2B - Negligence - Case List

Question 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 1

First established the idea of duty of care as well as the neighbour principle: ‘you must take reasonable care not to injure your neighbour’ neighbour meaning anyone closely and directly impacted by your actions
Also established manufacturers owed a duty of care to consumers

Question 2

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 2

HOL set the three-stage test for owing a duty of care. They decided that the D didn’t owe the claimants a duty of care

Question 3

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 3

The Caparo test doesn’t have to be strictly applied in every case, instead, the courts should look to existing or analogous duty that can be applied
^^^ if there’s a precedent situation you don’t need the Caparo test

Question 4

Kent v Griffiths

Answer 4

Court decided it was ‘reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer further illness if the ambulance didnt arrive promptly and no good reason was given for the delay

Question 5

Bourhill v Young

Answer 5

C had to prove that she was proximate to the motorcyclist so he owed a duty of care. HOL decided that he couldn’t anticipate that if he was in an accident, it would cause mental injury to a woman and result in a miscarriage. Didn’t owe her a duty

Question 6

McLoughlin v O’Brian

Answer 6

HOL decided the lorry driver owed C a duty of care and extended the class of persons who would be considered proximate to the event to those who came within the immediate aftermath of the event (in this case it was 2 hours after)

Question 7

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 7

HOL decided the relationship between the V and the police was not sufficiently proximate for the police to be under a duty of care and that it was not fair, just, or reasonable for the police to owe a duty of care to the general public. They knew the killer may strick again but they had no knowledge of who that may be

Question 8

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Answer 8

Court decided that the D was not liable because they had done everything a reasonable person would have in that situation. No negligence as there had been no breach of duty; it was simply an accident. Evidence showed that the D’s routinely took precautions against cold weather and only due to particularly and unforeseeably cold winters did any damage occur

Question 9

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 9

Able to claim against her because the court held that she was required to reach the standard of a reasonable driver: ‘the learner driver may be doing his best, but his incompetent best is not good enough. He must drive in as good manner as a driver of skill, experience, and care’

Question 10

Mullin v Richards

Answer 10

Court held that D should be judged against the standard of a reasonable 15-year-old and not the standard of a ‘reasonable man’. They said that children often engage in ‘horseplay’ and therefore D had not breached her duty of care

Question 11

Bolam v Friern Hospital

Answer 11

Judge said that the test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that particular medical skill. A doctor who acts in accordance with a practice approved by a responsible body fo medical opinion is not negligent even if there is another responsible body with a contrary opinion. Therefore, the defendant was not liable

Question 12

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board

Answer 12

Law now requires a doctor to take ‘reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments’

Question 13

Haley v London Electricity Board

Answer 13

If potential harm is likely then the defendant is expected to take steps to prevent it

Question 14

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Answer 14

If potential harm is particularly serious then the D is expected to take further steps to prevent it

Question 15

Bolton v Stone

Answer 15

The amount of time and money that D’s should spend trying to prevent the risk should be in proportion to the likelihood and seriousness of the potential harm

Question 16

Watts v Herts CC

Answer 16

If the actions of the defendants in taking the risk has a benefit to society then there may not be a breach, and a lower standard may be expected

Question 17

Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital

Answer 17

Neild J’s judgement said:
‘my conclusions are: that the plaintiff has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the deceased’s death resulted from the negligence of the D’s, my view being that, had all care been taken, the deceased might still have died’

Question 18

Wagon Mound No 1

Answer 18

Although damage done to the wharf by oil being spilled was reasonably foreseeable. This type of damage was too remote from the original negligent act of spilling the oil

Question 19

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Answer 19

Providing the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, it does not matter that the damage occurred in an unusual way or to a greater extent than expected; the defendant is still liable

Question 20

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Answer 20

Court decided that the boy was able to claim for his injuries as it was foreseeable that a child might explore the site, break a lamp, and be burnt. The type of injury he suffered was foreseeable, even though the explosion itself was not foreseeable

Question 21

Scott v Shepherd

Answer 21

The injury to the C was the direct and unalwful act of the D who originally threw the explosive. The other people were not ‘free agents’ in this situation and threw on the firework for their own safety and this is justifiable. The throwing on was classed as a continuation of the defendant’s action, which was intended. Whatever followed this was part of the D’s original act

Question 22

Smith v Leech Brain

Answer 22

The court decided that as a burn was reasonably foreseeable, because of the think skull rules the D was liable for the man’s death