Uk Tort - Case Law

Front 1

Kirkham v CC Greater Manchester Police [1990]

Mr Kirkham was an alcoholic and suffered from depression. He had made a two suicide attempts on 6th Jan 1980. He was admitted to hospital but discharged himself the following day. When he arrived home his wife prevented him from drinking and he became violent and started smashing furniture. The police were called and arrested him. His wife informed them of his suicide attempts and discharging himself from hospital and it was agreed that he should be remanded in custody for his own safety. However, the police failed inform the prison authorities that Mr Kirkham was a suicide risk. He committed suicide whilst on remand at Risley Remand Centre. His wife brought an action based on the negligence of the police in failing to pass on the information. The Police raised the defences of volenti non fit injuria and ex turpi causa.

Back 1

Held:

The claimant was successful. The defence of volenti non fit injuria, although normally would apply where a person of sound mind were to take their own life, had no application where a person of unsound mind took their life. The defence of ex turpi causa was not limited to illegal acts but extended also to immoral acts. The court applied the public conscience test and concluded that to allow the claimant to succeed would not affront the public conscience, or shock the ordinary citizen.

Front 2

Krell v Henry [1903]

The defendant hired a flat on Pall Mall for the sole purpose of viewing King Edward VII's coronation procession. The price agreed was £75 for two days. The defendant paid £25 deposit. Due to illness of the King the coronation was cancelled. Consequently, the defendant did not use the flat. The claimant sought to claim the outstanding £50.

Back 2

Held:

The contract was frustrated as cancellation of the procession deprived it of its commercial purpose. The claimant's action for breach of contract was thus unsuccessful.

Front 3

Knightley v Johns & Ors [1982] 1 WLR 349 Court of Appeal

As a result of Mr John's negligent driving his car overturned in a tunnel. Two police officers on motorcycles arrived at the scene. The senior officer instructed them both to ride their motorcycles to the other side of the tunnel and close the entrance to the tunnel as he had forgotten to close it earlier. They took the decision of driving on through the tunnel on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend rather than going the long way round. Unfortunately one of the officers, Mr Knightly, was involved in a head on collision with an oncoming vehicle driven by Mr Cotton and sustained serious injuries. He brought an action against Mr Cotton, Mr John, the senior officer and the Chief Constable of West Midlands. The main contentious point was whether Mr. John remained liable or whether the actions of the other defendant's and the claimant amounted to a novus actus interveniens.

Back 3

Held:

The senior officer's instructions and failure to close the entrance to the tunnel were negligent and broke the chain of causation. The claimant's decision in going through the tunnel was not negligent. Thus the claimant was entitled to full damages from the senior officer and Mr John was not liable.

Front 4

L'Estange v Graucob [1934]

The claimant purchased a cigarette vending machine for use in her cafe. She signed an order form which stated in small print 'Any express or implied, condition, statement of warranty, statutory or otherwise is expressly excluded'. The vending machine did not work and the claimant sought to reject it under the Sale of Goods Act for not being of merchantable quality.

Back 4

Held:

In signing the order form she was bound by all the terms contained in the form irrespective of whether she had read the form or not. Consequently her claim was unsuccessful.

Front 5

McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]

The claimant worked at the defendant's brick works. His normal duties did not expose him to much dust but he was then asked to work on the brick kilns in a hot a dusty environment. The defendant was in breach of duty in not providing washing and showering facilities. The claimant thus had to cycle home still covered in the brick dust. The claimant contracted dermatitis. There were two possible causes: the brick dust he was exposed to during the course of his employment which was not attributable to a breach of duty and the brick dust he was exposed to on his journey home which was attributable to a breach. The defendant sought to distinguish Wardlaw's case by arguing that it was proved that every particle of dust inhaled played its part in causing the onset of the disease whereas in this case it is not proved that every minor abrasion played its part.

Back 5

Held:

The claimant only had to demonstrate that the dust attributable to the breach of duty materially increased the risk of him contract dermatitis.

Front 6

Merritt v Merritt [1970]

A husband left his wife and went to live with another woman. There was £180 left owing on the house which was jointly owned by the couple. The husband signed an agreement whereby he would pay the wife £40 per month to enable her to meet the mortgage payments and if she paid all the charges in connection with the mortgage until it was paid off he would transfer his share of the house to her. When the mortgage was fully paid she brought an action for a declaration that the house belonged to her.

Back 6

Held:

The agreement was binding. The Court of Appeal distinguished the case of Balfour v Balfour on the grounds that the parties were separated. Where spouses have separated it is generally considered that they do intend to be bound by their agreements. The written agreement signed was further evidence of an intention to be bound.

Front 7

Miller v Jackson [1977]
The defendants were members of the Lintz Cricket Club. Cricket had been played at Lintz cricket ground for over 70 years. The land was owned by the National Coal Board (NCB) who also owned some fields surrounding the grounds. Four years prior to the action, the NCB sold one of the fields and a development of Wimpey homes was put up in close proximity to the cricket ground. Mrs Miller purchased one of the houses and brought an action against the cricket club seeking an injunction to prevent them playing cricket at the ground. Initially quite a number of balls were hit over the houses. However, in 1976 the cricket club erected a higher fence and the number of balls hit out was reduced to nine over a two year period. There had been no personal injuries resulting from the balls but some property damage had been caused which the cricket club had paid for. Mrs Miller complained that she could not use her garden during matches....

Back 7

Held:

The defendants were liable in both negligence and nuisance (Lord Denning dissenting)

However, ******* Bruce LJ refused the injunction on the grounds that it would be inequitable to grant an injunction given that the cricket ground had been used for so long and would be a loss to the community and Mrs Miller received the benefit of being adjacent to an open space.
Lord Lane would have granted the injunction stating that the decision in Sturges v Bridgeman involves the assumption that it is no defence for the defendant to show that they came to the nuisance.