Negligence

Question 1

3 elements of negligence

Answer 1

1. Duty of care (from the D to the C)
2. Breach of duty (by the D)
3. Damage (proof of damage to the C)

Question 2

1. Donogue v Stevenson - (Duty of Care)

Answer 2

Traditional test to establish Duty of care

Held: established the ‘neighbour principle’ to establish a DOC

• a D owes a duty of care to their neighbours
• a ‘neighbour’ is someone so closely and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being affected when i am directing my mind to acts or omissions in question’

Question 3

Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks Co

Answer 3

Held: defined negligences as:

- ‘the omission to do something the RM would do, or doing something the RM would not do’

Question 4

Caparo v Dickman - (Duty of Care)

Answer 4

Replaced the neighbourhood test

Held: a DOC is proved if the elements of:

1. Foreseeability
2. Proximity
3. Fair, just and reasonable are established

Question 5

Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire (Duty of Care)

Answer 5

Amended our understanding of how to apply the Caparo Test

Held: established that the Caparo test only needs applying in new and novel cases

• and that the courts should generally establish a duty by looking at existing duty situations and ones with clear analogy

Question 6

Bourhill v Young (Duty of Care)

Answer 6

Proximity

Facts: motorcyclist crashed and was killed
- pregnant women 50yds away approved scene and has a miscarriage

Held: no DoC

• no proximity between the 2 parties by time, space or relationship
• she voluntarily approached

Question 7

Kent v Griffiths (Duty of care)

Answer 7

Foreseeability

Facts: ambulance failed to arrive in reasonable time to C

Held: duty of care owed
- it was foreseeable the RM in the position of the paramedic that some-one in the C’s position would suffer further injury if they failed to turn up in time

Question 8

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire (Duty of care)

Answer 8

Fair, Just and Reasonable

Facts: mother of Yorkshire rippers last V claimed police owed her daughter a duty of care as they interviewed and released the Yorkshire ripper before daughter killed

Held: For policy reasons court held police didn’t owe duty of care to potential Vs of crime
- it was not fair just or reasonable as they wanted the police to work affectively as possible

Question 9

Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire (Duty of care)

Answer 9

Fair, Just and Reasonable

Facts: 76 year old woman injured fell on by police officers during a rest of suspect
- The woman claims negligence for personal injury

Held: Police aren’t immune from owing a duty of care in relation to harm caused by their actions in regard to in the course of executing their duty

Question 10

Summer v Colborn (DoC)

Answer 10

Facts: Cyclist made claim motorist was negligent after C was hit when emerging from minor road
- Motorist claimed he couldn’t avoid it because vegetation blocked his view - claimed land owners were under a duty to manage vegetation

Held: Under floodgates argument it would be impractical I’m not fair, just or reasonable to impose

Question 11

2. Breach of Duty

Answer 11

• It must be prove that the expected standard of care was not met

1) Establsih the type of RM
- Prove either by doing something the RM would not or not doing something the RM would do

2) Risk Factors

Question 12

Wells V Cooper (Breach)

Answer 12

Ordinary Person

Facts: D fitted a new door handle in his home
- it came off in a gust of wind caused C. To fall down the stairs

Held: an ordinary person is compared to somebody of ordinarily competent at carrying out that task
- D hadn’t breached his duty

Question 13

Bolam v Friern Barnett Hospital Management Committee (Breach)

Answer 13

Professional

Facts: C wasn’t given relaxant during ECT and broke bones, wasn’t told risk
- Medical opinion for need of drug at time was divided

Held: established principle ‘ a man need not possess the highest expert skills, it is sufficient if they exercise the ordinary skill of an ordinary component man exercising that particular art.’

Question 14

Roe v minister of Health (Breach)

Answer 14

Professional

Facts: C suffered paralysis after injected w/ anaesthetic that has been held in saline
- Saline had seeped through invisible cracks in glass ampules

Held: Hospital hasn’t breached DoC
- Since no reasonable anaesthetist would have stored it differently

Question 15

Nettleship v Weston (Breach)

Answer 15

Learner

Facts: learner driver crashed causing injury to the friend that was conducting the lesson

Held: learner/trainee will be compared to an ordinarily comportment person carrying out the task

Question 16

Mullins v Richards (Breach)

Answer 16

Children

Facts: during ruler fight between 2 children, plastic snapped caused claimant permanent blindness in one eye

Held: no breach
- Children will be compared to a reasonably competent child of that age

Question 17

Risk Factors

Answer 17

A circumstance of the case that determines the standard of care expected of the RM

Question 18

Bolton v Stone (Breach - Risk Factors)

Answer 18

Magnitude of Risk

Facts: a batsman hit ball over protective fence, hit C who was 100m away - ball rarely hit over fence

Held: cricket club hadn’t breached duty
- the size of the risk was so small, the RM wouldn’t have taken any further precautions

Question 19

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (Breach - Risk Factors)

Answer 19

Special Characteristics

Facts: council worker who only had use of one eye received injury to his other eye in course of employment - caused total blindness
- council is not legally obliged to provide goggles

Held: because of the special characteristics - higher standard of care expected - council breached duty

Question 20

Latimer v AEC (Breach - Risk Factors)

Answer 20

Practical Precautions

Facts: after a flood, factory owner out up signs, warned workers, used sawdust to prevent slipping
- C slipped

Held: no breach
- Factory owner took all practical precautions

Question 21

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (Breach - Risk Factors)

Answer 21

Social Utility

Facts: fire-fighter = inquired when using equipment that was designed for not what it was being used for

Held: no breach
- The social utility of the actions far outweighed the risk of harm occurring

Question 22

3. Damage

Answer 22

The harm suffered by the C, established via

1. Factual Causation
2. Remoteness of damage

Question 23

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (Damage - Factual Causation)

Answer 23

Facts: a C who was suffering from arsenic poisoning was told by a doctor to return the next day, if he still felt unwell unexamined
- C died

Held: clear breach of duty

• negligence failed even if all the appropriate care had been taken, the deceased would’ve still died
• But for the Ds breach would the C have died? - Yes (not factual cause)

Question 24

The Wagon Mound (Damage - Remoteness)

Answer 24

REASONABLY FORESEEABILITY

Facts: D spilt large quantity of oil in a harbour

• despite carrying out checks to ensure the safety of continued works
• the Cs welding caused large fire destroying the wharf

Held: leading case for remoteness of damage
- D will only be liable to compensate a C for losses that are REASONABLY FORESEEABLE result of the breach

Question 25

Hughes v Lord Advocate (Damage - Remoteness)

Answer 25

Facts: 2 boys caused explosion down a manhole when one of the paraffin lamps around the manhole fell in

Held: Ds found liable despite injuries being caused in an unexpected way
- the precise sequence of events does not have to be foreseen, only harm/damage need be foreseeable it does not mater if it happens in an unforeseeable way

Question 26

Bradford v Robinson Rentals (Damage - Remoteness)

Answer 26

Facts: C suffered frostbite when being asked by his employers to drive for 20 hours in extremes conditions

Held: Liable
- Only the type of damage, not the extent caused needs to be foreseeable

Question 27

Bhamra v Dubb (Damage - Remoteness)

Answer 27

Thin Skull Rule

Held: C has a condition that makes them more susceptible to harm

• D is still liable for the greater extent of harm as you must ‘take your victim as you find them’

Question 28

Smith v Leechbrain (Damage - Remoteness)

Answer 28

Thin Skull Rule

Facts: a minor incident at work triggered a pre-existing cancerous const ion suffered by the C
- Led to his death

Held: courts found employer liable according to the thin skull rule

• liable for the full extent of harm
• pre-existing condition didn’t render harm too remote