Negligence

Question 1

Where was DOC first established?

Answer 1

In the case Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

This case established the modern law of negligence.

Question 2

The modern 3 part test comes from which case?

Answer 2

Caparo v Dickman

Question 3

What case is for established duty of care?

Answer 3

Robinson v CC South Yorkshire

Question 4

What is the first part of the Caparo test? Which relevant case

Answer 4

Reasonably foreseeable

Relevant case: Kent v Griffiths

Question 5

What is the second part of the Caparo test? With relevant case

Answer 5

Legal proximity

Relevant case: King v Phillips

Question 6

What is the third part of the Caparo test? With relevant case

Answer 6

Fair, just, reasonable

Relevant case: Hill v CC West Yorkshire

Question 7

What is the first factor of the Caparo test?

Answer 7

Reasonably foreseeable

This examines whether the defendant’s actions were careless and if the injury was a consequence of those actions.

Question 8

What does the second factor of the Caparo test refer to?

Answer 8

Legal proximity

This involves the space-time relationship between the defendant and the claimant.
Did the d have the c in contemplation when acting.
Neighbour principle (Lord Atkinson)

Question 9

What is the third factor of the Caparo test known as?

Answer 9

Fair, Just and reasonable

Is the d in the public sector?
If not most likely is fair just and reasonable

Question 10

What are the four risk factors? and what are the case studies?

Answer 10

-special characteristics of claimant
Paris v Stepney borough council

-Magnitude of risk
Bolton v Stone (precautions)
Miller v Jackson (not enough precautions)

-Cost and practicality of taking precautions
Latimer v AEC ltd

-Social value of the activity
Watt v Hertfordshire county council

Question 11

What is described as the reasonable man, what is the case to show this?

Answer 11

The reasonable man ‘doesn’t take excessive risks but neither is excessively cautious’

Wells v cooper

Question 12

What are the three circumstances where the standard of Care owed may be different?

Answer 12

Professionals, children and learners

Question 13

What are the three cases to prove the standard of care in children, professionals and learners?

Answer 13

Learners: Nettleship v Weston

Professionals: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management committee

Children: Mullin v Richards

Question 14

What are the three cases to prove the standard of care in children, professionals and learners?

Answer 14

Learners: Nettleship v Weston

Professionals: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management committee

Children: Mullin v Richards

Question 15

What is the Bolam test?

Answer 15

A test used to determine if a professional has breached their duty of care

The Bolam test assesses whether the actions of a professional fall below the standard of an ordinary competent person in that profession and if there is substantial body of support for the actions taken.

Question 16

What are the two key questions in the Bolam test?

Answer 16

1. Does the standard fall below the standard of an ordinary competent person of that profession?
2. Is there any substantial body of opinion that supports the actions taken?

Answer no then yes (no breach of duty)
Answer no and no (breach of duty)

Question 17

What does res ipsa loquitur stand for?

Answer 17

The thing speaks for itself

Question 18

What does res ipsa loquitur do?

Answer 18

Reverses the burden of proof onto the defendant

Question 19

When is red ipsa loquitur used? What is the relevant case?

Answer 19

Used:
1. has to be an accident due to negligence
2. Cause of accident is defendants fault
3. No obvious explanation for the cause

Scott v London St Katherine Docks

Question 20

Which causation is always proved first?

Answer 20

Factual causation

Question 21

What does factual causation concern itself with?

Answer 21

The but for test

Question 22

What is the question in the but for test?

Answer 22

But for the actions of the defendant, would the harm still have occurred

Question 23

What is the case associated with the but for test?

Answer 23

Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington management committee (1969)

Question 24

What is legal causation?

Answer 24

Causation in law is whether the claimants may still not be able to win the case if the damage suffered is too remote

Question 25

What is the case for a remoteness of damage?

Answer 25

The wagon mound (1961)

Question 26

Why may a defendant still be liable even if the extent of the injury wasn’t foreseen?
What is the relevant case?

Answer 26

Because if there was any type of damage that could’ve foreseeably been caused then the defendant is liable

Hughes v lord advocate (1963)

Question 27

What is the thin skull rule?
What is the relevant case?

Answer 27

You take your victim as you find them in regard to their physical characteristics
(Has the damage been made worse by a weakness of the claimants health)

Smith v Leech Brain