Chapter 23- Liability in negligence

Question 1

What is negligence, and what does the claimant have to do?

Answer 1

• an act or failure to act which causes injury or damage to another person or their property
• Claimant will have to prove the defendant was at fault and to blame for the injuries or damage through expert evidence

Question 2

In negligence the defendant is only liable if……?

Answer 2

• they owe the claimant a duty of care
• they breach this duty and
• the breach causes reasonably foreseeable injury or damage

Question 3

What is the idea of duty of care?

Answer 3

-establish a legal relationship between the parties involved

Question 4

What is the neighbour principle and what case started this modern law on negligence?

Answer 4

• The person who is owed a duty of care by the defendant. According to Lord Atkin it is anyone you ought to have in mind who might potentially be injured by your act or omission
• Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 5

What replaced the neighbour principle?

Answer 5

The Capsro test

Question 6

Why is the Caparo test sometimes referred to as the three part test?

Answer 6

• Three questions are asked, and all 3 have to be satisfied in order for the test to be satisfied
• The 3 questions are;
• Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
• Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant?
• Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Question 7

What case established the Caparo test?

Answer 7

Caparo v Dickman

Question 8

What case is an example of damage or harm being reasonably foreseeable?

Answer 8

Kent v Griffiths

Question 9

What are 2 case examples that apply the proximity of the relationship?

Answer 9

-Bourhill v Young (claim wasn’t successful as he couldn’t have anticipated to be involved in an accident and it would cause mental injury to a bystander)
and
-McLoughlin v O’Brien (court may have only accepted her claim because she was related to the victim and suffered mental injury herself within a limited time)

Question 10

What case applies to the question of is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty, and why did the result happen?

Answer 10

• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
• It was pointed out that imposing a duty of care on police could lead to policing being carried out in a defensive way which might divert their resources away from preventing crime
• Leading to lower standards of policing

Question 11

What is a reasonable person?

Answer 11

the ordinary person on the street or doing the same task