Negligence

Question 1

Definiton

Answer 1

Doing something the rp would not do OR failing to do something the rp would do (Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks - Baron Alderson)

Question 2

Duty of care

Answer 2

• Robinson Approach —> analogous duties, e.g. teachers/students
• Caparo Test —> novel/new

1. Foreseeable (Kent v Griffiths)
2. Proximity - temporal or relational
3. Fair just and reasonable… to impose duty (Alcock)

Question 3

Breach

Answer 3

Ordinary = M/W on the London Underground
Professional = Competent and 12 reasonably body of prof. opinion (Bolam), acting within logic
Doctors = (Montgomery) Informed consent for all treatments
Learner/Amateurs = Standard experienced person (Nettleship v Western)
Children = Standard of a child of the age (Mullins v Richards)

Question 4

Risk factors

Answer 4

Special characteristics (Paris v Stepney)
Size of risk (Bolton v Stone)
Cost + effort (AEC v Latimer)
Public benefit (Watt v Hertfordshire)
Knowledge (Roe v Minister of Health)

Question 5

Causation

Answer 5

But for test (Barnett v Chelsea + Kensington Hospital)

NAI:

—> Act of God
—> Act of C
—> Act of 3rd Party

Remoteness of Damage: Type of damage & foreseeable (Wagon Mound)

Thin Skull Rule: Disregard any pre-existing conditions (Smith v Leach Brain)