negligence

Question 1

definition

Answer 1

the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something a reasonable man would not do - Blyth v Birmingham waterworks Co

Question 2

D only liable if ;

Answer 2

> He owes the C a duty of care
He breaches the duty
the breach causes reasonably foreseeable injury or damage

Question 3

the duty of care

Answer 3

the ‘neighbour principle’ was the first negligence principle used, now seen as too simplistic

Question 4

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 4

you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour
D of C owed from manufacturer to consumer

Question 5

The Caparo test

Answer 5

1. Was damage or reasonably foreseeable?
2. Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between C and the D?
   3.Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose duty?

Question 6

1. Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?

Answer 6

objective test: would a reasonable person in the Ds position have foreseen that someone in the Cs position might be injured?
Kent v Griffiths

Question 7

Kent v Griffiths

Answer 7

C was having an asthma attack, ambulance showed up very late for no known reason. DofC owed by ambulance service when they initially accepted the call
‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ C would suffer further if the ambulance wasn’t prompt

Question 8

2. is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between the C and the D?

Answer 8

D of C can only exist if the relationship is sufficiently close or proximate
proximity by space, time or relationship

Question 9

Bourhill v Young

Answer 9

woman saw motorcycle accident , suffered shock and gave birth to a stillborn. She tried to sue the motorcyclists family. He didn’t owe a duty as couldn’t anticipate an accident would cause mental injury to a bystander

Question 10

McLoughlin v O’brien

Answer 10

Cs family got in an accident where one died, she saw one of them before they were treated in the hospital. She suffered severe mental injury. As lorry driver caused the accident due to negligence H of L decided D of C was owed to C as the case should’ve been extended to those who came within immediate aftermath of the event