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.

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 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.

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.

This case established a broad two-stage test for determining when a duty of care exists in negligence, significantly expanding potential liability. The House of Lords held that local authorities could owe a duty of care to flat purchasers for negligent building inspections that failed to prevent structural defects.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Contractors must take reasonable care to secure premises against foreseeable crime

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.

Children judged by standard of reasonable child, not adult.

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.

Duty of care extends to foreseeable users with disabilities including blind pedestrians.

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

House of Lords establishes liability for negligent misstatement in special relationships

Concurrent liability in contract and tort possible; Hedley Byrne extends to services.

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.

Occupiers liable for continuing third-party nuisances they know about.

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.

Spring v Guardian Assurance established that employers owe a duty of care when providing employment references, requiring them to take reasonable care to ensure accuracy and avoid negligent misstatements. This landmark case extended the tort of negligence to employment references, balancing the need for honest references with protection against careless or malicious statements.

Nervous shock requires foreseeability of harm to person of ordinary fortitude

White v Jones established that solicitors can owe a duty of care to intended beneficiaries under a will when they fail to carry out testamentary instructions. This landmark case extended the tort of negligence to protect third parties who suffer loss due to a solicitor's breach of duty to their client.

House of Lords sets definitive test for gross negligence manslaughter

House of Lords case on the scope of duty of care owed to persons in police custody who are at risk of suicide. The case clarified that contributory negligence can apply even where the very act the defendant had a duty to prevent causes the damage.

Negligent hospital escapes liability due to lack of causation

The House of Lords held that local authorities could potentially owe a duty of care in negligence for decisions about children in their care, rejecting a blanket immunity for child care decisions.

Directors must exercise reasonable care but may receive statutory relief for honest mistakes.

A pregnant woman called 999 for an ambulance due to respiratory difficulties. The ambulance service accepted the call but arrived 40 minutes late without explanation. The delay caused the claimant to suffer a miscarriage and memory impairment. The Court of Appeal held the ambulance service owed a duty of care.

Police owe no duty of care to protect individuals from third party harm.

Bolton v Stone established the test for negligence in cases involving extremely low probability of harm. A cricket ball hit from a ground injured a pedestrian on a nearby road, but the House of Lords held that reasonable foreseeability requires consideration of both the likelihood and magnitude of potential harm.

Court distinguishes fiduciary duties from professional negligence in landmark ruling

Public authorities generally owe no duty of care for omissions absent special circumstances

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

Defendants liable if type of harm foreseeable, even if manner unforeseeable

Unintentional personal injury claims must be brought in negligence, not trespass.

Employers must provide extra protection for disabled workers