Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law - Tort > Duty, Breach, Damage Q6/7 (Negligence) > Flashcards

Duty, Breach, Damage Q6/7 (Negligence) Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

What are the 3 existing duties that are tested to prove a duty of care?

A
  • reasonable foreseeability
  • proximity (legal/physical closeness)
  • fair, just and reasonable decision
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the case for establishing a duty of care between an employer V employee?

A

Paris V Stepney

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Which case applies to an ordinary person performing a task when establishing duty of care?

A

Wells V Cooper

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Which case established the duty of care for learners (trainees)?

A

Nettleship V Weston

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the relevant case for duty of care between an ambulance V patient?

A

Kent V Griiffiths

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Which case involves the duty of care owed by a police officer V identified person?

A

Hill V WY CC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Which case established the duty of care owed by a doctor V patient?

A

Bolam V Friern HMC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Which case should be applied when considering duty of care towards children playing?

A

Mullins V Richards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What case relates to the duty of care expected of a reasonable sportsman?

A

Bolton V Stone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Which case is used to establish duty of care for a manufacturer/business V consumer?

A

Donoghue V Stevenson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What law governs the duty of care owed by an occupier V visitor/trespasser?

A

Occupiers Liability Act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Which case relates to the duty of care between cyclists V road users?

A

Taylor V Goodwin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What two things do courts consider when establishing a breach of duty?

A
  • The reasonable man test
  • The risk factors involved
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the case that demonstrates the reasonable person standard in a DIY context?

A

Wells V Cooper

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What were the main facts and outcome of Wells V Cooper?

A

Main Facts: D fixed a door handle using screws that were too short, leading to an injury to C who was leaving through the same door.

Outcome: D met the standard of a reasonable person doing DIY, as someone doing DIY would not likely have known such instructions so he did not breach his duty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How is a child judged in terms of breach of duty?

A

A child should be judged by the standards of a reasonable competent child of the same age.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Which case applies the standard for children in breach of duty?

A

Mullins V Richards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What were the main facts and outcome of Mullins V Richards

A

Main Facts: Two 15-year-olds fought with plastic rulers, D’s ruler snapped and went into C’s eye causing blindness.

Outcome: D was only expected to meet the standard of a reasonable 15-year-old, not an adult. She was not in breach of duty since a child the same age would’ve acted similarly.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

How are learners/trainees judged in breach of duty?

A

Learners/trainees are judged by the standard of someone who is competent in that profession, NOT by the standard of a learner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Which case demonstrates the standard for learners/trainees?

A

*Nettleship V Weston**

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What were the main facts and the outcome of *Nettleship V Weston**

A

Main Fact: D (learner) crashed during her car driving lesson, injuring her instructor who was her friend (C).

Outcome: Learner drivers are judged against the standard of a reasonably competent driver. The fact that she was inexperienced did not lower the standard so she breached her duty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

How is a professional/expert judged in breach of duty?

A

A professional/expert is judged by the standard of the profession as a whole, this is done by asking for a body of opinion from the same profession of what they’d would do in similar circumstances.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is the key case that illustrates how professionals are judged in breach of duty?

A

*Bolam V Friern Hospital**

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What were the main facts and the outcome of Bolam V Friern Hospital

A

Main Facts: A patient suffered injuries during a medical procedure because muscle relaxants were not provided.

Outcome: Since the hospital followed one course of action accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion, they did not breach their duty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What additional consideration was introduced in Bolitho v City regarding professional judgment?

A

The court can reject professional opinions if they are illogical or indefensible, despite being accepted by some in the profession.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

List the risk factors in breach of duty

A
  • Seriousness of the risk
  • Size of the risk (Magnitude of risk - likelihood of loss, not the extent of loss)
  • Practical precautions taken
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

How does the seriousness of the risk affect the standard of care?

A

It increases the standard of care expected from the defendant, especially if the claimant is vulnerable.

28
Q

What is an example of a case where the seriousness of the risk increased the standard of care?

A

Paris V Stepney

29
Q

What were the main facts and the outcome of Paris V Stepney?

A

Main Facts: A mechanic with one eye was not given goggles and lost his remaining good eye.

Outcome: D (employer) should have provided goggles due to the greater potential harm, thus a higher standard of care was required.

30
Q

What does the size of the risk refer to in breach of duty cases?

A

The size of the risk refers to the likelihood of harm occurring, not the extent of the harm.

31
Q

Which case illustrates how the size of the risk affects the standard of care?

A

Bolton V Stone

32
Q

What were the main facts and the outcome of Bolton V Stone

A

Main Facts: A cricket ball rarely left the grounds, but one day it did and hit a lady passerby outside the grounds.

Outcome: The risk was so small that D did not breach their duty, as reasonable people only take precautions against significant risk.

33
Q

Which case contrasts with Bolton v Stone regarding the size of the risk?

A

Miller v Jackson

34
Q

What were the main facts and outcome of Miller V Jackson

A

Main Fact: A cricket ball had gone over the fence and into C’s land often.

Outcome: The higher frequency of risk meant that the standard of care expected was higher, and the D’s had breached their duty.

35
Q

What happens if a risk is unknown?

A

If the risk is unknown, the defendant cannot be expected to take precautions against it.

36
Q

Give a case example where the risk was unknown.

A

Roe V Ministry of Health

37
Q

What were the main facts and outcome of Roe V Ministry of Health

A

Main Fact: Anaesthetic became contaminated due to invisible cracks in glass bottles, leading to paralysis. At the time it wasn’t known that invisible cracks could occur on the glass.

Outcome: Since the risk of contamination was not known at the time, there was no breach of duty.

38
Q

How do practical precautions affect the standard of care in breach of duty cases?

A

If all reasonable precautions have been taken, D will NOT be considered to have breached their duty of care.

39
Q

Which case demonstrates the importance of taking practical precautions?

A

Latimer V AEC

40
Q

What were the main facts and outcome of Latimer V AEC

A

Main Facts: A factory floor was slippery, and sawdust was spread in most used areas to minimize the risk of slipping, but a worker slipped on an area where sawdust wasn’t spread and was injured.

Outcome: The court held that all reasonable precautions had been taken, so there was no breach of duty.

41
Q

When might the standard of care be lower despite a high risk of harm?

A

In cases of emergency or significant social utility, where the need for quick action justifies taking greater risks.

42
Q

What is the third part of a negligence claim?

A

The third part is to prove that the damage suffered was caused by the breach of duty and that the loss or damage is not too remote.

(distinguish damage from damages which is payment of compensation)

43
Q

What are the two parts of proving damage in negligence?

A
  • Causation in fact
  • Remoteness of damage
44
Q

What does causation in fact mean? how is it tested?

A

Causation in fact - If D’s actions directly caused harm to C.

Tested using the “but for” test.

45
Q

What does remoteness of damage mean?

A

Whether the type of harm was something you could expect from the defendant’s actions.
If the harm is too unexpected (too remote), the defendant isn’t responsible for it.

46
Q

What is the ‘but for’ test?

A

It is a test for causation in fact, asking whether the damage would have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s actions or omissions.

47
Q

What is an example of a case where the ‘but for’ test was applied?

A

Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

48
Q

What were the main facts and outcome of Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital?

A

Main Fact: A man died from arsenic poisoning after being turned away from the hospital without examination since they told him to rest at home.

Outcome: The hospital (D) was not liable because the man would have died regardless of the doctor’s failure to examine him, so the hospital was not the factual cause of death.

49
Q

What is an intervening act in the context of causation?

A

An intervening act is an event that occurs after the D’s breach and contributes to/causes the damage, potentially breaking the chain of causation.

50
Q

How does an intervening act by a third party affect causation?

A

If the act of the third party is foreseeable, the chain of causation remains intact - D is still liable.

If it is unforeseeable, it may break the chain of causation. - Removed liability from the D

51
Q

What is an example of a case involving an intervening act by a third party?

A

Home Office V Dorset Yacht Co.

52
Q

What were the main facts and outcome of Home Office V Dorset Yacht Co.?

A

Main Fact: Young offenders doing work on Borstal regime stole a yacht after being left unsupervised on one night by officers.

Outcome: The Home Office (D) was liable because it was foreseeable that the boys might cause damage if left unsupervised, so the chain of causation remained intact.

53
Q

What is the test for an intervening act by the claimant?

A

The test is whether the claimant acted reasonably in the circumstances.

If reasonable, the chain of causation remains.
(D = liable)

If unreasonable, the chain is broken. (D = not liable)

54
Q

What is an example of a case involving an intervening act by the claimant?

A

Mc Kew V Holland

55
Q

What were the main facts and outcome of Kew V Holland?

A

Main facts: The C, with a leg injury, tried to descend a jump down a staircase unaided since he felt his leg was about to give up and was further injured.

Outcome: C’s actions were unreasonable, breaking the chain of causation, so D was not liable for the additional injuries.

56
Q

What is remoteness of damage in negligence law?

A

Remoteness of damage refers to whether the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable.

If damage isn’t foreseeable, it’s considered too remote, and the D is not liable.

57
Q

What is an example of a case involving remoteness of damage?

A

The Wagon Mound (No.1)

58
Q

What were the main facts and outcome of Wagon Mound (No.1)

A

Main facts: Oil spilled into Sydney Harbour flowing into C’s wharf where welders were carrying out repairs to another ship. Two days later, the oil caught fire due to welding sparks, causing extensive damage.

Outcome: Damage by oil was foreseeable but damage by fire was not foreseeable, so it was too remote, and the D was not liable for the damage of the fire.

59
Q

What happens if the way in which damage occurred was unforeseeable but the type of damage was foreseeable?

A

D is still liable if the type of damage is foreseeable, regardless of the specific way it occurred.

60
Q

What is an example of a case where the way in which damage occurred was unforeseeable, but the damage was foreseeable?

A

Hughes V Lord Advocate

61
Q

What were the main facts and the outcome of Hughes V Lord Advocate?

A

Main facts: A boy was burned by an explosion after dropping a paraffin lamp, which was meant to warn road users of the danger, into an unattended manhole

Outcome: The burns (injuries) were foreseeable, even though the explosion was not, so D was liable.

62
Q

Does the extent of the damage need to be foreseeable?

A

No, as long as the type of damage is foreseeable, the extent of the damage does not need to be.

63
Q

What is an example of a case where the extent of damage was much greater than expected, but still resulted in liability?

A

Bradford V Robinson Rentals

64
Q

What were the main facts and the outcome of Bradford V Robinson Rentals?

A

Main facts: The claimant suffered frostbite after driving in freezing conditions without a heater.

Outcome: The court held that some cold-related injury was foreseeable, so the extent (frostbite) did not matter, and the D was liable.

65
Q

What is the ‘thin skull’ rule?

A

The ‘thin skull’ rule - D is liable for all consequences of their actions, if the claimant has a pre-existing condition that makes the damage more severe.

66
Q

What is an example of a case involving the ‘thin skull’ rule?

A

Smith V Leech Braine and Co.

67
Q

What were the main facts and outcome of Smith V Leech Braine and Co.

A

Main facts: The C, with a pre-cancerous condition, was burnt on the lip by molten metal in a factor which brought about the onset of full cancer leading to his death.

Outcome: The injury was foreseeable, the consequences of the injury weren’t relevant and the D had to take his V as he found him so he was liable.

Law - Tort (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions