hathadonherupt othe
deathoft hewi f
e.
Pri
nciple:Deathi snotani njuryatcommonl aw andthus
damagesmustst opwiththedeathoft heperson.

PerLor dEl l
enbor ough:t hej ur
ycoul donl yt akeinto
considerat
ion t he bruises whi ch t he pl ai
nti
ff had
hi
msel fsustained,andt hel ossoft hewi fe'
ssociety,
and the distress ofmi nd he had suf fered on her
account,fr
om t het i
meoft heaccidenttil
lthemoment
ofherdissolution.Inaciv i
lcourt,thedeathofahuman
beingcannotbecompl ainedofasani nj
ury;andint hi
s
caset hedamages,ast ot heplainti
ff
'swif emustst op

•
439
 wi
tht
heper
iodofherexi
stence.
"

AddaivBoaky e[1962]GLR147
Facts:The pl aint
if
f,as cust omary successor of t he
deceased,suedonbehal foftheest ateandonbehal fof
the dependant s of t he deceased f or damages f or
negli
gencef orcausi ngt hedeat hoft hedeceased.The
defendantpl eadedest oppelast heclai
m hadbeenset tl
ed
atanar bitr
ation.Held:Thecl ai
m onbehal foftheestat
ei s
notmai ntai
nabl eundert hemaxim actioPer sonal
ismor i
tur
cum Per sonabutt hecl aim onbehalfoft hedependantsi s
maintai
nabl esincetheywer enotpart
iest othearbit
rati
on.

•
440
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Pr
inci
ple:
Aper
sonal
act
ionbyaper
sondi
eswi
tht
heper
son.

PerApalooJatp.148:" Thepl ainti

ff'
sclai mi sont wo
l
imbs.Thef i
rstclaimi sf ort hebenef i
toft heest ate,t he
secondisonbehal fofthedependant soft hedeceasedwho
havelostthebreadwi nneroft hef ami ly.Thef i
rstlimboft he
cl
aimi sbasedont hecommonl aw,t hesecondont heFat al
AccidentsAct,1846,1asamendedbyt heLawRef orm( Civ i
l
Wrongs)Act ,1959.I ntheabsenceofanyl egislati
on i n
Ghanaanal ogousorequi val
entt ot heEngl i
shLaw r eform
(Miscell
aneousPr ovisi
ons)Act ,1934,t hef i
rstl i
mboft he
cl
aimi snotmai ntainableint hiscount ry
.Suchact ioni s
barredbyt heacti
oPer sonalismor i
turcum Per sonar ule.I
sohel dinthecaseofEl -
RouhvHami l.Theact i
onf ounded
ont heFatalAccident sActismai ntainablei n sof arasi t
canbeest abli
shedt hatanyr elativesornearr elativesoft he
deceasedhav ebeendepr iv
edoft hei rbr eadwi nnerorof
parti
almeansofsuppor tbythedeat hofKwasi Menka. "

NATUREOFTHERELI
EFI
NTRODUCEDBYTHEREFORMS
SewardvTheVer aCruz(1884)10App.Cas.59
Facts:Theplai
nti
ffastheadmi nist
rat
ri
xoft heest
ateofher
husbandsuedt hedefendantsforthel ossoft heli
feofthe
husband and herson.Hel d:The Admi r
alt
y Courthad no
j
urisdi
cti
ontograntdamagesforlossoflif
e.

PerLor d Bl ackbur n atpp.70 and 71:" Bef or eLor d

Campbel l'
sAct ,whereaper sonhadbeeni njuredf r
om
anyoft hecausesment ionedi nthef ir
stsectionoft hat
Actandhaddi ed,themaxi m act i
oPer sonalismor i
tw
cum Per sonaappl i
ed,hecoul dnotsue,f orhewas
dead,andi tdi dnotsur vivet oany bodywhomsoev erto
suef orthedamagesoccasi onedbyt heacci dentwhi ch
hadcausedi nj
ur ytohimr esultingi ndeath.ThatLor d
Campbel l,orr atherthel egislatureatthei nst anceof
Lor dCampbel l
,thoughtfittoal ter;andIthinkt hatwhen
thatActi slookedati tispl ainenought hatifaper son
dies undert he ci r
cumst ances ment i
oned,when he
mi ghthavemai ntai
nedanact i
oni fi
thadbeenf oran
i
njur ytohimsel fwhichhehadsur vi
ved,at ot all
ynew
actionisgi v enagai nstt heper sonwho woul d hav e
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
beenr
esponsi
blet
othedeceasedi
fthedeceased

435.
hadl ived; anact ionwhi ch, asispointedouti nPy mv
Gr eatNor thern Rai l
way Company ,is new i ni ts
speci es,new i ni tsqual it
y ,new initsprinciple,in
ev erywaynew,andwhi chcanonl ybebr oughti f
therei sanyper sonanswer ingthedescript
ionoft he
wi dow, par ent, or chi ld, who under such
circumst ancessuf ferspecuni arylossbyt hedeat h.
Thati saper sonalact i
on,i fpersonalactiont her e
ev ercanbe.I tisqui teplain( i
tdoesnotrequiremuch
mor et hant ost atei t
)t hati famanwhohast he
cust odyandmanagementofashi pmanagesi tin
suchawayt hatbyhi snegl i
genceorf r
om anyot her
causewhi chi sment ionedi nsect.1aper soni s
kill
ed,t hatmani sl i
ableunderLor dCampbel l
'sAct ;
andal soi fthatmani saser vantacti
ngforasuper i
or
(theshi powneri sgener all
yspeaki ngtheper son) ,if
he i st he ser vantoft he shipownerwho i st he
principal ,theshi powneri sanswer ableundert hi s
causeofact i
on."

ReadvGr
eatEast
ernRai
l
way(
1868)LR3QB555
Fact s:Thedeceasedwasi njur
edt hrought henegl i
genceof
thedef endant sandsubsequent lydied.Pr i
ortohisdeat h,the
defendant spaidhim asum ofmoneyi nf ullsat
isfacti
onof
hiscl ai
m agai nstthem.Followi nghi sdeath,t heplaint
if
f,the
widow oft he deceased,sued t he def endants and t he
defendant spleadedaccordandsat i
sfacti
on.
Hel d:Sincet hedeceasedhadaccept edt hesum ofmoneyi n
satisfactionofhi sclai
m,pl aintiffhadnocauseofact ion
sincet hedeat hdidnotcreat eaf reshcauseofact ion.
Principle:Thel iabi
li
tyofthedef endanti nsuchcasesi shi s
l
iabilit
yi nnegl i
gence,andwher et heclaimi nnegligencehas
beenset tl
ed,thedeathwillnotcr eateanewcauseofact i
on.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
PerBl ackbur nJatp.558:" Thequest iont urnsupon
theconst ruct i
onofs.1of9&10Vi ct.c.93.Bef ore
thatst atut et heper son who r eceived a per sonal
i
nj ury ,andsur v i
vedi tsconsequences, coul dbr i
ngan
act i
on,andr ecov erdamagesf ort hei njury ;butifhe
died f rom i ts ef fect s,t hen no act ion coul d be
brought .Tomeett hisst ateoft hel aw t he9&10
Vict .c.93, waspassed, and' whenev ert hedeat hofa
per soni scausedbyawr ongf ulact ,andt heacti s
such as woul d,ifdeat h had notensued,hav e
ent i
tledt hepar tyinj uredt omai ntai
nanact ion,and
recov erdamagesi nr espectt hereof ,t hen,andi n
ev erysuchcase,t heper sonwhowoul dhav ebeen
l
iabl ei fdeat hhadnotensuedshal lbel iablef oran
act i
onf ordamagesnot wi thst andingt hedeat hoft he
par tyi njur ed.'Her e,t aki ngt hepl eat obet r
ue,t he
par tyi njuredcoul dnot' mai ntainanact i
oni nr espect
ther eof '
, because he had al ready r eceived
sat i
sf act i
on.Thencomess.2,whi chr egul atest he
amount of damages, and pr ovides f or i ts
appor tionmenti namannerdi fferentt ot hatwhi ch
woul dhav ebeenawar dedt oamani n
hisl ifetime.Thi ssect ionmaypr ovide
anew pr incipleast ot heassessment
ofdamages,buti tdoesnotgi v eany
ner i
ghtofact ion.Mr .Coddwasdr iven
toar guet hatt heexecut orcodbr inga
freshact ionev eni ft hedeceasedhad
recov ereddamagi nanact ion;btt o
hol dt hiswoul dbet ost rai nt hewor ds
ofåhesect ion.The
S

i
nt entionoft heenact mentwast hatt
hedeat hOf
theper soninjuredshouldnotf r
eet hewr ongdoer
from an act ion,and int hose cases wheret he
per soni njur
edcoul dmai ntai
nanact i
onhi sper sonal
repr esentati
vemi ghtsue.
"

PerLushJatp.558:" Thei
ntenti
onofthestatuteis,
not
to maket hewr ongdoerpaydamagest wicef orthe
samewr ongfulact,buttoenablether
epresentati
vesof
the per
son injur
ed tor ecoverin a case wher ethe
maxim actio Personali
smor it
urcum Per sonawoul d
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
haveappli
ed.I
tonl ypoint
stoacasewherethepart
y
i
njur
edhasnotr ecover
edcompensati
onagainstt
he
wrongdoer
.Iti
struethats.2pr
ovi
desadif
fer
entmode
ofassessi
ngt hedamages,butthatdoesnotgivea
fr
eshcauseofaction.
"

NunanvSout her nRailwayCo.

Facts:Thedeceasedwasapassengeront hedefendant '
st r
ain.
The t icketon whi ch he travelled li
mi t
ed t he l
iabil
it
yoft he
defendantt oasum notexceedi ng100pounds.Hewaski l
ledat
thest at i
onwhenhewascr ossi ngt her ailli
neowi ngt ot he
negligenceofdef endant'sservant .I
nanact ionundert heFat al
Accident sAct ,t hedef endantsar guedt hatt hei
rl i
abil
it
ywas
l
imi t
edt o100pounds.
Held:Thel imitationofliabi
li
tyont het i
cketcouldnotl imitthedamages
recov erabl ebyt hedependant s.
Principl e:Wher eadeceasedcont r
actsdur i
nghi slif
etimet o
excludel iabil
it
y ,thedependant scannotmai ntai
nanact i
on,but
wher ehecont ractstolimitthel i
abil
ityoft hedef endant,such
l
imi t
at ion i s notbi nding on t he dependant s and does not
operat et ol i
mitt hedamagest heymayr ecov er.

PerBankesLJatpp.226and227:
"Insomecasest
he

437•
•
deceased maynothav e been ent i
tl
ed atanyt ime t o
mai ntainanact i
onf ort heinjurycompl ainedof ,aswher e
heha&byhi sownnegl igencecont ri
butedt ot hati nj
ur y,Of,
beforet heactornegl ectwhi chcausedt hei njuryhadbeen
done or commi tt
ed, he had cont ract ed wi th t he
defendant sthathewoul dundernoci rcumst ancescl aim
anydamagesf orsuchanactornegl ect.Inot hercaseshe
mayor iginall
yhav ebeenent it
ledtomai ntainanact ionfor
thei njuryandmaybyhi sownconducthav edi sentitl
ed
himsel ftomai ntai
ni t,aswher ehehascompr omi seda
clai
mi nr espectofi t,orhasal l
owedt het i
met ogoby
within whi ch under some Act ,such as t he Publ ic
Author it
iesPr otecti
onAct ,theactionoughtt ohav ebeen
commenced.Butnoneoft hosedi sabli
ngcausesexi sti n
thepr esentcase,andt heonl ycont entionher ei st hat
becauset hedeceasedhadl i
mitedhi sr ightt or ecov er
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
damagest o 1001,t her i
ghtofhi swi dow wasequal ly
l
imi t
edt ot hatamount .Butt hest atuteinspeci fyi
ngthe
conditionsoft hewi dow' sfightt osuesay snot hi
ngabout
thequant um ofdamageswhi cht hedeceasedmusthav e
beenent itl
edt or ecov er,thel anguagei sper fectl
ygeneral
—' andr ecov erdamages'andIcanseenor easonwhyi t
shouldnotber eadini tsnat uralsense.I fi tbesor ead,
the
deceasedwas,ont headmi ssionoft her ail
waycompany ,
entit
ledt omai ntainanact ionandr ecov ersomedamages,
and undert hoseci r
cumst ancesi tseemst o mequi t
e
i
mmat eri
alt oconsi derwhatt heamountoft hedamages
woul dhav ebeent hathemi ghthav erecov ered,forthi
s
reason,t hatt he quant um oft he damages t hatthe
dependant smayr ecov erunders.2i squitedi f
fer
entfr
om
thatwhi cht hedeceasedmi ghthav erecov eredhimself.
Theamountoft hedamageswhi cht hedependant smay
recoveri scompensat i
onpr oper l
ysocal l
ed.I tmayseem
stranget hatthedependant scanr ecoveramuchl ar
ger
sum t hancoul dhav ebeenr ecov eredbyt hedeceased,but
i
thasbeenhel dbyt heHouseofLor dsinTheVer aCruz(1)
thatthecauseofact ionoft hedependant sisanew and
disti
nctcauseofact i
on,inr espectofwhi chthedamages
areest imat edonanent i
relydif f
erentbasi s."

PerScr uttonLJatpp.228and229:" Theni tisar gued

thatifthatissohi sdependant smustequal l
ybebound
i
fhehasmadeanagr eementwhi ch,whi l
eleav inghi m
acauseofact i
on,l i
mitstheamountwhi chhecan
recover.Iagr eet hati tlooksoddt hatheshoul dbeabl e
tobarhi sdependant sentir
ely ,andy etshoul dnotbe
ablet obart hem i npar t
,butonemustbegui dedbyt he
wor dsoft hest atut e.Themomentoneat t
empt st o
transferthepr ov isi
onsast ot heamountoft hel i
abilit
y
(as disti
ngui shed f rom t he l i
abilit
yi t
self)f rom t he
cont r
act of t he deceased t o t he r i
ght s of hi s
dependant s one get sinto a di ffi
culty
.Fort hei
r7
damagesar enott hesameast hedamagesoft he
deceased;t hey ar e calculated on qui te a di fferent
princi
ple;theyi ncludesomemat tersforwhi chhecoul d
notcl ai
m,andexcl udeot her sf orwhi chhecoul d.The
only way t hathas occur red t o me by whi ch t he
diffi
cult
ycoul dbegotov erist ot r
eatt hedamagesov er
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
100/asbei ngasepar atecauseofact i
on,andt osay
thatashecoul dnotbringanact ionf orsumsov er100/
hisdependant scouldnotbr i
nganact i
onf orsumsov er
100/either.Butt heobj ecti
ontot hatist hatiti
nvolves
thespli
tti
ngupofacauseofact ion, aprocesswhi chis
not per mi tt
ed by Engl i
sh l aw. Under t hese
cir
cumst anceswemustf oll
ow t hel anguageoft he
statut
e,andt hatlanguagecompel sust osayt hatas
thedead mancoul d att hetimeofhi sdeathhav e
broughtanact ionforsomedamageshi sdependant s
canbr i
nganact i
onf ort heirownandqui tediff
erent
damages.Iagr eethattheappeal mustbedi smissed."
PerAt kinLJatpp.229and230:" ..
.thedependant sunder
theFat alAcci dent sActhav eanent ir
elydifferentcauseof
action f rom t hatwhi ch the deceased per son had.I nt he
wor dsofLor dBl ackbur ninTheVer aCr uz( 1),theircauseof
actioni s' new i ni tsspeci es,new i ni tsqual ity
,new i ni ts
princi pl
e, inev erywaynew' .Undert hoseci rcumst ances, i
fthe
cont ractmadebyt hedeceasedi sonl yacont r
actt hatput sa
l
imi tt ot heamountoft hedamagest hathecanr ecov er,i
ti s
difficultt oseehow t hatcanhav eanyr el
ationt oacl aim
madebyt hedependant sonadi fferentcauseofact i
onandi n
respect of a di fferent measur e of damages. The
cir
cumst ances may be ent ir
e}y di f
ferent.The deceased
per soncoul d,i fhewer ealive,onlybr i
nganact i
ont or ecov er
compensat i
on f or hi s own per sonali njuries,whi ch ex
hypot hesif al
lshor toft heconsequencesofhi sdeat h;andi t
maywel lbet hatt hesum of100/mi ghtmor et hancov erthe
damagest owhi chhewoul dbeent i
tled.Ont heOt 100/her
hand,t hedependant sbr i
ngt heiractionsubst ant i
all
yf orthe
l
ossoft hebr eadwi nneroft hef ami ly
;andt hatisav ery
differentmat ter .Formypar tIfailtoseeanyl ogicalrelation

439"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

betweent hefactthatthereisal imitt

ot hedamages
whichthedeceasedper soncouldhav erecoveredand
the amount of t he damages r ecover
able by the
dependants.I
tseemst omet hattherei
snodef enceto
theactionatal l,and fort hereasonsabov egiven,
whichar esubstanti
all
yt hosegivenbySwi ftJ.inhis
caref
ull
yconsideredjudgment ,Iagreethattheappeal
shouldbedismissed."

FarrellvCof fey[20091I EHC537

Facts:Thepl ai
ntif
f '
swi fewasnegl i
gentl
ydi agnosedbyt he
defendantcausi ngheri njuri
es.Shesuedt hedef endantbut
diedi nt hecour seoft hepr oceedings.Thepl aint
iffwast hen
subst i
tutedast hepl aintif
fandhebr oughtanappl i
cationt o
amendt hepl eadingst otransformt hecaset oaf atalaccident s
case.Att het imeoft heappl icat
ion,itwasabout6y earsaf ter
theal l
egednegl igentact .
Held: Sincet henat ur eoft heamendmenti st osetupanent irely
newcase, itwoul dnotbeal l
owed.
Principle: An act ion f or personal injuri
es ar isi
ng f rom
negligencei sdi fferentf rom anact ioninfatalaccidentsev eni f
theyar i
sef rom t hesamef act
s.

PerDunneJ:" Toal argeext ent,thepl ai

nt i
ffint his
case has r elied on t he ar gumentt hatt he f act s
necessar yt oest abli
sht henewcauseofact i
oni nt he
amended st atement of cl aim ar e t he same or
subst antial
lyt he same as t hose i nt he or iginal
statementofcl aim.Thati sundoubt edlyso.Thenat ur e
of t he cl aim i s,howev er,v ery different . These
proceedi ngscommencedasaper sonali njuryact i
on
byt hel at eMr s.Farrell.Sadl y,shedi ed bef oret he
proceedi ngscoul dbecompl et ed.I ndeed,asal ready
pointed out ,t he or i
ginalst atementofcl aim was
delivered two day s afterherdeat h.Int he or iginal
statementof cl ai
m,t he pl ainti
ff'
s cl aim was f or
damagesf orper sonalinjuri
es.Fol lowingherdeat h,the
origi
nal actionwasr econst i
tuted.Howev er,thatpar tof
thecl aim whi chwasi nr espectofdamagesf orpai n
andsuf feri
ngcoul dnol ongerbepur sued.Thecl aim
formedi calexpenseswaswi thdrawnbyt hepl aintif
fi n
ther econst itutedpr oceedi ngs.I twasonl yt hent hat
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
theplainti
ffsoughtt oamendt hesepr oceedingssoas
tot r
ansformt heoriginalper
sonalinjuri
esclaimi nt
oa
fatalinj
uri
escaseonhi sownbehal fandonbehal fof
thest atutor
ydependant s.Had separ atefatalinjur y
proceedingsbeeni ssuedatthetimeoft hei
ssueoft he
Not i
ce ofMot ion seeking t
he amendment s her
ei n,
such pr oceedings would have been st atute-
barred.
Therei snoissueaboutt hat.

"Afatali
njuri
esclaimisdiff
erentt oapersonali
njur
ies
clai
m.Thisissoev enift
heclaimsar i
seoutofthesame
fact
s.Thenatureoftheclai
m andt hedamagesthatfl
ow
from t
hesetoff actsgivi
ngrisetot hecauseofaction
aredif
fer
ent.Theparti
esarediff
erent.
..
."

JamesonvCent r
alEl ectri
cityGener ati
ngBoar d[199911Al lER
193Fact s:Thedeceasedper son,empl oy
edbyhi sempl oyerhad
worked att wo powerst ations owned and oper ated by t he
defendant .Hecont ractedmesot heliomaandsuedt hedef endant .
Heagr eedt oacceptL80,000i n'f ullandf inalset t
lementand
sati
sfaction' .He di ed bef oret he money was pai d butt he
executors ofhi s est ate br oughtpr oceedings undert he Fat al
AccidentsActf orl ossofdependencycl aimingLl42,000.The
defendantj oinedt heempl oy erasat hi rdparty.
Held:Sincet hedeceasedhadaccept edt heamountasf ulland
fi
nalsat isfacti
onofhi sclaim,hehadnocauseofact i
onagai nst
any concur rentt ortf
easorand t hus t he pl ai
nti
ffs could not
maintaint heact i
on.
Pri
nciple:Wher eapl aint
iffent ersint oaset t
lementasf ulland
fi
nal sat isfacti
on of hi s cl aim,t he l i
abil
ity of concur rent
t
ortfeasor sisext inguishedandt hedependant scannotmai ntain
anact i
oni fhedi esev entually.

PerLor dHopeofCr aigheadatpp.201and202: "Thebasi cr ul

e
i
st hatapl aintiffcannotr ecovermor ebywayofdamagest han
theamountofhi sl oss.Theobj ectofanawar dofdamagesi s
topl acet hei njur edpar t
yasnear lyaspossibl
ei nt hesame
fi
nanci alposi t
ionasheorshewoul dhav ebeeninbutf ort he
accident .Thel iabi l
i
t ywhi chi
si ni ssueinthiscasei sthatof
concur renttor tfeasor s,becauset heact sofnegligenceand
breachofst atut orydut ywhi char eallegedagainstBabcock
and t he def endantr especti
velyar e notthe same.So t he
plai
nt i
ffhasasepar at ecauseofact i
onagainsteachoft hem
forthesamel oss.Butt heexi
stenceofdamagei sanessent i
al
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
partofthecauseofact i
oninanyclaimf ordamages.Itwould
seem tofol
l
ow, asamat terofpr
inci
ple,thatoncetheplai
nti
ff
's
clai
m hasbeensat i
sfi
edbyanyoneofsev eralt
ort
feasor
s,his
causeofact i
onf ordamagesi sext inguishedagainstallof
them."

Andatpp.205and206:
"It
hinkt
hatt
hesecasesdemonst
rat
e
441
thelimitsoft hei nquir
ywhi cht hej udgemayunder takein
theev entofasubsequentact i
onbei ngr ai
sedagai nst
anotheral l
egedconcur rentt or t
feasor.Hemayexami ne
thestatementofcl aimi nt hef irstacti
onandt het ermsof
theset t
lementi nor dertoi dentifythesubjectmat terofthe
clai
m andt heext enttowhi cht hecausesofact ionwhi ch
were compr ised ini thav e been i ncluded wi thint he
sett
lement .Thepur poseofdoi ngsowi llbet oseet hatal
l
theplainti
ff'sclaimswer ei ncludedi nt hesett l
ementand
thatnot hi
ngwasexcl udedf rom i twhichcoul dpr operl
y
formt hebasi sforaf urthercl aimf ordamagesagai nstthe
othert ort
feasors.Thei ntentionoft hepar tiesi st obe
foundi nthewor dsoft heset tl
ement .Thequest i
oni sone
astot heobj ectivemeani ngoft hewor dsusedbyt hem in
thecont extofwhathasbeencl aimed.

"Whatt hejudgemaynotdoi sal low t hepl aintifft

oopen
upt hequest i
onwhet hertheamountwhi chhehasagr eed
toacceptf r
om t hef ir
stconcur rentt or
tfeasorundert he
settl
ementr epresentsf ul
lval
uef orwhathasbeencl aimed.
Thatki ndofi nquiry,i
fitweretobeper mitted, couldleadt o
endless l it
igation as one concur r
ent t ortfeasor after
anotherwassuedont hebasist hatt hesumsr eceivedby
thepl ainti
ffinhi ssettl
ement swi tht hosepr ev i
ouslysued
wereopent or evi
ewbyaj udgei nor dertoseewhet heror
nott hepl aintif
fhady etreceiv
edf ullsatisf
act ionforhi s
l
oss. Di ff
erent j udges mi ght ar ri
ve at di f
ferent
assessment soft heamountoft hedamages.Thecour t
woul dt hen hav eto decide whi ch oft hem was t o be
preferredast hebasisf ortheappor t
ionmentbet weent he
vari
ous t ort
feasors.Ido nott hink thatt hi
s can be
regardedasaccept able.Thepr inci pleoff i
nal i
tyrequires
thatther emustbeanendt ol
iti
gat ion.

"
Thequest
iont
her
efor
eis,asMrMcLar
enQC f
ort
he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
CEGBputi t,notwhet hertheplaint
if
fhasr eceivedtheful
l
valueofhi scl aim butwhet herthesum whi chhehas
receivedi nset tl
ementofi twasi ntendedt o bei nful
l
satisf
actionoft het or
t.I
nthiscasethewor dsusedcannot
be const rued as meani ng that the sum whi ch the
deceasedagr eedt oacceptwasi nparti
alsati
sfacti
ononly
ofhi sclaim ofdamages.I twasexpr essl
yaccept edinful
l
andf inalsettlementandsat i
sfact
ionofal lhiscausesof
actioninthest atementofclaim.Iwoul dhol
dt hat

eu442
thet
ermsofhissett
lementwithBabcockext
ingui
shedhi
scl
aim of
damagesagai
nstt
heothertor
tfeasor
s."

PerLor dCl ydeatpp.211and212:" AsIhav eal readysaid,aplaint

iffcan
makei tcl earint heagreementt osett
letheact ionwhet herornothei s
reservi
nghi srightt ogoagai nstanotherper son.Thequest i
onar i
ses
whatv i
ewt helawi stotakeifhehasf ail
edt omaket hepositi
oncl ear.I
s
i
tt obeassumedt hathei sreserv
inghisright,sot hathemustexpr essl
y
statethathei snotdoi ngso?Ori sittobeassumedt hathei snot
reservi
nghi sr i
ght ,sothathemustexpr esslyst atethathei sdoingso?
Wher ethemat teri snotresolvedbythewor dsusedi nt
heagr eementi n
thecont extoft hepar ti
cularcaseonehast or esorttoconsiderati
onsof
poli
cyandpr inciple.

"Itisapl ain mat t

erofpol i
cyt o secur et hatl i
ti
gation should be
terminatedandsuccessi v eclaimsdi scour aged.Thatcanbei ll
ustrated
bythepr ovisioncont ainedi ns4oft heCi vi
lLiabil
i
ty( Contri
bution)
Act1978.Fur theritseemst omet hatt hel aw shoulddi scourageany
opening up ofset t
lement s whi ch par t
ies hav e concluded bet ween
themsel ves,withav i
ew t oanal y
si ngwhet hert heyar esuf fi
cientt o
securewhatt hepar ti
es bel ievedt heywer esecur i
ng,namel yaf ai
r
compr omi seoft hediffer
encesbet weent hem.Thepr oblem suchashas
arisenint hepresentcasecanbeav oidedbyt aki
ngpr oceedingsagai nst
allthepot enti
all
yl i
ablepar ti
esatt heonet i
me.Asamat terofpolicyit
seemst omet hatwher ethemat terisleftint heair aset t
lement
withoneofsev eralpart i
eswhoar ejointlyandsev erallyli
abletot he
samepl ai
ntif
fshoul dinvolvear eleaseoft heot hers.

"Butbeyond allofthatt hebasi cconsiderat

ion both ofpol
icyand
pri
ncipl
emustbet hatwhi l
ethoseinj
uredbyat ortcommi tt
edbyothers
houldbecompensat edt hr
ought heprocessesoft helaw,theyshould
notbeenabledtorecoverdamagesf i
viceover.Suchar esul
toff
endéthe
basi
cpr i
nci
plesofreparati
on,and,whi
le„i
ewasaccept ed—agapossible
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
consequenceoftheoper
ati
onofs4oft he1976Acti
tisnot
toberegardedasanacceptabl
econsequenceofanaccord
andsati
sfacti
on.
"

ReadervMol
esworthBrightCl
egg(afi
rm)[
2007]3All
ER107
Fact
s:Thepl
aint
if
fs'f
atherwasinj
uredi
nacaracci
dentowi
ngt
othe
443"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
"
Ihe

negl i
genceofoneRoyCor dingley.Heconsul tedasol i
citorin
thedef endant'
sf irm andanact i
onwasi nsti
tut edf orper sonal
i
nj uri
es.Hehowev erdiedi nthecour seoft hepr oceedingsand
thesol ici
tornegligent l
ydiscont i
nuedt heact i
on.Thepl ainti
ffs
l
at ersuedt hedef endantf orprofessionalnegl igencecl ai
mi ng
that wi thout the sol i
cit
or'
s negl igence,t hey coul d hav e
amended t he clai m t oi nclude damages undert he Fat al
Acci dents Act.I tf ellt o be det ermined whet her t he
discontinuanceoft heper sonalinjur
iesclaim ext i
nguishedany
claim undertheFat alAccidentsAct .
Hel d:Anact i
onundert heFat alAccidentsActwasasepar ate
cause of act i
on and t hus coul d not be af fected by a
discont i
nuanceofanact i
onf orpersonalinj
uries.
Principle:Anactionf orl
ossofdependencyi snotaf fectedbya
set t
lementora di sconti
nuance ofan act ion f orper sonal
injuri
es.

PerSmi t
hLJatp.117, pars.36—38:[ 36]' '
Inmyv i
ew,
i
ti scl earfrom s1oft he1976Actt hat,ifatt he
momentofhi s death,an i njur
ed claimanthas an
existi
ngcauseofact i
onar i
singfrom thewr ongf ulact
whi chcausedhisi njur
iesandi fhediesast her esultof
thesamewr ongfulact ,asecondcauseofact i
onf or
thebenef i
tofhisdependant scomesi ntobeingatt hat
moment .Alsoatt hemomentofdeat h,theexi st
ing
causeofact ionistransmi ttedtohisest at
epur suantt o
theLawRef orm(Mi scellaneousPr ovi
sions)Act1934.

[37] "
Myownpr act i
calexper iencetal
li
eswi t
ht hatof
MrLi vesey .Iti s wel lr ecogni sed thatt here ar etwo
separateact i
ons.Inaddi tion,itshoul dbenot edt hatthe
twoact ionsar egov er nedbydi fferentli
mitationper i
ods.
Theper sonalinjur
yact ioni sgov ernedbyss11and14of
theLimi tati
onAct1980.I ngener al,t
heact ionmustbe
broughtwi thinthreey earsoft heacci dentorwher ethe
clai
mr elatest oapr ogr essi v
edi sease,withint hr
eey ears
of the dat e on whi ch t he claimant knew or ought
reasonablytohav eknownoft hecl aim.Ont heot herhand,
theclaim undert he1976Acti sgov er
nedbys12oft he
1980Act ,whichpr ovidest hatthecl ai
m mustbebr ought
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
withi
nt hree year
s oft he date ofthe death.These
provi
sionsarenotcompat ibl
ewi ththenotion t
hatthe
1976Actcl ai
mi smer
elyanextensi
onoforamendmentt o
theori
ginalcl
aim.

[
38] "Iconcl
udet
her
efor
ethat
,wheni
nlat
eMar
ch
1995,
Mr

•
444
Lettall adv i
sed Mr s Reader t o consul t ot her
solici
tor s,thedependant s'claim undert he1976Act
was i nt act.Had i t
sv alue been r educed by any
uncer taintyast oi tsv ali
dity?Inmyv i
ew,i thadnot ;i
t
wasasv aluabl easi thadbeenbef or e11Januar y
1995.Li abili
t ywasboundt obeadmi tted,asi thad
beenadmi ttedi nt heper sonali njur
yact ion.Ther e
woul d be an i ssue as t o whet hert he deat h was
causal lyr elated t ot he or iginalacci dentbutt hat
woul dhav ebeeni nissuewhet hert hecl aim hadbeen
commencedbef ore11Januar y1995oraf ter.Ther e
hadbeennodel ayi npr osecut i
ngt hecl aim suchas
mi ghtr educei tsv alue.Thel i
mi tationper iodhadonl y
j
ustbegunt or un.Mr s Readercoul dhav est artedt he
1976 Actact i
on as soon as she i nst r
uct ed new
solici
tor s.Itisappar entt hatAST, oncounsel '
sadv ice,
tookt hev i
ew t hatt hecl aim hadbeendi scont i
nued
andwaswi t
houtv alue.Isupposei twoul dbef ai
rt o
sayt hat ,i
ft heywer eunsur eaboutt hecor rectnessof
theirv iew,t heywoul dper ceivet hecaset obel ess
valuabl et hani twoul dhav ebeeni fthatuncer t
ainty
had notar isen.Howev er,ther e was i nf actno
uncer taintyast hedi ffer
enceofv i
ew ont hei ssueof
l
awwast obedet ermi nedbyt hej udge."

PerLongmoreLJarep.120,par .52:"Nev er
theless
theli
neofauthori
tyhasenabl edMfLi mbt osubmi t
thati
fasettl
ementbeforedeathdisposesofacl aim,
so musta settl
ementaf terdeat h because there
cannotbeanyl ogi
caldisti
nctionbetweent het wo
sit
uati
ons.Idonotagree,becausedeat hdoesmake
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
allthe di fference.Bef ore deat h,no dependency
clai
m Canexi st .Oncedeat hoccur s,adependency
clai
m canar i
seand,l ogically,timef ort hatcl aim
beginst orun.Soi tmustber egar dedasset tledat
thelev eloftheCour tofAppeal t
hat ,ifbef or
edeat ha
clai
mi ssettledorpr oceedst oj udgment ,thecl aimi n
respect of t he per sonali njury cl aim i sf inally
disposedof .Oncedeat hoccur s,howev er,(prov ided
thatt heper sonali njuryisnotf inal l
yconcl uded)a
dependencycl aim canar i
se.I twi llthenbeamat ter
ofconst r
uingt hetermsofanyset tlementt odeci de
whethert hatset tl
ementdi sposednotonl yoft he
clai
m oft hei njuredper son( nowr epr esentedbyhi s
estate)butal sooft heexi stingdependencycl aim.I
agreet hatint hiscaset he ost ensi blyaut hor ised
settl
ementonl ysettledt heest ate'scl aim andnott he
dependencycl aim.Itf ol
lowst hatIagr eewi th
Srni
thLJt hatt hesecondpr eliminar yi ssueshoul dbeanswer
ed

445"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

notagai nstT&N.MrTr owersubmi ttedt hattheempl oyees

coul dbyanappr opri
ateprovi
siontot hateffectinthesceme
compr omi setheirf ut
uredependant s'cl ai
msagai nstt h EL
i
nsur ers.I
nmyj udgmenttheyhav enopowert odosandsuch
a scheme woul d notbi nd theirfut ur
e dependant s.The
statutoryclai
msofdependant sareper sonaltothem,asart he
ri
ght sinduecour sev est
edi nthem undert he 1930
Act .Theempl oyeeshav enoaut hor
ityundert he 1930
Actoratcom onl aw tocompr omiseorwai ve those
cl
ai ms,eitherindivi
duort hr
oughaschemeof
arrangement .
"

Ver
oni
caMahonvGer
ardJBur
ke[
1991]I
R495
Fact s:Thedeceasedcommencedanact i
onf ordamagesf or
personali njuri
es suf f
ered owing tot he negligence oft he
defendant .hecl aim wasset t
led bycompr omisebef or ehi s
deat h.Onhisdeat h,theplai
nti
ff,thewifeofthedeceased,sued
fordamages f orf uneralexpens s,ment aldistress,loss of
consor ti
um andinjurytothedependant s.
Held:Si ncet hedeceasedset tl
edhi sclaim beforehi sdeat h,the
plainti
ffhadnocauseofact i
on.
Principl
e:Wher eani njuredparty,whohasbr oughtaper sonal
inj
ur i
esact i
onwhi chi ssett
ledbycompr omise,di esafterthe
settlement,thedependant sarepr ecl
udedfrom bringingaf atal
accidentclaim oracl aimforfuneralexpensesinr elat
iontohi s
deat h.

PerLavanJatp.499:" Theaut horit

iesadvancedbyMr
Humphries and MrKi nlen are suppor t
ed by lat
er
Engli
shauthori
tiestotheef fectthatthef actt
hatthe
vi
cti
m hadbr oughtaper sonalinj
uryactionwhichwas
sett
ledorsuedt ojudgmentpr ecludedthedependants
fr
om bri
ngingaf at
alaccidentsclaim onhisdeath.
"

Andatp.500: "Toholdotherwisewoul dbetosubjecta

defendantt otwoactionsar i
singf rom onecauseof
acti
on.Int hecir
cumstancesIt hereforeholdthatthe
compr omisebythedeceased, ofhiscauseofact i
onin
thesum ofL123, 000againstbot hdef endantscaused
the mer ging of the beneficiari
es'ent it
lement to
maintainanact i
onagai nstthedef endantsfoll
owing
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
hi
s deat h.Ther
eforether
e was notvest
ed i
nt he
deceasedacauseofact i
onent
it
lingt
heplai
nti
ffto
i
nvoket heprovi
sionsofs48ors49,sub-s2oft he
Civi
lLi
abi l
i
tyAct
,1961.
"

"
448

NATUREOFI
NTERESTSCREATEDBYTHEREFORMS
Bl
akevMi
dlandRai
l
wayCo.(
1852)18QB93
Facts:Thepl ainti
ff
ssued f ordamagesf orthedeat hoft he
deceasedr esul t
ingf r
om thenegligenceoft hedefendant.The
tr
ialjudgedirectedt hejur
ytotakei ntoconsiderat
ionthement al
sufferi
ngandt helossofsocietytot hedependantsi nassessi
ng
damages.
Held:Ment alsuf f
eri
ngandl ossofsoci et
ywer enott obeconsideredi
n
assessingdamages.
Pri
nciple:Compensat i
onundertheacti sforpecuniar
ylossonlyand
ment alsuff
eringandl ossofsociet
ycannotbeconsi deredin
assessingdamages.

HessevAccr
aMuni
cipal
Counci
l[19641GLR399
Fact s: The plaintiff successfull
y sued t he defendant f or
negl i
genceincausi ngt hedeathofhisson.Thedef endantargued
thatt heplai
nti
ff,asf atherofthedeceased,wasnotent it
ledt o
anydamagesi nhi si ndivi
dualcapacit
ysincehewasnotder i
vi
ng
anypecuni ar
ybenef itfrom t
hedeceasedatt hetimeoft hedeat h
oft hedeceasedper son.
Held:Si ncetherewast hepr obabi
li
tythatt heplainti
ffwoul d
somedaybenef itfrom t hedeceased,hewasent i
tledtodamages
forthatprospectivel oss.
Principl
e:Thebasi sf ortheact i
oni ntortispecuni ar
yl ossi ncl
udi
ng
prospectivel
oss.

PerOllennuJSCatp.404:I ti
scor r
ectthatthebasisof
anactionundert heFatalAccidentsActispecuniaryloss
suff
eredbyt hedependant sinconsequenceoft hedeat h.
Thepecuni arylossincl
udesapr obableprospecti
veloss.
TheprincipleisstatedinClerk&Lindse//onTor ts(12th
ed.)
,para.397asf oll
ows:'Thebasisoftheact i
onist he
pecuniary l oss suf f
ered by t he dependant s i n
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
consequenceoft hedeceased'sdeath.Not hi
ngmaybe
giv
enbywayofsol ati
um.Ifnopecuni arylossi sproved
the def endantis enti
tl
ed to succeed.Buti tis not
essentialt hatther
e should be distinctev idence of
pecuniar yadvant
ageactuall
yderi
vedf r
om t hedeceased
pri
ortohi sdeath.Prospecti
velossmaybet akeninto
account ,buti tmustbe t he l
oss ofa ' reasonable
expectat in of pecuniary advantage,'not a ' mere
speculat i
vepossi
bil
it
y'
..
..

"
Andt
hati
sthepr
inci
plewhi
chthel
ear
nedj
udgeshoul
d
have

449•
appli
ed. Alt
hough he properl
y directed hi mselfthat
pecuniar
ylossisthebasisofsuchacl aim,hef ai
ledto
dir
ecthis att
enti
on t
o prospect
ivel oss.Howev er
,that
i
ssuehasnotbeenr ai
sedint hi
sappeal ,andwewoul d
ther
eforesaynomoreaboutit.I
tisenoughher etorest
ate
thepri
ncipl
eoflawappl
icabl
etosuchcases. "

BarnettvCohen[ 1921]KB461
Facts:Thepl ai
ntiffsuedfordamagesf ort
hedeathofhisinfantson
resul
tingf rom thenegl i
genceoft hedefendants.Thesonatt he
dateofhi sdeathwasj ustunderfouryear
s,bri
ghtandhealthy.The
plai
nti
f fclai
medf or,amongothers,l
ossofreasonableexpectati
on
ofpecuni arybenef i
tandburi
alexpenses.
Hel
d:Bur
ial
expenseswer
enotr
ecov
erabl
e.

PerMcCar di
eJatpp472and473:" Thesuggestedheads
ofdamage,ot herthant heoneIhav eabov edealtwith,are
clearlyinv al
i
d.Thebur ialexpensesar enotr ecoverable:
seeCl arkvLondonGener a/Omni busCo.Upont hesame
principleIam debar r
edf r
om allowingeithertheexpenses
i
ncur redbyt hepl ai
ntiff
,indef er
encet ohisreli
giousdut i
es
asaJew, inprocuringawat cherupont hebodyofhi sdead
child,ort helosshewasputt othrought helikeduti
esi n
abst aini
ngf r
om busi nessl aboursforaspaceoft imeaf t
er
thedeat h.Isympat hisewi ththeplainti
ffinthelossofhi s
child,butIam bound i nlaw t o givejudgmentf ort he
def endants."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Baay
evPr
empeh(
unr
epor
ted)

DAMAGESRECOVERABLE
A.Dependantscan onl
yclaim fora reasonabl
e expect
ati
on of
pecuni
aryadv
antagebutnotspecul
ati
vepossibi
l
ity
.

AgbedorvYeboa[
1981]GLR769
Facts:Thedeceased,aged20,di edi namot oracci
dentwhent he
defendant '
scarski ddedofft her oad.Pr iort ohisdeath,hehad
obtainedhi sCi t
yandGui ldsCer t
ificatefort el
ecommuni cat i
ons,
practicalmat hemat i
csandengi neeri
ngsci encewi thdist
inct
ionand
evidence showed t hatpeopl e wi t
ht hatqual i
fi
cati
on had hi gh
prospect s.Inanact i
onbytheadmi nistrat
orsonbehal fofthef at
her,
uncle and f oury oungersiblings as dependant s,they claimed
damagesf orlossofexpect
ationofl i
f eandl ossofprospecti
ve

•
450
dependency.The t r
ialjudge granted t
he cl ai
m forloss of
expect
ati
on of l i
fe but not pr ospect
ive dependency.The
admini
strat
orsappeal ed.Held:Thepl ai
nti
ffswer eentit
ledt o
damages f or l
oss of pr ospective dependency since t he
dependants had a f ut
ure pecuniary advantage. Pr
inci
pl e:
Damagesf orpr ospectiv
edependencyar er ecover
ableifthe
dependants hav
el osta r easonable pr
obabilit
yofpecuni ar y
advant
age.

PerChar lesCrabbeJAatpp.773and774:" Onr eading

the evidence as a whol e.Iwoul d come t ot he
conclusionthatther eisevidenceuponwhi cht obase
an assessment of a r easonable expect at i
on of
pecuniary advantage,as adv anced by Wi ll
es J.i n
Dalt
onvSout hEast ernRy.Co.( 1858)4C.B.( N. S.)296
andappr ovedbyVi scountHal daneL.C.inTaf fVal eRy.
Co.vJenki ns (supra).Law does notoper atei na
vacuum.I nsuchmat ter
sasappearont hef act soft hi
s
case,wecannot —indeedwemustnot —losesi ghtof
ourownsoci alcondi ti
onswhendeal i
ngwithquest i
ons
ofdependency .Ourf amil
yst r
ucture,t
her elationships
thatnor mall
y existbet ween sons and f ather s and
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
between daught
ers and mother
si n t
his count
ry
demandsomeconsi derat
ioni
nmat t
erssuchast he
present
.

"Thelaw,whet herstatut
ory,commonl aworcustomar y,
i
st hepr oductofsoci alconditi
ons.Accountt herefore
needst obet akenoft hecharacter
ist
icsofthesy stems
ofoursoci alconditi
ons.Theconst r
aint
sofoursoci al
condit
ions demand cogni sance by ourl egali deas,
especiall
yi n such cases as the instantone.Fr om
whatev erareaonecomesf rom inGhana,towhat ever
communi t
yone bel ongs,the factsofoursoci all i
fe
cannotbei gnored.

"Insituationsl i
keours,whereunclesandaunt sexpecta
returnf rom us because t hey had,in some smal l
measur e—per haps an i
nfini
tesimal
measur e—cont ri
butedtoourbei ng,whereourr elati
ons
expectt hatoncewear egrownupwewoul dbeabi t
'
sensi bl
e' ,we cannotdi vorce such pract
icalr eali
ti
es
from consi derati
ons whi ch giver i
se to claims t o
dependency .Moresowi t
hourownf at
hersandmot hers.
Ther emaybedev i
ati
ons;butbyandl ar
ge,whatIhav e
statedist henorm ofoursocietyInsuchmatters.

"Theyhavenursedandnurt
uredusfr
om thecradl
e.They
haveprov
ideduswit
heducat
ionandot
hercomf
ortsofl
if
e.
451•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Inmanycases,t heyhav edeni edt hemsel vessi mpl e
comfortsinor dertoprov i
deuswi theducat ionandt he
l
itt
lecomf or
tsofourexi stence.Wher et heydi dnot
have educat i
on,t heyhav e done ev eryt
hi ng i
nt heir
powertogi v
euseducat ion.I l
lit
erateast heyar e,they
havesoughtt omakeusl iterate.Idonott hi
nkt hat
natur
all
yt heydonotexpectsomer eturnf rom us.They
know thatt he cont r
ibutions t hatt hey had made
towardsourgr owi ngupwoul dbecompensat edf orat
somest age,andwhenwear eabl et oear nal i
ving.
Knowingt hecondi ti
onsint hiscount ry,Idonott hinkI
cansayt hatsuchexpect at i
onsar enotr easonabl e."

Atp.775:" I
nt heinstantcase,wear edeal i
ngwi tht he
i
ssueofpr ospecti
v edependency .Thef ail
uresoft he
plai
ntif
finAl imatuvBoamehar enotthef ai
luresoft he
appell
ant sinthepr esentcase.Wher eAli
mat uf ai
ledon
the facts,t he appellantsi nthe presentcase had
succeededont hef acts.Thelegalconsiderationsar e
thusnott hesame.Andbecauset hepl ainti
ffint hat
casef ail
edont hef acts,thecourt'
sdi ctabasedon
BarnettvCohenwer enotr eal
l
yger manet ot hei ssue
beforeit.Theydi dnotf or
mt herati
odeci dendioft hat
case.

"Iwoul dthereforepr eferthemor ereasonabl eapproachof

DaltonvSout hEaster nPg.Co.asappr ovedinTaf fValePy.
Co.vJenki ns.Inthesecases,suchast hepresentone,
whatwear edeal i
ngwi thisnospecul at
ionatal l
.Wear e
dealingwi tht hetheor yofpr obabil
iti
es.Thepr obabil
it
ies
thatSi mon woul d become Pet er
—t he suppor toft he
declini
ngy earsofhi sf ather.Themaj orityoftheciti
zensof
Ghana—asi ndeedt hemaj orit
yofal lotherhumanbei ngsin
thewor ld—donotmeetwi ththeirdeathatt heageof20as
didSi mont hrought henegl i
genceofsomeot herpersonor
persons.I not herwor ds,whatwer et hechancesoft he
fatherbei ngl ookedaf t
erbyt hedeceased,hadnott he
accidentoccur redandSi monhadmetwi ththisdeath?"

Andatp.777:" Therealissueforthi
sappeal,however,
i
st hedismissalbythelearnedtri
aljudgeoftheclai
m
forprospect
ivedependency.Readingsecti
on18( 1)(
a)
oft heAct,itisclearthatdamagesf orprospecti
ve
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
dependency coul
d be awar ded. And,as already
demonstrat
edbyr ef
erencetothedecidedcases,the
cl
aimf orl
ossofprospecti
vedependencyoughtnotto
have

•
452
beendi
smi
ssed.Iwoul
d,t
her
efor
e,al
l
owt
heappeal
."
ManuvKakr
aba[
1962]1GLR341
Facts:A14y earoldMi ddleForm 4boywaski lledbyt he
negligenceoft hedefendants.Pri
ortohisdeath,heusedt o
helpi nculti
vati
ngt hefarm andhel pedfetchfi
rewoodand
foodst uff
s.The mot herand gr andmother cl aimed for
damages.
Held:Si ncethedeceasedwoul dhav econti
nuedtohel pinthe
farm had he notdi ed,the dependants were entitl
ed to
damages.
Principle:Damagesar er ecover
ableforreasonableexpectati
onof
pecuni arybenefi
t.

PerBr uce- LyleJatp.344:" Acl aimf ordamages

undert heFat alAcci dent sActof1846cansucceedi f
plaintiffestabl i
shespecuni arylossasar esultofdeat h,
andt hesor tofpecuni arylosst obepr ov edhasbeen
welldef inedi nt hecaseofTaf fVal eRai l
wayCo.v .
Jenki ns4as' ar easonabl eexpect ationofpecuni ar y
benef itfrom t hecont inuanceofl ife'
.Itisnotessent ial
thatt here shoul d be di sti
nctev idence ofpecuni ar y
adv ant ageact uallyder ivedf rom t heaeceasedpr i
ort o
hisdeat h.Wi tht hisbackgr oundoft hel aw If indt he
evidenceoft hepl aintiffthati twasherwi sht hatt he
deceased Kwame Boaky e be empl oy ed int he ci v i
l
serv i
ceaf tercompl eti
nghi sel ement aryeducat ionof
veryl ittl
ev aluet ot hiscour t
.Ther ei s,howev er ,the
evidenceoft hepl aintiffthathersonKwameBoaky e
helpedheront hef arm bef or ehisdeat h.Althought he
plaintiffdidnotsayi nherev idencet hatBoaky ewoul d
hav e cont inued t o hel p heron t he f arm af terhi s
element aryeducat ion,Ifindi tapr obabl eincidencet hat
Boaky ewoul dhav econt inuedt ohelpt hepl ai
nt i
ffon
thef ar m af terl eav i
ngschoolupt ot het imet hathe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
woul
dhav
esecur
edempl
oymenti
ntheci
vi
lser
vice.

"Ithereforehol
dt hatthisevidenceoft hepl ai
nti
ff
certai
nly shows a r easonable expect at
ion of
pecuniary benefit to t he pl ai
ntif
f and t he
grandmot herfr
om t hecontinuanceoft hel i
feof
Boakye.Iam t hereforesati
sfiedthatt hepl ai
nti
ff
hassucceededi npr ovi
ngpecuni ar
ylosst oherself
and tot he grandmot herwhi ch enti
tl
es hert o
succeedonhercl ai
m. "

Addai
vAt
tor
neyGener
al[
1976]2GLR412
Fact
s:A15-
year
-ol
dgi
rlwasknockeddownandki
l
ledbyacardr
ivenby

453•
the second def endant,an empl oyee oft he Mini
stry of
Education.Thepar ti
essubmi tt
edf orconsentj udgmenta
settl
ementt hatincl
udedl ossofdependency .Therewasno
proveofanyl ossofdependencyi nthepleadings.
Held:Si nce the plaint
iff
s had notpr oved any loss of
dependency ,theywerenotent it
ledt odamagesf orlossof
dependency .
Princi
ple:Part
icular
sofl ossofdependencymustbepl eaded
andpr oved.

PerMensaBoi sonJatp.413:" Thef i

rstpoi ntwas
thatpar t
icularsofl ossofdependencyshoul dbe
pleadedt oshow,asf oundati
onf orev i
dence,t hat
theplainti
f fcouldbesai dtobeabenef i
ciaryof' a
reasonable expect ati
on ofpecuni ary benef i
t[ or
money '
swor th]f r
om t hecontinuanceofl ife'oft he
deceaseddaught er,asst atedi nt heheadnot et o
TaffValeRai hv qyCo.vJenki ns[1913]A. G.1, H.L.In
assessingsuchpr ospecti
vedamagest hecour thas
to haver egardt ot he facts oft he deceased' s
contri
butionatt het imeofherdeat h.'Becausei n
mostcases t he mostr eli
able guide as t o what
wouldhappeni nthef utur
eifthedeceasedhadl ived
i
swhatdi di nf acthappeni nthepastwhenhewas
ali
ve..
.'perDi plock L. J.(as he t hen was)i nv
Plummer[ 1963]2W. L.R.1213atp.1226, C.A."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Andatp.414:" Thatt hel ossofdependencyi snot
specul ati
ve is agai n shown by t he f oll
owing
statementoft hel aw:' obv i
ouslyi ti si mpor tantto
deter mine what cont ri
bution the deceased has
made t ot he defendant sf rom hi s ear nings and
evidenceofhi shousehol dfinanci alar rangement s
shoul dbeadduced'( seeSt r
eetonPr incipl esoft he
Law ofDamages,p.149) .Agai nt hesamel earned
authoratp.158 under li
nes t he i mpor tance of
prov ingexpectantlossev enasr egar dst hedeat hof
childrenwhenhest ates:'Nospeci alpr obl em ar i
ses
fr
om t hedeathofachi ld.Ther eisnomi ni mum age
whi ch the child musthav e at tained bef oret he
dependant can sue. He can r ecov er f uneral
expensesi ncurr
edbyhi m,whet herhecanr ecover
any thing el
se depends upon hi s pr ov i
ng l oss of
prospect i
vebenef i
t."'

Taf
fVal
eRai
l
wayCo.vJenki
ns[
1913]AC1
Facts:Theplai
nti
ff
's16-y
ear-
olddaughterwaski l
ledbyt he
negli
genceofthedefendant.Atthetimeofherdeat h,the
deceased had 2 months l
eftin herapprent
iceshi
p as a
dressmakerandwouldhav eearnedremunerati
onf rom her
workalmostimmediat
ely.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Held:Al t
hought hedeceasedwasatt het imeofherdeat hnot
earning anyi ncome,t herewasa r easonabl eprobabili
tyofher
earning money i f she had l i
ved and t hus the act i
on was
mai ntainable.
Principle:Itisnotacondi t
ionprecedentt othemai ntenanceofan
actionundert heFatalAcci dent
sAct ,t hatt hedeceasedshoul d
hav ebeenact ual
lyearningmoneyormoney '
swor t
horcont r
ibut
ing
tot hesuppor tofthepl ai
nti
ffatorbef oret hedateoft hedeat h,
prov i
ded t hat the pl aint
if
f had a r easonabl e expectat
ion of
pecuni arybenef i
tfr
om t heconti
nuanceoft hel if
e.

PerVi scountHal daneLC atp.4:" Theact ioni sbr ought

underLor d Campbel l
'
s Actby t he fatheron behal fof
himselfandt hemot herf ordamagesf ort hel ossoft he
daught er.Nowwehav ehear dagooddealofaut hor i
tycited
astowhatt hef oundationofsuchanact i
oni s,butIdonot
thi
nkt her eismuchdi ffi
cul t
yi ncomi ngt oaconcl usionas
tothepr inciplewhichunder li
esthoseaut horit
ies.Thebasi s
i
s notwhathas been cal led solati
um,t hati st o say,
damagesgi venf ori njuredf eel
ingsoront hegr ounctof
sentiment ,butdamages based on compensat i
on f ora
pecuniaryl oss.Butt henl ossmaybepr ospect iv
e,andi tis
quit
ecl eart hatprospect ivel ossmaybet akeni ntoaccount .
Ithasbeensai dthatthisi squal i
fiedbyt hepr oposi ti
ont hat
thechi ldmustbeshewnt ohav ebeenear ningsomet hing
before any damages can be assessed.Iknow ofno
foundat i
on i n pri
nciplef ort hatpr opositi
on ei theri nt he
statut
eori nanydoct rineofl awwhi chisappl i
cabl e;nordoI
thi
nki ti sr eall
yest abl i
shedbyt heaut hor i
tieswheny ou
exami net hem. "

PerLor d Atkinson atp.7:" Ithink ithas been wel l

establishedbyaut hori
tythatal lthatisnecessar yi sthata
reasonabl e expect ati
on ofpecuni ary benefitshoul d be
entertainedbyt heper sonwhosues.I tisqui tetruet hatthe
existenceoft hisex pectationisani nfer
enceoff act-t here
mustbe a basi s off actf rom whi ch the inference can
reasonabl ybedr awn;butIwi sht oexpr essmyemphat i
c
dissentf rom thepr opositionthatitisnecessar yt hattwoof
thef actswi thoutwhi cht heinferencecannotbedr awnar e,
fi
rst,thatt hedeceasedear nedmoney i nthepast ,and,
second,t hatheorshecont ri
butedt ot hesuppor toft he
plainti
ff.Thesear e,nodoubt ,pregnantpi ecesofev i
dence,
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
buttheyareonl
ypiecesofevi
dence;andthenecessar
y
i
nfer
encecanIt
hinkbedr
awnfr
om cir
cumstances

455•
ot
hert
hananddi
ff
erentf
rom t
hem.
"

PerLor dShawofDunf erml ineatp.8:" MyLor ds, thisisacasenotatal l

singular—i ndeedi tisqui tet ypical.Asonordaught ermaybeeducat ed
forabusi nesst heappr ent iceshi ptowhi chy ieldsmoney ,andt hewages
i
nsuchabusi nessgener allyar eonahumbl escal e.Heorshemayon
the otherhandbeeducat edi nat radeori napr ofessioni nwhi ch
thet r
ainingorappr enticeshi pisnotonewhi chy iel
dsanypr ofi
tatal l,but
i
n whi ch t he r ewar d af t
er war ds is much gr eater,pr obablyi n
consequenceoft heexcl usi onofcompet i
ti
onbyr easonoft heper i
odof
unpai dprobat ion.Insuchacaset hepar ent sst andt hechar gedur i
ngt he
whol eappr ent i
ceshi port rainingoft hechi ld,andj ustast hateducat ion
i
saboutt ocl ose,t helifei scutof f
.MyLor ds,asIsay ,t
hepr esentcase
i
snotasi ngul arone,buti tist y pi
caloft hoseci rcumst ancesi nwhi ch
therei sar easonabl eexpect ationofpr of i
t,because,myLor ds,i tison
accountoft heexpect ationofpr of i
t,andpr obabl yofpr ofitonahi gher
scale,thatt hatmodeofeducat ion,upbr inging,andt r
ainingoft hechi l
d
hasbeenpur sued.Ihav easkedcounseli nvai nint hecour seoft hecase
todi sti
ngui shanexpect at i
oni nsuchasi tuationi npr inciplef rom t he
ordinaryexpect at
ioni nthecaseofwagesbei ngear nedatt het ime, butI
havenotbeenabl et oobt ainananswer ,andi npr i
nciple,myLor ds,there
i
snoanswer .Intheonecaseasi nt heot hert her easonabl eexpect ation
ofpr ofitisdest royed,andwhet hert herewasear ni
ngatt het i
meor
earning onl yi n Pr ospect u,i tdoes notappeart o me t o af fectt he
quest i
onofpr inci
ple."

PerLor dMoul tonatp.10:" Thef actofpastcont ribut ionmaybe

i
mpor tantin st rengtheni
ng t he probabi l
it
y off ut ure pecuni ary
advantage,buti tcannotbeacondi t
ionpr ecedentt ot heexist ence
ofsuchapr obabi li
ty.Thisisespeci all
yev i
dentwher e,asi nt he
presentcase,thenon- contri
butionisf ull
yaccount edf orbyt hef act
thatthedeceasedhadbeendev ot
inghert i
met opr epar ingher self
forskil
ledworki nthef ut
uretot heexcl usi
onofi mmedi ateearni ngs.
Hernothav i
ngcont ri
butedinthepastdoesnott heref oremi l
itatei n
anywayagai nstt hepr obabil
ityoft hatwi ll
ingnesst oassi sther
parentswhichthej uryheremi ghtreasonabl yfind."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Barnet
tvCohen(
supr
a)
Facts:
(supr
a)
Held:Sincetheplainti
ffcouldnotprovethattherewasar easonable
probabili
tyofpecuniarybenefitaccr
uingtohim, hewasnotent it
led
toaclaimf orlossofpecuni ar
ybenefit
.
Princi
ple:Damagesar er ecoverabl
ef orreasonableprobabil
i
tyof
pecuniaryadvantagewhi chmustbepr ovedbyev idencebutnotby
thespecul at
ivepossibil
i
tyofbenef i
t.

PerMcCar dieJatp.470:" Nowt hisquesti

onofr easonable
expectati
onofpecuni ar
yadv antageseemst omet obea
mixedquest i
onoff actandl aw.Mer edi
ffi
cultyi nassessing
damagesshoul dnotbarapl ainti
fffr
om recov eri
ng:seet he
pri
ncipleinv
olvedinChapl i
nvHi cks.But
,ont heot herhand,I
thi
nk thatt he plai
ntiffmustadduce such ev i
dence as
aff
ordst hejudgea r easonabl ebasisonwhi cht oi nf
erthat
pecuniarydamagehasbeeni nfli
ctedonthepl ainti
ff
."

Atp.471:" Ithi
nkthatt heonlywayt odisti
ngui
shbet ween
thecaseswher et hepl ai
nti
ffhasf ai
l
edf r
om thecases
wherehehassucceededi stosaythatint hefor
merthereis
amer especul ati
vepossi bil
it
yofbenef i
t,whereasint he
l
atter therei sar easonable probabili
ty of pecuni
ary
advantage.Thel atterisassessabl e.Thef ormerisnon-
assessable.Thistest,thoughnecessar i
lyloose,seemst o
betheonl yonetoappl y.
"

Andatp.472:" Inthepr esentactiont hepl ai nti

ffhasnot
sati
sfi
ed me t hathe had a r easonabl e expect ati
on of
pecuniarybenef i
t.Hischi l
dwasunderf oury earsol d.The
boywassubj ecttoal lther i
sksofillness,disease,acci dent
anddeat h.Hi seducat i
onandupkeepwoul dhav ebeena
substanti
albur dentot hepl aint
iffformanyy ear sifhehad
l
ived.Hemi ghtormi ghtnothav eturnedoutausef ulyoung
man.Hewoul dhaveear nednothingt il
laboutsi xteeny ears
ofage.Hemi ghtnev erhav eaidedhi sfatheratal l
.Hemi ght
havepr ovedamer eexpense.Icannotadequat elyspecul ate
onewayort heot her .Inanyev enthewoul dscar celyhav e
beenexpect edt ocont ribut etothef ather'
si ncome,f ort he
plai
nti
ffev ennowpossesses1000/ay earbyhi sbusiness
andmayi ncreasei tf urt her
,norcoul dt hesonhav ebeen
expectedt oai di ndomest i
cser vi
ce.Thewhol emat t
eri s
besetwi t
hdoubt s,cont ingencies,anduncer taint i
es.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

457.

Equal l
yuncer tain,too,isthel i
feoft heplainti
ffhi mselfin
view ofhi s poorheal th.He mi ghtormi ghtnothav e
sur vi
vedhi sson.Thati sapoi ntf orconsideration,for,as
waspoi ntedoutbyBr ayJ. ,whensi tt
ingint heCour tof
Appeal ,inPricevG/ yneaandCast l
eCoalCo. :'
Wher ea
claimi smadeunderLor dCampbel l
'
sAct ,asitisher e,i
tis
notonl y a quest ion oft he expect at
ion ofl i
fe oft he
deceased man,butt her
ei s also a quest ion oft he
ex pectat
ionoft hel i
feoft heclaimant '
.Upont hef actsof
thiscaset hepl ainti
ffhasnotpr ov eddamageei theract ual
orpr ospective.Hi sclaimi spressedt oext i
nct i
onbyt he
wei ghtofmul ti
pl i
edcont ingencies.Theact i
ont her ef
ore
fails.
"

B.Benefi
tsaccruingbyv i
rt
ueofabusi
nessr
elat
ionshi
par
enott
o
betakenintoaccount.

SykesvNor
thEast
ernRai
l
wayCo.11874— 801Al
lER
RepExt
1892; (1875)32LT199; LJCP191
Facts:Thedeceased,a23- year-old man,wasempl oyed byhi s
fatherandwaspai dordinarywage.Fol lowinghi sdeat howi ngt o
thenegl i
genceoft hedef endant ,thepl ainti
ffsuedcl aimingamong
otherst hathecoul dnotsecur et hekindofcont ractshesecur ed
duringt hel i
feti
meoft hedeceasedsi ncet hesonwasv eryski l
ful
andv eryinstrumentalinhi swor k.Hel d:Sincethepl ai
ntif
fdidnot
enjoy any pecuni ary benef itf rom t he deceased sav et heir
cont r
act ualrel
ati
onship, t
heplaint iff
'sactionwasnotmai ntainable.
Principle:Pecuniaryadv antagear isingfrom contractualorbusi ness
rel
at i
onshi psisnotrecov erabl
e.

PerBr et
tJatp.1893:" Ther
ei sno evi
dencet hatthe
pl
ainti
ff recei
ved any pecuniary benef
it from t he
conti
nuanceofhisson'
slif
e.Thesonwasoff ullage,and
workedforf ai
rwages,t
hear r
angementsbetweenf at
her
andsonbei ngpur
elymat
tersofcontr
act
.

PerGr
oveJatp.1893:"
Lor
dCampbel
l'
sActwasintended
t
ocompensat
ef orthel
ossofapecuni
arybenef
itwhich
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
hadbeender i
vedfrom rel
ati
onshipt othepersonki l
ledby
the negli
gence ofanot her.In Frankl
in vSout h-Eastern
Rail
wayCompany( 1858,3H&N211) ,thefatherwasol d
andi nfi
rm,andt hesonassi stedhi minear ni
ngwages
from mot i
vesoff i
lialaf
fecti
on.Her ethefatherpai dt he
sont heordinar
ywages,andt hereisnothi
ngt oshowt hat
thesonwoul dnothav el
eftoffworkingforhisfatherifhe
couldhavegotbet t
erwagesf rom anybodyelse."

Bur
gessvFl
orenceNi
ght
ingal
e[1955]1QB349
Fact s:Thepl ainti
ffandhi swif
ewer edancingpar tnersandear ned
theirl i
ving f
rom danci ng.The moneywas usual l
ypai dtot he
plaintiffandhekepti tinacommondr awerwher ebot hofthem
coul ddr aw f
rom.Thedeceasedwaski l
ledbyt henegl igenceofa
sur geonempl oyedbyt hedef endant.Thepl ai
nti
ffl ostbusiness
becausehecoul dnotf i
ndasuitablepartnertodancewi th.
Hel d:Thel ossofbusi nessbei ng onear isi
ng from abusi ness
relationshipi snotr ecov er
abl
e,butsi ncet heykepta common
accountanddr ew from itfort heirneeds,t hepl ai
nti
fflostthat
pecuni aryadvantageandwasent it
ledtorecover.
Princi ple: Loss ar i
sing from busi ness r elat
ionships i s not
recov er abl
e.

PerDev li
nJatpp.355and356:" I
ti scleart hatt hepl ainti
ff
hasi nf actsust ainedani njury;hehassust ainedal oss.
Why ,t hen,isi tnotr ecov erablei nl aw?Theansweri s,I
think,becauset hel aw mustnecessar i
l
yl i
mi tthescope
wi t
hinwhi chi tcanal lowr ecov ery.Whenev eramandi es, i
f
hei samanofanact ivet ype, i
thasr eper cussi ons, greator
smal l
,on al lt hosewi th whom hehaspr ev i
ousl ybeen
concer ned.Itmayr edoundt ot heirf inanci aladv ant age,or
i
tmayr edoundt ot heirf inanci aldi sadv ant age.I faman
whoi sempl oy edasadepar tment almanager ,forexampl e,
atL3,000ay ear ,i
ssuddenl ykill
ed, someonemayst epi nto
hisshoesandgetal ar geri ncome,andder iveabenef i
t
from hi sdeat h,whi l
esomeoneel se,per hapsasecr etary
whom he par ti
cularl
yl iked,mi ght be t hr own out of
empl oy mentand mi ghthav e dif fi
cultyi n get ti
ng ot her
empl oy mentatt hesamesal ary,andmi ghtt husl oseasum
ofmoney .Allthosel osses,t hought heydonotseem qui te
sodi rectast hel osst ot hehusbandi nt hiscase, arei nf act
stil
lwi t
hinthesamecat egor y .Theyar eal i
ttl
emor eremot e
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
becauseoft hecloseconnexionbetweent hehusbandand
thewi f
easdanci ngpartner
s,buttheyarewi t
hinthesame
category,andthel aw doesnotallow i
t,becauseifitdid
therewoul dbenoendt othecompensat ionwhichwoul d
havet obepai dasar esul
tofsomeper hapsquitesmall
accidentwhi ch coul
d nothav e been f or
eseen by the
wrongdoer .

459z•

"Thatpr inci
plehasbeenr ecentlyv er
ycl earl
yst atedint he
HouseofLor dsi nBestv .SamuelFox& Co.Ld.Lor d
Goddar dsaid:" I
tmayof tenhappent hatani njuryt oone
personmayaf f
ectanot her;aser vantwhosemast eri s
kil
ledorper manent l
yi nj
uredmayl osehi sempl oyment,i t
maybeofl ongst anding,andt hemi sfort
unemaycome
whenhei sofanagewheni twoul dbev erydiff
icultforhim
toobt ai
not herwor k,butnoonewoul dsuggestt hathe
therebyacqui resar i
ghtofact ionagai nstthewr ongdoer .
Damages f orper sonali njur ycan sel dom be a per fect
compensat i
on,butwher ei njuryhasbeencausedt oa
husbandorf at herithasnev erbeent hecaset hathi swi fe
orchi ldrenwhosest y
leofl ivi
ngoreducat ionmayhav e
radicallytobecur tai
ledhav eont hataccountar i
ghtof
actionot herthant hatwhi ch, inthecaseofdeat h, theFat al
Acci dentsAct, 1846, hasgi ven."

Andatp.361:" Ihav e,t

herefore,comet ot heconclusion
thatt
her ewereherenoser vicest hatwererenderedbyt he
wifetothehusband, andtherewasnobenef itari
singinthe
dancingpartnershi
p,thatcanpr oper l
ybeattri
butedt othe
rel
ati
onshipoft hehusbandandwi fe.I
fthi
scl ai
m wer eto
be allowed,t hen any partnerwhose pr ospect s were
simil
arlyaf
fectedbyt hedeat hoft heother
,what everthei
r
rel
ati
onshipwas, oughtlogi
callytobecompensat ed,t
oo."

HayvHughes[ 1975]QB790
Facts:Thepar
entsoft wokidswer eki
lledbythenegli
genceoft he
defendant
.Fol
lowingthedeath,t
heirgrandmothertookthem toher
homeandt ookcar eofthem asamot her.Thedefendantadmi t
ted
l
iabil
it
yanddamageswer eassessed.Theplai
ntif
fclai
medt hatthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
j
udgeerredinnoti ncl
udinginthedamagest heserv
iceswhichthe
gr
andmot herhadbeenr ender
ingasamot her
.
Held:Theservicesthegrandmot herr
ender
edwer enotser
vicesto
betakenintoaccountinassessingdamages.

PerLor dEdmund- Dav i

esLJatp.809:" ..
.inmyj udgment ,
whi let heneedf ort hegr andmot her '
scar eundoubt edly
arose f rom t he mot her'
s deat h,t he v iew whi ch a
reasonabl ej
ur ywoul dbel i
kelytoadoptwoul dbet hatt he
childrenbenef itednotasar esultoft heirmot her'
sdeat h
butsi mpl ybecauset hegr andmot herhadt akeni tupon
hersel ft or endert hem ser vices.Att he t i
me oft heir
mot her'
sdeat hi twasany one'sguesswhatwoul dhappen
tot hem andt hedef endanthasnotdi schargedt heonusof
establ i
shing t hatatt hatt ime t here was a r easonabl e
expect ation thatt he gr andmot herwoul d actas she
subsequent l
y di d. Then aged 49, she al ready had
subst antialdomest i
cr esponsibili
tiesofherown( shehad
three t eenage chi l
dren and she t oo lived i nat hree-
bedr oomedhouse)andi twoul dnothav ebeensur prising
hadshedeci dedagai nstaddingt ot hem.I nmyj udgment ,i
t
woul dbeanunr easonabl econclusi onwer eaj uryorj udge
off actt oholdt hat ,becauseshewasmov edbyt heirplight
toactasshedi d,hergener ousact ionf el
lwi thinsect i
on2
oft heActof1846. "

PeacockvAmusementEqui pmentCo.Lt d[1954]2QB347

Fact s:Thewi feoft hepl ainti
ffwaski l
ledbyt henegl igenceoft he
defendant . She wi l
led her est ate i ncluding a r esidential
accommodat i
onwher eshel i
vedwi tht hepl ai
ntifft
oherchi ldr
en.
Thechi ldrensoldt hepr opertyandv oluntarilygav easum oft he
amountt othepl ai
ntif
f.Inanact i
onbyt hepl ainti
ffundert heFat al
Acci dentsAct ,thedef endantar guedt hatt hesum r eceivedbyt he
plainti
fff rom the chi ldr
en shoul d be consi dered in cal culat
ing
damages.
Held:Si ncet heest atehadf al
lent ot hechi ldrenandt hechi l
dren
voluntarilygav ehimt hemoney ,thatwasnotpay mentmadei n
respectoft he wi fe'
s deat h and coul d notbe consi dered in
calculatingdamages.
Principle:A v oluntarypay mentt o a def endantwhi ch was not
reasonabl yt o be expect ed cannotbe consi dered t or educe
damages.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
PerSomer vel lLJ atp.353:" .
..
in consider i
ng whet her
clai
msot hert hanclai
msofl egalri
ghtar etobebr oughti n,
whet herpay ment shav ebeenmadeornot ,itisimpor tant
toconsi dert heposi t
ionasatt het i
meoft hedeat h:Was
thereatt hatt imeanypr obabili
tyorreasonabl eexpectation
ofabenef it?Appl y
ingthatt esttothepr esentcase,It hink
thatitispl ainont heev i
dencet hattherewasnone.These
stepchil
dr enwer eevidentl
yf ondoft heirfatherandt hey
real
izedt hathehadbenef i
tedfrom theirmot her'
sbusiness
andt heydet erminedoutoft heassetsr eali
zedt omakea
present;butt her
ewasnoexpect ati
onbyhi m ofapr esent
whent hedeceaseddi ed."

Andatp.354:"Why,onemaywellask,shoul
dthedef
endants'
bur
denbeli
ghtenedbythegener
osi
tyofthepubl
ic?
'It
hink461
•

thatonecansayinthesamewayi nthiscase:whyshoul d
the burden on the defendants be l i
ghtened by t he
generosit
yofthestepchi
ldren?Ireal
i
ze,ofcour se,thata
defendantmay find his orherbur den light
ened,f or
i
nstance,byt
hefactthatthedeceased, usuall
yahusband,
hassav edmoneywhichgoest ohiswifeasar esultofthe
death.

"Ithinkthatt hecl uet othispr oblem isf i

rstofal lt o
considerthe actualf actsofBakervDa/ g/eish St eam
ShippingCo.,towhi chIhav er efer
red.Idonotexpr esst he
view atallthatthati sal i
nebey ondwhi chnov oluntary
pay mentwoul dbet akeni ntoaccount— It hinkt hati t
woul d be onlyi nv ery unusualci rcumst ances t hata
voluntar
ypay mentwoul dbet akenintoaccountwhent here
wasnoexpect ati
onofi tatthetimeoft hedeat h.Itseems
tomet hatt hatindicatesf oritselfthatt herei sanov a
causa inter
v eni
ens whi ch makes t he pay mentnoti n
consequence Ofas a r esultoft he deat h withint he
meani ngoft hest atement swhi chhav ebeenmadewi th
regardtothi
spr oblem.

"Toretur
nt othewayi
nwhi chthej
udgeputi
t,Iwoul
dhave
sai
dt hatthispay
mentwasnotmadeast heresul
tofthe
deceased'
sdeath.Ofcour
se,itwoul
dnothavebeenmade
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
unlessthewi fehaddi ed,butIwoul dhav esaidthatitwasthe
result of the st epchil
dren's considerat
ion,and per haps
affecti
on fort heirstepfather.Also,i tis notaccur ateto
describeitaspar tofthewi dow'sestate.Thereisnoev i
dence
ast owhatot herresourcesi fany,t
hest epchil
drenhad.Itwas
at hir
doft heamountwhi cht heygotast heresultofthe
mot her'
swill
."

PerBi rkettLJatp.356:" I,f

ormyownpar t
,am sat i
sfied
thatthispay mentbythesestepchil
drent otheplainti
ffwas
av oluntarypay mentwhi choughtnott o bet akenint o
account .Ihavealgeadypoi ntedoutt hatitisqui t
ecl ear
from allthefact
sthathehadnoexpect at
ionthatanysuch
paymentwoul dbemade,andIam cl eari nmyownmi nd
thatt his was nota pay mentwhi ch was made as a
consequenceoft hewi f
e'sdeath."

Will
iamsvWel shAmbul ance[
2008]EWCACi v71
Facts:Thedeceased,asuccessf ulentrepreneur,wasIdll
edwhen
thedefendant'
sambul anceranintohi scar .Theplai
nti
ffwast he
wifeandapar t
neri
nt hedeceasedper son'sbusinesstogetherwi
th
hischil
drenbut

theyr ecei vedashar eoft hepr of

ithigherthant hewor ktheyhad
actual ly done.Af tert he deat h oft he deceased,t he business
cont inued t o achi eve success and t he pr ofi
tsi ncreased.The
plaintiffsuedonhi sbehal fandonbehal fofthedeceasedper son's
threeadul tchi ldren asdependant s.Thedef endantar gued t hat
sincet hebusi nesscont i
nuedt obesuccessf ul,thej udgeoughtt o
taket hatint oconsi derat i
oninawar dingdamages.
Hel d:Thesuccessoft hebusi nessaf t
erthedeat hoft hedeceased
hadnot hingt odowi tht heassessmentofdamages.
Princi ples:Dependencyi sf i
xedatdeat handnot hingthathappens
aftert hedeat hofaper soncanaf fectthequest ionofdependency .
Thef actt hatt hepl aintif
fhasbeeni nasor tofbusi nesswi t
ht he
deceased does notnecessar i
lymake t heirr elati
onship one of
busi ness i fa r elati
onshi p ofdependency i ndependentoft he
busi nesscanbeest abli
shed.

PerSmit
hLJatpars.49— 53:49."
Thusiti
splai
n,i
nmy
vi
ew,t
hatMrsWil
li
amsandt hechil
drenwer
edependant
s
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
ofMrWi ll
iamsatt hetimeofhi sdeat h.Thef actthateach
ofthem wasaswel lof
faf t
ert hedeat hasbef ore,because
DavidandSar aht ookov erresponsi bili
tyf ormanagi ngt he
businessanddi dsosuccessf ul l
yisnot hi ngt othepoi nt.As
thejudgeobser v ed,adependantcannotbyhi sorherown
conductaf tert hedeat haffectt hev alueoft hedependency
atthet i
meoft hedeat h.Tot akeMr sO' Loughl i
nasan
exampl e,herdependencywast hesamewhet hershet ri
ed
torunt hepr oper t ybusinessbutf ailed, ortri
edt oruni tand
succeededorr ef usedt otryatal l
.Inr efusingt ot r
y ,she
mighthav edeci dedt osellallt hepr oper ti
es,orshemi ght
haveempl oy edsomeonet or uni tasamanagerorshe
mightsi mpl yhav edonenot hingandl eti tr undownhi l
l.
What evershedi dandwi thwhat everr esult,goodorbad,
shecoul dnotaf fectthev alueofherdependencyonher
husbandatt hedat eofhisdeat h.

50." Accordi
ngly,i
nmyj udgment ,JudgeHicki
nbot t
om was
ri
ghtwhenhey el
dthatitwasi rrel
ev antt
hatDavidandSar ah
hadmadeasuccessoft hebusi ness.Thatwasnotbecause
thef i
nancialbenefi
twhicht heyhadbr oughttot hefami ly
wasa' benefi
taccrui
ngasar esultofthedeath'whichhad
tobei gnoredundersection4. .I
twasbecauset hatfinancial
benefitwasirrel
evanttotheassessmentoft hedependency
undersect i
on3.Hewascor rectwhenhesai dthatnothing
thatadependant( orfort hatmat teranyoneelse)coulddo
afterthedeathcould

463"

eit
herincreaseordecr easet hedependency .Thedependencyi s
fi
xedatt hemomentofdeat h;i tiswhatt hedependantswoul d
probabl
yhav er eceived asbenef i
tf r
om thedeceased,had t he
deceased notdi ed.Whatdeci sionspeopl emakeaf t
erwardsi s
i
rrel
evant.Theonl ypostdeat hevent swhicharerelev
antaret hose
whichaffecttheconti
nuanceoft hedependency( suchasthedeat h
ofadependantbef oretrial)andt herise(orfall
)inearningst o
refl
ectt
heef f
ectsofinfl
ation.

51. "Oncei
thasbeenestabl
ishedthatt
hesurvi
vi
ngmember sof
thef
ami
lywer
eindeeddependantsofMrWi l
l
iams,thej
udge'
stask
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
wast oassesst hev alueoft hedependency .Hewasaskedt odo
thatonagl obalbasis.Itwasappar enttothej udgethatt hemet hod
ofassessmentwhi chhadbeenadopt edinWoodandO' Loughli
n
was much t he mostconv enientwayofdoi ng this.Thatwas
because,byf ocussingont hev al
ueoft hedeceased' sser v
ices,it
waspossi bletoexcludeanybenef i
twhi chhadcomet othef amily
byi nheri
tanceundert hedeceased' swi ll
.Anyot hermet hod of
assessmentwoul dhav ebeendi ff
icultandcompl i
cat edbecauseof
theneedt oseparateouti ncomewhi chwasder ivedf rom capital
from thatwhichwasder i
vedf r
om l abour.Themet hodadopt edby
thejudgewentst raighttot hev al
ueoft hedeceased' slabour.The
j
udgewasr ightt
ochooset hi smet hodofassessment .

52. " Fort hesakeofcompl eteness, Iment iont hat,i

nt hecour se
ofhi sr eply ,MrSt evenson soughtt o ar gue a new poi nt.He
submi tt
edt hatt hejudgehadf alleni nt oer rorbecausehehadf ai l
ed
toappr eci atet hatt her elat i
onshi pbet weenMfWi ll
i
amsandt he
othermember soft hef ami l
ywasi nf actabusi nessr elat
ionshi p.He
soughtt or elyonBur gessvFl orenceHospi talf orGent l
ewomen
[1955]I QB 349.Thatcasei saut hor ityf ort hepr opositi
ont hat,
wher ether elat ionshi pbet weent hecl aimantandt hedeceasedwas
primaril
yabusi nessr elations•,t he cl ai mantcannotcl aim a
dependencymer elybecausheorsheal sohappenst ofallwithint he
classofdependant soft hedeceased.TheFat alAcci dentsActdoes
notgi vear i
ghtofr ecov er yf ort hel ossofbusi nesspr ofitssuf fered
byt hesur v i
v ingbusi nesspar tner (s)ont hedeat hofonepar tner .It
prov i
desar ightofr ecov eryf ort hel ossofadependencywhi chi s
foundedi nt her elationshi pofhusbandandwi fe( orpar entandchi ld
orwhat evert her elati
onshi pwas) .Ift her elationshipi spr imar i
ly
thatofbusi nesspar tners, themer efactt hatt hepar tnershappent o
behusbandandwi f
eorf atherandsondoesnotenabl et hesur v i
v or
tocl ai
m adependencyont hedeat hoft heot herpar tner .Ift he
relati
onshi pi s pr imar il
yt hatoff ami ly member shi
p wher et he
deceasedpr ov idessuppor torser vi
cesf orot hermember soft he
fami l
y,itmat ter snott hatt heirf i
nanci alar r angement st aket he
form ofabusi nesspar tner shi p.Idonott hinki twoul dmakeany
differ
encei ft hear rangementwast hatofal imi t
edcompany .The
cour twilll ookatt hesubst anceoft her elat i
onshi pandt her eal
nat ur
eoft hesuppor tpr ov i
ded.

53. " MrStevensonhadnotsoughtt

oarguethispoi
ntbefor
et he
j
udgeanditwast ool
ateforhi
mtodosoi nrepl
yontheappeal.But
i
n any event,the case di
d notassisthim.Any at t
emptt o
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
demonst r
atethatther elat
ionshipsher ewer epr imaril
ybusiness
rel
ati
onshipswasdoomedt of ai
lure.I
twaspl aint hatthemember s
ofthi
sf amilywerebroughti ntowhatwoul dot herwisehav ebeen
MrWi lli
ams'solebusinessbecauset heywer emember soft he
famil
yandi twashi sintenti
ont hattheyshouldbenef itfr
om it
.In
myv i
ew,f arfr
om assi
stingtheappel l
ant,considerati
onofBur gess
underl
inedthecor
rectnessoft hejudge'srul
ing.
"

DrakevFost erWheel erLt d[2011]1Al lER63

Facts:Thedeceasedwasexposedt oasbest oswhi leworki
ngfor
thedef endant .Duringt het er
mi nalst ageofhi si l
l
ness,hewas
gratuitouslypr ovided wi t
h palliat i
ve car e bychar i
tabl
e hospi
ce
foundat ion.Inacl aim agai nstt hedef endantsfoll
owinghisdeath,
thepl ainti
ffclaimedasoneoft heheadsoft hedamagest hecost
ofthecar eprov i
dedbyt hehospi cef oundat i
on.
Held:Ar easonabl enot ionalsum r epr esenti
ngt hecostofthecare
providedbyt hehospi cewasr ecov erablejustasdamageswer e
recover ableforgratuitouscar epr ov idedbyr elat
ives.
Principle:Damagesar er ecov erabl ef orthegr atui
touscarethe
deceasedr eceivedbef or ehisdeat h.

PerJudgeAnthonyThornt
on(si
tt
ingasaDeputyJudge
oftheHighCourt
)atpp.69and70,par
s.31and32:[
31]
"
Iti
snowcl
ear
lyest
abl
i
shedt
hatacl
aimantsuf
fer
ingi
njur
ies

465•

ordiseaset hathav
er esultedfrom adefendant'stort
iousact smay
recov erthecostofbei ngcar edf orornursedbyaf amilymember
whet herornott hecar erhadcont ract
edtopr ovidethoseser vi
ces.
Ifthecar ewassubj ectt oacont ract
ual
lyenforceableagr eement,
theagr eedcost,orar easonablecostwher enosum orr at ewas
agreed,may be r ecov erabl
e.I ft he servi
ces wer e provi
ded
gratuitously
, t
hecourtassessesandawar dsar easonablesum.

[32]"Thisheadofcl ai
mi stheheadunderwhi chaclaim wasadvancedand
acceptedf ortheservi
cesofMrWi lson'
st wodaughtersandgranddaughter
whohel pedt onur seandcar eforhim athomebet weenSept ember2006
andFebr uar
y2007.I nor dertoascer tainwhetheritcanbeext endedt o
cover t he r esi
denti
al and non- resident
ial pal
li
ati
ve care provi
ded
gratuit
ouslybyachar i
tablehospicef oundationinv
olvesascert
aini
ngthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
princi
ple upon which the cour
ts acceptthi
s head ofclai
m as bei
ng
recoverabl
e.Unfor
tunately
,iti
sdif
fi
culttodi
scernacl
earpr
inci
ple.

Atpp.70and71,par .34:" Thist ypeofcl aim hadf irstbeen

recogni sed,atleastint heestablishedlawr eports, inRoachvYat es
ast hemeansofr ecompensi ngawi f
eandsi ster-in-l
aw whohad
bot hgi venuppai dwor ktocar ef ort heclaimantwhohadbeen
render edahel plessi nval
id.Thesubsequentcaseswer econcer ned
with car e provided byspouses,ot herblood r el ati
ves,i nformal
relations and f ri
ends.Thi s head ofcl aim has been v ariously
descr ibed.Thus, i
thasbeenst atedt obeav ail
ablef orcar epr ov i
ded
grat uit
ouslyby'relati
v esorfri
endsoft heclai
mant 'orby' gratuit
ous
car ers'orfor'ser v
icesr enderedv oluntar
il
ybyat hirdpar ty'orf or
'
needs.suppl iedbyachar i
tablecont ri
but
iont o[thecl aimant ]from
someot herper sonwhom weshal lcallt
he'prov ider '
.
"

Andatpp.71and72, par.37:"Thi
sheadofcl ai
m concer nedwi th
carepr ov i
dedi nt hehomeshoul dbecompar edwi thar elated
headofcl ai
mf ort
her ecoveryformedicalandinst i
tutionalcar i
ng
servicesout sidethehomeandwi ththewayt hatt h&cour tstreat
charitabl egiftsandser vi
cespr ovi
dedtoacl aimant .Ther elevant
pri
nci plesgr oundingr ecoveryinsuchcasemaybesummar ised
asf ollows:' (1)Acl ai
mantmaynotr ecoverforf aci
lit
iespr ovided
wit
houtchar gebyt heNat ionalHeal
thServi
ce( NHS)si ncehei s
entit
ledt or eceivetheseser v i
cesonthatbasis.Howev er,hemay
recovert hecostofpay i
ngf orsuchservi
cesanddoesnothav et o
provet hatt he deci si
on t o optf orpr i
vate heal th care was
reasonabl e.10

'
(2)A cl ai
mantmaynotr ecoverforinsti
tut
ionalcar e
provi
dedbyal ocalauthori
tywherethatcarei
srequiredas
adi r
ectandf oreseeableconsequenceoft hei nj
uryf or
which compensat ion is being cl
aimed ifthatcar ei s
provi
ded free ofchar ge.Howev er,tothe extentt hat
l
l
paymentisr equir
ed,thatorcostmayber ecover
ed.

'
(3)At ort
feasormustcompensat etheNHSf ort hecostof
treat
menti nNHShospi tal
sf ortr
eat mentf
ori njur
iesand
diseasecausedbyat ort
feasorandf orambulancecharges
i
ncur redinconnectionwi t
hsucht reatment.Thescheme
forsuch compensat ion ist he Injur
y Costs Recov ery
Scheme ( ICR Scheme)whi ch was setup undert he
provisionsoft heHeal t
handSoci alCare( Communi ties
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Healt
handSt andar
ds)Act2003.Thi
sschemecamei nto
f
orceon29Januar y2007anditrequi
respaymentofa
f
ixedsum perdayoft r
eat
mentorambulancej
our
neythat
i
sf i
xedf
orbyast at
utoryt
ari
ff
.

'
(4)A cl ai
mantmaykeep,wi thoutdeduct ion from t he
damagest hatwouldotherwisebeawar ded,anysum pai d
tohi m byapr i
vateindi
vidual,companyorchar ityasa
mar kofsympathyandassistanceort ocov ermedi caland
rel
atedexpenses.Wherethedonorexpect s,whet herasa
resultofa conditi
on oft he donat i
on oras a mor al
obli
gati
on,thedonati
ontober efundedifitisr ecoveredas
damagesf rom thetortf
easor,t hecourtwi llawar dt hat
sum butwilli
mposeat r
ustofitinfavouroft hedonor ."
'

Wol
fevDel
Innocent
i[2006]EWHC2694
Facts:Theplainti
ff'
shusbanddi edinamot oraccidentowi ngt othe
negli
genceoft hedef endant.Att heti
meofhi sdeat h,her ana
garagebusinesswi t
ht heplaint
if
fbutt hepl ainti
ffdidnotpl ayan
acti
veroleinthebusi nessbutshecont inuedt hebusi nessafterthe
deathoft hehusband.Thedeceasedmai ntainedt hef amilywith
profi
tsfrom thebusi ness.Inanact ionundert heFat alAccidents
Act,sheclai
medf orl
ossofdependency .Thedef endantar guedthat
si
nceshecont inuedt hebusiness,anypotential

467•
benef i
tfr
om t hebusinessmustbeconsi deredtoreducedamages.
Held:Sincet hepl ai
nti
ffwoul dhavecont i
nuedtobenef itf
rom the
businesswi thoutwor kinghadt hehusbandl i
ved,anybenef i
tshe
deri
v esbyv i
rtueofwor kingcouldnotbeconsi deredt oreduce
damages.
Pri
nci pl
e:Wher easpouseofadeceasedi snotwor ki
ngatt hetime
ofthedeat hoft heotherspouse,butt hereisev i
dencet hatshe
wouldhav ewor kedeveni ftheotherspousehadlived,thebenefit
s
deri
v edfrom wor kmustbeconsi deredtoreducedamages.

PerOwenJatpar .23:Inassessi
ngadependencyclai
m underthe
FatalAcci
dentsActt hetaskoft hecourt,si
mplystated,isto
assesswhether,andi fsot owhatextentandforwhatdur ati
on
thoseonwhosebehal ftheclai
mt oadependencyi sbrought,
wouldhavebeenf i
nancial
lydependentuponthe deceased.I
tis
now commonpl acef orbothhusbandandwi f
etowor kandt o
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
cont r
ibutet othef ami lypool .Int hecaseofacl aim br oughton
behal fofawi dow i twi llf requent lybenecessar yt oconsi der
whet hershewoul dinanyev enthav ewor kedaftert hedeat hof
herhusband,al thoughshemi ghtnothav ebeenwor kingatt he
dateofdeat h.Manywi vesst opwor kf oraper iodwhi lsttheir
childrenar eyoung,i ntendi ngt or eturntowor katal aterst age.If
thecour tissat i
sfiedont heev idencet hatawi dow i ntendedt o
returntowor khadherhusbandsur vi
ved,andt hatherear ni
ngs
woul dhav econtributedt ot hef ami lypool ,thenherpr ospective
earningswi l
lbet akeni ntoaccounti nassessi ngthedependency .
Allwillturnont hef actsoft hei ndi vidualcase.Butt hepr oposition
derivedbyCummi ng-Br uceJf rom t heAust r
ali
ancases,namel y
thatanyadv antaget hatt hewi f
emayder ivef r
om remuner ationas
aconsequenceofherowni ntent iont or eturntowor kmustbe
disregarded,doesnoti nmyj udgmentr epresentt hel aw int his
j
ur i
sdiction."

And( afterref err

ingt ot hefactsandt heev idence)atpar .
27:" Int hoseci rcumst ancesshoul d anyf uturef inancial
benef i
t sthatt hecl ai
mantmayder i
vef rom thebusi nessbe
takeni ntoaccounti ndiminutionoft hedependency ?I nmy
j
udgmentt heyshoul dnot.Hadherhusbandsur vi
v edshe
woul dhav econt inuedt obesuppor t
edbyhi mf rom t he
profit
sgener atedbyt hebusi ness,butshewoul dnothav e
playedanyact iverole.Sheisnowi nvolvedi ntherunni ngof
the busi ness on a f ul
lt i
me basi s.Shoul ditr eturnt o
profit
abi l
ity
,anyf inancialbenefitthatshemayr ecei vewi l
l
hav ebeenear nedbyher .Herposi ti
oni squitedi ffer
ent
from t hatofawi dow,whowoul dhav e cont i
nuedwor king,
oratsomef uturedat ereturnedtowor k, andcont ri
but edto
thef ami lyincomepool .Ifthecl ai
manti sobl i
gedt ogi v
e
creditf orfut uref i
nancialbenefitsfrom t he business,she
wi l
lnothav e been compensat ed fort he loss ofher
dependencyuponherhusband. "

c. Damagesar
erecov
erabl
eforl
osty
ear
s

ShanksvSwanHunt
erGr
oupPl
c[2007]Al
lER(
D)427
Fact
s:Theplaint
if
fdev el
opedmesothel
iomaowi ngt oexposur
eto
asbestoswhil
eintheempl oymentoft
hedef endant
.Hebecamev ery
weak,t aki
ngdrugseveryhourandhi sli
feexpectancywassai dto
havereducedtoonl yfouryearsandhet huswasl ikel
ytodieearl
y
2009.Hesuccessfull
ysuedt hedef
endantandont heassessmentof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
damages,i tfel
ltobedet erminedt hequant um tobedeductedf rom
thedamagesawar dedforhisl ostyears.Atthetimeoft heact
ion,he
wast akingcar
eoftwogr andchil
drenofhi sdeceasedson.
Held:Theamountt hepl ai
ntiffwaslikelytoexpendonhi mselfand
hi
sf amilymustbecal culatedanddeduct edfrom thequantum of
generaldamagesawar dedf orthelostyears.
Pri
ncipl
e:Damagesf orlosty earsarer ecover
ablebyal i
vi
ngv icti
m
butmustbe r educed by t he amountt he vi
cti
m woul d hav e
expendedhadhel iv
ed.

PerHi ckinbot tom Jatpar .38— 40:38i nalloft hiswhat

theCour tisseeki ngt odoi st ocal culatet hepecuni ary
sum whi chwi llmakegoodt ot hev ictimt hel osswhi chhe
hassuf f
eredast her esultoft hewr ongdonet ohi m:of
course, i
nsofarasmoneycandoso.Nomor eandnol ess.
Inpur suanceoft hisprinciple,f ol
lowi ngt hev alidat i
onof
l
osty ear scl aimsbyPi ckett,t heni nt hewor dsofLor d
Wi l
berforce( Pi ckett,atpage151A) ,suchawar dsshoul d
bemade' afterdeduct ionofanest imat edsum t orepr esent
thev i
ctim'spr obabl elivingexpensesdur ingt hosey ear s'
.
Whi sta 330/
l 0 deduct i
on f ora man wi t
h a wi fe and
chil
dren—anda500/ 0st art
ingpoi ntf oramanwi t hawi fe
and no chi l
dr en — may be usef ulst art
ing poi nts,i n
assessing t hese expenses t he Cour tmustt ake i nto
accountal loft he ev idence r elating t ot he cl aimant 's
l
ifestyl
eandt hesumshewoul dl i
kel yspendonot her sas
wellasuponhi msel fi
nt he

469•
•
f
utur
e.

39. " Wi
thregardt oMrShanks:( i)Alt
houghhewor kedaway
fr
om homeandAKpai dmanyofhi sexpenses,
her et
ained( e.
g.)hi
s
home i n. Adel
aide,and a carwhi ch his wife dr
ov e:and he
maint ai
nedagoodl ifest
yleuponwhi chhe( reasonably)spenta
si
gnificantand conv enti
onalamountofhi sincome.Ther ewas
nothing inthe evidence to suggestthathe spenton hi mself
anythingmuchlesst hanat ypi
calmanofsuchmeans.

"(i
i)Wit
hregardtohisgrandchil
dren,
Iacceptthatther
ewouldhave
beenabout10-13y ear
sf r
om ear l
y2009,beforethesechi
ldr
enlef
t
theirmother
'shomeandhi ghereducat
ion:andi tisli
kel
ythatMr
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Shankswoul dhav espenti ncr
easingamount sofmoneyont hem,
ast hei rfi
nanci alneedsgr ew.Hi sf i
nanci alcommi tmentt ot he
chil
drenbef ore2005wasmai nl
ybywayofcomf or t
.Iacceptt hat,
ast hechi ldrenmov edt hr
oughschoolandpossi blybey ond,itis
l
ikel
yt hatthecal lsonMrShanks'f i
nanci alr esour ceswoul dhav e
subst anti
allyincreased.Bymycal culati
ont hechi ldrenwoul dpass
thr
oughhi ghereducat ionbyabout2018- 21.MrShankswoul dbe70
i
n2018.Thi scommi t mentwoul dtherefor ehav er unf r
om 2009
thr
oughouthi s wor king li
fe.Given the financi alposi ti
on ofMr
Shanks'daught er-
in-l
aw,and t he fi
nanci alposi ti
on MrShanks
wouldhav ebeeni nhadhecont inuedt owor k,Ihav enodoubtt hat
thi
sf inancialcommi tmentwoul dhavebeenav eryr ealone-butnot
asgr eatasi fthechi l
dr enhadbeenl i
vingwi thMrShankshi mself.

"(i
i
i)Iacceptt hat,inr el
ati
ont odeduct i
onsi nrespectofl iv
ing
expenses,starting pointsof50% deduct i
on foramar r
ied man
withoutchi
ldrenand33%deduct i
onformar ri
edmanwi t
hchi l
dren
aresensibl
eandappr opri
ate."Thisproposit
ionwassuppor tedby
bothparti
es.Int hecir
cumst ancesoft hi
scase,MrShankscl earl
y
fal
lsbetweent hesefigures.

40. " OnalloftheevidenceIconsi

dertheappropri
atededuction
fortheperi
odafter2009i s40%.Overt her
elevantperi
od,inmy
j
udgment,thatproper
lyrefl
ectsMrShanks'personalexpenditure,
taki
ngaccountofhisi
ncreasi
ngcommi t
menttohisgrandchi
ldren."

I
qbal vWhi ppsCrossUni v ersit
yNHSTr ust[2007]EWCACi v1190
Facts:Theni ne-
year-oldplainti
ffsuff
eredf r
om acer ebraldisease
owingt othenegligenceoft hedef endantwhi chreducedhi slif
e
expectancyto41y ears.Thedef endantadmi t
tedli
abil
it
ybutont he
quest i
onofdamages, itfell
t obedeterminedwhet herhewas
enti
tledtodamagesf orthel ossofhisear ningsforthelosty ears.
Hel
d: Theplai
nti
ffwasent
it
ledt
odamagesf
orthel
ossofhi
s
ear
ningsfrom age41toage65whenhewoul
dhaveret
ir
ed.

ASSESSMENTOFTHEPECUNI
ARYLOSS
DaviesvPowel lDuffr
ynAssoci
atedColl
i
eriesLtd[ 1942]AC601
Facts:The pl
ainti
ff
s sued f
ordamages fort he death ofthei
r
husbandsresult
ingfrom anexpl
osionatthedef endant'
smining
si
te.Theyclai
meddamagesundert heFatalAccidentsActandfor
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
shortenedexpectati
onofl if
eundert heLawRef orm Act.Thecour t
granted the r
eli
efs butr educed t he damages undert he Fatal
AccidentsActbythedar nagesawar dedundertheLawRef orm Act.
Held:Thecour twasr i
ghtinr educi
ngt hedamagesundert heFat al
AccidentsActbythedamagesawar dedundertheLawRef orm Act.
Princi
ple:Damagest oadeceasedper son'sdependantmustbe
determinedbybal anci
ngt hel ossofanyf ut
urepecuniarybenef it
withanypecuniaryadvantagewhi chaccruesbyv i
rt
ueoft hedeat h.

PerLor dWr ightatpp.611and612:" Thegener alnatureof

ther emedyundert heFat alAccident sAct shasof t
enbeen
expl ained.TheseAct s' prov i
dedanewcauseofact i
onand
didnotmer el
yr egulateorenl argeanol done, 'asLor d
Sumner obser ved in Admi ralt
y Commi ssioners v S.S.
AmeHka.Thecl aimis,i nt hewor dsofBowenL. J.
,inThe
Ver aCr uz( No.2),forinjur i
ouslyaf fectingthef amil
yoft he
deceased.I tisnotacl aim whi cht hedeceasedcoul dhav e
pur sued i nhi sownl if
et i
me,becausei tisf ordamages
suf ferednotbyhi msel f,butbyhi sf amilyafterhisdeat h.
TheActof1846,s.2,pr ovidest hatt heact i
oni stobef or
thebenef itofthewi feorot hermemberoft hef ami l
y,and
thej ury( orjudge)ar et ogi v
esuchdamagesasmay be
thoughtpr oporti
onedt ot hei njuryr esulti
ngtosuchpar ti
es
from t he deat h.The damagesar et o be based on t he
reasonabl e expect at
ion ofpecuni ary benef i
torbenef it
reduci blet omoneyv alue.I nassessi ngt hedamagesal l
circumst anceswhi chmay

471.

bel egiti
mat elypl eaded i ndi mi nuti
onoft hedamagesmustbe
considered:Gr andTr unkBy .Co.ofCanadavJenni ngs.Theact ual
pecuniaryl oss ofeach i ndividualent i
tl
ed t o sue can onl ybe
ascertainedbybal ancing,ont heonehand,t helosst ohim oft he
fut
urepecuni arybenef it,and, ont heot her,anypecuni aryadvant age
whichf rom what eversour cecomest ohi m byreasonoft hedeat h.
Anear lyandst rikingstat ementoft heprinciplei
saf f
or dedbyPy mv
GreatNor t
her n19.Co. ,int heExchequerChamber ,i nwhi cht he
dir
ection oft he j ury
,gi ven byLor d Campbel lC. J.,in Hi cks v
Newpor t,Aber gav ennyandHer efordRy .Co.wasappr oved.Lor d
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
Campbel ltheredir
ectedt hejurythatfrom theaggr egateamountof
compensat i
onwhichtheywoul dbeot herwisepreparedt ogive,
they
shouldmakeadeduct i
oni nrespectof( e.g.)aninsuranceof1000/
againstrail
wayaccident s.Thatwasabenef itwhi
chwentt or educe
thepecuni arylosstothepl ainti
ffconsequentont hedeat h.Inthe
Grand Tr unk case ot heri l
lustr
ati
ons ar e gi v
en ofa gener al
character,butt he pri
nciplei st oo wellknown t o need furt
her
i
nstances."

Andatp.617:" Inthecaseoft heappel l

ant,Mr s.Wi l
li
ams,It hink
the judge hasawar ded a whol l
yi nadequate sum.Ther ei sno
question her e of what may be cal led sent i
ment aldamage,
bereav ementorpai nandsuf fering.I tisahar dmat terofpounds,
shil
li
ngsandpence,subj ectt ot heel ementofr easonabl ef uture
probabi l
iti
es.Thest arti
ngpoi nti st heamountofwageswhi cht he
deceasedwasear ni
ng,t heascer tainmentofwhi cht osomeext ent
maydependont heregul ari
tyofhi sempl oyment .Thent herei san
esti
mat eofhow much wasr equired orexpended f orhi sown
personalandl ivi
ngexpenses.Thebal ancewi llgiv eadat um or
basicf igurewhi chwi l
lgener allybet urnedi ntoal umpsum by
taki
ngacer tainnumberofy ear s' purchase.Thatsum, howev er,has
to be t axed down by hav ing due r egardt o uncer tainties,f or
i
nstance, t
hatt hewidowmi ghthav eagai nmar ri
edandt husceased
tobedependent ,andot herlikemat t
ersofspecul ationanddoubt .I
t
seemsasi ft heawar dof250/wasbasedonsomet hi
ngl i
ket hree-
and-a-halfy ear s'purchaseoft hebasi cfigur
e.Thi sappear st ome
tobeoutofal lproporti
onandmucht ool ow.Ishoul d,afterallowi ng
forallr easonabl ypr obabl echancesoft hedimi nutionoft hel oss,
acceptt hef igur etakenbyLuxmoor eL. J.of750/asbei ngnot
unfair,and Ishoul di ncr ease t he damages r ecov erabl e byt he
appellant,Mr s.Wi l
li
ams,accor di ngly.InthatrespectIshoul dal l
ow
herappeal ."

Amakom Sawmi
l
l&Co.vMansah[
1963]1GLR368
Facts:Thedeceasedper son,afarmerandt imberv endor
,wasa
passengeri nav ehicl
eownedbyt hef i
rstdefendantanddr i
venby
theseconddef endant,t hef i
rstdefendant'sservant.Thev ehi
cle
wasi nvolvedinanacci dentandat imberl ogwhi chwasbei ng
carri
edint hev ehi cl
efellont hedeceasedandki l
ledhim.Thet ri
al
courtfoundf ort heplaintif
fsandt hedef endantappealed,among
others,thatthedamageswer eexcessiveandt hatt heywerenot
basedont heact ualearningsofthedeceased.
Held:Sincet hedeceasedwasaf ar merwhoseear ni
ngscouldnot
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana
beexactl
yestabl
ished,t
heassessmentofthedamagesshoul
dbe
based on t
heext entofthef ar
m and t
henat ur
eoft hecrops
cul
ti
vatedandt heamountt hathewasr easonabl
yexpect
edt o
spendonhimself.

PerAkuf oAddoJSCatpp.373— 375:" Thequest i

onof
assessi ngdamagesi nacaseoft hisnat urei snotaneasy
under takingbyanymeans,andi nmyv iew t hel earnedj udge
wasr ighti n adopt ing t hebr oad pr inci plesf orassessment
enunci ated by Lor d Wr ight in Dav ies v Powel / Duf fr
y n
Associ atedCol l
ieri
esLi d.andbyHumphr ey sJ.i nRougheadv
RailwayExecut ive.Ther eishowev eradi fferencebet weent he
twof ormul aeenunci atedi nt hesecaseswheni tcomest o
transformi ng t he f ormul ae int o ar it
hmet i
calr eali
t i
es.The
datum Ofbasi cf i
gurewhi chhast obet ur nedi nt oal umpsum
byanumberofy ears'pur chasei sar ri
v edati ndi ff
erentway s.
Accor ding t o Lord Wr i
ghti nt heDav iescaset hisf i
gur ei s
represent edbyt hebal ancewhent heascer tainedorest i
mat ed
amountr equir
edorexpendedbyt he deceasedf orhi sown
personalandl ivingexpensesi sdeduct edf r
om t heascer t
ained
or est i
mat ed ear nings of t he deceased. Accor ding t o
Humphr ey sJ.i ntheRougheadcaset hebasi cf igur eist he
ascer t
ainedorest imat edamountexpendedbyt hedeceased
ont hedependant s.Iam notsur et hati nagi vencaset het wo
processeswi l
ly ieldt hesamear ithmet icalr esul t'andi nmy
viewLor dWr i
ght '
sf ormul ai smor el i
kel yt obesui tabl etot he
conditions ofl ifei nt his count ry .Ev en undert he bestof
conditionswher ef i
gur esar emor eorl essr eadi lyobt ainabl e
theassessmentofdamagesi nthel astr esor tismor eamat ter
ofspecul ati
ont hanoneofact uarialexact i
tude, andi ti sbound
tobemor esoi nt hiscount ry
;thenar rower ,theref ore,t hefield

473•
•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

ofspecul
ati
ont
hegr
eat
er,
Ithi
nk,
wil
lbet
her
esul
tantj
ust
ice.

"Inthiscount rywher et hemaj orityoft hepeopl ear efarmer sand

i
lli
ter
atethei niti
alprocessofascer tainingt heearningsofadeceased
person,excepti nt he case ofa pr ofessionalman ora sal ari
ed
employee,pr esent s al mosti nsuperabl e diffi
culti
es,and adequat e
resul
tscanhar dl
ybeachi evedbyi nsi
st i
ngont hewi feandchi l
drenofa
deceased per son pr oducing fi
gures r egardi
ng t he ear ni
ngs ofa
deceasedper son.Amor eadequat er esulti sli
kelytobeachi evedby
makinganest imat eofadeceasedf armer '
sear ningsont hebasi sof
theextentoft hef arm Off ar
mspossessedbyhi m andt henat ureof
thecropspr oducedbyhi m.Thispr ocessdoesnotseem t opr esent
muchdi f
ficultyast heav eragey i
eldofagi venacr eageof ,say,acocoa
farm,andt hemar ketpr iceofthecr opar eeasilyascertai
nable,andt he
expensesofpr oductionar ealmostst andar dised,Ithink,ataboutone-
thi
rdofthet otalyieldofacocoaf arm.

"I
tisev enst il
llesseasyf orawi dow andherchi l
drent opr oduceany
fi
guresi nf espectofamount sexpendedont hem byt hedeceased
husband and f ather.Int hiscount r
yt he overwhel ming maj ori
tyof
husbands,bot hi ll
iter
ateandeducat ed,(incl
udingsal ariedhusbands)
donotdi scl
oset heirincomest ot hei
rwi v
esandchi ldren,and,li
ket he
deceased husband i nt he Roughead case,t heydo notmake any
specif
ic per i
odic pay ment st ot heirwi ves and chi ldren fortheir
maintenance;t hey pay ev er
ything themselves—t heir own pr ivate
outgoings,rent,t hewi ves'dressesandot hernecessar ies,f
oodand
dri
nks, chil
dren'
sschool feesandcl ot
hing,etc.

"Inmyv i
ewi ti
smucheasiertoest
imateareasonableproport
ionofthe
earni
ngswhi chadeceasedperson,havi
ngr egar
dt ohismodeofl i
fe
andst at
us,mightbeexpectedtospendonhi mselfthaniti
seitherto
requi
reoft hedependanttosubmitfi
guresofamount sexpendedon
them oreventomakeanest i
mateofsuchamount s.

"Whil
eIdonotquar r
elessenti
all
ywit
hthemanneri nwhicht helearned
j
udgepr oceededwi ththeassessmentofthedamagesIwoul dliketo
say,i
nt hef i
rstplace,thatheshouldhav eendeavour
edt oobt ai
na
fi
gurefort heeducat i
onalexpensesoft hechil
drenthreeofwhom
accordi
ngt otheev i
dencewer eatschoolatthedeathoft heirfather
,
oneoft het hreeatasecondar yschool.Inthesecondpl aceast he
l
earnedjudgeadopt edt hel
eastnumberofy ear
s(thati
s,ten)t hatthe
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

deceasedmighthav ebeenexpect edtoli

veasthemul t
ipli
ertoar ri
veat
thelumpsum, thefigur
eofLG2, 000(al
mosthalftheascer tainedlump
sum)bywhi chthesum wast axeddowni sinmyv iewundul yhigh.For
anor malandhealthyyoungmanof33y ear
sofagewi t
ht enchi l
dren
whoseagewi t
ht enchi ldr
enwhoseagesr angef rom t woy ear
st o
four
teenyear,
anythingfrom fi
fteentotwentyyear
s' purchasewoul dbe
moreappropri
ate.

"The uncer tainti

es of t he f uture and ot her mat ters of
specul ati
onanddoubtwhi chf ormt hebasi sf ort axingdown
thel umpsum donotal way soper ateinanadv ersedi rection;
theysomet i
mesoper at
et o enhancef ut ur
epr ospect s,and
wher edependant sincludechi ldrenwhomaybeeducat ed,as
almostev erypar entnow i nGhanai skeenoneducat inghi s
children,thet axing-downf iguresshoul dt akeaccountoft he
futureeducat ionalr equirement soft hechi ldren whi ch wi l
l
i
ncr easeast hechi ldadv ancei nage.Thef actt hatatt he
deat hoft heirf at
hert hechi ldrenadv ancei naget hechi l
dr en
arenotol denought obeatschooland, therefore, not hinghas
beenspentont heireducat i
onbyt hedeceasedi nimmat eri
alif
therei sev i
dencet hathadt hedeceasedl i
vedhewoul dhav e
educat ed hi s children.As Scr utt
on L.J.sai di n Bakerv
Dalg/ eishSt eam Shi ppi
ngCo.i tisnotnecessar yt hatt he
dependent sshoul dhav eal egalr i
ghtt ohav er ecei vedt hat
benef itfrom t hedeceasedorshoul dhav eact ual lyr eceived
anysuch benef i
tbef or
et he deat h;iti s enough t hatt he
dependent s had a r easonabl e expect ati
on of pecuni ary
adv antagei nt hef uturehadt hedeceasedsur vived,whi ch
pecuni aryadv antagemaybeav oluntar
ycont ributionf rom t he
deceased. "

BaidenvSol omon[ 196311GLR488

Facts:Thepl ai
nti
ffssuccessfull
ysuedt hedef endantf
ordamagesf or
hisnegligencer esulti
nginthedeat hofthedeceased.Inassessingthe
damagest het r
ialjudgestatedthathehadt akenint
oconsi
derationall
thecircumst ancesoft hecasei ncl
udingtheagesoft hedependant s
and the pr ospects ofpr omotion oft he deceased.On appeal,the
defendantsubmi t
tedamongot hersthatthedamageswer eexcessive.

475EE
Held:Si
ncetheamountofdamagesawar
dedwasnotext
remel
yhi
gh,
the
appealmustbedismi
ssed.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

Pri
ncipl
e: Fai
l
ure to use the ari
thmet
ic cal
cul
ati
ons does not
necessar
il
yimplyawrongassessment.

PerCr abbeJSCatpp.498and499[ afterr eferr

ingt ot het est
proposedbyLor dWr i
ghti nDav iesvPowel landal soquot inga
passage f r om Char leswor t
h on Negl i
gence] :" Adopt i
ng t his
met hodofcal culatingt hedamagesandappl yingitinthiscase
i
ti sdi ffi
cul tt osay ,apar tf r
om t heel ement soft hechi ldren' s
agesandt hepossi bili
tyoff utur eear ningsbei ngi ncreased,
whatot heri mpor tantf act orsthel ear nedt rialjudget ooki nt o
consi deration.Wi thr espect ,itisnotcl earf r
om t hej udgment
how t he l ear ned t rialjudge ar rived att he f igure LG2, 300
becausehemadenoar ithmet icalcal culationsoft hev arious
element s whi ch shoul d det er mine hi sf inalf igure. The
expressi on,' Hav ing r egar dt o al lt heci r
cumst ancesoft he
case',whi chappear si nt hej udgmentdoesnotexpl ai
nwhat
i
rrelev antf act orst hel ear nedj udget ooki ntoaccountorwhat
relevantoneshel eftoutofhi sconsi derat i
on.Butf ailuret o
comput et hel ossbyanyst ati
st icaloract ualtest,adi fficult
and wear isome exer cise i n anycase,doesnotv iti
atet he
assessmenti ff airandi naccor dwi thcommonsense.Thusi n
ther ecentcaseofDani elsvJones, wher eanar i
thmet i
caler ror
byt het ri
alj udgei nt hecal culat i
onoft het otaldependency
wasal legedasoneoft hegr oundsofappealHol r
oy dPear ce
L.J.st atedt hef ollowi ngbasi cpr inciple:'Sincet hequest i
oni s
oneofact ualmat erialloss, somear i
thmet icalcal culati
onsar e
necessar i
lyi nv olvedi nanassessmentoft hei njury.Butt hey
donotpr ov i
deasubst itutef orcommonsense.Muchoft he
calculat i
onmustbei nther ealmsofhy pot hesis,andi nt hat
regionar i
thmet i
cisagoodser vantbutabadmast er.'

"Wil
l
imerL. J.alsosai d:Idonott hinkthatinacaseoft his
char
act eranappel lantcansucceedi nt hi
scour tmer el
yby
showing( assumingt hathecanshow)t hatthi
sort hatfi
gure
i
serroneous, orthisorthatcalculat
ionisinaccurat
e.Inwhat
i
sessent i
all
yaj uryquestiont heov er-
allpict
urei swhat
matters.Itisthewoodt hathast obelookedat ,andnott he
i
ndivi
dual tr
ees.'
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

.
476
"Thelear
nedtri
alj
udgeinthi
spresentcasemadenoact uari
al
calcul
ati
onsofthelosssuff
eredbyeachoft hedependant
s,
butheappearstohaveadoptedthemet hodrecommendedi n
Daniel
svJonesandwast heref
oreabletoreachacommon-
sensedecisi
on.

"Whereaj udgehasnotgi venadequateorpr eci

ser easonsor
onecannotseef rom hisjudgmentexact lywhathet ookinto
account;whetherhet ookintoaccountsomet hingheoughtnot
oromi t
tedsomet hingheshould,thiscourtcanonl ylookatt he
tot
alamountandconsi derwhet heritisexcessi velyhighor
unreasonablylow andsoamount stoaner roneousest i
mat e:
seeDo/ beyvGoodwi n,perLordGoddar dC.J.

"Gi
venthebestconsiderati
onIcant othef act
soft hi
scaseI
havecomet otheconcl
usionthattheawardbyt helear
nedtr
ial
j
udgeoft hesum ofLG2,300wasf airandreasonableandIdo
notfeel
incl
inedtoi
nter
ferewithit
."

Lar
yeavAgy
ei[
see(
1971)8UGLJ145perDat
eBaah]
Facts:Thepl ainti
ff
ssuccessf ul
lysuedthedefendantfordamagesf or
thedeat hofthedeceasedcausedbyt henegl
igenceoft hedefendants.
On appeal ,t he defendantar gued t
hatthe quantum ofdamages
awardedt othechi l
drenwer eexcessiveasnosat isf
actoryev i
dence
wasl edtoshowhowmucht hedeceasedspentoneachchi ld.
Held:Thef ai
l
ur etoleadevidenceonhowmuchadeceasedspenton
hischildrenwasnotf atalt
oacl ai
mf ordamagesbyt hechildr
enas
dependant s.

PerAr cherJA:"I
nt hiscountryt heoverwhelmingmaj or i
tyof
husbands,bothi ll
it
erate and educat ed,( i
ncluding salari
ed
husbands)donotdi scl
oset heiri ncomest otheirwi vesand
chil
dren,and ...they do notmake any speci f i
c periodi
c
payment stotheirwivesandchi ldr
enfort hei
rmai nt
enance;
theypayev ery
thi
ngt hemsel v
es—t hei
rownpr i
vateout goings,
rent
,thewives'dr
essesandot hernecessaries,f
oodanddr inks,
chil
dren'
sschoolf eesandcl ot hing,etcitismucheasi erto
esti
mat ear easonable proportion ofthe earnings whi ch a
deceasedperson,hav i
ngregar dt ohismodeofl i
feandst atus,
mightbeexpect edt ospendonhi mselfthani ti seitherto
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
t nGh
si ana

requi
re ofthe dependant
st o submi
tfigures ofamounts
expended on t
hem orev en t
o make an esti
mate ofsuch
amounts."

477•
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

(
Dat
e-Bahdescri
bedt hi
sappr
oachbyt
hel
ear
nedj
udgeasbei
ng
t
ool
enientanapproach.
)

DeGr af
tJohnsonvGhanaCommer ci
alBank[ 197711GLR179
Fact s:Thedeceasedwasanempl oyeeoft hedefendantwho
diedwhi let ravel
li
ngont hedefendant'svehicl
e.Thetrialj
udge
foundt hatt hedeceasedper sonwaski ll
edwhi l
eworkinginthe
cour seofhi sempl oymentandt husthedef endant
swer eli
able.
Att hetimeofhi sdeath,
thedeceasedwas40y ear
soldandhad
fi
fteenmor ey earstoworkbefor
er et
ir
ing.
Held:Thef i
ft eenyear
sthedeceasedhadt owor kwouldbet he
year spurchased.

PerEdusei Jatp.182:" Atthet imeofhi sdeat hthedeceased,

Mr .Eyeson,was40y earsol d,andhewoul dhav ewor kedt i
ll
hewas55y ear sbef orer etir
ing.Hi sdependant st herefore
hav e beendepr ivedoft heirsour ceofl i
velihoodf oratl east
fi
fteen y ears.I nassessi ngdamagesf ordependant sLor d
Wr i
ghti nDav iesvPowel /Duf fry
nAssoci atedCol lieriesLt d
(No.2)[ 1942]A. C.601,H. L.gav eagui del
inewhi chIt hi
nki s
ofv erymuchassi stancei nthi scase.Hesai datp.617:' The
starti
ngpoi nti st heamountofwageswhi cht hedeceased
wasear ni
ng,t heascer tainmentofwhi cht osomeext entmay
dependont her egulari
tyofhi sempl oyment .Thent her eisan
estimateofhowmuchwasr equir
edorexpendedf orhi sown
personalandl ivingexpenses.Thebal ancewi l
lgiveadat um
orbasi cfi
gur ewhi chwi l
lgener all
ybet ur nedi ntoal umpsum
byt akingacer tain numberofy ears'pur chase.Thatsum,
howev er,hast o bet axed downbyhav i
ngduer egar dt o
uncer t
ainti
es,f ori nst
ance,t hatt hewi dow mi ghthav eagai n
mar ri
ed and t husceased t o bedependent ,and ot herl ike
mat ter
sofspecul ati
onanddoubt .
'

"Iwi l
ldot hesamei nthiscase.Thedeceasedwasear ning
4,040.00,i.e.about€336. 61permont hwhi chwassubj ect
tot axwhi chi s$21. 40.Heownedacarwhi chIthinkhe
alsousedf orhisownsoci alact i
vi
ti
esandt hi
sentailedthe
pur chase of pet rol and i t
s mai ntenance. In t he
circumst ancesImakeal l
owanceofabout€155. 21 per
mont hforhispersonalandl ivingexpenses.Thebalanceof
VI60. 00permont his,I think,whatthedependant shav e
l
ostandt hiswor ksoutat$1, 920perannum.It aket he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
year
s'purchasetobef
if
teensi
ncehewoul
dhav
eret
ir
edat
55years.Thisgi
vesal
ump

sum of$28,
800.
00whichItaxdownbyone-
thi
rdl
eav
ingaf
igur
eof
#19,
200.00fort
hedependant
s.

"The law requires me t o appor t

ion thist otalsum
among t he dependant s and i n maki ng t hi
s
apportionmentbet ween widow and chi ldr
en Iwi ll
proceedont hef ol
lowinghy pothesis:Thepr acti
ceis
toawar dthegr eaterpartofthet otaltot hewi dow,on
thereasonabl eassumpt ionthatshewi llmai ntai
nthe
chil
drensol ongast heyaredependent ,andt oaward
compar ati
velysmal lsumst ot hechi l
dr en.Usual l
y,
thoughnotal ways,ay oungerchi l
di sawar dedmor e
thananol derchi l
dbecauset heper iodofexpect ed
dependencyi sgreater."

Benham vGambl
i
ng[
19411AC157
Fact s:Thepl ai
ntif
f'st wo-and-hal
f-year -ol
dsonwaski l
ledbythe
negligenceoft hedef endant.Intheassessmentofdamages, t
he
j
udger ef er
redt oat ablepr eparedbyt heRegi st
rarGener alwhi
ch
fi
xedt hel i
feex pectancyofanewl ybor nchi
ldat58y earsbuthe
disregar dedi tandawar ded1200poundsasaf airassessment
ofdamagesf orthel ossofexpect ationofl if
e.
Held:Si nce t he chi ld was y oung and t here wer eal otof
uncer tai
nt i
es sur rounding hi sl i
fe,t he amountofdamages
shoul dber educedt o200pounds.
Principle:Thel ifeexpect ancyt obev aluedisnott heprospectof
l
engt hofday sbutt hepr ospectofapr edomi nantl
yhappyl if
e.

PerVi scountSimonLCatpp.165and166:" I
nt hefir
st
place,Iam ofopi ni
ont hatt her i
ghtconcl usi
oni snotto
be r eached by appl ying what may be cal l
ed the
stati
sticalOf act uari
alt est. Figures calculated to
representt heexpect at
ionofhumanl i
featv ari
ousages
are av erages arriv
ed atf rom a v astmass ofv ital
stati
stics;thefi
gur eisnotnecessar il
yonewhi chcanhe
properlyattri
butedt oagi veni ndivi
dual .Andinanycase
thet hi
ngt obev aluedi snott hepr ospectofl engt
hof
days,butt hepr ospectofapr edomi nantl
yhappyl ife.
Theageoft hei ndivi
dualmay ,insomecases,bea
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
rel
evantfactor.Forexample,inext
remeold aget he
brevi
tyofwhatl i
femaybeleftmayberel
evant
,but,asit
seems to me,ar it
hmeti
calcalcul
ati
ons aret o be
avoi
ded,ifonlyfort
hereasonthati
tisofnoassist
ance
toknow how manyy ear
smayhav ebeenlost,unless
oneknowshowt oputavalue

479•
•

ont hey ears.Itwouldbef al

laci
oust oassume,f orthi
s
purpose, thatallhumanl i
feiscontinuouslyanenj oyabl
e
thi
ng, sot hatt heshorteni
ngofi tcall
sforcompensat i
on,
tobepai dt ot hedeceased'sest ate,onaquant it
ativ
e
basis.Theupsanddownsofl i
fe,it
spai nsandsor rows
aswel lasi tsjoysandpl easures— al lthatmakesup
'
lif
e'sf itfulf ever'— hav et o be al l
owed f ori nthe
estimat e.I nassessingdamagesf orshor t
eningofl i
fe,
therefore,such damages shoul d notbe cal culat
ed
solely
,orev enmai nl
y,ont hebasisoft hel engt
hofl if
e
thatislost .

And atp.167:" Iwoul df urtherl ayi tdown t hat,in

assessingdamagesf orthispur pose, t
hequest ionisnot
whethert hedeceased had t hecapaci t
yorabi l
ityto
appreciat
et hathisfurtherli
feonear thwoul dbri
nghi m
happiness;thet estisnotsubj ectiveandt herightsum
toawar ddependsonanobj ectiveest i
mat eofwhatki nd
off uture on ear t
ht he v i
ctim mi ghthav e enjoyed,
whetherhehadj ustl
yest i
mat edt hatf utureornot .Of
course,nor egardmustbehadt of i
nanci all
ossesor
gainsdur i
ngt heperi
odofwhi cht hev i
cti
m hasbeen
depri
ved.Thedamagesar einrespectofl ossoflif
e,not
oflossoff uturepecuniaryprospect s.
"

Nay
lorvYor
kshi
reEl
ect
ri
cit
y[196712Al
lER1
Facts:The pl aint
if
f'
s 20-year-
old son died instant
lyf rom an
el
ectricshockwhi l
ewor kingforthedef endant .Thedef endant
admi t
tedli
abil
ityandt hejudgeassesseddamagesi nr espectof
l
ossofexpect at i
onoflif
eat500poundsbutt heCour tofAppeal
i
ncreaseditto1000pounds.
Held:Inawar dingdamagesf orlossofexpect at i
onofl if
e,very
moder at
ef igures mustbe used and t hus t he t
rialjudge's
assessmentmustst and.Pr i
ncipl
e:Inawar ding damagesf or
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

l
ossofexpect
ati
onofl
i
fe,
ver
ymoder
atef
igur
esmustbeused.

PerLor dMor risofBor th-y-Gestatp.6:" Forassi st ance

i
nt heassessmentofdamagesi nacasesuchast he
pr esentone gui dance was gi v
en i nt his House i n
Benham v Gambl ing.The many r eferences t ot hat
deci sioni nthejudgmentofAshwor thJshow t hathe
waszeal ousi nhisendeav ourt o, begui dedbywhatwas
sai di nt hatcase.I n hisspeech Vi scountSi mon LC
([1941]1Al lERatp14,l ettera;[ 1941]ACatp168. ),
whi ler ecognisi
ng t hatt hi shead ofcl ai m 'isi nf act
i
ncapabl eofbei ngmeasur edi ncoi noft her ealm wi th
anyappr oach tor ealaccur acy '
,ex horted t he cour ts
([1941]1Al lERatp13,l et terf ;[1941]ACatp168. )to
arr i
ve at' very moder at ef i
gur es'
.The sum ofL200
awar dedinthatcasewasst atedt obeanamountwhi ch
woul dbeexcessi vewer ei tnotf ort hef actthatt he
circumst ancesoft hei nfantwer emostf avourabl e.In
thecaseofav eryy oungchi l
dt hef uturemani festl
y
hol dsmanyuncer tainties.Becausei twasconsi dered
thati nBenham vGambl ing,t hesecoul dbeof fsett he
awar dwasf i
xedashi ghas1200.Thoughawar dsar e
notmeasur ed byanyst atisticaloract uarialt estor
mat hemat i
call
ybyr eferencet opr ospect ivelengthofl i
fe
ther ecoul dbet hepr ospectofal ongerspanofhappy
l
ifei nt hecaseofay oungchi l
dwhoseci rcumst ances
wer edeci dedt obe'mostf av our able'thani nt hecaseof
anol derpersonwi t
hequal lyf av ourableci rcumst ances. "
Shel
lCo.Lt
dvAy
imav
or[
197111GLR51
Fact s:The deceased was ki l
led by the negli
gence oft he
defendantandt headmi nist
rat
orsofhi sestatesuedundert he
CivilLiabili
tyAct .Thet ri
aljudgeawar deddamagesf orment al
distress,l
ossofexpect ationofli
fe,lossofdependency,painand
suffer i
ng and f uneralexpenses.On appeal ,the defendant
challenged t he assessmentofdamages and especi all
yt he
awar df orment aldistr
esssi ncet hethree-
yearperiodfort hat
awar dhadexpi r
ed.
Held:Si ncedamagesf orment aldistr
essdidnotlieatcommon
l
aw andt het hree-yearper i
odf ortheawar dofdamageshad
expired,t het ri
alj udgewaswr ongi nawar di
ngdamagesf or
ment aldi
stress.
Principle:Damagesf orlossofexpect at
ionoflif
earerecoverable
butt heawar dmustnotbeexcessi ve.
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
PerApal oo JA atpp.53and54:" Thenextheadof
damagewhi ch wast hesubjectofcompl ai
ntbyMr .
Quashie-
ldun ist he damages awar ded forl oss of
expectat
ion of li
fe.The act ualsum awar ded was
NC7,200.00.Iti
scompl ai
nedthatt heawardwasmuch
toolar
geandwasbasedonwr ongpri
nci
ples.Wet hi
nk
wemustaccedet othi
sargument .

"The judge arri

ved atthe quant
um by est i
mating the
deceased's monthl
y expendi
tur
e on her sel
f.The j udge
assessed thi
s atN<80. 00.He deducted thisfrom t he
deceasedperson'smonthlyi
ncomeofNCI10. 00and[ p.
54]
obtainedabal anceofN<30.00.Her eckonedt hi
sast he
valueofdependency.481•

Hemul ti
pli
edt hisbyt wentyy ear
s'pur chaseandar r
ivedatt he
resultantf igureofNC7, 200.00.Ift hel earnedjudgehadbeen
awar dingdamagesf orlossofdependency ,ther
ecanhar dl
ybe
anycompl aintaboutthismet hodofascer taini
ngi t.Indeedthis
met hod wasr ecommended byt hef ormerSupr emeCour tin
Amakom Sawmi l
l&Co.vMansah[ 1963]1G. L.
R.368,S. C.But
we t hink i ta wr ong basist o award damages f orl oss of
expect ati
onofl i
fe.Alt
hought helearnedj udgeawar dedt hesum
of f
orlossofdependency ,heinnowayi ndicatedhow
hear rivedatt hi
sf i
gure.Thereisclearlynoev identi
albasi sforit
.
Wet hinkt hereforethatthi
ssum mustgobutweconsi derthe
sum ofNC7, 200 as a fairand r easonabl e sum f orl oss of
dependency .

"We mustnow under take our selves t he task ofawar di

ng
damagesf orlossofexpect ati
onofl ife.Thecl assicalguideli
ne
forassessingdamagesundert hishead, wasgi v
enbyt heHouse
ofLordsi n1941i nt hewel l
-knowncaseofBenham vGambl i
ng
[1941]A.C.157, H.L.Thecr i
teri
ont herel ai
ddownwassai dt obe
notthepr ospectoft helengt hofday sbutapr edomi nantl
yhappy
l
ife.Thecasesoughtt oest abli
shandsucceededi nestablishi
ng
al ow,almostnomi nalst andardofdamagesf ort hi
st ypeof
clai
m.I nt hatcase,i tgav easagui det hesum of{ 200.I n
England,thissum hasr emai nedaconv enti
onalfigurerisingin
recenttimest o{ 500.I nt he1967caseofNay lorvYor kshi
re
Board[196711Q. B.244, C.A.,theEnglishCour tofAppeal ,
byamaj orit
y,rai
sedanawar dundert hisheadf rom L500t oLl
,000becauseoft hedecl i
nei nt hev alueofmoney .Butt he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
pri
ncipleofBenham vGambli
ngwasreasser
tedwhentheHouse
ofLor ds,t
owhi chanappealwastaken,reducedthi
ssum to
{500andf i
rmlyre-
est
abli
shedt
heconv ent
ional
it
yofthesum
awardableunderthi
shead.

"Thequesti
oni s,whatwoul dbef aircompensati
ontoawar dt o
thepersonalr epresentat
ivesoft hedeceasedwhoat35was
saidtobeingoodheal th,wasact i
veinthetext
il
etradeandwas
earni
ngenought osupportaf amilyofsevenandanagedmot her
?
Thereishardlyanyev idenceoft hedeceased'
spersonalli
fe,her
habit
sormodeofl ivi
ng.Insof arast heevi
dencepr ov
idesany
i
nformati
onabouther ,shehai l
edf r
om KopehenearBar l
ekpoi n
theAdadistri
ctbutseemedt ohav e

l
ivedi nAccraforaconsi derabl
et ime.Shel ostherhusband
ay earbeforeherdeat hbutt heev idencedoesnotsuggest
thatshehadgi ventodespondencyont hisaccount.Thereis
nothingint heevidencet osuggestt hatherl if
ewasot her
thanhappyandwet hi
nk,bar r
ingunf oreseenmi shaps,the
deceased had bef ore her,the prospectofa r easonably
happyl i
fewhi chwascutshor tbyt heacci dent.Inallthe
cir
cumst ances, and bear ing in mi nd t he diminished
purchasingpoweroft heGhanai ancedi ,wewoul dawar d
compensat i
onofNC1, 000.00undert hishead."

Haxt
onvPhi
l
ipsEl
ect
roni
cUKLt
d[2014]2Al
lER225
Facts: The pl aint
if
f and her husband bot h dev el
oped
mesot heli
omaduet oexposur et oasbest osbyt hedef endant
when t he husband was i nt heirempl oyment.The husband
eventuall
ydied.Thepl ai
ntif
fbr oughtt wosepar ateactions,one
undert heFatalAcci dentsActandanot herfortheinjuri
esshe
suffer
edher self.Duet ot hemesot heliomashedev el
oped,her
remaininglif
eexpect ancywasest i
mat edat0. 7yearsandt hat
j
udgeusedt hist oassesst hedamagesf orlossofdependency
i
nt hef ir
stacti
on.Thepl ainti
ffcont entedi nthesecondact ion
thatsincether eductioninherl if
eexpect ancyhadbeencaused
byt hedef endant'snegligencer esul t
ingi nar educti
oni nt he
amountofdamagesr ecoverablef orl ossofdependency ,t he
defendantwasl iableforthatloss.
Held:Si
ncethel
ossintheassessmentoft
hedamageshadbeen
causedbythedefendant
'
snegli
gence,hewasl
iabl
etot
heplai
nti
ff
.

PerEl
i
asLJatp.231,par
s.13—15:[
13]"
Thecr
it
ical
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

questioni nthi
scasei swhetherthereisanyreasonof
princi
pleorpoli
cywhi chshoulddepri
vetheappel
lantf
rom
recoveri
ngdamageswhi chrepr
esentthelossshehasi n
factsufferedasar esul
tofthecurt
ail
mentofherl
ifebythe
admi t
tedlynegl
igentacti
onofthedefendant
.

[
14] "
Iam notper suaded t
hatt herei s.The1976 Act
conf ers a statutor yri
ghtt or ecoverf ort he loss of
dependencyandi nhercl ai
m undert hatActshecannot
recov ermor ethanheract ualloss.ButIseenor eason
whyt hedimi nut i
oni nthev alueoft hatrightr esulti
ng
from t he negl igence oft he r espondentcannotbe
recov er
edasaheadofl ossi nthecl aimant 'sper sonal
act i
on. This does not ,i n my v i
ew, i nv ol
ve any
i
nt erfer
encewi t
ht hepri
nciplesgov erningt hepay ment
ofcompensat ionunder

483•
t
hel
egi
slat
ion.Theyar
elef
twhol
l
yunaf
fect
ed.

[
15] "I
nmyv iew,thereisnot hi
ngi nt hel egislati
onwhi ch
j
ust ifies t he i nf
erence t hat Par li
ament must hav e
i
nt endedt hatthecl ai
mantshoul dbedeni edt hef i
ghtt o
recov er the r educt i
on i nt he v alue of t hi
s cl aim,
not wi thstanding thati ti s whol l
y at t
ributablet ot he
negl igenceoft her espondent.Itisacommonl awcl aim
fordamagesf orlossofdependency ;iti sacl aimf or
dimi nut ioni nthev alueofav aluablechosei naction,a
stat utoryr ight.Ther eisnothingi nt hel anguageoft he
1976Actort heaut horit
iesont hatActwhi chsuggest s
thatt her ei sanyspeci alat tr
ibutedi stinguishing this
par ticularchosei nact ionfrom anyot her.Itfoll
owst hat
MsFost er'srelat
edsubmi ssion,thatt hisisnotahead
ofl osswhi choughtt ober ecoverablei nlaw, fai
lsalso."

HvS[
20031QB965
Facts:Thedeceasedwasadi vorcedmot heroff our,ofwhom
threeweremi nors.Shel i
vedwi ththechi l
drenandt ookcar eof
them wi t
hout any assi stance from t heirf ather,who had
remarri
ed.Fol l
owi ng herdeat h owi ng tot he deat h oft he
defendant,thef athertookthet woy oungestchildrentoli
v ewith
them togetherwi thhi snew wi f
e.Inassessi ngdamagesunder
the FatalAcci dent s Act
,t he courtdisregarded the serv i
ces
provi
dedbyt hef atherandst epmotherpur suantt otheAct .The
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

defendantappeal ed.
Held:Si nce t he supportr eceiv
ed from t he f at
herand the
stepmot herwasabenef itaccrui
ngasar esul tofthedeath,it
oughtt obedi sregardedpursuanttotheAct .
Princi
ple:Wher easi ngl
epar entcateredf ort hechi l
drenand
otherpar enttakesupt hatresponsi
bili
tyf ol
lowi ngthedeathof
thef i
rstparent ,t
hatsupportisabenef i
taccr uingasar esul
tof
the deat h and t hus oughtt o be disregar ded in cal
cul
ati
ng
damages.

PerKennedyLJ atp.979,par s.29 and 30:29 " In my

j
udgment ,int helightoft heaut horit
ies,t heposi tion is
reasonabl ycl ear
.Wher e,asher e,infantchi ldrenar el i
ving
withandar edependentononepar ent,wi thno suppor t
beingpr ov i
dedbyt heot herparent,inci r
cumst anceswher e
thepr ov
isionofsuchsuppor tint hef utureseemsunl ikely,
and t he par entwi th whom t hey ar el i
vi
ng i s kill
ed,i n
circumst ances gi v
ing r i
se tol i
abili
ty under t he Fat al
Acci dentsAct1976, af
terwhichtheot herpar ent(whoi snot
the t ort
feasor )houses and t akes r esponsi bil
it
yf ort he
children,thesuppor twhichtheyenj oyaf tertheacci dentisa
benef itwhi chhasaccr uedasar esultoft hedeat hand,
pur suant t o secti
on 4 of t he 1976 Act ,i t must be
disregarded,bot hi nt heassessmentofl ossand i nt he
calculati
onofdamages.

30" Howev er,suchdamagescanonl ybeawar dedon

thebasi sthatt heyar eusedt or eimbur set hev oluntary
carerforser vicesalreadyr ender ed,andar eav ail
ablet o
payforsuchser vi
cesint hef uture.I nt hewor dsusedby
LordBr idgei nHuntvSev ers[ 1994]2AC 350,363,
damagesar eheldont rustandi ft het ermsoft het rust
seem unl ikelyt obef ulf
ill
edt hent hecour tawar ding
damages mustt ake steps t o av oidt hatout come.
Contraryt owhatwassai dbyCr aneJi nBor din'
scase
[2000]Lloy d'
sRepMed287, 294, Ibel i
evet hatthet rust
i
sonewhi cht hecour tcan,andi nanappr opr i
atecase
should,enf orce.Itisnotsuf ficientt oleavet hemat ter
forfurtherl i
ti
gationi nanot herdi vision.Iwi llreturnt o
thatmat teratt heendoft hi
sj udgment ."

(
NB:Thisdeci
sionispur
suanttoast
atut
e.Sect
ion4of
t
heFatalAcci
dentsActrequi
rest
hecourtt
odisregar
d
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
benefit
st hataccrue as a r esul
toft he deathi n
assessingdamages.Int heabsenceofanyexpr ess
provi
sioni ntheGhanaianst atutetherefor
e,theol d
posit
ioni nHayvHughes( supr a)whichenj oi
nst he
courttotakeint
oconsi
derat
ionanybenef i
taccrui
ngas
aresultofthedeat
hmayst i
l
l apply.
)
Fl
etchervATr ain&SonsLt d[ 200814Al lER699
Facts:Thepl ainti
ffsuccessf ull
ysuedt hedefendantforlossof
dependency undert he Fat alAcci dents Act
.The t ri
aljudge
awar deddamagesf orpastl ossofdependencyf rom thedateof
deatht othedat eoft r
ial,furtherlossofdependencyupt othe
dateofr eti
rementandf uturel ossofdependencyaf t
erthedate
ofr etirement.He summed t he whole amountand awar ded
i
nterest .
Held:I nter
estinsuchact i
onscoul donlybeclai
medf orthepast
l
ossofdependencyandnott hesubsequentones.
Pri
nci ple:Post-
t r
ialf
inanci allossesarenotsubjecttoint
erest
.

PerSi rMar kPot terPatp.707,par .25:'

'I
nmyv i
ew
thoseobser vati
onsdonotmeett hi
scase.I
nexerci
sing
hisdiscret
ionashedi d,thejudgedidsocontr
arytoa
pri
ncipleuponwhi cht he
HouseofLor dsleftnoroom fordoubt,
namelyt
hatthe
nat
ure

485•
•
oftheawar doft hatpar toft hedamagescl aim whi ch
rel
atest opost -
tri
all ossesi sacl aimf orfuturel oss
upon whi ch an awar d of i nt erest is ther efore
i
nappr opr i
at e.Similarly,anawar dofmor ethanhal ft he
ful
lint er
estr at
eont het ot
alpr e-t
r i
all ossatmor et han
half t he shor t-term i nt erest r ate l eads t o
overcompensat i
on oft hecl ai mant .Fort hej udget o
makeanawar dofi nterestwhi chi gnor edorrancount er
tothosepr i
ncipleswasnott ot akeaccountofspeci al
cir
cumst ancesexi stingi nt hecase( therewerenone) ,
nort oadoptoneoft woal ternat i
v eway sofex ercising
thedi scretion;itwasnomor eorl esst hananexer cise
ofdi scretion cont rar yt o binding aut hori
tyast ot he
pri
ncipl e upon whi ch such di scr eti
on shoul d be
exercised."
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Hei
lvRanki
n[2001]QB272
Facts:Thepl ai nti
ffssuccessf ullysuedf ordamagesf orpain,
suffer
ingandl ossofameni ti
esowi ngt othenegl i
genceoft he
defendants.Theyappeal edthatt heassessmentwasl ow.
Held:Theawar dsneeded t o be i ncreased to prov i
de a fair
reasonableandj ustcompensat ion.
Princi
ple:Awar dsofdamagesf orpai n,sufferi
ngandl ossof
amenityincer tainpersonalinjurycasesneedt obei ncreasedin
ordertoprovideaf air
,reasonabl eandj ustcompensat ion, t
aki
ng
i
ntoaccountt hei nter
estsofcl aimant s,defendantsandsoci ety
asawhol e.

PerWool fMRatpp.297,par .38:" Forr easonswewi l

l
i
dent i
fyl ater,ast hecl aimant ssubmi t,t hechangei n
economi cci r
cumst ancescancont r
ibutet ocausi nga
tar
ifftobenol ongerappr opri
at e.Simi l
arly, i
nset tingt he
tar
iffthecour tshoul dnoti gnor et heeconomi ci mpact
ofthel evelofdamageswhi chi tselects.Theeconomi c
consequencesofal ev elofdamageswi l
lnotdi ct atet he
decision,butt heywi llinformt hedeci sion.Theyar epar t
oft he backgr ound f acts agai nstwhi ch t he deci sion
mustbet aken.Thecour tisnoti nterest edi nt hedet ai
l
buti tisi nterest edi nt hebr oadpi cture.A di stinction
exi
st s her e bet ween t he t ask of t he cour t when
determining t he l ev elofpecuni ar yl oss and when
determiningt hel evelofnon- pecuni aryl oss.I nt hecase
ofpecuni aryl oss,and i ssues such as t hatwhi ch
engagedt heHouseofLor dsinWel l
svWel ls,thecour t
i
s onl yr equired t o make t he cor r
ect cal cul ati
on.
Economi cconsequencesar et heni rr
elev ant.Whent he
questioni sthel evelofdamagesf ornon- pecuni aryl oss
thecour tisengagedi nadi ff
er entexer cise.

Aswehav esaid,iti
sconcernedwi thdet er
miningwhat
i
st hef ai
r,r
easonableandj ustequivalentinmonet ary
termsofani njur
yandt heresult
antPSLA.Thedeci sion
hast obetakenagainstthebackgroundoft hesocietyin
whi chthecourtmakest heawar d.Theposi ti
oniswel l
i
llustr
atedbythedecisi
onsoft hecourtsofHongKong. "

Ar
un KumarAgr
awalvNat
ionalI
nsur
ance Co.Lt
d
[
201111LRC
304
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

Facts:Thedeceasedwasahousewi f
ewhowaski ll
edbyt he
negli
gence of the def endant.The t ri
alcourtr educed the
darnages awarded tot he plaint
if
fs on the ground thatthe
deceasedwasahousewi f
eandanonear ni
ngmemberoft he
familyandt hust heawar dwoul dbet oomuchandt hatthe
deceasedshouldbeputi nthepositionofahousekeeper .
Held:Itwas unf airand unj usttot r
eatt he deceased as a
housekeeperforthepurposesofdamagest oherdependants.

PerSi nghv iJatp.323,par .32:" Inourv iew,i tishi ghly

unfair, unj ust and i nappr opriate t o comput e t he
compensat ionpayablet ot hedependant sofadeceased
wif
e/ mot her,who does nothav er egulari ncome,by
compar ingherser viceswi t hthatofahousekeeperora
servantoranempl oy ee,whowor ksf oraf ixedper iod.
Thegr atuitousser v
icesr ender edbyt hewi fe/ mot hert o
thehusbandandchi ldrencannotbeequat edwi t
ht he
servicesofanempl oy eeandnoev idenceordat acan
possi blybepr oducedf orest i
mat i
ngt hev alueofsuch
services.I tisvir
tuall
yi mpossi blet omeasur ei nt ermsof
moneyt hel ossofper sonalcar eandat tent i
onsuf f
er ed
byt he husband and chi ldren on t he demi se oft he
housewi fe.Initswisdom, thelegi sl
atur ehad, asear lyas
i
n 1994,f ixed the not ionali ncome ofa non- earni ng
personatRs15, 000perannum andi nt hecaseofa
spouse, one- t
hir
doft hei ncomeoft heear ning/sur viving
spousef ort hepurposeofcomput i
ngt hecompensat ion.
Thoughs163Adoesnot ,int erms,appl ytot hecasesi n
whichcl aimf orcompensat ionisf i
l
edunders166oft he
Act,i nt heabsenceofanyot herdef i
nitecr i
teriaf or
deter minat i
on of compensat ion pay able t o t he
dependant sofanon- earni nghousewi fe/mot her ,i
twoul d
ber easonabl etorel
yupont hecriteriaspeci fi
edi ncl6of
theSecond Schedul eand t hen appl yt heappr opriate
mult i
pl i
er,keepinginv iewt hej udgment soft hiscour tin
Gener al ManagerKer alaSt at eRoad

487•
TransportCorporati
onvSusammaThomas,UP St at
e
Road TransportCor porat
ion vTri
/okChandra,Sar/
a
Verma vDel hiTr ansportCorpor
ati
on and al
so t
ake
guidance fr
om t he judgmentin Lat
a Wadhwa.The
approach adopted bydi f
fer
entBenchesoft heDelhi
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

HighCourttocomputethecompensationbyrelyi
ngupon
theminimum wagespayabl
etoaski l
l
edwor kerdoes
not commend our approval because iti s most
unreal
i
sti
ctocomparet hegrat
uitousservi
cesoft he
housewif
e/mot
herwit
htheworkofaski l
ledworker
."

CoxvHockenhul
l[199913Al
lER577
Fact s:Thepl ainti
ff'swi f
ewasdi sabledandhet ookcar eofher
fullt i
me.Thei rsour ceofi ncomewasent ir
elyst atebenef its;
somepai dt ot hewi feal one,somet ot hepl aintiffaloneand
somej ointl
yt obot h.Thewi fewaski lledinanacci dentowi ngt o
the negl igence oft he def endantand t he pl aintif
fsued f or
damages.Thedef endantcont endedt hatt hejudgewaswr ongi n
consi der i
ngst atebenef i
tsinassessi ngt hedamages.
Hel d:Thej udgewasr i
ghtinconsi deringthest atebenef it
s;fori t
mat ters notwher et he income comes f r
om,pr ov i
ded t he
dependantsuf f
eredal oss.Butt hebenef itthepl ai
ntif
fr ecei
v ed
fort akingcar eoft hewi fewasnott obei ncludedsi nceheact ed
asanempl oyeeoft hest ateint hatsenseandt hebenef i
tarose
from t hatbusi nessr elati
onship.
Pr i
ncipl e:Inassessi ngdamages, thecr i
ticalquest i
oni swhet her
thedependant shav esuf f
eredl ossandnott hesour ceoft he
i
ncomeoft hedeceased.

PerSt uart-Smi thLJ( afterr eferri

ngt osomecasesci t ed
byt hedef endant )atp.582,par .13:" MrSt evenson
submi tst hat t he basi s of t he r easoni ng i n bot h
j
udgment si sthatt hecl aimanti ssuppor tedbyt hest at e
bothbef or eandaf tert hedeceased' sdeat h,andt hat , he
says,istheposi tionher e.Idonotagr ee; i
nmyj udgment
thecriti
calt hi
ngi st hatt hecl aimantsuf ferednol oss.I f
therei sa l oss,i tcannotmat tert hatt hesour ceof
i
ncomebot hbef oreandaf terdeat hist hest ate,whet her
asempl oy erorpr ov i
derofst atebenef its.Icannotsee
thatthef actt hatt hebenef i
tsar eal lnon- cont r
ibut ory
makesanydi ff
erence.I nt heor dinarycase,ofwhi ch
Hunter's case i s pr obabl yt y pi
cal,a f ami lywhi ch i s
dependenton housi ng benef i
tand i ncome suppor t
beforet hedeceased' sdeat h,whet heri tbehusbandor
wife,wi llcont i
nue t or ecei ve such benef its,ort heir
equivalentsasi nHunt er'scaseaf terdeat h.Int hese
cir
cumst ancest herewi llbenol oss,ev eni ft heincome
suppor tisr educedt or ef l
ectt hef actthatonel essadul t
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

i
sbei ngsupport
ed.If,therefore,MrandMr sCoxhad
been dependent only on i ncome support,housing
benefi
tandcounciltaxbenef itbefor
eMr sCox'sdeath,
andMrCoxhadt hereaft
erbeeni nrecei
ptofthesame
benefi
ts(orthei
requi v
alent),therewouldbenol oss,
eventhoughtheamountoft heaf t
er-
deat
hbenefit
swas
l
owert orefl
ectthef actthatonl yMrCoxwasbei ng
support
ed."

Atp.284, par
.18:"I neffectthest ateempl oy edMrCox
tocar ef orasev erelydisabl edper son.I ft hatperson
hadbeenany oneothert hanhi swi fe,thef actt hatshe
diedandMrCoxt herebylosthi sincome, woul dnotgive
ri
se t o compensat able l oss. The f act t hat the
relati
onshipofmar ri
ageexi stedisasDev linJputi t
'
incidental'
.Accordingly
,i nmyopi nion,thej udgewas
wr ongtoi ncl
udethissum asbei ngpar toft hemakeup
oft hedependency .
"

CANAPARTYRECOVERFORTHESHORTENEDEXPECTATI
ON
OFLI
FE?
Fli
ntvLov ell[
193511KB354
Facts:Thepl aintiff
,a70-year-
oldener get
icmanofgoodheal th,
sustained serious i nj
uri
es owing t ot he negl i
gence oft he
defendantwher ebyhisli
feexpectancywasmat eri
all
yshor t
ened.
Inawar dingdamagesf orhisper sonalinjuri
es,thej udget ook
i
nto consi derat i
on his shortened expect ati
on of l i
fe.The
defendantappeal ed.
Held:The j udge wasent itl
ed tot ake into considerati
on the
shortenedexpect at i
onofli
fe.
Princi
ple:Damages f or shortened expect ation of l i
fe are
recoverable.

PerGr eerLJatpp.358and359:" Thequest i

ont hat
arose forconsi derat
ion during t he argument ,on a
suggestion thatcamef rom t heCour t,waswhet her ,
havingregar dtot hedeci si
oni nt hecaseofAdmi r
al t
y
Commi ssi oners v Owner s of S. S.Amer ika i
twas
permissibleinlawf ort heplainti
fft oclaim damagesi n
respectofar easonablecer t
aintythathi slif
ehadbeen
substantiall
y shortened by t he wr ongf ulactoft he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
defendant.Iti
scl
earfr
om t hatdeci
siont
hatanyperson
whosuf fersdamagebyr easonofthedeat hofanother
occasioned bythe wrongf ulactofa t hi
rd par
tyi n
respectofwhicht
helaw

489"

woul dot herwi segi vehi m acauseofact ion, cannotr ely

ont hedeat hei therf ort hepur poseofpr ov i
ngacause
ofact i
on,orf orthepur poseofr ecov er i
ngdamagesf or
acauseofact i
onwhi chhepr ov esi ndependent lyoft he
deat h.I tispl aint hatt hedeci sionoft heCour tint hat
case,whi ch i s based on t wo ol d cases:Hi ggi ns v
But cherand BakervBol t
on,ext ends notmer el yt o
prev entt hedeat hofanot herbei ngt r
eat edasacauseof
act i
oni nt heEngl i
shCour ts,butal sot opr ev entt he
recov er yofanydamagesi nr espectoft hedeat hof
anot herper son ev en wher et he cause ofact ion i s
compl etewi thoutanypr oofoft hedeat h.I nr efer ringt o
claimsf ordamagesf ort hel ossoft heser vicesofa
ser vantordaught eroccasi onedbyt hewr ongf ulactof
anot herper sonLor dPar kerofWaddi ngt onsay s:'Ift he
wr i
tal leged onl y an i njury perquod ser pitiwn or
consor ti
um ami sit,thewr itwoul dbeunobj ect i
onabl e,
buti fdeat hensued,damagecoul dbeobt ainedupt o
thedat eoft hedeat honl y.'Lor dSumner 'sj udgmenti s
tot hesameef fect.Bot hoft hesej udgment scont ain
i
nt erest i
ngaccount sofhowt her ulear oseoutoft heol d
l
aw i nwhi cht heki ll
ingofanysubj ectoft heCr own
coul donl ybeputi nsui tbyapr osecut ionf orf elonyby
theCr own,t heonl yr emedyf ort her elat ivesoft he
deceasedbei nganappealunderwhi cht heki l
ler ,ifhe
didnotar ranget hemat terwi tht her elat i
v es,coul dbe
subj ectedt ocer taincr uelt est s.Hav ingr egar dt ot he
pecul iaror i
ginoft her ule, Ihav ecomet ot heconcl usi on
thati thasnoappl i
cat i
ont oacasei nwhi chapl aintiff
stil
ll i
vingatt hedat eoft het riali saski ngf ordamages
ont hegr oundt hathehasnotonl ysuf fer edsev ere
pains ofbody and ment aldi squiet ude t hr ough t he
prospectofanear lydeat h,butal socl aimst hatwhat
mi ghthav ebeenanei ghtt ot eny ear spl easantl i
fei n
whi chhecoul dhav ecar riedonhi snor malact iv i
tieshas
beenconv ertedi ntoapr ecar i
oust enur enotl i
kel yt o
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
exceedt wel
vemont hs,duri
ngwhi chhewi l
lcont
inueto
suffersever
elyasther esul
toft hewr ongofwhi chhe
compl ai
ns.I
tismyconsi deredjudgmentthatunderthe
rul
esast omeasureofdamagel ai
ddowni nHadl eyv
Baxenda/ ethe pl
ainti
ff'
s clai
m t o damages on the
groundt hathisli
fewoul dbeshor t
enedwasoneon
whichhei sent
it
ledtosucceed."

AtsyorvDonkor[ 19801GLR273
Facts:Theplaint
iffwaskil
ledbythenegl
igenceoft
hedefendant
and the plainti
ffs as admini
strat
ors ofthe est
ate oft he
deceasedbroughtan

acti
on.The cour t had to decide t
he questi
on of
damages.Held:Damagesf orlossofexpect
ati
onofli
fe
wererecover
able.
Princi
ple:
Damagesf orlossofexpect
ati
onoflif
earer
ecover
abl
e
butmustbemoder at
e.

PerCousseyJatp.277:" InRosevFor d[ 19371A. C.

826,H. L.i twas deci ded thatdamages f orl oss of
expectat i
onofl i
fecoul dber ecov eredonbehal foft he
deceased' sest atei nanact ionundert heLaw Ref orm
(MiscellaneousPr ov i
sions)Act ,1934( 24&25Geo.5,c.
41);andi nBenham vGambl i
ng[ 19411A. C.157, 1- 1.10.it
wasdeci dedt hatonlymoder ateawar dsshoul dbemade
undert hishead.Vi scountSi monL. C.inthecour seofhi s
speechi nthatcasesai datpp.166- 167:' Iwoul dr at her
sayt hat,bef oredamagesar eawar dedinr espectoft he
shortenedl ifeofagi veni ndividualundert hi shead,i tis
necessar yf or the Cour tt o be sat isfied t hat t he
ci
rcumst ancesoft hei ndivi
duall ifewer ecal culat edt o
l
ead,onbal ance,toaposi ti
vemeasur eofhappi ness,of
whicht hev ict
im hasbeendepr i
vedbyt hedef endant '
s
negli
gence.I fthechar acterorhabi tsoft hei ndi vidual
werecal culatedtol eadhi mt oaf utureofunhappi nessor
despondency ,thatwoul dbeaci rcumst ancej ustifyinga
smallerawar d.
'

"Lord Goddar
disquot ed byVi
scountSimon L.C.in
Denham vGambl i
ng( supr
a)atp.168,H.L.ashaving
point
edoutwhent hecasewasbef or
et heCourtof
Appeal t hat, '
stri
pped of t echni
cali
ti
es, the
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

compensat
ionisnotbei
nggiv
entothepersonwhowas
i
njur
edatal
l,f
orthepersonwhowasinj
uredisdead.
'

"Thegener alvi
ew inthelightofthedecidedcasesis
thatcompensationunderthisheadshouldbemoderate.
Thedeceasedatdeat hwasaged24y earsandowingto
thedecli
nei nthepurchasi
ngpoweroft hecedi
,Ithi
nk
i
nclusiv
e ofspeci aldamages pr oved shoul
dint he
cir
cumst ancesbeadequatecompensation."

Benham vGambl
i
ng(
supr
a)

PerViscountSimonLC atp.162:" Nonetheless,it

mustbeacceptedthat
,incaseswherethevict
im'
slif
e
hasbeenshortenedbytheaccidentandtheclai
mi s
proper
lyf
ormulat
ed

491u
andproved,somef i
guret
or epr
esentthel osssuff
ered
bythedeceasedt hr
oughtheshorteni
ngofhi sli
femay
beincl
udedinthedamages,andsev eralofthejudges
concer
ned have dr awn at
tenti
on tot he need for
author
it
ati
veguidanceonthesubjectofhowt oarri
veat
i
t."

Shel
lCo.Lt
dvAy
imav
or(
supr
a)

THEEFFECTOFTHE1963CI
VILLI
ABI
LITYACTThe

cl
assofdependant
sisnowgr
eat
lyext
ended.

Swi
ftvSecr
etar
yof
Stat
eforJust
ice[
2014]QB373
Fact s:TheEngl ishFat alAccident sActincludedasdependant s
personsl ivingwi ththedeceasedi nt hesamehousehol dand
who hav eso l ived togetherf orami nimum of2 y ears.The
plainti
ffcohabi t
atedwi ththedeceasedf or6mont hsandhewas
kiHedbyt henegl i
genceofanot her
.Thei rchildwhowasbor n
afterthedeat hoft hedeceasedwasabl et orecov erforl
ossof
dependency butt he plainti
ffcoul d notdue t ot he 2-year
l
imi tati
on.Shebr oughtanact i
onagai nstthedef endantall
eging
thatt hepr ovi
sionoft heActr equi
ri
ngami nimum of2y ears
cohabi tat
ionbef orequal i
fyingf orbei
ngr egar dasadependant
wasdi scri
mi natoryandi nterferenceinherr ightt orespectfor
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

familyli
fe.
Held:Thatt hetwo-yearli
mitati
onwasnotar bi
tr
ar ybut
ensured per manence in respect of t he class of
dependantsandt huswasjustif
iabl
eint
erfer
ence.
Princi
ple:A realrel
ati
onshi
pofper manenceisr equi
redtobe
regardedasadependant .

PerLor dDy sonMRatp.385,par .23:"Thereislit

tl
e,if
any,disagreementbet weent hepar tiesaboutt hi
s.The
l
egiti
mat eaimt hatissoughtt obepur suedbysect ion
1(3)as a whol ei st o conf era f i
ghtofact i
on on
dependantsofpr i
mar yv i
ctimsoff atalwrongdoingt o
recoverdamagesi nr espectoft heirlossofdependency ,
buttoconf i
net herightt orecov erdamagest othose
whohadr elati
onshipsofsomedegr eeofper manence
and dependence.The r ealquest i
on i s whethert he
meanschosenbyt hel egi
slaturet opur suethi
sai m are
proporti
onate.Ibeari nmi ndt hei mpor tantpointthat
theburdenl i
esont he
SecretaryofStatetoshowt hatt heyar eproport
ionate."

Atpar
.25:
"Iacceptt
hat
,unl
i
ketheCar
son,
RJI
VIand
Humphrey
s

cases, thepr esentcasei snotconcer nedwi thstatebenef its.

Suchcasesar ethemostobv i
ousexampl esofdeci sionsby
thelegislat ureonquest i
onsofwhati sint hepubl i
cint erest
onsoci aloreconomi cgr ounds.Butt hedeci si
onwhet hert o
giveast at utoryr i
ghtofact iont ot hedependantofav icti
m
ofawr ongf uldeat hf ordamagesf orlossofdependency
also raises i mpor tantand di ffi
cul tissues ofsoci aland
economi cpol i
cy .I
tdoesnotr aiseat echni callegalquest ion
whichhasl ittl
eornosoci aloreconomi cconsequences.
Thati snodoubtwhyLor dHai lsham ofStMar yl
eboneLC
tookext ensi vesoundi ngsatt heCommi tteest ageoft he
Admi nistrat i
onofJust iceBillin1982.Heconsul tednotonl y
theBarandt heLaw Soci et y( asonewoul dexpectwi th
proposedl egislati
onoft hiski nd) ,butal sot heTr adesUni on
Congr ess,t he Conf ederati
on ofBr it
ish I ndustryand t he
Brit
ish I nsur ance Associ ation. I n i ts t urn, the Law
Commi ssi on al so consul ted a number of di fferent
organisat ions.The l i
stoft hose who r esponded t ot he
consul t
at ionbyt heMi nistr
yofJust i
cei n2007i sevenmor e
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
stri
ki
ng. I t incl
udes many i nsurers and def endant
organi
sations,tr
adesunionsandor ganisat
ionspromot ing
theint
erestsofbusiness.Atp102ofi t
sconsultati
onpaper
'
TheLaw onDamages' ,theDepartmentf orConst i
tuti
onal
Affai
rsi denti
fi
ed the gr oups wit
h an i nterest int he
proposal
s as bei ng claimants, defendants, insurers,
taxpayer
sandpubl i
csectorNHS."

Andatpar .34:"AsMrCoppelsubmi t
s,thisapproachi sone
possible v i
ew as t o t he degr ee of const ancy and
permanence t hati sr equi red toj ustif
y conferri
ng on a
survi
vorar i
ghtofact ionagai nstat ort
feasor.Butbear ingin
mind ( i)t he br oad mar gi n ofdi screti
on thatshoul d be
accordedt ot hel egislatureand( i
i)thenumberofdi ff
erent
i
nterest st hathadt obet akeni ntoaccount ,Iconsi derthat
Parli
amentwasent itl
edt ot akeadi ff
erentview.Ther eisno
obviouslyr i
ghtanswer .Iti smat eri
althatnei t
hert heLaw
Commi ssion ( pr oposi ng a Bi ll
)nort he Just i
ce Sel ect
Commi ttee ( consi dering t he dr aft Bil
l) proposed t he
abolit
ionofsect i
on1( 3)(
b) .Theyseem t ohav ebeenoft he
vi
ew t hata t wo- yearr equirementwas an appr opri
ate
measur eofconst ancyorper manence,al thought heyal so
proposed a new cat egor y of cl aimantsf or loss of
dependencydamages,whowoul dnothav eanaut omat i
c
ri
ghtt ocl aim,butwoul dhav et oprov ethattheywer ebei ng
maintainedt oa' subst antial'extent

493•

i
mmedi atel
ybef or
et hedeath.Itisalsotobenot edthat
theypr oposedcohabi teesoft woy ears'st
andingasa
new cat egoryofcl aimant sf orbereavementdamages
undersect ionI Aoft heAct .Ido,howev er,acceptthat
there are obv iousdi f
ferencesbet ween damagesf or
l
ossofdependencyanddamagesf orbereavement .The
i
mpor tantpoi nt,howev er,ist hatithas nev erbeen
suggest edt hatmer elylivi
ngt oget
herashusbandand
wifef ora si ngle dayorweek woul d establi
sh the
necessar y degr ee of per manence or dependency
requi
redf orar ightofact i
on."

(
Alt
houghthedeci
sionwaspur
elybasedonstatut
e,i
tisrelev
ant
i
ntheli
ghtoftheGhanai
anActandt hecur
rentsoci
o-economic
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
relati
onships bet ween par ti
es.The Ghanai an Actexcl udes
husbandsf rom theclassofdependant s.I ti
spossi blet omakea
discriminati
oncaseunderar t
icle22oft heConst i
tuti
onwhi ch
guar anteesspousalr ights.Iti
sal soi mpor tantt onot ethatthe
Proper t
yRi ghtsofSpousesBi llhaspr oposedami ni mum of5
year scohabi t
ati
ont ober egardedashusbandandwi feforthe
pur posesofspousalpr opertyrights.Althought heEngl i
shCourt
ofAppealf oundt woy earsnott obedi scr
imi nator
y ,thesame
maynothol df or5year s.
)

Anact
ionmaybebr
oughtwi
thi
n3y
ear
sofdeat
h.

Hewi
ttvHeal
thSer
viceExecut
ive[
20141I
EHC300
Fact s:Thedeceasedwast reatedatahospi talmanagedbyt he
def endanti n2001.Whenshewentf orar ev iewi n2007,l esi
ons
wer ef ound i n herl i
verbutowi ng t ot he negl igence oft he
def endant ,nothingwasdoneabouti tunt ilsomef ivemont hs
l
at erwhenmor elesionswer efound.Shewast reatedbutdi edon
23June2010.On25thJanuar y2012,t hepl ainti
ff,husbandand
per sonalr epresentativeofthedeceased, commencedanact i
on.
Thest atuteofl imitati
onslimitsact i
onsi nt or ttotwoy earsfrom
thedat et hecauseofact ionar ose.Thedef endantobj ect
edt hat
thecauseofact i
onar osein2007whenshebecameawar eof
thenegl igentactoft hedef endantandt husbecamest atute
bar redin2009bef oreshedi ed;andt hatsi nceshecoul dnot
hav ecommencedanact i
onagai nstt hedef endanthadshenot
died,owi ngt othel imit
ati
onper i
od,t heact ionbyt heplai
nt i
ffis
notmai ntainable.
Hel d:Inr espectofact i
onsi nf atalaccident swher enoact ion
wascommencedbyt hedeceasedbef or
ehi sdeat h, t
hecauseof
act i
onaccr uedont hedeat hoft heper sonoront hedat et he
per sononwhosebenef i
ttheact ionwasbr oughtbecameawar e
oft hedeat h.
Principle:Thecauseofact i
oni nf atalacci dent saccr uesont he
deat hof

t
heper
son.

PerBakerJatpar s,37,39:[37]
"I
tseemst omet hatthecause
ofaction,
beingonethatcanonlyaccrueatt hedateofdeathof
the deceased,cannotbe one t hatbecomes st atute-
barred
beforethedateofdeath.Theactionandt hecauseofact i
oni n
s48i sonecr eat
edbyst atuteandi sanact i
onofadi ff
erent
typefrom onewhi chmaybemai nt
ainedbyaper sonafi ng
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

fr
om awr ongfulactduri
nghi sorherl i
fe.Theclaim uners48
i
sacl aimthatmaybemai ntainedbyt hedependant sofMr s
Hewittf
orsolati
um anddamagesi nsofarastheycanshowshe
wouldhavepr ovi
dedeitherdirectmonet afYorindi
r ectserv
ice
benef
itstot hem dur i
ng herl i
fe.Such an act i
on may be
maint
ained onlyift he person,maki ng the contr i
buti
on or
whosedeathhascausedt hement al anguish,
hasdi ed.

[39]" Asamat terofl ogic,t heactionunders48oft he

Actof1961i sonet hatcomest oexistint hedependant s
att hedeat hoft hedeceased,andi snotanact ionwhi ch
coul dbebar redbyanyt irnet hatmi ghtr unbef orethat
dat e.Thecl earwor dsofs6oft heSt at
ut eofLimi tat
ions
(Amendment ). Act1991pr ov i
det hatt i
mer unsatt he
dat eofdeat h, orknowl edgeoft hedependant s,
anddoes
notl inklimitationtot heknowl edgeoft hedeceased,or
to ot herf actorst hatmi ghthav ebar red her.Fort he
reasonsIhav eout li
nedIam notper suadedt hatt hi
s
clearl i
mi t
ationper i
odi sal teredOfsuppl ementedbyt he
i
nt erpretati
oncanv assedbycounself ort heDef endant
ast ot hemeani ngofs48( 1) .

Andatpar .45:"Int heci r

cumst ances, Iconcl udet hatthe
causeofact i
on unders48 oft heActof1961 i sa
separatecauseofact i
on, di
ff
erentf rom t hatwhi chmi ght
havebeenmai ntainedbyt hePl aintiffonbehal foft he
estateofthedeceasedunders7oft heActof1961.The
acti
on unders 7 [ whi ch the deceased coul d hav e
mai nt
ainedagai nstt hedef endant ]isst atute-barredand
wasst atute-barredbef orethedeat hoft hedeceased.
Howev er,t
heact ionunders48[ whichi sf ort hebenef i
t
oft hedependant s]ar oseandcamei ntoexi stenceonl y
ont hehappeni ngoft hedeathofMr sHewi tton23June
2010.Herst atutor ydependant shadt her ightt obr i
nga
clai
m againstthe
Defendantinrespectofherwr ongf uldeat hupt otwoy ear
s

495.

af
terherdeat
h,andthatact
ion,hav
ingbeencommenced
wi
thi
nthestat
utor
yti
mel i
mit
, i
snotstat
ute-
bar
red.
"
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
(I
nGhana,t helimi
tati
onper i
odi sti
edtot hedateofdeath.In
otherjur
isdi
cti
onsl i
keBar bados,thecauseofact i
on i
st he
occurr
enceoft henegligentact
.Ther elev
antstat
ute,Acci
dent
Compensat i
onReform Act,pr
ovidesasfoll
ows:

'
7.
—(1)Notwi
thstandi
nganyenactmentorr
uleof
l
awtothecontr
ary,anact
ionmustbecommenced
wi
thi
n3y ear
sf r
om thetimethecauseofacti
on
ar
ose.
Lor
devTr
anspor
tBoar
d(1999)58WI
R51
Facts:Thedeceaseddi edin1990andl ettersofadministr
ati
on
wer egrantedt ot heplaint
if
fasadmi ni
str
at r
ixi
nApr i
l1994and
i
nMay1994, hecommencedt heacti
on.
Held:The cause ofact i
on accr
ued when t he negl
igentact
caused t hei njur
yt ot hedeceased and thust heaction was
statut
ebar redhav i
ngbeenbr oughtmoret hanthreeyearsaft
er
thedeat hoft hedeceased.
Princi
ple:Thecauseofact i
on i
nt hi
st ortist henegli
gence
causingt heinjurytothedeceased.

PerLewi sJ(deliveri
ngthej udgmenti nthecourtbel ow) :
"Thecauseofact i
onwast hedef endant
'scoll
isionwi th
thedeceased man,wher ebyt hedeceased man was
thrownf rom hi
sbi cycl
eandki l
led.Thecauseofact ion
wasnott hedeat h,butthenegl i
genceoft hedef endant
i
ncol l
idingwi t
ht hedeceasedmanonhi smot orcy cle.
Thathappenedbef orethedeat h,and,althought her e
mayhav ebeen onl ya spl i
tsecond,ora v er yshor t
i
ntervaloft i
me,bet weent hatcol l
isi
onandt heman' s
death,thecauseofact ionar osebef orehi
sdeat h.Ifi t
didar i
sebef orehi sdeath,t hent hatcauseofact ion
woulddescendt otheadmi nistr
ator.

(ThePr i
vyCounci lendorsedt hi
satp.58i nt hef ol
lowi ng
terms) :"Theirlor
dshipswi llhumbl yadvi
seHerMaj esty
thatt his appealoughtt o be di smissed.Despi te Mr
Connel l'
s and Mr St uar
t's attr
acti
ve and t enacious
argument s,t hei
rl ordships f i
nd themsel ves i nf ul
l
agreementwi tht
het rialj
udgeandt heCour tofAppeal
forther easonswhi cht heygav e.Thei
rlordshipscanadd
nothingofv al
uet othosejudgment sanddonotpr opose
i
nt he ci r
cumstances t o do mor et han associ ate
themsel veswi ththatreasoningandwi tht heout comeof
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana

t
hose judgments. The appel
lant must pay t
he
r
espondent
'scost
softhi
sappeal
.

(Damages r
ecov
erable incl
ude mental suf
fer
ing but t
his
prov
isi
onwastol
astforonlyt
hreey
ears.)

Shel
lCo.Lt
dvAyimavor(supr
a)
Fact
sandHoldi
ng:(
supra)
Pri
nci
ple:Damagesf
orment
aldi
str
essar
enotr
ecov
erabl
eat
common
l
aw.

PerApal ooJAatp.53:" Themor eser i

ouscont ent
ions
raisedonbehal foft hecompanywer ehowev eront he
quant um ofdamagesandt hebasi sonwhi chsomeof
theawar dswer emade.Thel earnedj udgeawar dedthe
dependant s oft he deceased NÉ650. 00 forment al
distressandpr oceededt oappor ti
onitamonghersev en
i
nf antchi l
dren.Mr .Quashi eIdun compl ai
nst hatthat
awar d was i ncompet ent as t he l egisl
ati
on whi ch
aut hori
sedthi sawar dpr escribedaper i
odoft hreeyears
whi chhasl apsed.Fort hissubmi ssion,hepoi nt
st o
sect i
on18 ( 4)oft heCi v i
lLi abil
i
tyAct ,1963,whi ch
enact s:'Paragr aph (b)[ thi
s enabl es damages t o be
awar dedf orment aldistress]ofsubsect i
on( 1)shal l
hav eef f
ectonl yi nrespectofadeat hoccur ri
ngwi thi
n
threey earsaftert hedateoft hepassingoft hi
sAct .
'

"TheActwaspassedon19Apr i
l1963andt heper i
od
l
imitedbyt hi
ssect i
onexpir
edon19Apr il1966.The
death which gaverisetothisaction occurred on 5
Nov ember1967,thatisaft
erthest at
utoryper i
od.We
agreethatasdamagesf ormentaldi
stressdidnotl i
eat
commonl aw,thi
sawar dmustgo.IndeedMr .Qui stfor
therespondentsconcedest
his.
"

McKenzi
evYeboah(
1970)CC103
Facts:Thedeceasedwasknockeddownbyacardr i
venbyt he
fi
rstdefendantandwassev eredintotwoi nstant
aneously.I
nt he
courseoft heproceedi ngs,thepl ai
nti
ffsamendedt heclaimt o
i
ncludedamagesf orment aldist
ress.Onappeal ,thedefendants
arguedthatthet r
ialjudgewaswr ongt oallowanamendmentat
alaterstagetoincludedamagesf orment al di
str
ess.
Held:Thegr uesomenat ureoft heacci dentjusti
fiedtheawar d
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
f
orment
aldi
str
ess.

497•

PerApalooJA:" It
hinkthewayi nwhichthedeceased
metherdeathandt henaturalf
eel
ingoftherespondent
and thedependantsatt hesightort houghtofi tis
enoughevidencetojust
ifytheaward.Iti
sunlikelyt
hat
themangledcorpseoft hedeceasedwoul dhav ebeen
shown to herchil
dren oftenderyears...buti nthe
ordi
narycourseofevents,t
heywouldbet oldhowt hei
r
mothermetherend."

Lar
yeavAdj
ei(
supr
a)
Hel
d:Damagesf orment
aldi
str
essar
erecov
erabl
eundert
he
Ghanai
anst
atut
e.

Dat
e-Bahi
nthear
ti
cl
eexpl
ainedasf
oll
ows:
"Ar
cher
J.A.expl ainedt hat,byv i
rtueofsect i
on18( 1)(b)oft heCi v i
l
LiabilityAct ,1963,damagesnotexceedi ngar er ecov erable
bydependant sagai nstadeceased' st ortf easorf orthement al
distress caused t o such dependant s by t he deat h.Thi s
Ghanai anst atutoryruleshowsar adicaldepar turef rom t he
traditionalEngl ishlaw appr oacht ot heassessmentoft he
dependant s'damages.Thet r
aditi
onalj udicialat t
itudehas
been t hat t he pur pose of awar ding damages t o t he
dependant si st ocompensat ethem f oronl yt hepecuni ar y
l
osscausedt hem byt hedeceased' sdeat h.Damageshav e
beendescr ibedasnoti ntendedt oser v easaso/ atzum f or
theiri njured f eeli
ngs.Consequent ly,atcommon l aw no
compensat ion is awarded f orthe ment aldi str
ess oft he
dependant s.TheGhanai anr ul
emayper hapsbesai dt obe
mor er esponsi vetot heneedsoft hel ocalcommuni t
y .The
value sy stem of t he localcommuni ty encour ages and
sy mpat hises wi th the ment al dist ress of dependant s
consequentupon a deceased' sdeat h.I ti st heref ore not
unr easonabl et hatinsuchasoci etyt hel aw shoul denabl e
compensat ion t o be soughti nr espectofsuch ment al
distress.Ar cherJ.A.expressed t hev iew t hatsuchment al
distressr esulti
ng from t he deceased' sdeat hr equi red no
proofandwoul dbepr esumedbyt hecour ts.Damagesf or
ment aldi stresst husseem t obeatl ar ge.Hecr i
ticizedt he
 CaseBr
ief
s:TheLawofTor
tsi
nGhana
tr
ialj
udgeforawardi
ngnothi
ngundert
hisheadofdamages,
eventhoughther
ehadbeena

speci
fi
ccl
aim byt
hepl
aint
if
fsundert
hishead.
"