negligence

Question 1

what 3 things have to be proven to win a case in negligence

Answer 1

1. Duty of care is owned to the claimant
2. There is a breach of that duty
3. The claimant suffered damage

Question 2

What quote came from D v S Lord Atkin

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Robinson v chief constable of west Yorkshire police

Answer 3

There is an established legal principle- duty of care is assumed due to their job title

Question 4

What case established the 3 stage test for duty of care

Answer 4

Caparo v dickman

Question 5

What is the caparo 3 stage test

Answer 5

1. Foreseeablity
2. Proximity
3. Fair just and reasonable

Question 6

Case for foreseeablity

Answer 6

Doughty v Turner manufacturing- asbestos lid fell into molten metal. Big explosion- not foreseeable so not liable

Question 7

Case for proximity

Answer 7

Bounhill v young- bournhill was pregnant on a bus. Motorcyclist overtook bus, crashed and died. Bournhill walked down the road and say the dead body and has a miscarriage. Not proximate so no case

Question 8

Case for fair just and reasonable

Answer 8

Munroe v London fire brigade- in emergencies you are only charged for acts not omissions.

Question 9

What case established reasonable person test for breach

Answer 9

Blyth v Birmingham- did the defendants action fall below those of a reasonable person in the same circumstance

Question 10

What case established the objective test

Answer 10

Nettleship v Weston- not up to standard of an average driver. Lord dunning- “the learner driver may be trying their best, but their incompetent best is not good enough”

Question 11

What instances does the reasonable person test lower its standards

Answer 11

Disablitity
Age (Mullins v Richards- schoolgirls fighting. splinter in eye. Not liable) (orchard v Lee- 13 year old boy injured dinner lady. “Careless to a very high degree” not liable)

Question 12

When is there a higher standard of work

Answer 12

Professional practices (bolam v friern hospital management committee- following standards laid out by practice so not liable) (wells v cooper- carpenter. Injured the claimant. Doesnt have to be perfect, not liable

Question 13

Factors to consider whether the defendants conduct was reasonable

Answer 13

Likelihood on injury, cost of precaution, potential seriousness of injury, importance of activity

Question 14

Case for likelihood of injury

Answer 14

Bolton v stone- more risk=more care. Cricket ball hit over 17 foot fence. So unforeseeable not liable

Question 15

Case for cost of precaution

Answer 15

Latimer v AEC- company flooded. Cleaned up as well as they could. Claimant slipped. Not liable as done everything liable

Question 16

Case for potential seriousness of injury

Answer 16

Paris v stepney- one eyed workman. Under vehicles for the council. Not gave him goggles. Became blind. Liable

Question 17

Case for seriousness of injury

Answer 17

Watt v Hertfordshire- fireman injured by heavy Jack. In emergency, its not a breach

Question 18

What needed to be proven to prove damage

Answer 18

Legal and factual causation

Question 19

Case to prove type of loss has to be foreseeable

Answer 19

Wagonmound- oil damage to the ship but fire damage was not foreseeable so not liable.

Question 20

Case for the Thin skull test

Answer 20

Smith v leechbrain- splashed molten metal onto his lip. Minor burns. Dormant cancer on lip and died. Liable

Question 21

Hughes v lord advocate

Answer 21

2 boys went down an open manhole left unattended with a paraffin lamp. Big explosion happened. Burns were expected from the paraffin lamp but not explosion so the boys could successfully sue.

Question 22

Doughty v Turner manufacturing

Answer 22

Asbestos lid knocked into molten metal. New chemical reaction. Not foreseeable. So not liable

Question 23

What is factual causation

Answer 23

But for test

Question 24

Barnett v Chelsea hospital management committee

Answer 24

Husband was vomiting, went to hospital, told him to go to his GP. Died from arsenic poisoning. Wouldve died anyways so not liable.

Question 25

Scott v Shephard

Answer 25

Threw a lit fightwork into a marker hall. Threw around until he blew up in claimants face. Each stallholders was foreseeable. So held liable.

Question 26

Duty of care in Medical negligence

Answer 26

Robinson v CC of west yorkshire police- established legal principal

Question 27

Breach in medical negligence

Answer 27

Wilsher v Essex area health authority- junior doctor lack of experience was not taken into account
Bolam v friern hospital management committee- with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men.
Bolitho v city and hackney health authority- a doctor could be held liable even if following practices laid down.

Question 28

Damages of medical negligence

Answer 28

Bailey v MOD and Portsmouth NHS trust- MOD hospital, then transferred to an NHS hospital. She then suffered a heart attack. MOD weakened her heart so MOD was held liable

Question 29

Types of defences

Answer 29

.Contributory negligence (sayers v harlow DC- locked in a bus garage toilet so tried to climb out and fell, she was 25% liable for her actions) (revill v newberry- defendant shot burglar from trying to steal his shed. Burglar contributed to the negligence.) (Yachuk v Oliver- 9 year old bought gasoline and burnt self. Company negligent for selling gasoline. Contributory negligence failed as how would the 9 year old know.)
.volenti non fit injuria (Sylvester v Chapman- a cigarette was in a leopard cage. No immediate damage. Man jumped into cage and got mauled by the leopard.) (Wooldridge v Sumner- sporting event had voluntarily assumed the risk of harm caused by the players.) (Smoldon v whitworth- the scrum collapsed and boys were injured- volenti failed, the referee was sued.)
.volenti and rescuers (Haynes v Harwood- horses bolted down a busy street. Of duty police officer stopped the horse. Injured himself. No consent, no choice. Horse owner was liable)
.act of god (Nichols v marshland- ornamental lakes flooded in most violent thunderstorm in living history. Swept away 4 bridges. Not liable)
.necessity (cope v sharp- fire broke out. Destroyed vegetation to prevent fire spreading. Not liable as necessary)
.inevitable accident (Stanley v Powell- bullet ricocheted off tree and shot man. Not liable)