Negligence

Question 1

Order

Answer 1

Duty, breach, damage

Question 2

Duty

Answer 2

Pre existing duty (Robinson) or novel situation (Camaro v Dickman)

Question 3

Duty - pre existing duties

Answer 3

Driver (Nettleship v Weston, doctor (WhiteHouse v Jordan), sportsman (Consonant v Basi), employer (Walker v Northumberland CC), policeman (Robinson chief Constable of WYP), lawyer (Hall v Simon), public body (Clunis v Camden and Islington), judiciary (Sirros v Moore), fire brigade (Capital Counties v Hampshire CC)

Question 4

Novel situation

Answer 4

1.harm/injury was reasonably foreseeable (Kent v Griffith) 2.proximinty between C and D - time,space, relationship (Bourhill v Young) 3.fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty and there are no public policy reasons to not hold the D liable (Mulcahy v MOD)

Question 5

Breach

Answer 5

Reasonable man test and other things the courts will consider

Question 6

Breach - the reasonable man test

Answer 6

Ordinary and competent person act as the same as the D/didn’t do (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks) - ordinary person (Wells. V Cooper), reasonable child (Mullins v Richard’s), reasonable professional (Bolom v Friern Hospital), no allowances made for inexperience (Nettleship v Weston)

Question 7

Beach - other risk factors the courts will consider

Answer 7

Likelihood of harm/size oof risk (Bolton v Stone). Characteristics of C (Paris v Stepney). Cost of practical precaution (Latimer v AEC). Social utility/benefit(Watts v Herts CC)

Question 8

Damage

Answer 8

Causation

Question 9

Damage - factual causation

Answer 9

But for test (Barnett v Chelsea Hospital). Novus actus interveniens - act of C (Mckew v Holland), act of nature (Carslogie), act of third party (Knightly v Johns)

Question 10

Damage - legal causation

Answer 10

Damage is reasonably foreseeable and not to remote (The Wagon Mound No1) harm not reasonably foreseeable but D still liable. If applicable - type of damage caused (Bradford v Robinson Rentals), sequence of events (Hughes v Lord Advocate), thin skull rule (Smith v Leech Brain)

Question 11

Defences

Answer 11

So sent and contributory negligence

Question 12

Defences - consent

Answer 12

C knows there’s. Risk of D acting negligently and freely consents to that risk (Morris v Murray). Consent not freely given/C has little choice (Smith v Baker) or C felt a moral obligation (Haynes v Harwood).

Question 13

Defences - contributory negligence

Answer 13

Partial defence. The law reform (contributory negligence) act 10945. Only applies when Cs own behaviour has fallen bellow the standard expected of the reasonable man and C contributed to own loss. C contributed to accident (Brandon v Airtours). C made their injuries worse (Froom v Butcher).

Question 14

Remedies

Answer 14

Special damages - can be precisely calculates. General loss - cannot be precisely calculated,, pecuniary or non pecuniary. Pecuniary loss - future loss of earning, medical expenses. Non pecuniary loss - pain and suffering, loss of amenity., bereavement