LAW P2 CASES (NEGLIGENCE)

Question 1

What is the case for the first neighbour principle requirement?

Answer 1

Home office v Dorset yacht co, it was reasonably foreseeable that harm would occur

Question 2

What is the case for the second neighbour principle requirement?

Answer 2

Bourhill v Young, there was not sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant when the harm occured

Question 3

What is the case for the second negligence requirement?

Answer 3

Nettleship v Weston, a learner driver owes the same duty of care as a qualified driver

Question 4

What is the case for the third negligence requirement?

Answer 4

Smith v Leech brain, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the claimants injury

Question 5

What is the case for the fourth negligence requirement?

Answer 5

Montgomery v Lankarkshire health board, doctors must inform patients of risks and seek consent

Question 6

What is the case for the causation (but for test) for negligence?

Answer 6

Barnett v Chelsea and kensington hospital, if the result would not have occured but for the defendants actions, then the defendant is not liable

Question 7

What is the case for remoteness of damage for negligence?

Answer 7

Hughes v Lord advocate, the damage was not too remote and it was foreseeable