The claimant was employed by the defendant and worked in brick kilns in extremely hot and dusty conditions. His work exposed him to brick dust, which could cause dermatitis. The employer was in breach of duty for failing to provide adequate washing and showering facilities at the workplace.

The claimant suffered from chronic back pain and consulted the defendant neurosurgeon, who advised surgery. The surgeon failed to warn her of a small (1–2%) inherent risk of serious nerve damage associated with the procedure. The risk was not due to negligence in performing the operation, but was an unavoidable complication.

The claimant had been exposed to asbestos during employment with multiple employers, as well as during a period of self-employment. He developed mesothelioma and later died. As in Fairchild, it was impossible to determine which exposure had actually caused the disease.

The claimants were employees who had worked for multiple employers at different times. During their employment, they were negligently exposed to asbestos by more than one employer. They later developed mesothelioma, a fatal disease caused by inhalation of asbestos fibres.

The claimant attended his GP with a lump under his arm. The GP negligently misdiagnosed it as a benign condition and failed to refer him for urgent investigation. Approximately nine months later, he was correctly diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The claimant, a 13-year-old boy, fell from a tree and injured his hip. He was taken to hospital, where medical staff negligently failed to diagnose a serious condition known as avascular necrosis (loss of blood supply to the femoral head). There was a delay in proper diagnosis and treatment.

The claimant was employed as a driver. Due to the defendant employer’s negligence, he suffered an initial injury at work which left his knee weak and unstable. Some time later, while descending stairs at home and carrying a heavy object, his weakened knee gave way. He fell and suffered further injury.

The claimant had previously suffered a leg injury caused by the defendant’s negligence at a construction site. Later, while descending a steep staircase without holding the handrail, he fell and fractured his ankle. The defendant argued that this second fall was a new intervening act, breaking the chain of causation from the original negligence.

A police officer negligently caused a tunnel to be partially blocked. A second officer was sent to direct traffic but gave instructions that led to the claimant being involved in a motorcycle accident. The claimant argued that the original negligent act of creating the obstruction caused his injuries.

The defendant council was responsible for maintaining street lighting. A streetlight was left unrepaired, creating a dark area. A third party, taking advantage of the darkness, attacked the claimant, causing injury. The claimant argued that the council’s negligence in failing to repair the light caused his injuries.

Mr McWilliams, a construction worker, was employed to work on a crane. He was required to wear a safety belt, but he failed to do so. The crane collapsed, and he was killed. His widow claimed that the employer had been negligent in failing to ensure he wore the belt, arguing that proper supervision would have prevented the death.

Mr Barnett, the claimant’s husband, drank tea at home containing arsenic. He began to feel ill and went to the hospital, where he was examined by a doctor. The doctor negligently failed to diagnose or treat him and sent him home.

The claimant was injured during a professional motorcycle racing event. The race organisers had allowed the event to proceed under conditions that involved a degree of inherent risk. The claimant argued that the organisers had failed to take sufficient precautions to prevent the accident.

Two patients underwent minor surgical procedures involving spinal anaesthesia. The anaesthetic was stored in glass ampoules placed in a phenol solution for sterilisation. Unknown to medical science at the time, microscopic cracks in the glass allowed phenol to contaminate the anaesthetic.

The defendant electricity board dug a trench in a pavement to carry out works. A hammer was placed across the trench as a warning. The claimant, Mr Haley, was blind and walking along the pavement using a white stick. He did not detect the warning and fell into the trench, suffering injury.

The claimant was standing on a public road next to a cricket ground when she was struck by a cricket ball hit out of the ground. The ball had been hit over the fence only a handful of times in many years. The fence was approximately 17 feet high and the pitch was positioned some distance from the boundary.

Mr Latimer slipped in an area that remained wet and was injured. He argued that the employer should have shut down the factory entirely to eliminate the risk.

Mr Paris was employed by the defendant council as a garage hand. He had sight in only one eye, a fact known to his employer. While working underneath a vehicle, a piece of metal flew into his good eye, causing total blindness.

The Court of Appeal applied a modified objective standard. The defendant was to be judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the same age. On the facts, the court examined whether a child of that age should reasonably have appreciated the risk involved in handling a firearm.

The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not negligent. Children are judged according to the standard of a reasonable child of the same age, not by adult standards. The risk of serious injury from snapping a plastic ruler was not something that an ordinary 15-year-old would reasonably have foreseen.