Establishing negligence: calculus of risk

Question 1

When does calculus of risk not need to be utilised?

Answer 1

When the type of harm is not a reasonably foreseeably consequence of the risk.

Question 2

In which case does D escape liability because the type of injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of children playing?

Answer 2

Harris v Perry

Question 3

In which case was a paddling pool not deemed to be reasonably foreseeable of causing the injury it caused?

Answer 3

Cockbill

Question 4

Which case required an especially high standard of care on behalf of the parents?

Answer 4

Anderson v Imrie

Question 5

In the case with the high standard of care what constituted a breach of duty?

Answer 5

a momentary lapse of supervision

Question 6

In which case was the ‘normal’ behaviour of a 13 year old deemed not to be reasonable and probable cause of injury?

Answer 6

Orchard v Lees

Question 7

Which case explicitly states that when an injury is reasonably foreseeable we should apply the calculus of risk?

Answer 7

Norgate v Britannia Hotels Ltd

Question 8

What are the five (more like 6) elements of the calculus of risk?

Answer 8

• Probability of injury
• Seriousness of injury
• Utility of action
• Practicality of precuations
• Cost of precautions
• Normal practice