Negligence

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

Defined by Baron Alderson in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Question 2

3 elements to prove

Answer 2

Duty - D owes a duty
Breach - D breached the duty
Damage - the breach caused reasonably forseeable damage

Question 3

Duty of Care principles

Answer 3

Donoghue v Stevenson establishes civil principles like the neighbour principle
Duty exists in doctor/patient so its easy to establish. if there is uncertainty then the courts use the updated Caparo test

Question 4

Duty of care

Answer 4

1. was the damage or harm reasonably forseeable? (kent v Griffiths)
2. is there a sufficiently close relationship between C and D? this could mean that the C is close to the defendant in the physical sense, time and space (bourhill v Young) or that proximity is created through a legal relationship as seen in Caparo
3. is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?The court will consider factors such as public policy (Robinson v CCWYP)

2018 Robinson case stated the Caparo test is only used in novel situations with no existing precedent

Question 5

Breach of duty

Answer 5

Falling below the standards of the reasonable man in the same situation. Standard is objective (Nettleship v Western)
Professionals are judged by the standard of the profession as a whole (Bolam v Barnet Hospital)
Learners are judged at the standard of the competent, more experienced person
Children are judged by the defendants age at the time of the incident (Mullins v Richards)

Question 6

Breach - raised or lowered standards

Answer 6

Special Characteristics of the C? (Paris v SBC) the standard of care may be higher due to these
Size of the risk? (Bolton v Stone) the smaller the risk, less precautions need to be taken and visa versa
Appropriate precautions taken? (Latimer v AEC) the cost of appropriate precautions will be considered bybthe courts
Risks known about? (Roe v Minister of Health)
Public Benifit? (Watt v HCC) the risk to C may be worth taking to benifit another/ community

Question 7

The breach caused reasonably forseeable damage/harm

Answer 7

Factual causation established (Barnett v Chelsea)
The harm must not be too remote from the defendants act/omission (Wagon Mound No1)
There must be no break in the chain of causation no new interviening acts (Smith v Littlewoods)
Egg shell rule - take the victim as you find them (Smith v Brain)
If C. proves all elements on the balance of probabilities, they will have suceeded a claim. Remedy is damages aiming to put claimant in position before the tort.

Question 8

Re Ipsa Loquitor

Answer 8

In some situations, it is difficult for the claimant to prove if the D has been negligent. In this situation, res ipsa loquitor can be used which means ‘the thing speaks for itself’
C has to prove:
1. D was in control when injury occured
2. accident would not have happened but for negligence,
3. no other explanation for the injury (Scott v St. Katherine Docks)