tort cases
DESCRIPTION
Tort Cases. http://tinyurl.com/classiccaselaw. Reference. www.singaporelaw.sg Singapore Business Law by Benny Tabalujan and Valerie Du Toit -Low. Negligence: Duty of Care. Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by Stephenson - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
TORT CASEShttp://tinyurl.com/classiccaselaw
Reference www.singaporelaw.sg Singapore Business Law by Benny
Tabalujan and Valerie Du Toit-Low
Negligence: Duty of Care Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a
bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by Stephenson
Mrs D found a decomposed snail in it, fell ill
Mrs D had no contract with Stephenson
Negligence: Duty of Care House of Lords: Mrs D could sue in tort,
not contract Stephenson owed a Duty of Care –
You must take reasonable care not to injure your neighbour
Your neighbour is someone closely and directly affected by my actions
Negligence: Duty of Care Anns leased a block of flats from a
builder There were defects in construction The London Borough of Merton had
approved construction Did London Borough of Merton owe a
Duty to Anns?
Negligence: Duty of Care House of Lords: Yes, the test is
Was there a relationship of proximity between them, so that carelessness would cause damage? Yes
Are there any reasons to reduce this duty? No
Negligence: Breach of Duty Wells pulled on a door handle made by
Cooper (amateur carpenter) The door handle fell off and Wells fell
down the stairs
Negligence: Breach of Duty Court: Cooper had not breached his duty
of care He had met the standard of a reasonable
amateur carpenter, he was not an expert
Negligence: Breach of Duty Bolton’s house was near a cricket field
owned by Stone Bolton was hit by a cricket ball The balls usually did not reach this far,
only happened 6 times in 30 years
Negligence: Breach of Duty House of Lords: There was a Duty of
Care, but the Duty was not breached The chances of that happening were too
small for the club to take steps to prevent them
Negligence: Breach of Duty Latimer worked in AEC Ltd’s factory The factory became flooded and
management did everything possible to clear the effects of the flood, but the factory floor was still slippery
Latimer walked on the floor, fell and was injured
Negligence: Breach of Duty House of Lords: There was a Duty of
Care, but there was no breach The risk was not great enough to justify
the management doing further steps like closing the factory
Negligence: Breach must cause damage
Barnett was poisoned with arsenic without his knowledge – at the time there was no cure
He went to A&E but the doctor failed to diagnose him
He died at home 5 hours later
Negligence: Breach must cause damage
Court: There was a Duty of Care The Duty of Care had been breached BUT the breach did not cause his death –
he would have died anyway
Negligence: Breach must cause damage (remoteness)
The ship Wagon Mound was loading fuel oil at a wharf
Defendant was negligent and spilled fuel oil, which spread to the next wharf, owned by Plaintiff
Plaintiff received expert advice that the fuel oil would not burn in water, so he let his workers continue welding at the wharf
The welding sparks ignited the fuel and fire damaged Plaintiff’s wharf
Negligence: Breach must cause damage (remoteness)
Privy Council – It was too remote / unforeseeable that the fuel oil would burn in water
Since the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, Defendant would not be liable
Negligence: Defences Xu Jin Long was a construction worker
working for Nian Chuan Construction Xu walked up a metal staircase to his
dorm, it collapsed and he fell 5 metres to the ground
Nian Chuan Construction had given instructions for the staircase to be removed
Negligence: Defences High Court: Nian Chuan had given
instructions to dismantle, but had not given warning not to use the stairs or cordoned it of
A reasonable worker would not have known
Xu had no contributory negligence, NC were fully liable
Negligent Statements: Duty of Care Hedley Byrne Co were advertising
agents who wanted credit info on a new client Easipower before doing work, so they asked Easipower’s bank, Heller & Partners
Heller told Hedley Byrne that Easipower was “respectably constituted … good for ordinary business”
Easipower collapsed
Negligent Statements: Duty of Care House of Lords: There was a special
relationship because Hedley Byrne could reasonably rely on
Heller’s judgment Heller gave HB info that they knew HB would
rely on Therefore Heller owed a duty of care to HB (Special case: Heller escaped because
they had an exclusion clause)
Negligent Statements: Breach of Duty
Yeo Yoke Mui engaged lawyer Ng Liang Poh to check a corner terrace house before purchase
Ng got a road interpretation plan from LTA “land is affected by Cat 4 and 5 roads”
Following standard procedure, Ng forwarded the plan to Yeo
Yeo paid the deposit, later discovered that land affected by Cat 4 roads cannot be redeveloped
Negligent Statements: Breach of Duty
Court of Appeal: It was not enough for Ng to following standard procedure and forwarding the plan
In this case, because of the special nature of Cat 4 roads, Ng should have explained it to Yeo as well
Defamation: Referring to the Plaintiff
SDP wrote an article about the NKF scandal “Singaporeans must note that the NKF is not an
aberration of the PAP system. It is, instead, a product of it.”
“How does this compare to the PAP? The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) is a business entity set up, and chaired, by Mr Lee Kuan Yew to manage and invest our national reserves.”
Is not power in Singapore centred around one party, if not one individual?”
Defamation: Referring to the Plaintiff
There was “defamation by implication” – the reader was invited to compare a person (LKY) with another disreputable individual (Chairman of NKF) – implying that LKY was also dishonest
The words were capable of being understood to refer to both LHL and LKY
The ordinary reader would have understood the words as referring to both LHL and LKY
Defamation: Defences SICC posted a Notice on the notice boards
of their clubhouses. They suspended KSP's club membership
because she had falsely declared Mr Ng Kong Yeam ("NKY") as her spouse to make use of the Club's facilities since September 1992,
The marriage certificate showed that her marriage to NKY was only registered on 24 August 2005
Defamation: Defences It was defamatory – created an ill
opinion of KSP in the mind of the reasonable reader and to cause KSP to be shunned or avoided as a result
BUT SICC had the defence of Justification: The statement of KSP's dishonest conduct was substantially true!