Negligence

Question 1

What 3 aspects must be proved to be another person liable.

Answer 1

1) they owe you a duty of care
2) they breach this duty
3) the breach causes damage

Question 2

What does owing a duty of care mean? (1)

Answer 2

When an individual has a responsibility to avoid acting in a way that may cause damage/ injury.

Question 3

What case first defined duty of care? (1)

Answer 3

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Question 4

What is the neighbouring principle? (1)

Answer 4

“you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

SIMPLY - you must take reasonable care to not injure your neighbour

Question 5

If the case study doesn’t include new issues what should you cite?

If it is a new issue, what should be explained? (1)

Answer 5

Robinson 2018

3 stage Caparo test

Question 6

If the case study isn’t new, a duty of care has previously been proved so the first aspects paragraph ends soon, true or false? (1)

Answer 6

True. If the case isn’t new you simply need to state if the individual owes a duty and move on.

Question 7

When the case IS NEW and caparo is used, what is the 3 part test? (1)

Answer 7

1) was damage reasonably foreseeable?
2) is there sufficient relationship between the claimant and defendant?
3) is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Question 8

Name a case where damage was reasonably foreseeable. (Caparo test)

Answer 8

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

The ambulance not arriving in a reasonable time to an asthma attack which resulted in a heart attack.

Question 9

Name a case where harm WASN’T reasonably foreseeable. (Caparo test)

Answer 9

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Pregnant woman whose baby became still born after hearing a motorcycle crash but not witnessing it.

Question 10

What is the standard of care? (2)

Answer 10

considering how the reasonable man would’ve behaved

Question 11

What happens if the defendants behaviour falls below the standard of care? (2)

Answer 11

They are in breach of their duty

Question 12

What test developed the standard of care?

Answer 12

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)

Question 13

What situations don’t require the Blyth test/ standard of care?

Answer 13

Cases involving: children, motorists, experts and professionals

Question 14

How are professionals judged? (2)

Answer 14

judged against another professional in the same profession

Question 15

How are learners judged? (2)

Answer 15

learners are judged against a person of average skill

Question 16

What case showed a learner driver who was judged as a qualified driver? (2)

Answer 16

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

Question 17

What are risk factors that could affect the standard of the reasonable man? (2)

Answer 17

1. special characteristics of the claimant that the defendant knew meaning they should take more care
2. cost and practicality of taking precautions
3. size of the risk
4. benefit of taking the risk

Question 18

What does the claimant have to prove? (3)

Answer 18

that they suffered damage or injury that the defendant caused
(can’t be too remote)

Question 19

What is factual causation? (3)

Answer 19

whether the injury/damage would have occurred “but for” the defendants actions

Question 20

What case shows factual causation/ but for test failing? (3)

Answer 20

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospitals (1969)

3 men went to an emergency room in a hospital complaining of sickness and the doctor told them to go home. All 3 later died due to arsenic poisoning but the doctor wasn’t liable as even if he had helped as the arsenic was already in their systems.

Question 21

What is legal causation? (3)

Answer 21

damage must be forseeable and not too remote (from Waggon Mound (1961)

Question 22

Name a case where the injury wasn’t reasonably forseeable. (3)

Answer 22

Doughty v Turner Engineering (1964)

An asbestos lid fell into molten liquid and caused an explosion which burned the claimant. The damage wasn’t reasonably forseeable as at the time it wasn’t known asbestos would react like that.

Question 23

If factual causation ISN’T proved, do you need to consider legal? (3)

Answer 23

no as the case fails

Question 24

What does the eggshell skull rule mean? (3)

Answer 24

you must take your victim as you find them.

if the damage caused is forseeable but more serious due to something unusual with the claimant, the defendant is liable as it isn’t seen as too remote.

Question 25

Name a case using the eggshell skull rule. (3)

Answer 25

Smith v Leech Brain (1962)

Question 26

Who has the burden of proof?

Answer 26

On the claimant.