Negligence

Question 1

What is the 3 part test for Neg?

Answer 1

Duty of care
Breach of duty
Damage

Question 2

The neighbour principle was founded in what case?

Answer 2

Donohue v Stevenson 1932

Question 3

What case states that a solicitor does owe a duty to their clients?

Answer 3

Ross v Caunters 1980

Question 4

In novel situations what test is used and what case is it defined in?

Answer 4

The Caparo test / Caparo industries PLC v Dickman 1990

Question 5

What is are the 3 parts to the novel situations test.

Answer 5

1.Was the damage reasonably foreseeable?
2.Was there sufficient proximity between the C and the D
3.Fair to impose a duty of care?

Question 6

Name the case: Motorbike miscarriage

Answer 6

Bourhill v Young 1943 - No duty of care

Question 7

Describe the case: Maguire v Harland and Wolff PLC

Answer 7

Claimant got ill from asbestos that her partner had on his clothes. She tried to claim but it was a historic case back from 1965 so damages were not foreseeable.

Question 8

Law that derives from case: Mcloughlin v O’Brian

Answer 8

Proximity in time or space is acceptable so long as it is not too much of a stretch. This case changed the law so relationships can be proximity

Question 9

Name the case: Falls out of taxi and the driver is not liable.

Answer 9

Griffiths v Lindsay 1988

Question 10

What case makes the novel test not need to be used in every negligence case?

Answer 10

Robinson v Chief constable of west Yorkshire.

Question 11

Main case for BoD?

Answer 11

Nettleship v Weston 1971 - Learner driver to be held with same manner as a skilled and careful minded driver.

Question 12

What are the 6 categories which change the standard of care for the duty.

Answer 12

1. Defendants age.
2. Defendant’s profession
3. Characteristics of the claimant.
4. Magnitude of risk
5. Reasonable precautions
6. Benefits of the risk.

Question 13

Case for age?

Answer 13

Mullin v Richards 1998 - Sword fight with rulers.

Question 14

Case for profession?

Answer 14

Bolam v Friern hospital management committee 1957 - Changes to OR …

Question 15

Case for the Characteristics of the claimant?

Answer 15

Paris v Stepney borough council 1951 - One eye so should of had more care for the employee.

Question 16

Case for the magnitude of risk?

Answer 16

Bolton v Stone - very low risk of it happening. and they did try to prevent it.

Question 17

Case for procautions?

Answer 17

Latimer v AEC Ltd - sawdust covered floor except one tiny bit.

Question 18

Case for Benefit?

Answer 18

Watt v Hertfordshire county council. - Need outweighs the risk.

(Daborn v Bath tramways motor co - if all trains were restricted to a speed of 5 mph, there would be fewer rail accidents , but our national life would be intolerably slowed down.)

Question 19

What are the types of causation?

Answer 19

Factual causation - Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington 1968
Legal causation -
Multiple causes - Wilsher v Essex - Claimant gone blind 6 possibilities.
Novus actus Interveniens -

Question 20

Novus actus Interveniens types and cases.

Answer 20

Third party act - Robinson v Post office 1974
Claimants actions - Mckew v Holland and Cubitts 1969
Natural intervention - Carslogie steamship co ltd v Royal Norwegian government.

Question 21

Describe ‘Res ipsa locquitur’ and a case to go with it.

Answer 21

It means the facts speak for themselves and a case is:
Scott v London and St. Katherine docks co. 1865

Question 22

What are the Two parts of damages?

Answer 22

Causation - 1
Remoteness of damage - 2

Question 23

Leading case for remoteness of damage?

Answer 23

Wagon Mound 1961 - Sydney harbour ignite oil and set fire to the wharf.

Question 24

What is the thin skull rule and what is a leading case for it?

Answer 24

You take your victim as you find them. Smith v leech brain and co. 1961