negligence

Question 1

what are the 3 areas to negligence ?

Answer 1

1. duty of care
2. breach of duty
3. caused damage

Question 2

explain existing duty

Answer 2

if there is an existing precedent or act of parliment that establishes a duty then this should be applied

Question 3

what does reason by analogy mean ?

Answer 3

applying a simular duty
eg: law on electric scooters cpuld be applied to electric bikes

Question 4

robinson

Answer 4

old woman nicked over during police chase
told us that we should apply existing duty’s if applicable

Question 5

what are the 3 elements to the caparo test ?

Answer 5

1. reasonably, forseeable, harm
2. proximate - space + time, relationship
3. fair, just, and reasonable

Question 6

Bourhill

Answer 6

pregnant woman head crash and went to investigate
shock sent her into early labour and baby died
not negligent as she wasn’t proximate

Question 7

explain reasonable man

Answer 7

• would the reasonable man see a breach of duty ?
• the RM has the same skill as you

Question 8

Blythe

Answer 8

mans pipes weren’t insulated and cracked in winter - flooding his house
weren’t negligent as pipes weren’t insulated in 1856

Question 9

what are the 3 charachteristics ?

Answer 9

1. professional
2. learner
3. child

Question 10

explain professional

Answer 10

• judged against another professional to see if you have fallen below expectations
• EG: doctors, surgeons, archetecs, solicitors

Question 11

explain leaner

Answer 11

• judged against a qualified person of the same skill
• includes newley qualified

Question 12

Nettleship

Answer 12

learner driver crashed into lamppost
negligent as a qualified driver wouldn’t have crashed into the post

Question 13

explain child

Answer 13

judged against a child of the same age

Question 14

what are the 4 risk factors ?

Answer 14

1. sizer of risk
2. precautions/cost
3. social use/public benefit
4. vulnerable victim

Question 15

explain size of risk

Answer 15

• large risk - higher standard of cared owed
• low risk - a lesser standard of care owed

Question 16

explain precautions/cost

Answer 16

if D could take precautions they should have done

Question 17

explain social use/public beneift

Answer 17

if it’s for the benefit of society it may be less of a breach, but it must outweigh the risk

Question 18

explain vulnerable victim

Answer 18

if V is vulnerable then a higher standard iof care is owed

Question 19

Paris

Answer 19

blind in 1 eye and asked boss for goggles but was denied
other eye got injured
was a vulnerable victim so there was a greater duty of care owed

Question 20

explain factual causation

Answer 20

but for D’s actions would the damage or harm have occured ?

Question 21

barnett

Answer 21

2 security guards ingested arsenic- experienced a long wait time in hospital and died
not negligent as they died once they had injested the poison

Question 22

explain legal causation

Answer 22

the injury or damage must be forseeable and not remote

Question 23

what effect do intervening acts have on the chain of causation ?

Answer 23

can break the chain of causation

Question 24

Wagon mound

Answer 24

1. oil leaked from a ship onto water - could claim as was foreseeable
2. construction site let of sparks which caught onto the oil causing a fire - couldn’t claim as was remote

Question 25

explain type of injury not extent

Answer 25

as long as we can forsee the harm will occur we don’t need to forsee the extent or how it happens

Question 26

Hughes

Answer 26

• a child kicked of parafin lamp causing himslef severe burns
• could forsee that the harm would occur as the lamp was dangerous, didn’t need to forsee that the child would kick the lamp

Question 27

what two defences can be used in negligence ?

Answer 27

1. contributory negligence
2. consent

Question 28

explain contributory negligence

Answer 28

• D argues that the victim contibuted to their own injuries/damage
• paratial defence

Question 29

explain consent

Answer 29

• D argues the victim fully consented and appriciated all the risks involved
• full defence