negligence

Question 1

3 steps

Answer 1

duty of care beach of duty damage

Question 2

intro

Answer 2

principle first established in (donoghue v stevenson ) reconsidered in (caparo v dickman) estblished caparo 3 stage test not novel= (robinson)

Question 3

duty of care step 1

Answer 3

damage or harm reasonably forseeable?

Question 4

duty of care- damage or harm reasonably forseeable

Answer 4

objective test,someone in Ds position could forsee someone in Cs position would be injured (kent v griffiths) not forseeable
(jolley) forseeable (bourhill v young) not forseeable

Question 5

duty of care step 2

Answer 5

proximity - sufficient proximate relationship between c&d

Question 6

duty of care- proximity- sufficient proximate relationship between c&d

Answer 6

closeness in time, space, relationship
(bourhill v young) no
(osman v ferguson) yes

Question 7

duty of care step 3

Answer 7

fair just reasonable to impose duty on d

Question 8

duty of care- fair just and reasonable to impose duty on d

Answer 8

courts reluctant to impose duty to public authorities as dont want to open floodgates to litigation
public policy to protect public authorities
(hill) unfair to impose duty on police

Question 9

breach of duty

Answer 9

must show d has broken duty by failing to reach standard of care required
use the reasonable man test (blythe)
need to consider special characteristics and risk factors

Question 10

breach of duty step 1

Answer 10

professional- must achieve standard expected of expertise, standard higher (bolom) reached (montgomoery) didnt and re informed consent needed
learner - standard not lowered due to inexperinece (nettleship)
children- must meet standard of relevant age, lowered (mullins)

Question 11

breach of duty step 2

Answer 11

risk factors

Question 12

breach of duty- risk factors

Answer 12

forseeabliyy of harm (roe) size of risk (bolton v stone) special characteristics (paris) benefirts of taking the risk (watt) reasonable precautions (latimer)

Question 13

damage

Answer 13

must prove damage was caused by breach of duty and not too remote from act

Question 14

damage causation

Answer 14

but for test (barnett)
multiple causes (wilsher)
thin skull rule (leech brain)

Question 15

damage remoteness

Answer 15

damage must not be too remote from negligence of d
apply (wagon mound test)

Question 16

type of damage/ injury forseeable

Answer 16

d liable if type of injury forseeable even if precise way it happened wasnt
as long as type foreseeable doesnt matter form (hughes v lord advocate)