Liability in negligence

Question 1

How can a claimant prove that there is a breach of duty

Answer 1

They have to be able to prove that there was a duty of care in the first place and that it has been breached

Question 2

What is the standard set

Answer 2

Standard set is what people would think the ‘reasonable’ person would’ve done in that profession

Question 3

Damage def

Answer 3

Is the legal test of a loss to the claimant from a breach of duty etc

Question 4

Damages def

Answer 4

Is the compensation paid to the claimant who proves the defendant is negligent

Question 5

What is the ‘but for’ test

Answer 5

This is when there is a direct link between the accident and the actions/omissions of the defendant.

Question 6

Binding precedent def

Answer 6

Case decided in the highest courts that must be followed by the lower courts

Question 7

Legal causation

Answer 7

Legal causation requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently connected to its occurrence.

Question 8

Novus actus interveniens def

Answer 8

In the chain of events leading from one accident, you have another which is unrelated breaking the chain. The liability will still exist for the first but the intervening event can’t be related to the first.

Question 9

What is the ‘take your victim as you find him’

Answer 9

If the claimant has any pre-existing condition that is made worse by an injury that was reasonably foreseeable, the. The defendant can also be held liable.

Question 10

Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself)

Answer 10

In certain situations the claimant may not know what happened, only that a breach of care and negligence has occurred and that they have suffered an injury or damage. E.g operation that has gone wrong.

Question 11

What does the claimant have to prove in Res ipsa loquitur cases

Answer 11

1. The defendant was in control of the situation which caused the injury.
2. The accident would not have happened but for the defendant’s negligence.
3. There is no other explanation for the injury.
   If all three can be proven, then it’s up to the defendant to disprove the claim.

Question 12

What is a novel case

Answer 12

This is when there is a new case that is different from other cases

Question 13

What are the three conditions needed to satisfy the caparo test

Answer 13

1. Is it reasonably foreseeable
2. Is there a proximate relationship between the defendant and claimant.
3. is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

Question 14

What happened in the Kent v griffiths case

Answer 14

This is the case where the ambulance was late to help someone which ended up worsening their injuries. The ambulance didn’t have a reason for being late.
The importance of this case is that it was reasonably foreseeable that if the ambulance was late, the injuries would get worse and so they were liable for negligence.

Question 15

What is the Hill v chief constable of West Yorkshire case

Answer 15

This is the case where a mother wanted to press charges on the police for negligence as they potentially knew who the Yorkshire ripper was but needed more evidence.
The importance of this case is that the courts decided that it was not fair to impose a duty of care on the police as they can’t stop every crime from happening.