Liability for physical injury to people and damage to property:

Question 1

Duty of Care

Answer 1

Legal obligation imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeable harm others.

Question 2

DoC Test: Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 2

Must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee are likely to injure your neighbour.

A Neighbour is anyone so closely and directly affected by your actions that you ought to reasonably have them in your contemplation.

Question 3

DoC Test: Caparo v Dickman

Answer 3

Damage must be reasonably foreseeable.

Must be a relationship of proximity.
Fair, just and reasonable to impose DoC.

Question 4

What does the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire tell us?

Answer 4

Caparo Test should only be used in a novel type of case, where established principles do not provide an answer.

Caparo will only be used if there are no previous cases that are sufficiently similar.

Question 5

Define Established Principles

Answer 5

The courts will consider the closest analogies in the existing law, with a view to maintaining the coherence of the law and the avoidance of inappropriate distinctions.

Question 6

Caparo v Dickman Case

Answer 6

Shares were misvalued.

Caparo brought an action against the auditors saying they were negligent in certifying the accounts

Held: No DoC as there was not sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors

Question 7

Bourhill v Young Case

Answer 7

C heard the collision and later arrived at the scene and saw blood, went into shock causing her baby to be still born. Brought a negligence claim.

Held: No proximity

Question 8

What case does objective test of breach in DoC come from?

Answer 8

Blyth v Birmingham Water Works

Question 9

Blyth v Birmingham Water Works Case

Answer 9

Hydrants that D installed along a street leaked because of cold temperatures, causing water damage to the house. Plaintiff sued for negligence.

Held: Not liable, it had not been that cold in a long time and it was seen as unreasonable for BWW to anticipate this.

Question 10

As a result of Blyth v Birmingham Water Works

Answer 10

An objective test: omitting to do something a reasonable man would do, or doing something a reasonable man would not do.

Question 11

How will professionals be judged?

Answer 11

Professionals will be judged on the standard of a reasonable person in that profession.

Question 12

How will Trainees be judged?

Answer 12

This does not apply to trainees, a learner driver will be judged to the standard of a reasonable driver.

Question 13

How will children be Judged?

Answer 13

A child will be judged to the standard of a reasonable child.

Question 14

Montgomery v Lancashire Case:

Answer 14

C had diabetes while pregnant and under care of a doctor who did not inform her of 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia.

Baby suffered severe disability as a result. C sought for negligence. Court dismissed at first.

Held: Decision appealed and judge found Bolam nest not applicable. Doctor was to undertake a DoC and warn of any risks

Question 15

Bolam Test

Answer 15

A test that is judged by the medical professional’s peers. Must be able to show that any medical professional who was in the same position, would have done the same, giving the same outcome.

Question 16

Court Considers: Factor 1 of acting reasonably

Answer 16

Degree of risk involved - Greater risks means more precautions D has to take to be judged as a reasonable person (Bolton v Stone).

Question 17

Factor 1 Case: Bolton v Stone

Answer 17

C injured after a ball from cricket pitch flew into home.

Held: D not in breach of DoC, likelihood of harm was very low, erecting a higher fence would be impractical. Club was a service to the community and a reasonable cricket club would not have acted differently.

POL: Higher risk means more precautions to take so they can be judged reasonably.

Question 18

Factor 2: Cost of Precautions

Answer 18

CoP not to outweigh risks involved (Latimer v AEC).

Question 19

Factor 2 Case: Latimer v AEC

Answer 19

C worked in D’s factory and slipped. Factory was flooded, there were warning signs, it was mopped with sawdust placed in common areas to increase safety.

Held: No breach in duty, D took reasonable precautions.

POL: Court will not expect CoP to outweigh risk involved.

Question 20

Factor 3: Potential Seriousness of injury

Answer 20

More serious the potential injury, greater level of care required to be judged acting as a reasonable person (Paris v Stepney Borough Council).

Question 21

Factor 3 Case: Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Answer 21

C had one eye and a metal splinter went into it at work and blinded him. The employer did not provide safety goggles.

Held: D was in breach of duty, he only had one eye so there was a strong potential for great harm. Reasonable person would take great steps to protect.

POL: More serious the potential injury, greater level of care required to be judged as a reasonable person.

Question 22

Factor 4: Importance of Activity

Answer 22

Some risk may be acceptable if socially important (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council).

Question 23

Factor 4 Case: Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

Answer 23

C injured by equipment not secured due to rush to save a life.

Held: No breach of duty. The emergency situation and utility of D’s conduct in saving a life outweigh the need to take precautions.

POL: Some risk may be acceptable if risk is socially important.

Question 24

Damage

Answer 24

Must be caused by breach ‘but for’

Not too remote from breach from breach (foreseeable) –> precise chain of events need not be foreseeable.

Question 25

‘but for’ Case: Barnett v Chelsea Hospital

Answer 25

Doctor failed to examine a man who was poisoned, even if he couldn’t save him.

Held: Not liable, doctors’ failure to examine did not cause death.

POL: Damage must have been caused by breach.

Question 26

Foreseeable CoE Case: Hughes v Lord Advocate

Answer 26

2 boys explored manhole and an unforeseeable explosion occurred causing serious injury.

Held: Damage not too remote it was foreseeable.

POL: Precise CoE leading to damage need not be foreseeable.

Question 27

Thin Skull Rule

Answer 27

Must take victim as you find them.

Question 28

Thin Skull Case: Smith v Leech Brain

Answer 28

D’s Negligence caused C a burn to his upper lip which contained pre-cancerous cells and were triggered, he later died of cancer.

Held: D found negligible as employers are liable for all consequences of negligence. Regarding foreseeability, the injury or cancer did not matter, thin skull rule has always been established and was not affected by ruling in Wagon Mound case.

POL: Not necessary for extent of damage to be foreseeable.

Question 29

Wagon Mound Case: Foreseeability

Answer 29

Ship leaked oil into harbour leading to a fire, destroying the wharf and boats.

Held: Re Polemis is no longer good law. Remoteness of damage substituted for direct consequence test (was it foreseeable), if yes then D is liable for full extent of damage, no matter if extent was foreseeable.

POL: Damage must be of a foreseeable type.

Question 30

Re Polemis

Answer 30

Court of appeal held that D can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable it is.