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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Court establishes landmark test for recoverable damages in contract breach

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Court establishes 'reasonable foreseeability' test for contractual damages

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.

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

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.

Tortfeasor not liable for losses from unrelated supervening illness

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.

Nervous shock liability extends to 'immediate aftermath' of accidents

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

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

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.

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 revolutionizes trust law by requiring causation for breach claims

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.

House of Lords clarifies causation test in medical negligence claims

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

Nuisance liability requires damage beyond that affecting ordinary land use

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.

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

Supreme Court case confirming that the Fairchild exception to normal causation rules applies even where there is only one potential source of exposure to the harmful agent.

Mental distress damages available where peace of mind is important contractual object.

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.

Negligent hospital escapes liability due to lack of causation

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

House of Lords limits damages for defective building work to reasonable remedial costs

Hypothetical bargain damages available where traditional loss-based damages inadequate.

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

Hidden vulnerabilities don't make unlawful act dangerous if unforeseeable to reasonable person