Negligence 1

Question 1

Negligence 1: Decision Procedures

Answer 1

1. Duty of care
2. Breach of Duty
3. Causation
4. Damage
5. Remoteness
6. Defences

Question 2

Lord Atkin’s Neighbour Principle

Answer 2

Donoghue v Stevenson

1. Take reasonable care where harm is reasonably foreseeable
2. D may be liable where C is ‘closely and directly’ affected by their conduct

Question 3

Lord Bridge’s Three Requirements

Answer 3

Caparo
Reasonably foreseeable harm
Proximity
Justice, fairness and reasonableness of imposing a duty

Question 4

Lord Reed’s Approach

duty of care

Answer 4

Robinson

“follow principles” not fact specific cases

Question 5

Breach of Duty

Answer 5

The Reasonable Person Standard
Glasgow Corp v Muir
Lord Thankerton
Objective Test

Question 6

Negligance Considerations

Answer 6

Cost of taking care 
- Latimer 
P = probability 
- Read v Lyons 
Gravity of Harm
- Read v Lyons

Question 7

Causation

Answer 7

Factual Causation 
(but - for - White)
Legal Causation 
Stapley v Gypsum Mines 
lord Asquith - 'real' 'direct' 'effective'

Question 8

Negligence: Damage

Answer 8

De minmis non curat lex - significant harm
Hotson (Lord Ackney)
Loss of a chance of full recovery

Question 9

Negligence: Remoteness

Answer 9

The Wagon Mound
Extent of liabilityy
Balance C’s security to D’s freedom of action

Question 10

Negligence: Eggshell Skull

Answer 10

Damage is reasonably foreseeable where C’s susceptibility to harm goes above the threshold
Smith v Leach (Lord Parker CJ)
tkes victim as he finds him

Question 11

Lord Reid: Dorset Yacht

Answer 11

A presumption in favour in applying the neighbour principle

Question 12

Duty of care Test: Lord Wilberforce

Answer 12

Anns

1. ‘sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood’ between C and D
2. Are there any considerations which ought to negative/reduce the scope of duty

Question 13

Caparo (Lord Oliver)

Answer 13

Proximity is nothing more than a label
Not a definite concept
Scepticism

Question 14

Incremental Development: Australia

Answer 14

Sutherland
Brennan J: build my analogy
Approved Caparo

Question 15

Hand Formula

Answer 15

Learned Hand J
B = cost of taking care
P = probability
L = gravity of harm

B

Question 16

Compensation Act 2006, s1

Answer 16

Courts may consider whether a decision in favour of C might a) prevent a desirable activity being undertaken
b) discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity

Question 17

Occupational Stress

Answer 17

Walker v Northumberland CC
Duty to provide employees with a reasonable safe system of work
“reasonable steps” but not “an insurer against all injury”

Question 18

Breach of Duty and Medicine

Answer 18

Bolam
McNair J: ‘The test is the standard of the ordinary reasonable man exercising…that special skill
Not negligent if acting in accordance with a practice by a responsible body

Question 19

Remoteness

Answer 19

1. Who passes the but-for test
2. Who bears responsibility
3. What are they responsible for? What is the extent of recoverable loss?

Question 20

Novus Actus Interveniens

Answer 20

The Oropesa

‘direct relationship’ between carelessness and injuries suffered

Question 21

Liability of Third Party Conduct

Answer 21

Dorset Yacht: very likely
Lamb: Inevitable
Ward: Virtually certain

Question 22

Occasioning Harm

Answer 22

Stansbie v Troman
Burgled by third party
D liable for reasonably foreseeable loss

Question 23

Normative Question: How broadly should it apply?

Answer 23

Fitzgerald v Lane (distingushable facts)
Wilsher v essex - balance of probabilities
has this really changed then

Question 24

Fairchild

McGhee applied

Answer 24

D

(i) breaches duty owed to C
(ii) material increase in risk, liability can be imposed
(iii) full loss