Negligence

Question 1

There is negligence liability only if

Answer 1

The claimant can show that the tortfeasor fell short of the degree of care expected of the reasonable person

Question 2

Objective test for reasonable person

Answer 2

It requires asking how the reasonable person would act in the given circumstances, not how the particular tortfeasor with his characteristics should have acted

Question 3

The test for reasonable child

Answer 3

The objective standard is adjusted to that of a child of their age

Question 4

Criticism of the objective standard of reasonable person

Answer 4

The objective standard does not vary even to take into account illness on the defendant’s part. The standard just responds to the defendants conduct, asking what a reasonable person would’ve done in the circumstances.
Assessment of professional skills is an issue, it’s difficult to assess whether risk taking by professionals falls short of the standard professional

Question 5

Negligence criteria

Answer 5

1. Defendant owes claimant a DOC
2. Duty has been breached: the defendant was negligent
3. D’s breach caused C to suffer relevant loss or damage
4. Damage was caused by the defendants negligence, isn’t too remote, is within the scope of duty.

Question 6

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 6

Learner drivers have the same duty owed by every driver. There is an objective standard, learners are not entitled to take less care.
Her learner status may go to mitigation of sentence, but not to exculpation of guilt.

Question 7

Lord Macmillan, in Glasgow corporation

Answer 7

“The learner driver may be doing his best, but his incompetent best is not good enough”

Question 8

We are beginning to apply the test of ‘on whom should the risk fall?’

Answer 8

The law is moving away from the concept of no liabilty without fault. Morally rhe learner driver is not at fault, but legally she is liable to be because she is insured and the risk should fall on her

Question 9

Dunnage v Randall

Answer 9

The capacity and state of mind of the defendant is irrelevant to whether they have breached their duty.
The schizophrenic defendant is still held to a reasonable persons standard

Question 10

Mullins v Richards

Answer 10

Age is a relevant factor to whether something is foreseeable. An adult may have seen 2 children play fighting could result in injury, but that dies not mean the children would have. The question is whether an ordinary, prudent 15 year old in the situatioj would’ve foreseen a risk of injury

Question 11

Bolam v Friern Hospital

Answer 11

The test for professionals excersising a skill is whether a reasonably competemt expert/professional would have done the same in D’s situation.

Question 12

Elements of negligence law

Answer 12

Duty of care
Breach of duty
Causation
Damages
Remoteness
Defences

Question 13

Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle

Answer 13

• Take reasonable care where harm is foreseeable
• D may be liable where C is closely or directly affected by his conduct

Question 14

Caparo Test - lord Bridges 3 requirements

Answer 14

• reasonably foreseeable harm
• proximity
• justice, fairness and reasonableness

Question 15

Lord Reed’s approach in Robinson

Answer 15

• precedents and established principles should be followed where there is an established doc
• the existence if a doc doesn’t depend on caparo, but on the facts of the case
• in novel cases judges should consider whether to develop the law incrementally

Question 16

Considerations relevant to breach of duty

Answer 16

Cost of taking care - Latimer

Seriousness of the harm - paris v stephney

Probability of harm - Read v Lyons

All relevent to the overarching consideration - was the conduct reasobable?

Question 17

Qualcast Ltd v Haynes

Answer 17

The reasonableness of D’s conduct must be judges in the light if all relevant circumstances

Negligence law is receptive to any proposition of good sense that is relevant in the circumstances - lord denning

Question 18

Factual causation

Answer 18

But for D’s conduct, would the end result have occured.

Question 19

Legal causation

Answer 19

Real, direct or effective cause

Question 20

De minimis non curat lex

Answer 20

The law does not take account of inconsequential or trifling harms

Question 21

Remoteness: a scope rule

Answer 21

Establishes the extent of liability. Draws a line between recoverable loss and irrecoverable loss

The damage must be a reasonably foreseeable type - oversees tankship ltd

Question 22

Eggshell Skull rule

Answer 22

Smith v Leech Brain

Where C’s susceptability to harm means that his or her losses extend beyond the threshold of reasonable foreseeability, they can still recover compensation.

Question 23

Lord Parker LJ in Smith v Leech Brain

Answer 23

‘It has always been the law of this country that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him’.