2. Negligence Flashcards

1
Q

What are the three elements of negligence which must be proved?

A
  1. Defendant owes claimant duty of care
  2. Defendant breached that duty
  3. Defendant’s breach caused damage to the claimant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are seven examples of an established duty situation, in which the first element is assumed and does not need to be proven?

A
  1. Driver to other road users
  2. Doctor to patients
  3. Teacher to pupils
  4. Parent to child
  5. Solicitor to client
  6. Employer to employee
  7. Manufacturer to consumers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is a novel duty situation?

A

Where there is no established duty, and the first element must be proven

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are the three elements required to establish a duty in a novel duty situation?

A
  1. Foreseeability
  2. Proximity
  3. Whether fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the requirement of foreseeability in establishing a duty?

A

Defendant’s negligence created a foreseeable risk of harm to this claimant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the requirement of proximity in establishing a duty?

A

There must be sufficient cause and effect relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the harm suffered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are the four situations considered exceptions to the general rule that there is no duty to act?

A
  1. Special relationship between the parties
  2. Control over the claimant, e.g, correctional officer over prisoner
  3. Actions of third parties under the control of the defendant, e.g., parent over child.
  4. Rescue situations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

In addition to express relationships, what can a special relationship situation arise from?

A

Where the defendant assumes responsibility towards the claimant or their property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the duty owed by a rescuer?

A

To not make the situation any worse

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

On the exam, how might a situation in which a rescuer doesn’t appear to make the situation worse be part of a trap?

A

If a person decides to rescue, and then abandons the attempt leaving the victim no worse off, they could still be deemed to have made the situation worse if their initial rescue attempt prevented others from helping.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the requirement for the harm suffered to be within the scope of the duty of care?

A

If the harm was not within the scope of the defendant’s duty of care, damages will not be recoverable even if the defendant owed a duty and acted negligently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the standard of care in the context of breach of duty?

A

Defendant is required to take reasonable care, i.e. an objective and impersonal standard accepted of a reasonable person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How is a breach of duty initially assessed?

A

Whether the defendant fell below a reasonable standard of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What two factors will the court consider in assessing whether the defendant exercised reasonable care?

A
  1. Magnitude of the risk involved in the activity, and
  2. Practicability of taking precautions to avoid that risk
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What two questions will the court ask in assessing the magnitude of risk?

A
  1. How likely is it that harm will occur, and
  2. How serious is the potential harm?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Is the likelihood of harm assessed at the time or with the benefit of hindsight?

A

At the time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is expected of a defendant the greater the potential harm?

A

The more precautions they must take

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Can an under-skilled defendant rely on this to argue they were not in breach of duty?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

How is the level of competence required of a professional carrying out something which exceeds their skillset determined?

A

Based on the task they are undertaking, not their level of skill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is required of defendants who are acting within the competence of their skill or profession?

A

They must meet the level of skill of a reasonably competent member of their profession

21
Q

What is the test for whether a professional fell below a reasonable standard?

A

Whether they acted in accordance with a responsible body of professional opinion.

22
Q

Is a doctor in breach of duty if they carry out a procedure with due care and skill, but fail to warn a patient about risk, and these risks occur through no fault of their own? Why?

A

Yes. Because knowledge of the risks, even if they weren’t to be caused by the doctor’s negligence, goes to informed consent.

23
Q

What is the standard expected of a child defendant?

A

The standard of a reasonable child of the defendant’s age

24
Q

What are the three conditions for res ipsa loquitur to apply?

A
  1. Absence of any explanation for the incident
  2. Thing which caused the incident was under the control of the defendant, and
  3. Incident would not normally happen if proper care was taken
25
Q

How can a defendant rebut an inference of res ipsa loquitur?

A

By showing that they did exercise reasonable care

26
Q

What is the admissibility of convictions for criminal offences involving negligence?

A

They are admissible in civil claims arising from the same incident

27
Q

What is required for causation?

A

Claimant must show that defendant’s breach of duty caused the loss

28
Q

What are the three stages is establishing causation?

A
  1. Factual causation
  2. No new intervening acts
  3. Damage not too remote

(2 and 3 are collectively called legal causation)

29
Q

What is the test for factual causation?

A

But for the defendant’s breach of duty, the claimant would not have suffered the loss

30
Q

What is the collective term given to stages 2 and 3 of establishing causation, to distinguish them from causation in fact (factual caustion)

A

Causation in law (legal causation)

31
Q

Does the but for test also apply, when there is more than one possible reason for the claimants loss?

A

Yes.

32
Q

What is the standard of proof for causation?

A

On balance of probabilities

33
Q

What must the claimant prove when one injury results from different causes acting together?

A

Claimant must prove that defendant’s breach of duty made a material contribution to the claimant’s loss.

34
Q

Where an injury is divisible, how are damages apportioned, and what does this mean for the claimant?

A

Damages are apportioned between the defendants according to the share of injury each of them caused.

A claimant must therefore sue all defendants in order to recover in full.

35
Q

How does this differ where an injury is indivisible?

A

Claimant can recover damages in full from any of the defendants

36
Q

If a claimant recovers in full from one defendant for an indivisible injury, what is the defendant’s option to recover money?

A

The paying defendant can recover a contribution from the others, having regard to the share of damage caused by each

37
Q

What is the second defendant’s liability where they harm a person already harmed by a previous defendant?

A

Only to the extent that their negligence made the claimant’s damage worse than it already was

38
Q

What is the effect of a new intervening act?

A

It will break the chain of causation

39
Q

When will the intervening act of a third party break the chain of causation?

A

Only if it was not reasonably foreseeable

40
Q

When will the intervening act of the claimant break the chain of causation?

A

When the claimant acted entirely unreasonably

41
Q

Will an intervening natural event break the chain of causation?

A

Yes

42
Q

What is the test for remoteness of damage?

A

Whether the claimant’s damage was a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence

43
Q

What are the two exceptions to the basic rule of reasonable foreseeability with regard to remoteness of damage?

A
  1. Egg shell skull
  2. Similar in type rule
44
Q

What does the similar in type concern?

A

Where the claimant suffers a type of harm which is reasonably foreseeable, but the way in which it occurs is unforeseeable, they can still recover

45
Q

What are the four defences to negligence, and which are partial/complete?

A
  1. Contributory negligence (partial)
  2. Voluntary Assumption of Risk (complete)
  3. Exclusion of liability (complete)
  4. Claim based on illegal act (complete)
46
Q

What is the definition of contributory negligence?

A

A failure by the claimant to take reasonable care for their own safety which contributes to their harm

47
Q

To avail of contributory negligence defence, does a defendant have to show claimant’s negligence contributed to the happening of the accident?

A

No, just that it contributed to the harm suffered

48
Q

What is the two part test for voluntary assumption of risk.

A
  1. Claimant had full knowledge of the risk, and
  2. Claimant freely and voluntarily assumed the risk
49
Q

Harm caused to whom in what situation is excluded by statute from arguing the voluntary assumption of risk defence?

A

Passengers in road traffic accidents