Tort Case Analysis

Tort Case Analysis

A fishmonger, Albert Ernest Wells, was injured whilst delivering fish to the house of a customer, Frederick Albert Cooper. Having been invited inside for a cup of tea, when he came to leave he was injured after the handle, which had been fixed by Cooper, came off in his hands as he was pulling the back door shut. The case surrounds negligence and standard of care; the case questions in particular the required degree of skill and care expected of householders completing home repairs.

1) Wells, the plaintiff, was represented by Alan Fletcher and Cooper, the defendant, was represented by T.Springer. The main question was whether or not the defendant should have been liable for the plaintiff’s injury. The legal reasoning advanced by the plaintiff’s counsel in the case was as follows; as in A.C.Billings & Sons Ltd.v.Riden the defendant being an invitor and as the person who fixed the handle owed a duty of care to those whom were expected to use the door handle which includes the plaintiff. Alan Fletcher raised the questions: (1) should the defendant had foreseen that somebody would suffer an injury if the handle came off, and (2) if so, should he have realised that the screws, used to fix the handle, were not of adequate length?

Regarding the first question the counsel of the plaintiff went on to say that it was possible for the defendant to have reasonably foreseen that there was a risk of somebody getting hurt if the handle came off, and the defendant did not necessarily have had to have foreseen the particular damage which was caused. Whilst stating this point the counsel referred to cases Bolton v Stone and Thurogood v Van den bergs & Jurgens Ltd. We can assume that the defendant had anticipated, if the handle broke, there would be an accident because he had replaced the Bakelite handle with a metal one.

Apropos the second question, counsel continued to mention Haseldine v C.A.Daw & Son Ltd which shows the standard of...