negligence

Question 1

locus classicus case

Answer 1

Donoghue v Stevenson: snail in beer. Developed Negligence because there was no other action available to hold a defendant liable who did or omitted to do some of the acts with consequences to 3rd parties. Therefore, the court developed ‘the neighbourhood principle’.

Question 2

4 elements

Answer 2

1. duty of care (5)
   - test is foreseeability
   - negligent misstatements
   - a pure economic loss
   - causing emotional distress ( Wilkinson case)
   - limiting the duty of case (hills case-police)
2. Breach of duty of care (test + 3 factors for breach)
   -reasonable man test: roe v minister of health (anaesthesia)
   Factors:
   -magnitude of risk (likelihood and seriousness of injury)
   -importance of objective to be attained
   -practicability of precaution
3. proof of breach of duty of care (2 points)
   -evidence act (s.107)
   -Res ipsa loquitor (lack of direct evidence); Scott v london- locus classicus
   (3 factors);
   under d’s control,
   wouldn’t have occurred with proper management, absence of explanation
4. injury/causation (3)
   - factual causation (‘but for’ test)
   - legal causation (3)
   - remoteness of damage; Pritchard case (on marriage and divorce)

Question 3

defences (4)

Answer 3

1. volenti non-fit injuria: Smith v Baker & sons
2. contributory negligence: Jones 1952 case
3. illegality: Ashton v turner
4. exclusion of liability: hedley v helley case

Question 4

remedies (1)

Answer 4

injunction