Negligence

Question 1

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Answer 1

DUTY OF CARE:
Snail in a bottle case. Neighbour Principle (Anyone directly effected by your actions)

Question 2

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (1989)

Answer 2

DUTY OF CARE:
Mother of the last victim of the Yorkshire ripper wanted compensation. Police refused as it would “Open the floodgates”

Question 3

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018)

Answer 3

DUTY OF CARE:
(Here’s to you) Mrs Robinson witnessed an arrest and was knocked over by police while they were arresting the bloke. She sustained injuries, The police owe a duty of care to bystanders

Question 4

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (Caparo Test) (1990)

Answer 4

NEW DoC SITUATIONS:
1. Was damage reasonably foreseeable
2. Was there sufficient proximity between C and D
3. Is it just and far to impose a duty of care

Question 5

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Answer 5

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE:
Not foreseeable that a woman would suffer a miscarriage after hearing a motorbike accident. Motorist did not owe a duty of care.

Question 6

McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983)

Answer 6

SUFFICIENT PROXIMITY:
C was able to claim compensation for shock after a lorry driver caused an accident to her family. C did not witness the accident but she saw her family at the hospital.

Question 7

Griffiths v Lindsay (1998)

Answer 7

FAIR & JUST:
Courts decided that it’s not fair for a taxi driver to owe compensation to a drunk passenger who got ran over as they got out of the car.

Question 8

Nettleship v Western (1971)

Answer 8

BREACH OF DUTY:
D was receiving driving lessons and she crashed the car into C’s leg. The standard of care of a learner is just as great as the SoC of someone who had passed.

Question 9

Mullin v Richards (1998)

Answer 9

BREACH OF DUTY (AGE):
2 15 year old schoolgirls, playfighting with rulers. one shattered and went into the others eye. Could not claim as neither of them realised it was dangerous.

Question 10

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

Answer 10

BREACH OF DUTY (CHARACTERISTICS):
C was blinded of work. Employer owed a higher standard of care to an employee who was more at risk.

Question 11

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Answer 11

BREACH OF DUTY (MAGNITUDE):
Ball was hit out of cricket ground and hit C. This was very rare so the owners did not owner a duty of care

Question 12

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)

Answer 12

BREACH OF DUTY (BENEFITS):
Fire brigade transported equipment on a too small fire engine. The gear fell off and injured a claimant. The fire department were not liable as the benefits outweighed the risk.

Question 13

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1968)

Answer 13

CAUSATION (BUT FOR):
3 Night watchmen were sick because they drank arsenic tea. The doctor did not know they had arsenic poisoning and sent them home. Doctor did not cause their death as they would’ve died anyway.

Question 14

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988)

Answer 14

CAUSATION (MULTIPLE CAUSES):
C had gone blind. There were 6 possible causes of the blindness. Doctors negligence had been one of the 6 so doctor was not negligent.

Question 15

Scott v Shepherd (1773)

Answer 15

LEGAL CAUSATION:
D threw a squib into a marketplace. 2 other people threw it along before it exploded and hurt someone. Chain of causation was not broken by the other people throwing it so D was liable.

Question 16

Robinson v Post Office (1974)

Answer 16

LEGAL CAUSATION:
C slipped on ladder due to employers negligence. At hospital he was given a tetanus shot which he was allergic to. Employers were still liable as he wouldn’t have been at the hospital is it wasn’t for them.

Question 17

Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government (1952)

Answer 17

LEGAL CAUSATION: (NATURAL INTERVENTION):
Defendant was responsible for damage to a ship as the result of a storm.

Question 18

Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd (1961)

Answer 18

THIN SKULL RULE:
Widow’s claim for damages arising from an accident to her husband. His lip was scolded by molten metal and he got cancer. Injury was foreseeable so the employer was liable.

Question 19

Wagon Mound (1961)

Answer 19

REMOTENESS:
Negligent oil spill from D’s tanker floated into Sydney harbour. Sparks from welding ignited this and it exploded. This was very remote so D was not liable as it was not foreseeable.

Question 20

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

Answer 20

REMOTENESS:
Post office left manhole unattended with paraffin lamps. A boy fell down and burned himself badly. Even though it was not likely to happen. The TYPE of damage likely to happen, happened. It doesn’t matter how bad the type is.

Question 21

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council (2000)

Answer 21

REMOTENESS:
The council owned block of flats. Boat was brought onto the block and was abandoned. The kids would play on it. The council said it would be removed but it never would be. Some boys were working on boat and it collapsed. Council was liable as it was foreseeable that children would play on the boat.