Evaluation of Negligence

Question 1

duty of care rule was too wide

Answer 1

Donoghue v Stevenson established neighbor principle
seen as fair but meant everyone owed everyone a duty of care
Case of Anns amended by Caparo to make a three part test to solve this

Question 2

negligence as a fault based tort

Answer 2

means claimant has to prove that the person fell below standard of care along with duty of care and caused damage
Nettleship showed learner having same fault as qualified driver due to test being objective
however if we took in personal factors test would be subjective and it would make it a lot harder to claim damages

Question 3

negligence hard to prove in medical cases

Answer 3

Hard to prove negligence in medical cases as if doctors can prove that another doctor in their field would do same then hard to claim for damages as courts will be reluctant to prove guilty - Bolam

However if doctors agree could be argued shouldn’t be allowed to claim anyways and in 2002/2003 the government made it so people can claim for damages if baby is born with brain damage

Question 4

inconsistency of ease in proving caused damage

Answer 4

law says that only type of injury needs to be foreseeable and this restricts liability. courts are keen that they can draw a line so that the defendant isn’t liable for everything that could possibly happen. Thin skull rule means that claimant can get full compensation for their injury and idea of res ipsa locquitor means that claimants can claim even when hard to prove. these two rules allow for claims to be easy yet the Wagon Mound rule stating only the type of injury needs to be foreseeable restricts what they can claim for.