Breach

Question 1

US v Carroll Towing Co?

Answer 1

Learned Hand
PL > B = duty
PL < B = no duty

Question 2

Nettleship v Weston?

Answer 2

C a learner driver who crashed car and injured herself/instructor.

Question 3

Denning, Nettleship v Weston?

Answer 3

Standard shouldn’t be lowered -> C held to standard of fully competent driver (objective).

Question 4

Salmon LJ, Nettleship v Weston?

Answer 4

C knew he couldn’t expect level of skill D didn’t have so assumed risk.

Disagreed w/ CN argument on factual basis – I agree no CN but bc C didn’t do any overt act to worsen injury.

Volenti better defence

Question 5

Mullin v Richards?

Answer 5

Court lowered standard of care – children an exception to objective standard.

Question 6

Mansfield v Weetabix?

Answer 6

HofL - pre-Randall

D suffered disease he wasn’t aware of; flared up whilst driving and he crashed into C’s shop.
Medical evidence confirmed D didn’t lose consciousness but was impaired.
But D had history of losing consciousness so had chance to become aware of condition but didn’t.

Question 7

Leggatt, Mansfield v Weetabix?

Answer 7

Leggatt held D to lower standard.

Question 8

Dunnage v Randall?

Answer 8

D schizophrenic and set fire to himself in front of C.
C tried to extinguish fire and suffered serious burns.
Post-Mansfield.

Question 9

CofA held what in Dunnage v Randall?

Answer 9

Schizophrenia doesn’t lower standard of care.

Fact D wasn’t acting rationally doesn’t = he wasn’t acting voluntarily ->

Question 10

Vos LJ, Dunnage v Randall?

Answer 10

Liability in law the price for being able to move freely within society despite schizophrenia.