3.3 Liability in Negligence

Question 1

what test established duty of care

Answer 1

The Caparo test

Question 2

what are the 3 points of the Caparo test

Answer 2

1. damage must be reasonably foreseeable
2. there must be a relationship of proximity between parties
3. it must be fair just and reasonbale to impose duty of care

Question 3

‘Damage must be reasonably foreseeable’

Answer 3

objective test

Question 4

‘there must be a relationship of proximity between parties’

Answer 4

close in terms of time space and relationship.

Question 5

‘It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care’

Answer 5

Allows judges to decide that a duty of care should not be owed if it’ll open floodgates, or place a burden on funds.

Question 6

What is a key case for duty of care

Answer 6

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Question 7

Facts of Kent v Griffiths

Answer 7

C was having an asthma attack and was pregnant. Ambulance was called but it took 38 minutes to arrive and as a result she suffered miscarriage and respiratory arrest.

Question 8

what was held in this case

Answer 8

London ambulance service was found liable as it was reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer damages as a result of ambulances delay.

Question 9

What is the objective test when it comes to breach of duty of care

Answer 9

Ommitting to do something a reasonable man would do, or doing something a reasonable man would not do.

Question 10

Where does this objective test come from

Answer 10

Blyth v birmingham water works (1856)

Question 11

When it comes to a person in a preffesion, how is he compared when he has breached a duty of care

Answer 11

He is not compared to a reasonable person in society, but a reasonable person in that profession.

Question 12

What are the 4 factors that determine whether the D has acted reasonably?

Answer 12

• degree of risk involved
• cost of precautions
• potential seriousness of injury
• importance of the activity

Question 13

‘Degree of risk involved’

Answer 13

The greater the risk, more precausions needed to prevent it from happening.

Question 14

‘Cost of precautions’

Answer 14

Cost of precausions would not expect to outweight risk involved. Not expected to guard against minor risks

Question 15

‘Potential seriousness of injury’

Answer 15

More serious of injury, more level of care required to be compared to the reasonable person.

Question 16

‘Importance of the activity’

Answer 16

Some risk may be acceptable if the risk undertaken is socially important

Question 17

Case for breach of duty of care

Answer 17

Mullins v Richards

Question 18

Facts of Mullins v Richards

Answer 18

2 15 year old girls were play fighting with plastic rulers. The rulers snapped and it went into one of the girls eyes causing blindness.

Question 19

Held in Mullins v Richards

Answer 19

the girl was expected to reach the standard of a 15 year old girl not a grown adult. So she was not found in breach

Question 20

whats the threshold that ‘damages’ must be in order to claim

Answer 20

• caused by a breach
• Not too remote from the breach

Question 21

In damages what doesn’t have to be foresseable and what does have to be foreseeable.

Answer 21

Foreseeable: Chain of events leading to damage
Not foreseeable: extent of the damage

Question 22

Key case in damages in negligence

Answer 22

The wagon mound

Question 23

Facts of the case

Answer 23

A fire started on a boat due to cotton debris was swallowed by oil and the oil caught fire, fire spread into Sydney harbour that led to a fire. Destroyed a wharf and boats

Question 24

what was held in Wagon mound case.

Answer 24

D was liable for full damages as the foreseeability of the damage was present.

Question 25

What is the point of law in the Wagon Mound case

Answer 25

Damage must be of the foreseeable type

Question 26

What is the duty of care in pure economic loss

Answer 26

No duty of care owed to avoid causing someone making a loss that purely economic.

Question 27

What are the exceptions of this?

Answer 27

If that finantial loss is due to personal injury or damage to property

Question 28

How would a court make up for this

Answer 28

Covering lost wages due to negligence

Question 29

What is a case for pure economic loss in negligence

Answer 29

Spartan steels and alloys v Martin

Question 30

Facts of Spartan steels and alloys v Martin

Answer 30

While digging a trench D negligently cut off the electricity supply to C’s steel works. C suffered loss of profits and damage to steelworks in process.

Question 31

What was held in Spartan Steel and alloys

Answer 31

Economic loss of the metal in process was recoverable. But the loss of profits of the future melts that could have happened due to power cut were not recoverable.

Question 32

What was the point of law in Spartan stell and alloys

Answer 32

That damages that were ‘pure economic loss’ were not recoverable due to policy decisions to limit liability of D

Question 33

What if the pure economic loss was caused by negligent misstatement.

Answer 33

Then liability may be imposed if the economic loss was due to negligent misstatement.

Question 34

What is a key case in negligent misstatement

Answer 34

Hedley Bryne v Heller

Question 35

Facts of Hedley Bryne v Heller

Answer 35

HB relied on a credit reference for a client from Heller and partners, info gave was incorrect and client went into liquidation.

Question 36

Held in Hedley Bryne v Heller

Answer 36

Claim failed as Heller has a disclaimer set whcih was enough to protect them from liability.

Question 37

This case created a new rule for negligent misstatement, what was it.

Answer 37

D owes duty to C only if theres ‘special relationship’ between them while making the statement.

Question 38

what are the 4 key points used to establish a special relationship

Answer 38

1. D making statement possesses some skill ralating to the statement
2. Knows its likely C will rely on statement
3. C does rely on it, suffering economic loss
4. Reasonable for C to rely on it

Question 39

what are the 4 key points used to establish a special relationship

Answer 39

1. D making statement possesses some skill ralating to the statement
2. Knows its likely C will rely on statement
3. C does rely on it, suffering economic loss
4. Reasonable for C to rely on it

Question 40

What is psychiatric injury

Answer 40

A long term, medically diagnosed, mental illness greater than shock and grief.

Question 41

What does not amount to psychiatric injury

Answer 41

Grief, sorrow, fear, panic and terror.

Question 42

What case illustrates this

Answer 42

Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus

Question 43

Facts of behrens v bertram mills circus

Answer 43

during a performance, a dog antagonised an elephant. This caused the the elephant, along with others, to stampeed onto a nearby dwarf show. Dwarfs were injured and suffered shock

Question 44

Held in this case

Answer 44

Claim for psychiatric injury failed as the C suffered fright which could not amount to psychiatric injury, even though the judge would have liked to compensate him.

Question 45

What are the 2 types of victims in psychiatric injury.

Answer 45

Primary (in the zone of physical crime)
Secondary (not in the zone but has witnessed the crime)

Question 46

What is the test to establish primary victim

Answer 46

• C need to establosh harm was foreseeable
• if personal injury was forseeable psychiatric injury doesnt need to be proved

Question 47

What is the test to establish secondary victim

Answer 47

Victim must…
- close relationship with primary victim
- Witness event with unaided sense
- be proximate to event or immidiate aftermath
- recieve psychiatric injury as a result of event

Question 48

How are rescuers dealt with in dangerous events

Answer 48

Neither primary or secondary victim so cannot claim