Chapt 2 Tort From Unit Spec 2017

Question 1

What is the neighbour test?

Which case?

Answer 1

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably forseen would be likely to injure your neighbour. These are persons who are so directly affected by my acts that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind as to the acts or omissions which are called into question”

Donoughue v Stephenson 1932

Question 2

What is the 3 stage test?
(With cases)

Caparo v dickman 1990

Answer 2

1. Foreseeability of harm to claimant
   Objective test. What would the reasonable person in Ds position forsee?
   Smith and others v Littlewoods org ltd 1987 and Kent v griffiths 2000

Proximity
Related to forseeability. Time, space/relationship(only need show 1)
Watson v BBBC 2000/ topp v London country bus
Mc cloughlin v o Brien - relationship

Fair just and reasonable to impose duty
Are there Public policy reasons to exclude liability ?Stop floodgates
L and another c Reading BCI and others 2007

Question 3

Public policy on duty of care

How does the court use statute to decide whether a doc should exist!

Answer 3

S1 Compensation Act 2006

Court will look at whether imposing liability might…
- PREVENT a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way
Or
- DISCOURAGE persons from undertaking functions in CONNECTION with a desirable activity

Question 4

Public policy in negligence

How does this affect the liability of public authorities?

We want them to do their jobs without risking being sued!

Answer 4

Hill v CC of W Yorkshire 2001-courts reluctant to impose duties towards individuals
And s1 Compensation Act 2006
Osman v UK (immunity is not absolute)
Z and others v uk
Floodgates argument (Hill v CC of W Yorks 2001)
Watt v Herts cc
Rescuer situation- if a reasonable person would feel obliged then doc due
Ward v Hopkins 1959

Question 5

Public policy issues that mean the courts reluctant to find doc on psych harm?
(3)

Answer 5

Floodgates argument - Hill v CC of W Yorkshire 2001

Possible fraudulent claims

Difficult to prove a Causal connection

Question 6

Rescuers in psych harm
(1 case)

What is the policy?

Answer 6

White v others v CC of S Yorks police 1999

Rescuers who suffer only psych. Harm as opposed to physical injury leading to psych harm are not usually owed the favourable treatment given to those who suffer physical harm

Question 7

What is the basic rule for rescuers in doc?

Which case?

Answer 7

The D owes a doc to the rescuer, provided that a reasonable person in the rescuers situation would feel obliged to help

Case law

Ward v Hopkins, baker v hopkins 1959- doctors attempt to rescue was a “natural and proper” response to the situation

Question 8

What must a claimant show for pure psych injury for primary victims
(4)

Answer 8

D owed a doc /D breached the doc

Suffered a recognised psych illness beyond mere shock and grief (Hinz v Berry)
Illness caused by defendants negligent act
(Causation)

**need not show that psych injury was foreseeable as long as some injury was foreseeable **
Use Page V Smith

Question 9

What must a secondary victim of psych harm show?

Alcock v CC of S Yorks

Answer 9

**must show that psych injury itself was reasonably foreseeable to a person of “reasonable fortitude” ***

Alcock 5 criteria (1992)
1. Sudden shock

2. Forseeability of psych harm must be reasonably foreseeable by the victim
3. Proximity of relationship between c and primary victim
4. Physical proximity of claimant
5. See or hear with own senses

Question 10

The 2 Cases for duty of care

Answer 10

Caparo v Dickman

Donoughue v Stephenson