BREACH OF DUTY : Case Notes
 BOLTON V STONE [1951]
The claimant, who standing on the pavement outside her house, was struck by a cricket
ball hit from an adjacent cricket ground. The ball had travelled about 100 yards, and had
cleared a 17-foot fence. This was abouth the sixth time that this had happened in the
last thirty years.
Was the risk foreseeable?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 ROE V MINISTER OF HEALTH [1954]
Two patients were paralysed by nupercaine, a spinal anaesthetic. The anaesthetic had
been stored inside a glass vial, which was itself stored in a sterilising fluid, phenol. The
phenol solution had entered the anaesthetic through hairline cracks in the glass vial,
contaminating it and causing the paralysis.
Was the risk foreseeable?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 HALEY V LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD [1964]
Workmen from the Electricity Board were preparing to carry out work on underground
cables; they dug a hole, and in order to give warning of the danger (before the
permanent barriers arrived) they laid a long-handled hammer across the pavement. The
C, a blind man, walked along the pavement on his way to work; he tripped over the
hammer and was injured.
Was the risk foreseeable?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 PARIS v STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (1951)
The claimant, Mr Paris, was blind in one eye. His employer, Stepney BC asked him to do a
job that involved a very small risk to his other eye and provided no protective eyewear.
However, Mr Paris was blinded in his one working eye, and the accident therefore left
him completely blind.
Would the severity of the possible outcome affect the degree of care that must be
taken to avoid it?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 WATT v HERTFORDSHIRE C.C (1954)
A fire brigade was notified of a serious road accident: a person was trapped and heavy
lifting equipment was urgently required. The lorry which usually carried the equipment
was engaged in other work at the time, and the fire officer ordered the equipment be
loaded into the back of an ordinary lorry. On the way to the incident, the equipment
slipped and a fireman was injured. He sued his employers.
Should his claim succeed?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 MARSHALL v OSMOND (1982)
The claimant was involved in stealing a car and was a passenger in the vehicle at the time
of arrest. A high-speed car chase occurred, during which the claimant was injured.
Have the police breached their duty of care to the claimant (the passenger in the
fleeing vehicle)?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 LATIMER V AEC Ltd (1952)
A factory became flooded after a torrential rainstorm. The water mixed with oil and
grease creating a slippery surface. The defendant attempted to minimise the risk by
putting sawdust down but there was not enough to cover the whole floor. The claimant,
Latimer, slipped on the floor and was injured.
Had the defendant taken sufficient precautions? Had the duty of care been breached?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 HILDER V ASSOCIATED PORTLAND CEMENT [1961]
‘D’ were the owners of waste ground, and they allowed children to play football on that
ground. At one end, there was a three-foot wall behind the "goal", and balls were
commonly kicked into the road. One such ball struck a passing motor-cyclist, causing him
to crash and be killed. The motor-cyclist's family sued.
Should the defendants be found liable? Had they taken sufficient precautions?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 MILLER V JACKON (1977)
A cricket ball travelled out of the grounds of a cricket club about 8 or 9 times every
season. On one occasion a person was injured.
Would the claim be likely to succeed? Why? How does this case compare to Bolton v
Stone.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________