Negligence

Question 1

Basic definition

Answer 1

failure to act reasonably that causes harm

Question 2

3 parts to proving negligence

Answer 2

1. D owed C duty of care
2. D breached this duty
3. D’s breach caused C’s damage which was not too remote

Question 3

Negligence was originally created in the case…

Answer 3

Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 4

If a duty has been proven to exist in a similar case/situation before, it should exist in current case too

Answer 4

Robinson v CCOWY

Question 5

In a new or novel situation, what test is used

Answer 5

Caparo Test

Question 6

Caparo test part 1

Answer 6

Is harm reasonably foreseeable from what D did?
Jolley v Sutton

Question 7

Caparo test part 2

Answer 7

Is there proximity between D and C?
Bourhil v Young

Question 8

Caparo test part 3

Answer 8

Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D?

Question 9

Breach is defined as D doesn’t do something that a reasonable person would do. (fallen below standard of care expected)

Answer 9

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

Question 10

Inexperience doesn’t matter

Answer 10

Nettleship v Weston

Question 11

Professionals/experts are compared to other reasonable professionals

Answer 11

Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC

Question 12

D is compared to a professional if
-has skills/expertise of a pro
-is acting in a way where they would be expected to be a pro

Answer 12

Wells v Cooper

Question 13

Ages are compared to the reasonable person that age

Answer 13

Mullin v Richards

Question 14

4 risk factors

Answer 14

size of risk
seriousness of potential harm
practicability of precautions
benefits of risk

Question 15

Size of risk - the reasonable man will take less precautions against a small risk of harm

Answer 15

Bolton v Stone

Question 16

Large size of risk

Answer 16

Miller v Jackson

Question 17

Seriousness of harm - the reasonable man will take more care when the potential harm to C could be serious

Answer 17

Paris v Stepney

Question 18

Practicability of precautions - how easy/cheap/quick was it to take precautions?

Answer 18

Paris v Stepney

Question 19

Precaution must be enough to stop harm

Answer 19

Haley v LEB

Question 20

The reasonable man will take precautions which are proportionate to the size of risk and seriousness of harm

Answer 20

Latimer v AEC

Question 21

Potential benefits of risk - the reasonable man will take a risk if the potential benefit to be gained outweighs the risk

Answer 21

Watt v HCC

Question 22

Damage factual causation

Answer 22

Barnett v Chelsea

Question 23

Act of victim

Answer 23

Reeves v MPC

Question 24

Act of third party

Answer 24

Wilkin-Shaw v Fuller

Question 25

Damage is too remote when the TYPE of damage is not reasonably foreseeable

Answer 25

Wagon Mound

Question 26

How harm is caused can be unforeseeable

Answer 26

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Question 27

Seriousness of harm can be unforeseeable

Answer 27

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Question 28

If C suffers more serious harm due to a weakness or vulnerability the damage will not be too remote

Answer 28

Smith v Leech Brain & Co

Question 29

What are the 2 defences for negligence

Answer 29

Contributory negligence (partial defence)
Volenti non fit injura (full defence)

Question 30

LR Contributory Negligence Act - damages awarded to C can be reduced depending on extent to which ac contributes to own injury

Answer 30

Sayers v Harlow UDC

Question 31

3 elements to Volenti

Answer 31

1. C knows precise risk involved
2. C was able to exercise free choice
3. C voluntarily accepted risk

Question 32

C knows precise risk means must know nature of actual risk (what would actually happen) not just there is a general risk

Answer 32

Stermer v Lawson

Question 33

When C is forced into accepting risk he has not exercised free choice

Answer 33

Smith v Baker

Question 34

Where C has duty to act they are forced to act and cannot exercise free choice

Answer 34

Ogwo v Taylor

Question 35

Voluntarily accepted risk

Answer 35

ICI v Shatwell