Negligence

Question 1

Define Negligence, and the case authority for this quote?

Answer 1

As defined by Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”

Question 2

What three requirements are there to bring a claim in negligence?

Answer 2

Prove the existence of a duty, establish if this duty was breached and if damage has occurred (causation & remoteness).

Question 3

What case established the first forms of negligence? What was the definition provided in this case?

Answer 3

Donoghue v Stevenson.
You must not injure your neighbour… You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

Question 4

Who is your neighbour?

Answer 4

Persons who are so closely and directly affect by my act that I ought reasonable to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am direction my mind to the acts or omissions hick are called into question.

Question 5

What case did Lord Reid, when referring to the decision reached by Lord Atkin, think that the time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion.

Answer 5

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd (1970).

Question 6

What two part test was established in Anns v Merton LBC (1977) 2 ALL ER 492? Who by?

Answer 6

1. Whether as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that , in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damaged to the latter.

If answered affirmatively, 2. it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negate, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damage to which a breach of it may give rise.

Question 7

What case set out the current three part test for a duty of care?

Answer 7

Caparo v Dickman.

Question 8

What is the current three part test for duty?

Answer 8

1. Was the damage to someone like the claimant, foreseeable to someone like the defendant?
2. Was there a relationship of proximity between the two parties?
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty? (Floodgates of litigation, policy decision)

Lord Bridge - “ In addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there exists between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as one of ‘proximity’ or ‘neighbourhood’ and that the situation should be one ins chic the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope on the one party for the benefit of the other”

Question 9

What is consequential economic loss?

Answer 9

physical loss as a result of injury suffered.

Question 10

What is pure economic loss?

Answer 10

No physical injury, only economic.

Question 11

What was the ratio in Spartan Steel v Martin co ltd [1973] 1 QB 27, in regards to consequential economic loss?

Answer 11

C could only claim for the loss for steel that was damaged at the time of power interruption, speculative loss was not covered.

Question 12

What was the ratio in Leigh and Cillian v Aliakmon Shipping [1986] AC 785, in regards to consequential economic loss?

Answer 12

C could not claim for damage to property that was not his.

Question 13

What was the ratio in both Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728, and Junior books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] 1 AC 520?

Answer 13

Despite pure economic loss, a duty was found to have existed and a claim was reasonable.

Question 14

What cases demonstrate that negligent misstatement gives rise to duty?

Answer 14

Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465; Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976]

Question 15

Does a duty exist if a friend makes a suggestion to another? Is there authority?

Answer 15

A duty exists if the friend professes to be proficient in the area, and the decision is made as a result of the suggestion.
Chaudhry v Prabhakar [1983] 3 ALL ER 718

Question 16

What is reasonable reliance, and what case authority exists?

Answer 16

The idea that one owes a duty to another if there exists an expectation that someone will rely on it. Smith v Eric S. Bush [1990] AC 831, and Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 296

Question 17

Does a liability exist for omissions?

Answer 17

Generally no, unless you have control; assume a responsibility; or create or adopt a risk.

Question 18

What are the existing categories where duty exists?

Answer 18

Public Bodies, 3rd Parties, Omissions, Nervous Shock, Economic Loss.

Question 19

What case made the difference between policy and operational matters in regards to Public Bodies?

Answer 19

Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923; A mound on a T-Junction was not acted on by council, failure to act did not create a claim. Had they acted, and done so poorly a claim would exist.

Question 20

What cases states that liability exists when a party has control over another?

Answer 20

Reeves v Commissioner of the Metropolis [2000] 1 ac 360; Police exercised complete control over prisoners in custody, thus liability for them.

Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2001] EWCA Civ 611; Obligation arose when the police knew or ought to have known that the individual presented a risk.

Question 21

Does a liability exist for acts of third parties?

Answer 21

Generally no, except if you have control over the individual, or accept responsibility.

Question 22

Whats the legal ratio of Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 KB 48

Answer 22

Third party liability can exist if you accept responsibility, and the injury is as a direct result of your inaction.

Question 23

What case was a liability imposed on the police as a result of taking responsibility for a CI, as they were aware of the distinguishable risk to the CI?

Answer 23

Swiney v Chief Constable Northumbria Police [1997] QB 464

Question 24

When does negligent misstatement give rise to a claim?

Answer 24

When a special relationship exists, and an expectation to rely upon the statement is present.

Question 25

In what cases does a claim exist for omissions?

Answer 25

If something is done poorly, if you have control of a situation, assumed responsibility, or adopted or created a risk.

Question 26

What cases demonstrate liability can exist for omissions where an act has been done poorly?

Answer 26

Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923; Sutradhar v National Environmental Research Council [2006] 4 ALL ER 490

Question 27

what was the ratio of Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria [1999] 1 ALL ER 550?

Answer 27

A duty of responsibility can be assumed, and a failure to act on while having an assumed duty can give rise to a claim.

Question 28

What two cases demonstrate assumption of responsibility?

Answer 28

Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria 1999 1 all er 550; Barrett v MOD [1995] 1 WLR 1217 CA.

Question 29

What is the legal principle of Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004?

Answer 29

While the fire service do not have a duty to answer a call for assistance nor to take care to do so, if they cause injury as a direct result of a creation of a danger by their own negligence they a duty can exist.

Question 30

What cases demonstrates that a duty to act exists if a specific threat is made?

Answer 30

Selwood v Durham CC & Others [2012] EWCA civ 979

Question 31

What case demonstrates that there can be no duty for a third party whom you have no responsibility or control over?

Answer 31

Topp v London County Bus Co [1993] 1 WLR 967

Question 32

What is the distinguishing element between Smith v Littlewoods [1987] 1 AC 241, and Clark Fixing Ltd v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1898 in regards to abating a known danger?

Answer 32

Smith was unaware of the risk as a fire risk was not present, thus no liability was held. However, MBC was aware of the fires, or had the means to be aware and it was apparent that the risk of fire spreading should have been obvious, thus a liability was imposed.

Question 33

What was the legal principle in Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 in regards to Psychiatric harm?

Answer 33

Where C is a primary victim and an established duty exists, it is enough to ask whether D should have reasonably foreseen that C might suffer personal Injury it was not necessary to ask separately whether D foresaw injury by shock.

Question 34

What case establishes that Primary victims are those present at the immediate time and aftermath, and while there exists no legal limitations of proximity in time, space or relationship, all factors are to be considered?

Answer 34

McLoughlin v O’Brian [1982] 1 AC 410.

Question 35

With psychiatric harm, specifically secondary victims, what must be foreseeable in order to bring an action? Case authority?

Answer 35

Necessary to show it was foreseeable that the psychiatric harm would occur. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310

Question 36

In regards to Psychiatric harm, is relationship limited to humans only? Authority?

Answer 36

It may also be between human and property, as demonstrated in Attia v British Gas PLC [1988] QB 304

Question 37

What case establishes that a bystander who witnesses a disaster cannot recover damages for Psychiatric harm unless sufficient degree of proximity can be shown?

Answer 37

McFarlane v EE Caledonia ltd [1994] 2 ALL ER 1

Question 38

What was the principle of Vernon v Bosley [1997] 1 ALL ER 577?

Answer 38

Grief and bereavement due to death itself are not actionable, but they can be part of a larger issue of psychiatric harm.

Question 39

What does Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 1 WLR 1970 demonstrate, in regards to Psychiatric harm?

Answer 39

A victim of self inflicted injuries holds no duty to a secondary party who, after witnessing the event from which the injuries resulted or the immediate aftermath, suffered psychiatric harm.