Foreseeability meaning

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—23 January 2025 In this issue: Public authorities and the state Costs and funding LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community LexisNexis® Webinars Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Public authorities and the state The police owe no general duty to shield individuals from criminal harm, and foreseeability on its own does not create such a duty. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock; HD (by their respective litigation friends) v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police [2025] EWCA Civ 13 comprised two appeals in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Each claim examined whether the police could be liable in damages for not preventing injury inflicted by a third party offender. The appeals were heard together. The Court of Appeal rejected the claims of CJ and others alleging a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and negligence. The police appeal in Ms Woodcock’s case succeeded. There...

Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd [2024] EAT 119 What are the practical implications of this judgment? The debate over gender‑critical beliefs, gender‑neutral approaches and trans rights remains intensely politicised and highly emotive, attracting substantial press attention and widespread social media coverage, and frequently prompting forceful commentary and scrutiny. This EAT judgment sets out HHJ Bourne’s interpretation of EqA 2010, s 111—the statutory prohibition on instructing, causing or inducing contraventions in relation to EqA 2010—and frames the questions a tribunal must address on causation and liability. According to the EAT: section 111 does not require any test of reasonable foreseeability once ‘but for’ causation is established, the issue is whether it is fair, reasonable or just to hold person A liable for person B’s contravention of the EqA 2010 On the facts found, the EAT agreed that the employment tribunal had not erred in dismissing the contention that an LGBT charity had caused or induced a barrister’s chambers to discriminate...

In this issue: Occupational disease Road traffic accidents Fraud and fundamental dishonesty Case management Costs and funding Other PI & Clinical Negligence news LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information New content Occupational disease Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in low-level exposure mesothelioma cases On 28 June 2024, the Supreme Court declined permission to appeal in White v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and in Cuthbert (executrix of the estate of Derek Barry Cuthbert, deceased) v Taylor Woodrow Construction Holdings. Earlier, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) had rejected both appeals. The claims alleged that two deceased workers developed mesothelioma during employment spanning the 1950s to the 1970s. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge had been entitled to find no breach of duty by the former employers where the employees’ exposure to asbestos was intermittent or at low...

This Practice Note explores ground conditions within construction and engineering schemes. It addresses who bears responsibility at common law and highlights contractual mechanisms that can be included in building contracts to manage situations where the contractor meets adverse ground conditions, setting out how that risk is shared between contractor and employer. It also summarises how the JCT, NEC and FIDIC standard forms approach allocation of ground condition risk... What are ‘ground conditions’? ‘Ground conditions’ typically describes the site’s geology, hydrology, soil characteristics and any contamination present. Such conditions may arise naturally, be the result of human activity, or a mixture of both. Artificial or man-made conditions or obstructions can include: Antiquities Landfill Asbestos Disused or existing sewers Unexploded ordnance The phrase does not normally cover short-lived surface features like litter or leaves, nor climatic factors. While ‘ground conditions’ is a common expression in construction contracts, related terms are frequently used as well, such as ‘site conditions’ and ‘physical...

The nature of the duty owed by bus drivers A bus driver owes the same duty to fellow road users, including passengers, as any other driver: to drive with the reasonable care and skill of a competent motorist. That competence must be evaluated in context, particularly for those operating buses, by reference to: the Highway Code the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency's Official DVSA Guide to Driving Buses and Coaches Only with such a measured assessment of the duty of care can there be a meaningful decision on whether that duty has been breached. The County Court case of Kevin Graham v Go North East Limited (20 November 2017) (not reported by LexisNexis®) illustrates the delicate balance when applying this duty. A defendant bus driver collided with the claimant's vehicle at a crossroads controlled by traffic lights. He proceeded through a changing signal because he believed that not doing so, and braking, would endanger his passengers. The judge recognised the 'split...

Remoteness and foreseeability An injury arising out of clinical negligence does not, by itself, ensure a claimant will be granted damages by the court. A tort gives rise to damages only where each constituent is established: duty of care breach of that duty causation, i.e. the breach caused loss injury Remoteness of loss and foreseeability are elusive notions that pervade every stage identified above. They are the judicial instruments through which common sense and policy are applied. Failure to treat/loss of chance Where, but for the clinical negligence, the claimant had a prospect of recovering from illness or injury without adverse consequences, or held a strong chance of a cure, how do the courts handle causation and what damages are awarded? These issues concern causation intertwined with remoteness. In Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority, a 13-year-old fell from a tree, fracturing his left femoral epiphysis. At hospital his condition was not diagnosed for five days and...