liability in negligence

Question 1

Negligence meaning?

Answer 1

an act or failure to act which causes injury to another person or damage to their property- it can arise form either an act or omission

Question 2

What does the claimant have to prove?

Answer 2

that the defendant is at fault and is to blame for the injuries and damage. The burden of proving this fault and providing evidence is on the claimant

Question 3

What is the level of fault required in negligence?

Answer 3

balance of probabilities- it is more likely than not that the defendants fault caused the injuries or damage

Question 4

What makes the defendant liable in a successful claim for negligence?

Answer 4

.they owe the claimant a duty of care

.they breached this duty

.the breach causes reasonably foreseeable injury or damage

Question 5

What defences can can a defendant put forward after they have been proved liable?

Answer 5

. contributory negligence of the claimant
. claimant consented to run the risk of injury

Question 6

What is the neighbour principle?

Answer 6

the person who is owed a duty of care by the defendant. It is not the person living next door: it is anyone you ought to bear in mind, who could be injured by your act or omission.

Question 7

What case showed the neighbourhood principle?

Answer 7

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Question 8

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Answer 8

Mrs Donoughue visited a cafe and started to drink a ginger beer (bottle was dark glass) she poured the remainder and discovered it contained a dead and decomposing snail. Due to impurities in the drink she suffered physical injuries and mental anguish. She decided to sue the manufacturers of the drink in negligence claiming they owed her a duty of care.

Question 9

What is the Caparo test?

Answer 9

an update of the neighbour principle to show who is owed a duty of care in negligence

Question 10

What are the 3 parts of the Caparo test?

Answer 10

1. was harm or damage reasonably foreseeable
2. is there a sufficiently?proximate (close) relationship between the claimant and the defendant?
3. Is it fair, just reasonable to impose a duty?

Question 11

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Answer 11

The claimant company wanted to take over Fidelity Ltd, They looked at the statutory accounts prepared by D which showed Fidelity made profit. Therefore claimant decided to take over company. After purchase detailed accounts showed a large loss so they sued D in negligence for their loss

Question 12

What was decided by the house of lords in Caparo v Dickman?

Answer 12

They set out the three part test and decided that D did not owe a duty of care as the accounts were prepared for Fidelity and statutory reasons not for prospective buyers

Question 13

What case shows damage or reasonably foreseeable harm?

Answer 13

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Question 14

kent v Griffiths (2000)

Answer 14

Claimant was suffering an asthma attack and an ambulance was called. However the ambulance failed to arrive in a reasonable amount of time. As a result the claimant suffered a respiratory arrest.
COURT DECISION-it was reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer further illness if ambulance didn’t arrive promptly. Also there was no good reason why it didn’t turn up straight away. Therefore a duty of care came into existence when the call was received as they failed in this duty they are liable.

Question 15

What case shows proximity of relationship?

Answer 15

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Question 16

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Answer 16

A pregnant woman heard an accident (caused by a motorcyclist who died as a result). She approached the scene and saw blood. She suffered such shock from what she saw she later gave birth to a still born baby. She sued the relatives of the dead motorcyclist.
HOUSE OF LORDS DECISION- under neighbourhood test she had to prove she was proximate or close to D. However it was decided that he could not anticipate that if he was involved in an accident it would cause mental injury to a bystander. he was not proximate to her and doesn’t owe her a duty of care.

Question 17

What case shows that it has to be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Answer 17

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990)

Question 18

Hill v Cheif Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 18

The Yorkshire Ripper, had been attacking a murdering women in Yorkshire. C daughter was his last victim before he was caught. By the time of her death the police had enough evidence to arrest him but failed to do so. C alleged the police owed their daughter a duty of care.
HOUSE OF LORDS DECISION-the relationship between the victim and the police was not sufficiently close for the police to owe a duty of care to the victim, and that it was not fair, just and reasonable for the police to owe a duty of care to the public. The police knew that the killer may strike again, but they had no way of knowing who the victim might be

Question 19

What is the case for police owing a duty of care?

Answer 19

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)

Question 20

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)

Answer 20

An elderly lady was walking along the street and was injured when police officers tried to arrest a suspected drug dealer. there was a struggle during which the suspect and police collided with the claimant and injured her
OUTCOME-decoded that there was no blanket protection for the police and that the claimant was owed a duty of care