Mesothelioma and foreseeability of injury

In Asmussen v Filtrona, the Court concluded that the Defendant could not have foreseen its workforce were at risk of injury from asbestos given the prevailing knowledge.

Occupiers’ liability (1) – occupiers of inflatable artwork

In Furmedge v Chester-Le-Street DC, the Court determined liability between a local authority and the makers of an inflatable piece of art that had been blown from its moorings, killing two people.

Occupiers’ liability (2) – rainwater ingress

The local authority was not liable to a pupil who slipped on rainwater as its system of work was reasonable and there is no absolute duty on an occupier to prevent accidents (Hufton v Somerset CC).

Occupiers’ Liability (3) – hazard on rugby pitch

The Court of Appeal considers the extent of the duty to inspect sports pitches for foreign objects etc before matches and training sessions (Sutton v Syston RFC)

Comparative blameworthiness of overtaking motorcyclist and driver turning right

In Burton v Evitt, the Defendant argued that he could not have done more to avoid a collision with a Claimant overtaking a line of traffic, having indicated right, slowed to a standstill, and checked his mirrors.

Occupiers’ liability (4) – falling tree branch

In Bowen v National Trust, the Court found that the Trust’s risk assessment for inspecting trees and prioritising remedial work was reasonable, even though a branch had fallen, injuring three children and killing one.

Occupiers’ liability (5) – diving in swimming pool

In Grimes v Hawkins, a householder was found not liable to the Claimant (18) who was left tetraplegic after diving into his pool during a late night party.

Occupiers’ liability (6) - Duty of care for overhanging branches

In Micklewhite v Surrey CC, the Court of Appeal found the Council not liable when a diseased tree branch overhanging a parking space broke and fell, causing fatal injuries.

Animals Act and strict liability

In Bodey v Hall, the Claimant was injured when a horse pulling a trap shot forward due to an unknown stimulus. The Judge found that S.2 was satisfied but the S.5(2) exception applied.