Negligence

Question 1

Where and how was negligence defined

Answer 1

Defined in Blyth v Birmingham water works as omitting to do something a reasonable man would do or doing something a reasonable man wouldn’t do

Question 2

4 requirements for negligence to be proven

Answer 2

1. Must be a duty of care in place
   2.Breach in that duty
2. Breach caused ‘harm in fact’
   4.The harm should be as a direct breach of that duty of care - wouldn’t have happened but for the breach

Question 3

Further factors in determining whether the D acted reasonably

Answer 3

1. Degree of risk involved - greater risk involved, the more precaution a D will have to take to minimise the risk - Bolton v Stone
2. Cost of precautions - D must take reasonable precautions given the circumstances - Latima v AEC
3. Potential seriousness of injury - the more serious the potential injury the greater the level of care required from the D - Paris v Stephney borough council
4. Importance of activity - some risk may be accepted if the risk undertaken is socially acceptable - Watt v Hertfordshire county council

Question 4

3 main points from Lord Atkin to constitute a duty of care/ caparo test

Answer 4

1. Concept of foreseeability of harm
2. Claimant and defendant being in a relationship of proximity
3. It being fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the D for his careless actions

Question 5

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 5

Established the neighbour principle — a duty of care is owed to anyone who could be foreseeably harmed by one’s actions.

Question 6

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 6

Introduced the three-part test for establishing a duty of care: foreseeability, proximity, and fairness.
Only used in novel cases

Question 7

Robinson v Chief constable of west Yorkshire

Answer 7

Held that Caparo should only be used in novel cases

Question 8

The Wagon Mound No. 1

Answer 8

The damage must be foreseeable; in this case, the fire was not a foreseeable result of the oil spill.

Question 9

Bolton v Stone

Answer 9

No negligence as the risk of injury was minimal and reasonable precautions were taken.

Question 10

Latimer v AEC

Answer 10

The defendant was not negligent as they had taken reasonable steps to make the premises safe.
D only had to take precautions to minimise the risk

Question 11

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

Answer 11

In emergencies, a reduced standard of care may be applicable.

Question 12

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

Answer 12

Professionals are not negligent if they follow practices accepted by a responsible body of professionals.

Question 13

Paris v Stephney borough council

Answer 13

The more serious potential injury the greater care required

Question 14

Kent v Griffiths

Answer 14

Damage was reasonably foreseeable

Question 15

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 15

A learner driver owes the same duty of care as a qualified driver.

Question 16

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

Answer 16

No liability for the hospital as the patient would have died regardless of the misdiagnosis.

Question 17

Smith v Leech Brain

Answer 17

The “take your victim as you find him” rule applies, meaning the defendant is liable for the full extent of the claimant’s injury.