{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Bourhill v young 1943 pregnant woman hears motorcycle

Info iconThis preview shows pages 4–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Bourhill v Young (1943) (Pregnant woman hears motorcycle accident) FACTS: Pregnant woman standing on side of tram. Overheard accident between motorcycle and tram – motorcyclist was killed. Baby was still born due to injuries from shock. RULE: Duty must be owed to the plaintiff. Motorcycle caused injury and owed a duty to the driver of the tram. Not reasonably foreseeable that someone in her situation would be hurt Chester v Waverley Municipal Council (1939) (Mother saw son dead in trench) FACTS: Council dug trench and left it. It filled with water. Boy fell in and drowned. Mother suffered mental harm from see them pull the boy out of the trench. HELD: no DOC. Not reasonably foreseeable that the mother would suffer injury. NB: Would probably go the other way not – Evitt J: Reasonably foreseeable that those around the scene could suffer mental harm from seeing an injury and it is likely that those in this group (mother) would be particularly susceptible. Levi v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (1941) (Bath Salts) FACTS: P given free bath salts that caused a very bad rash. She had very bad skin and up until the reaction nobody knew a reaction could be caused. D admitted owing a duty of care but only to customers with normal skin condition. HELD: If D had known of the sensitive skin there might be a duty but NO DOC. Haley v London Electricity Board (1965) (Blind person fell in street hole) FACTS: Electricity board made hole in footpath and left it overnight with a sign and diagonal stick. Plaintiff was blind and used the cane – missed the stick fell into the hole and lost hearing. Issue: Does P fall into the right class? Road user? Blind road user???? HELD: DOC – they didn’t take sufficient caution, blind people fall into class.
Background image of page 4

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
SALIENT FEATURES SUMMARY ( Sullivan v Moody instead of proximity) - Relationship between the parties: The closer the relationship the more likely to be a duty. - Floogates : will the decision open floodgates to litigation ( Moody ) - Illegal activity : courts are less likely to find a DOC if the plaintiff was engaging in an illegal activity/can’t treat criminal as a reasonable person. ( Gala v Preston ) - Assumption of responsibility by the defendant : Did the plaintiff rely on the defendant’s assumption of responsibility? ( Bryan facts?) - Creating conflicting duties: ( Hill, Moody ) If an unavoidable conflict of interest arises there may not be a DOC - Exposure of defendant to indetermate liability : if the number of possible plaintiffs is unquantifiable there may not be a duty - Vulnerability of the plaintiff to the defendant’s carelessness : ( Perre, Tame and Hill ) If the plaintiff has no control over the situation they are vulnerable – can use this in many cases. - Coherency in law/other better suited: ( Moody ) e.g. criminal law better suited to criminals.
Background image of page 5
Image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page4 / 45

Bourhill v Young 1943 Pregnant woman hears motorcycle...

This preview shows document pages 4 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online