A woman claimed damages after allegedly finding a decomposed snail in a bottle of ginger beer, becoming ill as a result. This case established the modern law of negligence and the 'neighbour principle' - that we owe a duty of care to those who might reasonably be affected by our actions.

Hughes v Lord Advocate established that defendants are liable for damage caused by their negligence even if the exact manner of harm was unforeseeable, provided the type of harm was foreseeable. This case refined the test for remoteness of damage in negligence law.

The Court of Appeal held that an explosion caused by an unexpected chemical reaction was not reasonably foreseeable, so damages were too remote despite the defendant's negligence in knocking an asbestos cover into molten liquid.

Court establishes landmark test for recoverable damages in contract breach

An employee succeeded in claiming for frostbite injuries sustained during an unreasonably long journey in an unheated van, as personal injury from cold exposure was reasonably foreseeable even if frostbite specifically was not.

House of Lords case that relaxed the test for factual causation where the defendant's negligence materially increased the risk of harm that actually occurred.

Extended Goldman v Hargrave to natural land movements, establishing that landowners must take reasonable steps to prevent naturally occurring land slippage from damaging neighbouring property. Confirmed the 'measured duty' principle in English law.

Caparo established the modern three-stage test for determining when a duty of care exists in negligence: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. The case concerned whether auditors owed a duty of care to potential investors who relied on company accounts. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 the Supreme Court clarified that the three-stage framework is not a universal test and is relevant only in novel cases.

A local council was held liable when two boys were injured playing on an abandoned boat on council land. The House of Lords established that liability exists if the type of harm that occurred was reasonably foreseeable, even if the precise manner of injury was not.

Rylands v Fletcher established the rule of strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things accumulated on land. This landmark case created a new tort principle that makes landowners liable for harm caused by hazardous substances kept on their property, regardless of fault or negligence.

Contractual damages must be within reasonable contemplation of parties at contract formation.

Court establishes 'reasonable foreseeability' test for contractual damages

This case established that employers can be vicariously liable for employees' intentional wrongdoing if there is a sufficiently close connection between the employment and the wrongful acts. The House of Lords held a care home liable for sexual abuse committed by a warden against residents.

Tortfeasor not liable for losses from unrelated supervening illness

Wilkinson v Downton established the tort of intentionally causing physical harm through false statements without direct physical contact. The defendant falsely told the plaintiff that her husband had been seriously injured, causing her severe shock and physical illness, creating liability for intentional infliction of harm.

Supreme Court recasts SAAMCO and widens focus on scope of duty

The House of Lords held that there could be no liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher without an escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant's land, clarifying a key element of strict liability.

Nervous shock liability extends to 'immediate aftermath' of accidents

Landmark House of Lords decision establishing that public authorities can owe a duty of care in negligence to individuals who suffer harm as a direct result of the authority's carelessness in exercising statutory functions. The case extended Donoghue v Stevenson principles to public law contexts.

Rose v Plenty established that an employer can be vicariously liable for an employee's actions even when those actions directly contravene express prohibitions, provided the wrongful act was committed in the course of employment. The case clarified the scope of vicarious liability in tort law.

No liability for damage to property already damaged by another tortfeasor.

House of Lords clarifies causation test in medical negligence claims

A flooring specialist nominated by the building owner owed a duty of care in negligence for pure economic loss arising from defective workmanship, despite no contract between the parties. The House of Lords extended Donoghue v Stevenson and Anns, finding sufficient proximity based on the specialist's knowledge the floor was for the pursuer's use and reliance on their skill.

House of Lords case establishing that in medical negligence, claimants must prove causation on the balance of probabilities even where multiple potential causes exist.

Mental distress damages require physical inconvenience and must be modest in amount.

Murphy v Brentwood DC is a landmark House of Lords case that significantly restricted liability for pure economic loss in negligence. The case overruled Anns v Merton and established that local authorities owe no duty of care to building owners for economic loss caused by defective foundations, fundamentally reshaping the law of negligence in construction cases.

Cambridge Water concerned liability for environmental contamination where a leather manufacturer's chemical spillages polluted a water company's borehole. The House of Lords established that foreseeability of harm is required for both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher liability, significantly limiting strict liability for environmental damage.

Contracting parties can recover substantial damages for third party property damage

The defendant council's contractors damaged the plaintiff's house causing her to move out. Squatters then moved in and caused extensive damage. The Court of Appeal held the council was not liable for the squatters' damage as it was too remote a consequence of the original negligence.

Negligent hospital escapes liability due to lack of causation

Tortfeasor liable for full damages despite victim's subsequent unrelated injury

A couple underwent a vasectomy that was negligently performed. The wife subsequently became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy child. The House of Lords held that while damages for pain and suffering of pregnancy were recoverable, the costs of raising a healthy child were not recoverable as a matter of public policy.

No general duty to prevent third parties causing harm; liability requires special circumstances.

Page v Smith established that a defendant owes a duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric injury to primary victims who are within the zone of physical danger, even if no physical injury occurs. The case clarified the distinction between primary and secondary victims in psychiatric injury claims.

Mitigation duty requires reasonable steps but not complex litigation against third parties.

Reckless criminal damage requires risk to property beyond the damaging instrument itself.

Divisible injury: damages apportioned where only part of harm attributable to defendant's breach

Nervous shock requires foreseeability of harm to person of ordinary fortitude

Transferred malice doesn't apply when the type of harm differs from intended

Loss of chance must be substantial to ground contractual damages claim