Negligence

Question 1

What is the definition of negligence, including case and judge

Answer 1

Birmingham waterworks v Blythe baron Alderson ‘negligence is failing to do something which the ordinary person would do or doing something which the ordinary person would not do’

Question 2

What are the 3 factors the claimant must prove to make a successful negligence claim

Answer 2

defendant owed a doc, doc was breached and that the breach was reasonably foreseeable

Question 3

Which case set out the neighbour principle

Answer 3

lord Atkinson stated ‘ you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you could reasonably foresee would hurt your neighbour..Your neighbour is someone who is so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought to have them in mind as being affected when directing thought to your act or omission’.

Question 4

What did lord reid say about the neighbour principle

Answer 4

lord reid said that this should be a statement of principle

Question 5

What are the 3 parts of the caparo dickman test

Answer 5

Foreseeability, Proximity and Fairness

Question 6

What is meant by foreseeability in the caparo test

Answer 6

was the damage caused by defendant reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.
Subjective test as its judged on facts of each case

Question 7

Case for caparo foreseeability

Answer 7

Kent v griffiths

Question 8

What is meant by proximity in caparo dickman test

Answer 8

was relationship between c and d proximate enough for a duty to arise.

Question 9

Case for caparo proximity

Answer 9

Bourhill v young

Question 10

What is meant by fairness in the caparo test

Answer 10

would it be fair just and reasonable to impose a doc on d. Courts often find it’s not fair just and reasonable to impose a duty on public authorities like police because it may in turn lead to defensive policing therefore decreasing the quality of policing

Question 11

Case for caparo fairness

Answer 11

Hill v chief constable of West Yorkshire police

Question 12

Which case set out the current law on establishing a doc

Answer 12

Robinson v chief constable of West Yorkshire
Supreme court ‘was not hol intention to create a rigid test as this would be impractical…when deciding to impose duty courts should take more pragmatic (practical) approach ’

Question 13

What exactly is the new law from Robinson v chief constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 13

There is no set test for establishing a doc
Judges can make decisions based on existing precedent, law can be developed incrementally
Caparo dickman can be used only for novel cases

Question 14

What is a doc used for

Answer 14

To establish a legal relationship between the 2 parties

Question 15

What is the standard of care

Answer 15

Defendants are judged against the reasonable man as set out by baron alderson. The reasonable man is an ordinary person performing the task competently , this is an objective standard. Eg. Reasonable driver, reasonable doctor etc.

Question 16

Which case shows that the standard of care is objective

Answer 16

Vaughan v Menlove 1837. Defendants argument that he used his best judgment did not matter as his actions were judged objectively.

Question 17

What is the standard of the reasonable learner and which case set this out

Answer 17

Learners are judged to the standard of the competent, more experienced person. Nettleship v Weston 1971. May seem unfair to learners however as far as motor incidents go insurance will cover and it would be unfair to say to the claimant that they can’t receive any compensation for injury just because defendant is still learning.

Question 18

What is the standard for the reasonable child

Answer 18

Children are judged against the reasonable child of their age. Mullins v Richard’s 1998. Orchard v Lee 2009.

Question 19

What is the standard for the reasonable professional and what case set this out.

Answer 19

Bolam v friends barnett hospital committee, claimant was not informed of risk that came with treatment and was not given relaxant drugs, substantial body of opinion said that drugs should only be given with reason and there was no reason this case therefore d was not liable. 2 stage test: 1. did ds actions fall below the standard of the ordinary competent member of that profession 2. Would there be a substantial body within that profession who would support ds actions. If the answer to the first is no and the second is yes then d is not liable.

Question 20

What did Wiltshire v Essex area health authority set out

Answer 20

Trainee doctors are held to the same standard as professionals

Question 21

What do courts first consider when it comes to risk factors

Answer 21

Should standard of care be lowered or raised
Would reasonable person have taken more or less care in same situation

Question 22

What risk factors are considered

Answer 22

Special characteristics, size of risk, public benefit, precautions taken, were risks known

Question 23

Special characteristics case

Answer 23

Paris v Stepney borough council - employers knew risk of eye injury was serious, although it was not necessary at the time to provide all workers with goggles they should have provided the worker with them. Cost of goggles was v small in comparison to the consequence

Question 24

Cases regarding the size of risk

Answer 24

Bolton v stone, risk was small so defendant wasn’t expected to take great precaution. Haley v London electricity board, risk was high so greater precautions were expected.

Question 25

Case for adequate precautions

Answer 25

Latimer v aec ltd 1953 - factory flooded and employers spread sawdust across the floor to prevent slipping, found not liable as they took all reasonable precautions.

Question 26

Adequate precautions

Answer 26

Courts see whether cost of precautions balances with size of risk

Question 27

Unknown risks

Answer 27

If risk of harm is unknown d is not liable

Question 28

Unknown risk case

Answer 28

Roe v minister of health - was not known that small cracks in glass tube would cause claimant’s anaesthetic to become contaminated with cleaning solution

Question 29

Public benefit

Answer 29

In emergencies standard of care is lowered and greater risks can be taken as courts understand that although a different decision may be made in hindsight, not all situations have the benefit of hindsight when speedy actions are being taken.

Question 30

Public benefit case

Answer 30

Watt v Hertfordshire county council - firefighters didn’t secure jack to vehicle properly causing it to fall off and hit someone, found not liable as utility to save a life outweighed taking precautions. Day v high performance sport - c stuck atop of climbing wall the way d saved her was inappropriate and caused her fall, d found not liable due to emergency and need to rescue her

Question 31

What is meant by ‘damage’

Answer 31

Damage was caused by breach of duty and that the loss or damage isn’t too remote

Question 32

What are the 2 types of causation

Answer 32

1 Factual - idea that breach caused damage, if this isn’t found then there’s no need to consider legal causation
2 Legal causation - was loss or damage caused by breach reasonably forseeable

Question 33

Test for factual causation and a case to show it in use

Answer 33

But for test ‘But for defendants act or omission would c have suffered loss or injury?’.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital management committee - by the time c’s husband called the arsenic poisoning was already too late on for doctor to save him, so but for the doctor not saving him he still would have died

Question 34

Test for legal causation

Answer 34

Was damage reasonably forseeable and a natural and probable result of the defendants actions

Question 35

What can intervening acts do, Different types of intervening acts and their cases

Answer 35

Intervening acts can break chain of causation
Act of claimant Mckew v hollands - climbing downstairs after broken leg was novus actually interveniens causing more injury which d was not liable for
Act of nature carslogie steamships co v Norwegian government - d damaged c boat, c boat was then further damaged by storm, storm was novus actus interveniens so d wasn’t liable for the further injuries
Act of third party knightly v johns - police officer didn’t close tunnel after d crashed into c which caused c further injury

Question 36

LC remoteness of damage

Answer 36

If damage is too remote d may not be liable. The wagon mound - d spilled oil, within following days sparks lit oil causing a fire on cs wharf, not liable as damage was too remote from ds negligent act

Question 37

LC type of damage forseeable

Answer 37

If type of damage was forseeable then d is liable. Bradford v Robinson rentals - d should foresee damage from cold so was liable

Question 38

LC must take claimant as you find them

Answer 38

Eggshell skull rule, if damage defendant made is worst due to a claimants pre-existing condition defendant is still liable for all damage. Smith v leech brain and co