Negligence

Question 1

give the 5 potential risk factors

Answer 1

• special characteristics
• risk size
• appropriate precautions taken
• risks known
• publc benefit to taking the risk

Question 2

what are intervening events

Answer 2

novus actus interveniens- an intervening act breaks the chain of causation

Question 3

define unknown risks

Answer 3

harm not known-no breach (Roe 1954)

Question 4

define risk size

Answer 4

if its a high risk then std of care is higher- Haley v London electricity board 1965- C was blind and couldn’t read warning signs about the trench)
lower risk then unlikely breach of duty therefore std of care is lower- Bolotn v stone 1951

Question 5

what is the legal point from the case

Answer 5

whoever you should reasonably have in your mind in regards to the act or omission taking place- Lord Atkin

Question 6

what is the legal rule in tort known as take your victim as you find him

Answer 6

the eggshell skull rule- illustrated in Smith v Leech Brain and CO 1962

Question 7

where does the three part test established

Answer 7

caparo 1990

Question 8

three parts to caparo test (when proving DOC)

Answer 8

damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
proximate relationship between C and D
fair just and reasonable

Question 9

fair just and reasonable- define (3)

Answer 9

must consider whether the law ought to set out a DOC on that person. ie Hill v chief constable of West Yorkshire (1990- not fair as doc to every person in the UK?)

Question 10

Define breach of duty

Answer 10

Objective test- that of the reasonable person. professionals judged by that of a prof (Bolam 1957- two separate clauses does Ds conduct fall below the stnd of an ordinary competent mem of that profession and is there a substantial body of opinion that would support the course of action?) earners are judged to std of a more experienced person (nettleship v Weston 1971) and children judged by children of the same age (Mullins v Richards 1998)

Question 11

2.) define close relationship

Answer 11

duty or care only exists if the C and D are proximately close (bourhill v young 1943- no claim as motorcyclists couldn’t have anticipated damage to a witness of an accident. Mclouglin v Obrien (1982)- claim as saw family before treatment

Question 12

define public benefit

Answer 12

if an emergency then grater risks can be taken and std f care lower- Watt 1954

Question 13

define factual causation

Answer 13

starting point, must be proved to have legal considered. But for test- Barnett 1969

Question 14

define res ipsa loquitur

Answer 14

when the burden of proof shifts to the D if the C has proved that
- D was in control of the situation which caused injury
-accident would not have happened w/o negligence
-no other explanation of the injury.
as demonstrated in Scott v London and st Katherine docks 1865

Question 15

define proving that that breach caused that damage

Answer 15

must prove the legal and factual cause of the damage caused.

Question 16

define special characteristics

Answer 16

something where someone should have taken extra care due to special things about C ie Paris v Stepney 1951- D was blind and should have been given eyewear to protect other eye

Question 17

in what case was the neighbour principle established

Answer 17

Donaghue v stevenson 1932

Question 18

what is the legal cause determined by

Answer 18

remoteness of damage- wagon mound 1961. D will be liable if the type of injury is foreseeable even if the way it happens is not (Hughes 1963) and even if the injury is a more severe version of the reasonably foreseeable one (Bradford v Robinson rentals 1967)

Question 19

define appropriate precautions taken

Answer 19

balance or risk involved against adequate precautions taken- Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953- NL as sufficient steps taken

Question 20

1.) damage or H RF?- define

Answer 20

where a reasonable person should forsee the damage (Kent v Griffiths 2000)