Here at Law Answered we go through law updates every week to make sure that we’re keeping up with the law and can update our guides effectively. Some weeks we find there’s nothing much to note but we’ve just come across three really interesting tort cases and thought we’d share them with you in advance of popping them into our guides for the summer release dates.
Does anyone remember Paul v Royal Wolverhampton? It’s a psychological damage case in relation to two sisters who witnessed their father’s fatal heart attack following negligent hospital treatment in the previous year. The hospital had negligently failed to diagnose his fatal cardiac condition. After Paul came Palmear v Royal Cornwall hospitals where parents witnessed their young child collapse and die following the hospital’s failure to diagnose their daughter’s illness. In both cases the court found liability extending the law which had previously been based on the House of Lords decision in Taylor v A Nova. The law had imposed liability only where the claimant had been sufficiently proximate in time to the incident and its immediate aftermath. Well, of course Paul and Palmear went off to the Court of Appeal and the court has just found against the claimants and reinstated the law in Taylor. The Court of Appeal was very clear that this is a matter for the Supreme Court and an application for leave to appeal in the (now) conjoined cases has been made. We’d better continue to watch this space!
Next up it’s a sports negligence case. Always quite difficult to prove because the doctrine of volenti is around; the courts have long recognised that sports people expose themselves to risk. In Tylicki v Gibbons a case involving two jockeys whose horses collided at a race meeting causing horrific and life changing injuries to one of them the court was prepared to find liability. It noted the rules of flat racing and while referring to the fact that the bar for negligence was high in a race situation it concluded that one jockey had shown a “reckless disregard” for safety and that negligence was made out.
And finally another ground breaking case. In Toombes v Mitchell the claimant alleged that negligent advice given to her mother pre- pregnancy had caused her spina bifida and claimed damages. The mother (a careful woman) had specifically sought medical advice in advance of becoming pregnant and had not been advised to take folic acid supplements (which would have prevented her daughter’s condition). In a first the court found for the daughter.
We hope these cases excite you as much as they do us. In any event if you are studying tort at the moment you might be able to impress your lecturers with your up to the minute knowledge.