negligence

Question 1

what is negligence

Answer 1

failure to act or behave in a certain way that provides a certain level of care that a reasonable person would have done under the same circumstances.

Question 2

what must negligence have proof of

Answer 2

fault on the part of the person who caused the damage or injury. up to the claimant to prove it

Question 3

what case links to negligence

Answer 3

Donoghue V Stevenson, two women went to a shop and one woman brought a ginger beer, when she poured her drink out into a glass there was a bad smell, she checked in the glass and there was a dead snail in the bottom, therefore she wanted to make a claim

Question 4

what is lord atkins test

Answer 4

neighbour principle

Question 5

what is the neighbour principle

Answer 5

principle meant that a duty of care was owed and that there was general liability for negligence.

Question 6

why was the neighbour prinicple not effective

Answer 6

wasn’t clear who and in what vicinity of a person was classed as your ‘neighbour’ and owe a duty of care too.

Question 7

what was the new test introduced after the neighbout principle

Answer 7

caparo test

Question 8

what are the three question in the caparo test

Answer 8

was damage reasonably foreseeable, is there sufficient proximity between the defendant and the claimant? is it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant?

Question 9

what’s the meaning of proximity

Answer 9

duty of care will only exist if there is a close enough relationship between the defendant and the claimant.

Question 10

what did the proximity part of the caparo test introduce

Answer 10

floodgate argument

Question 11

what are the three sections of the floodgate argument

Answer 11

time, space and relationship

Question 12

why was the floodgate test put in place

Answer 12

to stop unwanted claims

Question 13

what two cases related to the floodgate test

Answer 13

Bourhill V Young in 1943
Mcloughlin V O’Brian in 1983
limit amount of claim and who we owe a duty of care too

Question 14

what happened in the case Bourhill V young related to the floodgate test

Answer 14

women heard a car and motorbike crash a distance away, she went to see what happened, she suffered shock and had a miscarriage, no duty was owed to her this is because she took herself to the scene. She wasn’t there at the time of the crash, she wasn’t in the same area as the crash, it also isn’t fair for her to get a claim.

Question 15

what happened in the case Mcloughlin V O’Brian related to the floodgate test

Answer 15

Mcloughlin husband and three children were in a car accident with a lorry, one of the children were killed. She immediately went to the hospital, she suffered severe shock, depression and a personality change. There was a duty of care because she has a relationship with the victim and was in the same space when they were in hospital.

Question 16

what does foreseeability mean

Answer 16

is it predictable, how likely person could have anticipated the potential results of their actions.

Question 17

what two cases shows foreseeability

Answer 17

Kent V Griffiths
Jolley v Sutton

Question 18

What happens in the Kent V Griffiths case related to foreseeability

Answer 18

case the claimant was an asthmatic, he had waited a long time for an ambulance to arrive, there was no good reasoning for the delay, she stopped breathing before she got to the hospital. She was owed a duty of care because it is predictable that if the ambulance doesn’t arrive then the condition of the victim could get worse

Question 19

what happened in the Jolley V Sutton case related to foreseeability

Answer 19

14-years-old boy was playing on an abandoned boat, the council knew it was dangerous condition and children were likely to play on it. The boat fell on to the boy and the boy was paralyzed because of this. A duty of care was owed because it was reasonably foreseeable that children were going to go on it.

Question 20

what is the meaning of fair

Answer 20

just and reasonable is that the judge must decide whether the claimant is fair and should go ahead

Question 21

what is the case that relates to fair

Answer 21

Hill v Chief Constable

Question 22

what happens in the hill v cheif constable which relates to fair

Answer 22

women died of injuries on the side of the road, the defendant was chief constable, he was convicted of this murder and loads of previous murders. The police had failed to apprehend the attacker and prevent the murder of this person’s daughter. The issue in this case was that do the police have the duty of care to apprehend an unknown criminal. The outcome of this case was that the police could be liable for the persons injuries and death if they knew who the defendant was but in this case the mother didn’t get any compensation.