2 Negligent harm to the Person

Question 0

Historical development

Answer 0

Donoghue v Stevenson - neighbourhood test

Ann v Merton - proximity based on foreseeability

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman

1. Foreseeability
2. Proximity or neighbourhood
3. Fair, just and reasonable

Question 1

Element of negligence

Answer 1

1. Duty of care
2. Breach of that duty
3. Causing loss
4. Loss must not be too remote
5. No defence

Question 2

Caparo test

Answer 2

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman

1. Foreseeability
   Bourhill v Young
2. Proximity or neighbourhood
   Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
3. Fair, just and reasonable

Question 3

Situations liability arises for omissions

Answer 3

1. Special relationship
   Barrett v Ministry of Defence
2. Relationship of control
   Home Office v Dorset Yacht
3. Creating or permitting a source of danger to be created
   Haynes v Harwood
   Smith v Littlewoods Organisation ltd
4. Protection of vulnerable persons
   Reeves v Commission of Police for Metropolis

Question 4

Standard of Care

Answer 4

Objective standard

Nettleship v Weston

Question 5

Standard of care - special characteristics of defendant

Answer 5

1. Children
   Mulin v Richards
2. Illness and disability
   Mansfield v Weetabix ltd
3. Professionals and special skills
   Bolam test
   Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority
   - it must be demonstrated that the method was based on logic and was defensible.
4. Magnitude or social utility
   Watt v Hertfordshire

Compensation Act 2006 s1

Question 6

Proving breach of standard of care

Answer 6

1. Balance of probabilities
2. Doctrince of res ipsa loquitur
   a. Offending thing must be under control of defendant
   b. such accidents usually do not happen when due care is exercised
   c. No possible explanation for accident

Question 7

Causing loss or damage

Answer 7

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

But for test

Question 8

Standard of care and multiple causation

Answer 8

McGhee v National Coal Board
Material contribution to risk of harm

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services
Material contribution to risk of harm

Baker v Corus UK ltd
Several liability, not joint for proportion of contribution to risk

Now: Compensation Act 2006 s.3
Concept of proportionate liability

Question 9

Standard of care - break of chain of causation

Answer 9

1. Intervening act of Nature
   Carlsogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government
2. Intervening act of claimant
   McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts ltd
3. Intervening act of third party
   Haynes v Harwood - no
   Knightley v Johns

Question 10

Loss of chance

Answer 10

Hoston v East Berkshire Health Authority

Only liable for the percentage of chance

Question 11

Remoteness of Damage - test

Answer 11

The Wagon Mound (No 1)

Reasonable foreseeability

Question 12

Remoteness of Damage - types of Damage

Answer 12

1. The Wagon Mound
   If type of damage is foreseeable, degree does not matter
2. Page v Smith
   Provided some kind of damage is foreseeable, it does not matter whether physical or psychological damage occurs

Question 13

Remoteness of damage - pre-existing vulnerability

Answer 13

1. Smith v Leech Brain & Co ltd
   Egg shell / thin skull rule
2. Liesbosch Dredger v SS Edison
   Egg shell rule does not apply to financial vulnerability