Negligence

Question 1

What does a negligence answer consist of?

Answer 1

• Duty of care
• Breach of duty
• Causation
• Damages

Question 2

Negligence overview

(in further detail)

Answer 2

1. Did D owe C a DoC?
2. Did D breach DoC?
3. Did breach of DoC cause damage/harm?

Question 3

Duty of care case and principle

Answer 3

Donoghue v Stevenson - the neighbour principle. A DoC is owed when it’s foreseeable C will be affected by acts/omissions of D.

Question 4

Legal definition of a ‘neighbour’.

Answer 4

A person who would be closely and directly affected by act.

Question 5

According to which test, when is the Caparo test used?

Answer 5

Robinson - In a novel situation (no clear authority on this issue

Question 6

According to which test, when is the Caparo test not used?

Answer 6

Robinson - In established situations by previous cases.

Question 7

How to prove duty of care?

Cases

Answer 7

1. Donoghue v Stevenson - the neighbour principle
2. Robinson - duty imposed by looking at existing established situations

Question 8

Case for drivers owing road users/passengers a DoC

Answer 8

Nettleship v Weston

Question 9

Case for parents owing a child a DoC

Answer 9

Gibbons & Proctor / Children and Young Persons Act 1933

Question 10

Medical professionals to patients DoC case

Answer 10

Adomako

Question 11

Employers to employees DoC case

Answer 11

Paris v Stepney

Question 12

Manufacturers to consumers/customers DoC case

Answer 12

Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 13

In which case was negligence introduced?

Answer 13

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

Question 14

Breach of duty is proved by:

Answer 14

• Seeing if the D acted below the standard of a reasonable man - Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
• Looking at the risk factor - how risky/likely was the harm? Did the D do what was reasonable looking at the risk factors?

Question 15

What standard do we compare the D to in order to decide if they have breached their DoC?

+ Case

Answer 15

The Reasonable man test - Wells V Cooper

Question 16

What are the 3 special types of defendant?

Answer 16

• Learners - Nettleship v Weston. Learners are expected to meet the same standard of care as a reasonable, qualified + compotent driver.
• Experts - Bolam. Not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted at the time as proper by a responsible body of opinion.
• Children - Mullins v Richards. A child is to be held to the standard of a reasonable child of the same age.

Question 17

What are the 4 factors affecting the standard of care required?

Answer 17

• What was the size of the risk? - Bolton v Stone. Higher risk = more precautions needed
• Special characteristics - Paris v Stepney. Vulnerable C’s require higher standard of care.
• Practical precautions - Latimer v AEC. Has D taken all practical precautions? Precautions required to be reasonable, not excessive.
• Public benefit - Watt v Herts. Necessary to lower standard of care for public benefit.

Question 18

What test

‘Did the breach of duty cause the harm/damage?’ is proved by:

Answer 18

• Causation/but-for test - Barnett
• Was it reasonably foreseeable?

Question 19

What can break the chain of causation. Case?

Answer 19

A 3rd party act. Smith v Littlewoods

Question 20

aka. foreseeability

Case for remoteness of damage and principle

Answer 20

Wagon Mound. Only liable for foreseeable damage - D only liable if it was foreseeable.

In the Wagon Mound case, the harm caused was too remote from the D’s initial action.

Question 21

Type of harm - principle + case

Answer 21

Only the type of damage/harm must be foreseeable, not exact form/full extent. - Hugh v Lord Advocate

eg. arm injury. D liable for compensation no matter the extent of harm

Question 22

Thin skull rule - case + principle

Answer 22

Smith v Leech Brain - The D must take the V as they find them