negligence

Question 1

3 elements of negligence

Answer 1

duty of care owed, duty of care breached, breach caused damage

Question 2

neighbour principal

Answer 2

donoghue v stevenson - lord atkin - D must take care not to injure their neighbour, this is closely and directly related to actions

Question 3

duty of care

Answer 3

robinson - obvious duty of care
caparo test if not obvious

Question 4

caparo test

Answer 4

forseeable , proximity , reasonable

Question 5

breach of duty

Answer 5

tested by standards of a reasonable person

Question 6

definition of breach

Answer 6

alderson b in blyth v birmingham waterworks ‘does something a readonable man wouldn’t do or does not do something a reasonable man would do’

Question 7

expert/experienced person

Answer 7

d wll be judged by the standards of a competent professional- bolom/bolitho

Question 8

learner/inexperienced

Answer 8

will be judged by the standards of a competent professional - nettleship v weston

Question 9

child/young person

Answer 9

judged by the standard of a reasonable child of similar age - mullins v richards

Question 10

risk factors

Answer 10

raise or lower the standard of care required by a reasonable person

Question 11

risk factor no1

Answer 11

probability of harm - the higher the likelihood of damage/injury, the more care that needs to be taken to prevent the damage/injury - bolton v stone

Question 12

risk factors no2

Answer 12

magnitude of risk - the more serious the risk, the more care that needs to be taken - paris v stepney council

Question 13

risk factor no3

Answer 13

cost and practicality - if the cost of taking precautions is low, the standard of care increases - latimer

Question 14

side rule for breach

Answer 14

social utility - there are some risks that have benefits for society - watt v hertfordshire council

Question 15

3 stages for causation

Answer 15

legal, factual, intervening acts

Question 16

factual causation

Answer 16

but for test - barnett v chelsea hospital

Question 17

legal causation (remoteness of damage)

Answer 17

was the damage to the c reasonably forseeable or was it too remote - wagon mound no1

Question 18

side rule for causation

Answer 18

precise injury - you do not need to predict the precise way in which the injury was caused so long as the same type was forseeable

Question 19

intervening acts

Answer 19

there must be no break in the chain of causation - thin skull rule - robinson v post office/smith v leech brain co