Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No.2) [2004]

English Constitutional Law

Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No.2) [2004]
‘The Prisoner’ by Vladimir Makovsky

The pollution of judicial impartiality was an issue raised by a prison inmate when campaigning for a transfer on grounds of Convention rights and when faced with a verdict that ran contrary to his calculated expectations.

While serving sentence in HMP Barlinnie, Scotland, the appellant took issue with the prison when complaining that his living conditions ran counter to his rights under art.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Prohibition of torture) which explained that:

“1. No one shall be held in slavery or solitude.

2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

3. For the purpose of this Article the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include:

(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;

(b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;

(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;

(d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.”

And so citing he was justified a transfer to a more suitable prison, the appellant raised a petition and an order for specific performance under a claim for damages, while further requesting that the respondents personally arrange for his transfer and compensation.

In the first instance the Court of Session refused to issue orders against them on grounds that s.21(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 explained that:

“(a)where in any proceedings against the Crown any such relief is sought as might in proceedings between subjects be granted by way of injunction or specific performance, the court shall not grant an injunction or make an order for specific performance, but may in lieu thereof make an order declaratory of the rights of the parties…”

However the court denied such an order while the Extra Division followed suit for the same reasons before the appellant was again denied recourse before the House of Lords until the appellant discovered that one of the presiding judges (Hardie LJ) had been involved in the amendment of the 1947 Act while serving as Lord Advocate, and that his presence contributed to the inclusion of Scottish Ministers when protecting members of the Crown under s.38(2), which stated that:

“”Civil proceedings’’ includes proceedings in the High Court or the county court for the recovery of fines or penalties, but does not include proceedings on the Crown side of the King’s Bench Division;…’’Officer’’, in relation to the Crown, includes any servant of His Majesty, and accordingly (but without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing provision includes a Minister of the Crown and a member of the Scottish Executive.”

Thus the appellant alleged ‘actual bias’ within the reclaim hearing and sought a re-trial under the rule of law for the purposes of objectivity and equity, whereupon the House of Lords referred to Porter v Magill in which they had held that:

“The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.”

And so after careful examination of the actual degree to which Lord Hardie had been involved in the amending of the statute, the House dismissed the appeal on grounds that the origins of that particular legislative change had stemmed directly from the mind of Donald Stewart MP who was at the time the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that Lord Hardie had merely been representative of those actions within his professional capacity, while clarifying for the parties that:

“[A] risk of apparent bias is liable to arise where a judge is called upon to rule judicially on the effect of legislation which he or she has drafted or promoted during the parliamentary process.”

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]

English Tort Law

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]
‘Solitary Swimmers’ by Pedro Covo

Reckless endangerment and the scope of relevant statute prove the nucleus of a case where the civil liberties of the general public and a local authority’s duty of care ran risk of judicial pollution when a life-altering injury led to a damages claim.

Purpose-built from derelict land, the 14-acre Brereton Heath Country Park was home to a popular lake known as the ‘mere’, and although the appeal of the lake drew over 160,000 visitors a year, the controlling borough and local authorities had prohibited swimming through the presence of warning signs, leaflet distribution, lifebelts, throwing lines and constant supervision by park rangers despite flagrant ignorance by the a majority of the attending public.

Unfortunately on this occasion the 18 year-old respondent elected to stand in little over two feet of water before proceeding to dive in, whereupon he struck his head on the sandy bottom and broke the fifth vertebrae in his neck. Now facing life as a tetraplegic the respondent sought damages from the local authority under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 on grounds that a duty of care was owed as both a trespasser and park visitor.

For clarity s.2(2) of the 1957 Act stated that:

“The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.”

While s.2(4) explained that:

“In determining whether the occupier of premises has discharged the common duty of care to a visitor, regard is to be had to all the circumstances, so that (for example) (a) where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe…”

However in 1976 the Law Commission gave recommendation to a statutory duty of care for trespassers as was given effect in s.1(1) of the 1984 Act s.1(1) while s.1(5) and s.1(6) further read that:

“(5) Any duty owed by virtue of this section in respect of a risk may, in an appropriate case, be discharged by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to give warning of the danger concerned or to discourage persons from incurring the risk.

(6) No duty is owed by virtue of this section to any person in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by that person (the question whether a risk was so accepted to be decided on the same principles as in other cases in which one person owes a duty of care to another).”

This translated that where no award was found under the first Act then the same would apply by extension to the second, while leading authority for the conversion from visitor to trespasser was found in Hillen v ICI (Alkali) Ltd in which the House of Lords had held that:

“So far as he sets foot on so much of the premises as lie outside the invitation or uses them for purposes which are alien to the invitation he is not an invitee but a trespasser, and his rights must be determined accordingly.”

And so given the fact that swimming was overtly and historically prohibited, the respondent sought remedy as a trespasser with claims that the water had muddied his view of the bottom, whereupon mention was made to Whyte v Redland Aggregates Ltd  in which the Court of Appeal had explained that:

“[T]he occupier of land containing or bordered by the river, the seashore, the pond or the gravel pit, does not have to warn of uneven surfaces below the water. Such surfaces are by their nature quite likely to be uneven. Diving where you cannot see the bottom clearly enough to know that it is safe to dive is dangerous unless you have made sure, by reconnaissance or otherwise, that the diving is safe, ie, that there is adequate depth at the place where you choose to dive. In those circumstances, the dangers of there being an uneven surface in an area where you cannot plainly see the bottom are too plain to require a specific warning and, accordingly, there is no such duty to warn…”

In the first instance the judge held that the lake simply wasn’t dangerous enough to warrant local authority liability, and so dismissed the claim before the Court of Appeal extended the occupiers liability beyond one of reasonable limits and awarded damages, however under challenge, the House of Lords fully considered the accountability of the respondent before reversing the previous judgment and restoring the original findings  on grounds that the principle that individual risk-taking in the knowledge of visible danger was incumbent upon the owner was counter-productive inasmuch as failure to acknowledge warnings was not a precursor for liability when the claimant suffers harm, whereupon the House reminded the parties that:

“[L]ocal authorities and other occupiers of land are ordinarily under no duty to incur such social and financial costs to protect a minority (or even a majority) against obvious dangers.”

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) [2004]

English Tort Law

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) [2004]
‘Recycle’ by Steve Mills

Convention principles and the juxtaposition between public interest and individual  privacy lie central to a clamant’s case when the needs of a known supermodel are considered secondary to the public knowledge of her drug addiction, thus sparking fierce debate as to where the lines of journalistic privilege and private health ought to be drawn.

Following the appellant’s prolonged public denial, she was rushed to hospital for emergency treatment in what was described as an allergic reaction to antibiotics, however a few months later the appellant was photographed outside a known ‘Narcotics Anonymous’ venue before a newspaper article included a number of those images under the title ‘Naomi: I am a drug addict’, in which the publication revealed that despite  repeated protests the appellant was in fact a long-term narcotics user, and that in a battle to overcome her addiction she had enrolled into a self-help programme. 

Unfortunately one of the images had captured the sign of a well-known café, thereby allowing readers to know where she may be found, while the article text revealed how often she might be attending, while prior to its release the newspaper editor had contacted the appellant’s agent, whereupon they were told that the images proved a violation of the appellant’s right to privacy and confidentiality in relation the anonymous nature of her chosen therapy, and yet the respondents ran the story and litigation followed soon after. 

In the first hearing the appellant claimed for breach of confidence and sought damages under the Data Protection Act 1998, whereupon she was awarded a total of £3,500, after which the Court of Appeal reversed and discharged the award before the House of Lords examined art.8(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998, which reads that:

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, of for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

And art.10(2), which reads that:

“The exercise of these freedoms since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalities as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protections of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, of for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

While noting how in Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) they had held that:

“[A] duty of confidence arises when confidential information comes to the knowledge of a person . . . in circumstances where he has notice, or is held to have agreed, that the information is confidential, with the e­ffect that it would be just in all the circumstances that he should be precluded from disclosing the information to others.”

Before the House further noted how clause 3(i) of the Editors’ Code of Practice of the Press Complaints Commission provides that:

“(iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent. Note – Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

However the House also referred to Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway, in which the European Court of Human Rights had held that:

“Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, its duty is nevertheless to impart in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities information and ideas on all matters of public interest.”

Which was a position concurrent with s.12(4) of the HRA 1998, which reads that:

“The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to (a) the extent to which (i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or (ii) it is, or would be, in the pubic interest for the material to be published; (b) any relevant privacy code.”

And so by embracing both elements to the argument the House upheld the appeal on grounds that clandestine nature of ‘Narcotics Anonymous’ protected the needs and identities of those attending, thus when the respondents gained unauthorised access to the appellant’s treatment, they did so in the knowledge that it represented no less than a violation of her art.8 rights, whereupon the House reminded the parties that:

“Any interference with the public interest in disclosure has to be balanced against the interference with the right of the individual to respect for their private life. The decisions that are then taken are open to review by the court.”

Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984]

European Law

 

Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
‘The Prisoner’ by Jean-Leon Gerome

Sexual discrimination and the right to enforce Directive 76/207/EEC when applying for a position was unprecedented within the European Community, and so when two well-qualified female social workers applied for similar posts at the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (a male populated prison) and were refused employment on grounds of their gender, the Arbeitsgericht Hamm (German Labour Court) referred a number of questions to the European Court of Justice under art.177 EC. 

Having referred to the principles of Directive 76/207/EEC governing equal access to employment, training, promotion and working conditions, the claimants contended that denial of this particular post was tantamount to a breach of Member State obligations and that legal remedy should constitute either six months full pay or the creation of another position within the offer of employment. 

However German law had been amended to incorporate the Directive measures with a degree of discretion, inasmuch as proof of sexual discrimination within the recruitment process only provided resulting sanctions as one incurring travel costs and not those allowing compensatory damages or the employment provision sought. 

This led to the formulation of five interrelated questions, and which asked:

1. Whether under breach of the anti-discrimination Directive, was the employer liable to provide for, and offer, employment to those parties affected? 

2. If so, was it on grounds that the claimant could provide evidence of greater qualification than those required for the position applied for?

3. Was equal competence acceptable as grounds for the provision of additional employment, or was the claimant entitled to employment irrespective of qualifying ability? 

4. Did Directive 76/207/EEC provide clear instruction as to the form of remedy awarded where discrimination occurred, but no employment was required? 

5. Could the terms of the Directive be relied upon by an individual when the discrimination was between private individuals?

When examining the exactness of the Directive it was held by the European Court of Justice that while the effects of Community law and transposition of those Directives must observe and follow the principles expressed, where discriminatory acts are proven, the Commission did not intend that an employer was imposed with any obligation to create positions beyond those advertised. 

Thus in terms of legal clarity, the Court held that further national debate was needed in order to amend the legislation in line with a fair and balanced level of compensation, while it was also held that the terms of the Directive were too ambiguous as to offer individual powers to enforce against another party where such provisions were not already in place, before reminding the parties that:

“[D]irective No.76/207 does not require discrimination on grounds of sex regarding access to employment to be made the subject of a sanction by way of an obligation imposed upon the employer who is the author of the discrimination to conclude a contract of employment with the candidate discriminated against.”

Courage Ltd v Crehan [2001]

European Law

Courage Ltd v Crehan
‘In the Brewery in Munich, 1892’ by Philip de Laszlo

Under English law the courts refuse to endorse a claim for damages when the claimant was a party to a contract borne from illegal principles, while this is echoed in equity under the maxim ‘he who comes to equity must come with clean hands’, and so reminds those considering such arrangements that they do so without the aid of the judiciary.

However in this matter the claimant was a party to a publican agreement drawn up through the merger of a large brewery and owners of a number of public houses across the United Kingdom, while as part of this agreement the claimant brewery contracted to supply beer to existing tenants (publicans) under a non-negotiable tariff purportedly designed to protect the interests and profits of those purchasing, and yet after the tenant had somehow amassed a debt of around £15,000 the brewery sought recovery through the courts.

Having previously discovered that the brewery was supplying the same beers for lower prices to non-contracted third parties, it was then counter-claimed that the agreement demonstrated a breach of art.85 EC (formerly art.81 EC) therefore damages were owed and no payment for previously provided beer was due.

After the case reached the Court of Appeal it was decided that due to the conflict between national and Community law a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice under art.234 EC needed to confirm: 

1. Whether art.85 EC allowed a party to a prohibited agreement to claim damages?

2. Whether a party can claim when relying upon their own adherence to the agreement?

3. Whether a national law preventing recovery under prohibited agreements remained consistent with Community law?

4. Where deemed incompatible which situations allowed national law to apply?

Having evaluated the aims of national law and the claim’s validity it was agreed that while those contracting in the distortion of fair competition are themselves contributors to their own demise, there are certain scenarios demonstrating an inequality of bargaining power and thus grounds for reconsideration. 

Here the Court noted how in this instance the tenant was subjected to the terms of the agreement with little to no room for bargain, and so while it was agreed that the terms of art.85 EC precluded claims of that nature, it did so on the proviso that the claimant was proportionately liable for any market distortion, while it was also clear that where no such arrangement existed, the effects of art.85 EC (which provided for direct effect and application between individuals) were sufficient enough to allow for a claim despite  any objections raised under English law, while reminding the parties that:

“[C]ommunity law precludes a rule of national law which prevents a party subject to a clause in a contract which infringes Article 81 EC from recovering damages for the loss suffered by it on the sole ground that it is a party to that contract.”

The tort law section is now finished!

United States Law: A Case Study Collection

Tort Law
‘Anger’ by Alla Dzevaltovska

After working on this final chapter of the book for the past few months, I’m very pleased to announce that it is now finally complete, which has left me feeling a mixture of emotions, particularly as this wonderful and frankly unprecedented project has been the primary focus of my energy since November 2017.

As I have always done with the previous disciplines shown in the forthcoming ‘United States Law’, the final listing is here for you to view, and so I can only hope that you enjoy reading about them as much as I have studying and preparing them for publication.

1. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila

2. Anderson v. St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.

3. Beul v. ASSE International Inc.

4. BMW of North America Inc. v. Gore

5. Boim v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development

6. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.

7. Borsheim v. Great Northern Railway Co.

8. Brown v. Kendall

9. Burton v. Cowell Publishing Co.

10. Christensen v. Superior Court

11. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn

12. Dillon v. Legg

13. Dillon v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.

14. Dun & Bradstreet Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders Inc.

15. Earles v. Perkins

16. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno

17. Falcon v. Memorial Hospital

18. Foster v. Preston Mill Co.

19. Garratt v. Dailey

20. Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.

21. Goldberg v. Florida Power & Light Co.

22. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc.

23. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Inc.

24. Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

25. Jacque v. Steenburg Homes Inc.

26. Katko v. Briney

27. Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Ave. Apartment Corp.

28. Knight v Jewett

29. MacPherson v Buick Motor Co.

30. Marshall v. Nugent

31. Martin v. Herzog

32. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. v. Buckley

33. Mohr v. Williams

34. Nash v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

35. New York Times Company v. Sullivan

36. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

37. Philip Morris USA v. Williams

38. Ploof v. Putnam

39. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Arcadian Corp.

40. Riss v. City of New York

41. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint

42. Rowland v. Christian

43. Scribner v. Summer

44. Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories

45. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

46. Soule v. General Motors Corp.

47. Strauss v. Belle Realty Co.

48. Summers v. Tice

49. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

50. Tedla v. Ellman

51. The Florida Star v. B.J.F.

52. Time Inc. v. Hill

53. Tunkl v. Regents of University of California

54. Ultramares Corp. v. Touche

55. Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.

56. Vosburg v. Putney

57. Ybarra v. Spangard

58. Zeran v. America Online Inc.

Brown v. Kendall (1850)

US Tort Law

Brown v. Kendall
‘Dog Fight’ by Vladimir I

Burden of proof in an action for trespass and assault and battery falls subject to examination when after a fight between two dogs, the plaintiff is left seriously injured and in want of redress.

In 1850, the two parties were caught up in a vicious dog fight involving their respective animals, and while the now deceased defendant took deliberate steps to separate them, the plaintiff was accidentally struck in the eye by the defendant’s walking stick, as he stepped backwards during the melee.

In response, the plaintiff commenced a suit for tortious damages for trespass vi et armis (trespass by force and arms) on the supposition that the injurious blow was a deliberate act, and that the carelessness and neglect of the defendant was the cause, and not the location of the plaintiff when the stick was drawn back.

As was common at the time of litigation, Chapter 93 § 7 of the Massachusetts Revised Statutes allowed clams for assault and battery to stand, despite the death of the accused, and so following his passing, the defendant was represented by his executrix, whereupon the district court judge instructed the jury to decide upon the principle that:

“If the jury believe, that it was the duty of the defendant to interfere, then the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant, and ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff, is on the plaintiff. If the jury believe, that the act of interference in the fight was unnecessary, then the burden of proving extraordinary care on the part of the defendant, or want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff, is on defendant.”

On this occasion, the jury returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiff, while the executrix sought to challenge the finding in the Massachusetts Supreme Court, on the insistence that the injury was accidental and potentially unavoidable on the part of her late husband.

Here, the court relied upon Powers v. Russell, in which Shaw CJ had held that in instances:

“[W]here the party having the burden of proof gives competent and prima facie evidence of a fact, and the adverse party, instead of producing proof which would go to negative the same proposition of fact, proposes to show another and a distinct proposition which avoids the effect of it, there the burden of proof shifts, and rests upon the party proposing to show the latter fact.”

Which indicated that unless the plaintiff could show sound reasoning why the injury arose through negligence, there was insufficient grounds for a jury to decide with confidence, thus the court was now convinced that when choosing to separate the two animals, the deceased was, by virtue of his avoiding potential harm to his dog, acting lawfully and within his rights as an owner, and so while moving backwards with his fullest attentions on the fight, it was held by the court that:

“If the act of hitting the plaintiff was unintentional, on the part of the defendant, and done in the doing of a lawful act, then the defendant was not liable, unless it was done in the want of exercise of due care adapted to the exigency of the case, and therefore such want of due care became part of the plaintiff’s case, and the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish it.”

Upon which the previous verdict was dismissed and a new trial ordered on the pretence that unless irrefutable evidence could provide that the defendant had been wilfully negligent in an act of carelessness, there was simply no legal basis for recovery by the plaintiff.

Abouzaid v Mothercare Ltd (2000)

English Tort Law

Abouzaid v Mothercare Ltd
‘Twinkling Eye’ by Pavel Guzenko

Manufacturer negligence and the powers of consumer statute are both central to a claim for damages, when a leading retailer is held liable for a loss of earnings through serious physical injury.

In 1990, the respondent’s eye was struck by an elasticated strap forming part of a foot warmer product known as ‘Cosytoes’, which was manufactured under the store’s own brand range. The extent of the damage was unknown at the time, however over the period that followed, the respondent was diagnosed with shallow temporal half-detachment of the retina, which in turn led to virtual blindness and total lack of central vision.

Some ten years later, the respondent sought damages under negligence, and through the powers afforded them under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In defence, the appellants relied upon the investigative report of a highly qualified consultant engineer, whose notes confirmed:

“I conclude that in 1990 no manufacturer of child care products could reasonably have been expected to have recognised that elastic attachment straps for a cosytoes could pose a hazard to the eyes of children or adults, since the potential risk had not at that time been recognised even by experts in the safety of such childcare products.”

However, the engineer also stressed that:

“I found that for me it was quite easy to fasten the straps correctly from behind the seat unit. Attempting this from the front of the seat was more difficult, because it was not possible to see the fastening. It also required putting my head close to the seat in order for my arms to reach round behind it. I noticed that the elastic did have a tendency to pull the fastener through my fingers, and it could easily have slipped.”

Contrastingly, when transposing the requirements of the 1987 Act, Parliament was obliged to observe the terms of Directive 85/374/EEC in which the preamble outlined:

“Whereas, to protect the physical well-being and property of the consumer, the defectiveness of the product should be determined by reference not to its fitness for use but to the lack of the safety which the public at large is entitled to expect; whereas the safety is assessed by excluding any misuse of the product not reasonable under the circumstances…

[W]hereas a fair apportionment of risk between the injured person and the producer implies that the producer should be able to free himself from liability if he furnishes proof as to the existence of certain exonerating circumstances…”

In the first hearing, the judge found in favour of the respondent on grounds that embraced both manufacturer negligence and the presence of a defect, as described in s.2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which reads:

“(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, there is a defect in a product for the purposes of this Part if the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect; and for those purposes safety, in relation to a product, shall include safety with respect to products comprised in that product and safety in the context of risks of damage to property, as well as in the context of risks of death or personal injury.”

Upon appeal, the Court reexamined the previous decision, and revisited the argument that what was evidentially unsafe in 2000 was not deemed harmful in 1990, in light of there being no recorded incidents of that nature upon which to rely at the time. With reference again to the consultant engineer’s notes, the Court emphasised how he had also stated:

“I conclude that I should have to advise anyone manufacturing such a cosytoes today that the product would have a safety defect unless the potential risk of injury (to the eyes of a child in the pushchair or the person fitting it) was either eliminated by design or that consumers were warned of the possible risks and how to avoid them. Such advice to consumers would need to include instructions for fitting the cosytoes that avoided the obvious difficulties that Mr Abouzaid and his mother were having prior to the accident.”

And that despite a lack of recorded industry data with which to determine the safety of the product, there was little to explain how consumer awareness had remained static over the preceding decade, with particular reference drawn again to s.5.1.2 of his report, which itself remarked:

“[T]he level of safety that consumers can reasonably expect is not necessarily a constant, but will rise over time in small steps, if the state of industry knowledge of hazards and their prevention improves.”

It was for these reasons that the Court agreed with the essence of the earlier judge’s findings, and that the level of damages awarded were an accurate representation of the loss suffered through such a simple error in quality control and user protection.

Hinz v Berry (1970)

English Tort Law

 

Hinz v Berry
‘Grief’ by Cynthia Angeles

Damages for nervous shock (and even secondary nervous shock) are now not uncommon across many jurisdictions, as was outlined in my academic paper ‘A Comparative Analysis of Secondary Nervous Shock within Tort Law’ and as explored within McLoughlin v O’Brian, however in this matter, the courts were less certain as to how best to regulate the level of award, yet forged ahead regardless of any potential to undermine the cost of psychological trauma.

In spring of 1964, the respondent was returning home from a day trip with her sizeable family, when after parking their Bedford Dormobile in an available lay-by, an out-of-control car ploughed into the family, as she, the recently pregnant mother of eight children, stood helplessly watching from the other side of the road. With her husband pronounced dead, and almost all of the children suffering injuries, the respondent was left to pick up the pieces of her already challenging life, after which she initiated proceedings for damages.

Claiming pecuniary loss as a result of her husbands death, the court awarded £15000, along with an additional £4000 for nervous shock, as had been privy to such claims for the preceding quarter century. Upon appeal, the defendant-appellant cited a gross overestimation of the award for nervous shock, relying upon an absence of damages based tariffs in this particular area for justification.

With examination of recent case precedent and the comments of her consultant psychiatrist, who remarked during the trial that:

“[T]here is no medical doubt at all that she is suffering from a morbid depression; she is now officially ill.”

And how:

“In other circumstances I would probably have brought her into hospital, at least for a rest, but possibly for electrical treatment and it may come to that yet.”

The Court acknowledged the robustness of the respondent and her tenacity in the face of such a massive loss, yet illustrated that while English law precluded a right to compensation for grief and sorrow, evidential and medically diagnosable trauma proved an exception to that rule where such symptoms were demonstrable.

It was then that the Court uniformly outlined how it was beyond the power of the courts to undermine the significance of nervous shock, and that in any respect, judicial consensus supported the amount awarded through the comprehensive evaluation of the numerous years of suffering and morbid depression faced by the respondent in addition to her expected mourning. It was for these reasons that the Court upheld the award and dismissed the appeal.