The test for negligence

Condon v Basi-The Defendants tackle was reckless even against the reasonable local league player.
Pitcher v Huddersfield Town Football Club Ltd- there was insufficient time to abort the tackle.
Vicarious Liability and Likely Damages in Football
Ben Collett (Manchester United FC) v Gary Smith & Middlesborough FC- they didn’t take into
account what he could have earned after his carrier-£3.6 million in special damages
Deliberate intention to injure
Alf Inge Haaland v Roy Keane & Manchester United FC- they couldn’t prove that D injured C as C
already was injured before the game.
GB v Stoke City Football Club Ltd and another- claimant had failed to rebut the burden of proof
therefore claim was dismissed.
The reasonable standard – reckless play
Paul Elliot (Chelsea FC) v Dean Saunders & Liverpool FC- The Court favoured the evidence
provided by the officials in that Saunders was attempting to “play the ball” and had not acted
recklessly. Given that, Liverpool FC were held not to be vicariously liable and the case failed.
Reasonable foreseeability
McCord v Swansea FC- Liability for soccer injury; recklessness not required to be shown after clear
foul outside laws of game, no violence to such acts.(this is reasonably foreseeable that due to this
foul the claimant will suffer serious injuries which could potentially ruin his carrier and because of this
the D is found liable)
Watson v Gray and Another- The claimant was injured by a foul tackle which ended his football
career. The defendant admitted liability, but denied that he would have gone on to be a premier
league player (not prove potential loss of future earnings)
The extent of liability post Mohamud
AM Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc- This required the consideration of the employee’s
functions and whether there was a sufficient connection between the wrongful conduct and the
employer.

Establishing a duty of care

Negligence the case started Donoghue v Stevenson started negligence.-But it was replaced with Caparo v
Dickman who set the 3 duty of care rules; is it reasonably foreseeable that a duty of care should be
owed?(Jolley v Sutton borough Council- it was reasonably foreseeable that a 14yr old would trespass and
investigate an abandoned boat), are they in a proximate relationship?(Bourhill v Young weren’t in proximate
relationship as they were not in same time space and not in a relationship.), Is it just fair and reasonable that
a duty of care should be owed?(Capital v counties PLC & Hampshire council-it was just fair and reasonable
that a duty of care should be owed to a fireman who instructed the sprinklers to be turned off.)
Breach of duty of care.-risk factors.
Reasonable man test—Bollam=pro(the/reasonable/pro/man/would/have/acter/in/the/same/way), Blythe v
Birmingham waterworks=everyday man(reasonable water board wouldn’t be responsible for flood damage
due to bad weather they took all precautions to prevent the risk), Nettleship v Weston=learners-compared to
pros(Learners compared to the standard of reasonable man doing that activity) Likelihood of harm-(Bolton v
stone-likelihood of harm in this case was low because the cricket ball had only been hit out of the ground 6
times in 30 years. Defendant not liable) Magnitude of risk-(Paris v Stepney-the mag was high as already lost
sight in 1 eye-employer should provide safety goggles to protect the sight in the good eye ) what was the cost
of precautions?-(Latimer v AEC-The employer did all they could to prevent further risks of injury when they
put saw dust over the spillage. The only other thing they have done was to close the factory and what would
have cost them too much) suitability of precautions?-(Hayley v London Electricity Board-the electricity
company could have taken more practical precautions to protect the blind person from falling down the hole-
The signs they erected was not suitable)
Resulting Damage-damages occurred as a result of breach of duty.
But for test-but for the defendants actions would the injury/loss have occurred?-(Barnett v Chelsea and
Kensigington Hospitals-but for the men being sent away from the hospital would they have died-yes poison
had already taken place and couldn’t have been stopped ) Damage must not be too remote-(Wagon Mound-
action of D were too far removed from the wharf burning down as the oil was spilt 2 days prior to the welding
work taking place) The damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable-(Hughes v Lord Advocate-damage was
foreseeable in this case as it is foreseeable that a paraffin lamp will cause burns if it explodes) The Thin Skull
Rule also applies where you take your victim as you found them.-(Smith v Leech Brian and Co)

Damages- SP.D= SPECIAL DAMAGES lossAmenity-can’t do thing could do

General damages-Non-pecuniary(not easy calculate), pain&suffering(P&S), loss of amenity(Picket v British
Railway Engineering Limitied-the claimant was given gd to comp earnings for his loss due to injury at work-
given 14yrs expected to work before retirement/1 yr meant to live)
Special damages(easy calculate)-(Cunningham v Harrison-claim for nursing despite wife looking after and
already paid salary for no work-SP.D-pay private med care)
Mitigation of loss-keep cost as low as possible Contributory Negligence-contributes to loss % of damages
will be lost-(Sayers V Harlow Council-damages reduced as she contributed to injury-she climbed on toilet roll
holder in order to escape the toilet.
Lump sums-P&S/amenity-only lump-unfair claimant worse/unfair D if C makes better recovery
Structured settlement-Act damage 1966-parties agree on regular income-D set up norms through insurance
compensation -Act allows agree life or set period
Small Track-£10,000/£1000 P.I./Fast Track-£10,000-£25,000/Multi-Track-£25,000-upwards
Disadvantages of court- civil court=expensive-can cost more than being claimed/ may not be able to pay
Waits- 12 months- county / 3 years-high /19 months- court of appeal-this means that you may have to wait
up to 3 years to get your claim
Judges no expertise in certain cases-so cant judge properly as not fully experienced
Court choose the date it goes to court so you have to keep your time open and be flexible.
Mediation-process not legally binding unless it is drawn up by lawyer then payment which cost more money
defeat ADR point/no appropriate method if parties are entrenched/no legal aid access/mediator NOT EXPERT
MAYBE so may less expertise /process could seen as informal-parties not take seriously.
Negotiation-cheaper than court/more convenient for parties/Done in private/quicker than court//allows
parties flexibility with settlements.
Conciliation-Won’t work without compromise&co-operation/settlements(comp)lower than in court/could go
for long without settlement/bullying exercise if untrained mediator
Arbitration-unexpected legal point no dealt with by no-lawyer arbitrator/could be expensive if pro/expensive
if parties opt formal hearing witness evidence and lawyers representing/rights of appeal are limitied/delay for
commercial and international arbs are almost as long as court delay.
Ombudsmen-cannot provide quick solution to complex problems/complaint has no control over
investigation/decisions are not binding.
Lord Chancellor follows for issues legal aid; Cost providing services/benefits to the individual/availability of
resource/are other services available&cheaper/is it in public interest/is it likely to be successful?
You can pay by; legal aid/Conditional fee arrangement-NO WIN NO FEE/insurance premium ate/bte/free
representation-probono.