GNM

Question 1

r v adomako

Answer 1

ELEMENTS
did the defendant owe a duty of care?
did he breach the duty?
did the beach cause death?
was he grossly negligent?

Question 2

r v broughton 2020

Answer 2

adds an element to r v adomako
‘was it reasonably foreseeable that the breach gave rise to serious and obvious risk of death’

Question 3

r v rudling

Answer 3

serious is not the same as a possibility of death

Question 4

r v rose

Answer 4

an obvious risk is a present risk, which is clear and unambiguous

Question 5

r v bateman

Answer 5

in the opinion of the jury the defendant went beyond mere compensation and disregard for the life and safety of others

Question 6

r v khan&khan

Answer 6

drug dealers could owe a duty of care for their clients

Question 7

donaghue v stevenson

Answer 7

you must take reasonable care to avoid acts of omission which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to hurt your neighbour.”
introduced the neighbour test

Question 8

robinson v chief constable of west yorkshire police

Answer 8

where there exists an established ground of liability such as a personal injury there is no need to apply the third stage of the caparo test

Question 9

CAPARO TEST
caparo v dickman

Answer 9

foreseeability - harm or damage must be foreseeable
proximity - sufficient proximity between the defendant and claimant for a duty of care to arise
fairness, justice & reasonableness- is it fair just or reasonable to owe a duty of care

Question 10

nettleship v western

Answer 10

defendants are expected to meet the same standard as a reasonable competent person