Knee Injury in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Rubenstein v HSBC Bank Plc
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 12 September 2012

    Much reference was made by Mr Cogley to Lord Hoffmann's example of the mountaineer in his speech in SAAMCO (at 213). The importance of that example is that it illustrates the significance of the scope of a defendant's duty for the purpose of questions of causation and remoteness. A mountaineer is told by his doctor that his knee is fit for a mountain climb, but the doctor is negligent, ie the knee is not fit.

    But what does the mountaineer's example teach us in the present case?

  • Chester v Afshar
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 27 May 2002

    In cases such as the present, however, it simply cannot be said that the injury suffered had nothing to do with the problem which had taken the claimant to the doctor. It was a consequence of that very problem and the doctor's attempt to put it right. Furthermore it was a consequence about which the claimant had expressed her concern to the doctor and been wrongly reassured.

  • Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 25 June 1981

  • Hughes-Holland v BPE Solicitors and another
    • Supreme Court
    • 22 March 2017

    By comparison, in the "information" category, a professional adviser contributes a limited part of the material on which his client will rely in deciding whether to enter into a prospective transaction, but the process of identifying the other relevant considerations and the overall assessment of the commercial merits of the transaction are exclusively matters for the client (or possibly his other advisers).

  • Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Johnson & Higgins Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 18 October 2001

    Lord Hoffmann gave the only reasoned speech. He applied the principle which had emerged in Caparo v Dickman and Skandia. He observed that a person who is under a duty to take reasonable care to provide information on which someone else will rely in deciding whether to take a course of action is, if negligent, not generally responsible for all the consequences of that course of action.

  • Heil v Rankin
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 13 June 2000

    Consistency is important, because it assists in achieving justice between one claimant and another and one defendant and another. It also assists to achieve justice by facilitating settlements. The courts have become increasingly aware that this is in the interests of the litigants and society as a whole, particularly in the personal injury field. It is for this reason that the introduction of the guidelines by the Judicial Studies Board ("JSB") in 1992 was such a welcome development.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT