negligence

Question 1

4 elements of negligence

Answer 1

breach
duty
causation
damage is no too remote

Question 2

test for duty

Answer 2

neighbour principles- donghue v stevenson
new situation 3 part test- caparo v dickman

Question 3

3 part test from caparo v dickman

Answer 3

was the damage reasonably foreseeable
is there sufficient proximity between the c and d
is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

Question 4

the harm must be reasonably foreseeable

Answer 4

would a reasonable person have foreseen the kind of harm occurring
unforeseeable claimant- Bournhill v young
foreseeable claimaint- hayley v london electricity board

Question 5

must be sufficient proximity between the d and c

Answer 5

must consider relationship and closeness of the c to the accident
bournhill v young
mcloughlin v o’brien- sufiicient proximity when seeing victim before treatment

Question 6

whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

Answer 6

will it open the floodgates of litigation- hill v chief constable of west yorkshire

Question 7

breach of duty

Answer 7

the defendant must have fallen below the standard of care of a reasonable person perfroming the task
Nettleship v western

Question 8

cases for standard of care

Answer 8

nettleship v western- learners judge by the standard of a competent driver
bolam v friern- professionals judge at standard of reasonable professional
(body of opinion in the profession that would support the d?)

Question 9

factors for considering breach

Answer 9

likihood of risk- bolton v stone
magnitude of harm- hayley v electricity board
appropriate precautions- latimer v AEC
Children are judge at the standard of a reasonable child of that age- Mullins v Richards

Question 10

damage

Answer 10

causation must be proven
and the damage must not be too remote

Question 11

causation

Answer 11

factual (but for test)- barnett v chelsea kensington hospital
legal causation- no intervening acts

Question 12

remoteness of damage

Answer 12

type of damage must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach- the wagon mound
the manner in which the damage occurred must be reasonably foreseeable- jolley v sutton
thin skull rule- smith v leech brain

Question 13

intervening acts

Answer 13

act of third party- robinson v post office
victims own actions- reeves v commissioner of police for metropolis