Liability In Negligence: Tort - Personal Injury And Damage To Property

Question 1

Things you have to prove

Answer 1

Duty of care
Breach of duty
Damages

Question 2

Duty of care
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Answer 2

The snail, the friend and the ginger beer
Established the neighbour principal - “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

Question 3

Duty of care
Caparo v Dickman 1990 - 3 part test

Answer 3

Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship?
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Question 4

Reasonably foreseeable

Answer 4

Dependant on the facts of the case

Question 5

Reasonably foreseeable
Robinson v chief Constable of West Yorkshire 2018

Answer 5

C was an elderly lady who was injured by a drug dealer who was resisting arrest by the D (police officers)
Reasonably foreseeable
Police were liable

Question 6

Reasonably foreseeable
Kent v griffiths 2000

Answer 6

Ambulance didn’t arrive within a reasonable time without a reasonable excuse
Patient suffered a heart attack which she wouldn’t have suffered had she gone to hospital earlier
Reasonably foreseeable that the C would suffer harm from the failure of the ambulance to arrive

Question 7

Example of not foreseeable

Answer 7

Bourhill v hound 1943
Motor cyclist crashed into a car whilst driving to fast
Driver was killed
Pregnant woman saw the aftermath of the accident, suffered a shock and the bay was stillborn
Tried to claim compensation but wasn’t reasonably foreseeable - not proximate

Question 8

Duty of care
Proximity

Answer 8

Relationship between d and c has to be sufficiently proximate

Question 9

Proximity
Bill v chief constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 9

C daughter was last v, police already had enough info to arrest the killer but they hadn’t done before the daughter was killed
Wasn’t a proximate relationship

Question 10

Duty of care
Fair, just and reasonable
Capital counties plc v Hampshire county council

Answer 10

Fire officer ordered sprinkler system to be turned off which meant the fire spread

Question 11

Breach of duty
Objective test

Answer 11

Did the D behave as a prudent and reasonable person would?
Blythe v Birmingham waterworks

Question 12

Special characteristics of the D

Answer 12

Have be to be looked at as per nettleship v Weston
Shows the D is compared with a person of average skill unless they are:
Professional
Amateur
Child

Question 13

Breach of duty
Risk factors

Answer 13

Degree of risk
Cost and practicality of taking precautions
Possible benefits of taking the risk

Question 14

Breach of duty
Degree of risk

Answer 14

More care has to be taken with something that is quite likely to happen
Bolton v stone

Question 15

Breach of duty
Cost and practicality of taking precautions

Answer 15

Courts consider the balance if the risk involved against the cost and effort of taking adequate precautions to eliminate the risk
Latimer v AEC ltd

Question 16

Breach of duty
Possible benefits of the risk

Answer 16

Watt v Hertfordshire cc

Question 17

Damage

Answer 17

Claimant must be able to prove:
They suffered damage
Damage was caused by the D
Damage is not too remote

Question 18

Causation

Answer 18

Claimant must prove that the damage was suffered was caused by the breach of duty
Needs to be a clear link between accident and defendants actions
“But for test”
Think skull rule - smith v leech

Question 19

Remoteness of damage

Answer 19

Wagon mound 1961
Type of injury has to be foreseeable - hughes v lord advocate