Study Notes
Key Case | Bhamra v Dubb (2010) | Negligence - Damage - Remoteness - Thin Skin Rule
- Level:
- A-Level, BTEC National
- Board:
- AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 5 Oct 2020
This case established that, where the claimant has a condition that makes them susceptible to more harm than the ordinary person, the defendant is still liable for the greater extent of harm as you must ‘take your victim as you find them’.
CASE SUMMARY
Claimant: Wife of deceased Bhamra (wedding guest)
Defendant: Dubb (wedding caterer)
Facts: Mr Bhamra (a Sikh) attended a Sikh wedding catered by the defendants. The claimant consumed a dish containing eggs (to which he was allergic) and died as a consequence.
Outcome: Liable
Legal principle: The caterer was under a duty not to serve food containing eggs as it was a Sikh wedding where eggs were not permitted. It was accepted that guests were entitled to presume there were no eggs in any of the dishes as they were not permitted into the Temple according to religious rules. Therefore, despite not knowing of the claimant’s allergy the defendant was still liable.