Uk Tort - Case Law (N - Q)

Front 1

Nettleship v Weston [1971]

The defendant was a learner driver. She was taking lessons from a friend. The friend checked that the defendant's insurance covered her for passengers before agreeing to go out with her. On one of the lessons Mrs Weston turned a bend, Mr Nettleship told her to straighten the wheel but Mrs Weston panicked and failed to straighten the wheel. She approached the pavement and Mr Nettleship grabbed the handbrake and tried to straighten the wheel but it was too late. She mounted the pavement and hit a lamp post. Mr Nettleship fractured his knee. The defendant argued that the standard of care should be lowered for learner drivers and she also raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria in that in agreeing to get in the car knowing she was a learner, he had voluntarily accepted the risk.

Back 1

Held:

A learner driver is expected to meet the same standard as a reasonable qualified competent driver. Volenti did not apply as he had checked the insurance cover which demonstrated he did not waive any rights to compensation. His damages were reduced by 50% under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 to reflect the degree to which he was also at fault.

Front 2

Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957]

Mrs Williams purchased a second hand Morris car on the basis that it was a 1948 model. The registration document stated it was first registered in 1948. The following year her son used the car as a trade in for a brand new Hillman Minx which he was purchasing from Oscar Chess. The son stated the car was a 1948 model and on that basis the Oscar Chess offered £290 off the purchase price of the Hillman. Without this discount Williams would not have been able to go through with the purchase. 8 months later Oscar Chess ltd found out that the car was in fact a 1939 model and worth much less than thought. They brought an action for breach of contract arguing that the date of the vehicle was a fundamental term of the contract thus giving grounds to repudiate the contract and claim damages.

Back 2

Held:

The statement relating to the age of the car was not a term but a representation. The representee, Oscar Chess ltd as a car dealer, had the greater knowledge and would be in a better position to know the age of the manufacture than the defendant.

Front 3

Osman v Ferguson [1993]
A school teacher (Mr Paul Pagett Lewis) formed an unhealthy attachment to a 14 year old pupil (Ahmet Osman). He had given him money, taken photographs of him and followed him home. The police were informed but no action was taken. Things continued and the teacher changed his name by deed poll to Paul Ahmet Osman. He accused Ahmet of having a homosexual relationship with a fellow pupil and tried to prevent them speaking to each other. He was then suspended from teaching and embarked upon serious harassment of Ahmet and his family. The police were called on several occasions and the teacher had told the police that he was unable to control himself and would do something which was criminally insane if he was not stopped. Eventually he followed Ahmet home one night and shot him and his father. Ahmet survived but unfortunately his father didn't. The teacher was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Back 3

Ahmet's mother brought an action for the death of her husband and Ahmet brought an action for the personal injuries he suffered as a result of the police force's failure to apprehend the teacher earlier or to provide adequate protection. The defendant applied to have the claim struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The application was dismissed by the High Court. The defendant appealed.

Held:

The appeal was allowed and the claim struck out. Whilst the Court was satisfied that it was reasonably foreseeable that harm would result and that there was a sufficient closeness of proximity, the case of Hill v CC of Yorkshire had laid down, as a matter of public policy, a blanket immunity on the police from such actions.

Front 4

Page v Smith [1996]


The claimant had suffered from ME over a period of time and was in recovery when he was involved in a minor car accident due to the defendant's negligence. The claimant was not physically injured in the collision but the incident triggered his ME and had become chronic and permanent so that he was unable to return to his job as a teacher. He was successful at his trial and awarded £162,000 in damages.

Back 4

Held:

Provided some kind of personal injury was foreseeable it did not matter whether the injury was physical or psychiatric. There was thus no need to establish that psychiatric injury was foreseeable. Also the fact that an ordinary person would not have suffered the injury incurred by the claimant was irrelevant as the defendant must take his victim as he finds him under the thin skull rule.

Front 5

Partridge v Crittenden (1968)
The defendant placed an advert in a classified section of a magazine offering some bramble finches for sale. S.6 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 made it an offence to offer such birds for sale. He was charged and convicted of the offence and appealed against his conviction.

Back 5

Held:

The defendant's conviction was quashed. The advert was an invitation to treat not an offer. The literal rule of statutory interpretation was applied.

Front 6

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots [1953]

Boots introduced the then new self service system into their shops whereby customers would pick up goods from the shelf put them in their basket and then take them to the cash till to pay. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain brought an action to determine the legality of the system with regard to the sale of pharmaceutical products which were required by law to be sold in the presence of a pharmacist. The court thus needed to determine where the contract came into existence.

Back 6

Held:

Goods on the shelf constitute an invitation to treat not an offer. A customer takes the goods to the till and makes an offer to purchase. The shop assistant then chooses whether to accept the offer. The contract is therefore concluded at the till in the presence of a pharmacist.

Front 7

Pinnel's Case 1602 5 Rep, 117 Court of Common Pleas

Back 7

The claimant was owed £8 10 shillings. The defendant paid £5 2 shillings and 2p. The claimant sued for the amount outstanding.

Held:

The claimant was entitled to the full amount even if they agreed to accept less. Part payment of a debt is not valid consideration for a promise to forebear the balance unless at the promisor's request part payment is made either:

a). before the due date or
b). with a chattel or
c). to a different destination

Front 8

Pitts v Hunt [1990]

The Claimant, Mr Pitts (aged 18), and Mr Hunt (aged 16), were friends. They had been out for an evening together. Mr Hunt gave the Claimant a lift on the back of his trial motorbike which was a Suzuki 250cc. He had no licence to ride the bike on the road, indeed the engine capacity limit for a 16 year old to ride legally would be 50cc. He also had no tax or insurance. The pair consumed alcohol at their destination and Mr Hunt was twice over the legal limit for driving. Nevertheless, the pair embarked on their journey home on the motorcycle. Witnesses gave evidence that the two were obviously very drunk and Hunt was driving recklessly and erratically. He was zig-zagging down the centre of an A road at great speed, with both the parties shouting and jeering. Mr Pitts was jeering Mr Hunt on and encouraging the dangerous driving. At one time, Mr Hunt drove dangerously close to a witness in order to scare them.

Back 8

He brought an action for the injuries sustained against the personal representatives of Mr Hunt. In their defence they raised the defences of volenti non fit injuria, contributory negligence and ex turpi causa. The trial judge held that the Claimant could not recover based on the fact that ex turpi causa operated to preclude the imposition of a duty of care and also that the Claimant was 100% responsible for his own injuries under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. On the issue of volenti he held that s.148(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 precluded the application of the defence. The Claimant appealed.
Held:
Ex turpi causa and public policy did operate to preclude the imposition of a duty of care. The trial judge was wrong in principle in finding that the Claimant was 100% contributory negligent. S.148(3) of the Road Traffic Act did preclude the application of the defence of volenti non fit injuria.