Negligence

Question 1

Duty of Care

Answer 1

A legal concept which dictates the circumstances which one will be liable to another in negligence.

Question 2

Situations where a duty is established:

Answer 2

Road users to others
						Employer to employee
						Manufacturer to consumer
						Doctor to patient
						Solicitor to client

Question 3

The Neighbour principle

Answer 3

“(Who is the neighbour) The persons who are so closely and directly affected by my actions, that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts/omissions called in question”

				Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 4

Test for establishing a duty

Answer 4

Must be;

(1) Reasonable foresight of harm
(2) Sufficient proximity
(3) Fair just and reasonable to impose a duty

Caparo

Question 5

Foresight:

Answer 5

Avoiding acts which can potentially injure neighbour. Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad shows that this doesn’t open up a duty to everyone.

Question 6

Proximity:

Answer 6

People closely and directly affected by my actions that wield a, “measure of control and responsibility over the potentially dangerous situation”.
Sutrahadar v National Environment Research Council

Question 7

Fair, Just and Reasonable

Answer 7

Considers public policy arguments.

WBA v Medhat El-Safty

Question 8

Standard of care:

Answer 8

Conditions which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Question 9

Special Standards of care:

Answer 9

Skilled/unskilled defendants
Children
Sporting events
Seriousness of injury

Question 10

Unskilled defendants:

Answer 10

Standard of care the same, regardless of inexperience.

Nettleship v Weston

Question 11

Children:

Answer 11

Held to the same standards as children of same age.

Mullin v Richard

Question 12

Sporting events

Answer 12

Spectators may be held to lower standards.

Wooldridge v Sumner

Question 13

Seriousness of injury

Answer 13

If the defendant acknowledges risk of serious injury, standard of care is raised.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Question 14

When can the burden of proof on the claimant be eased?

Answer 14

(1) Re ipsa loquitor

(2) S11 Civil Evidence Act 1968

Question 15

Re ipsa loquitor

Answer 15

The thing speaks for itself

Question 16

3 requirements for Re ipsa loquitor

Answer 16

(1) Cause of damage is under defendant’s control (2) Cause of accident is unknown (3) Accident would not have occurred if not for negligence

Question 17

Causation

Answer 17

Breach of duty must be the factual cause of damage.

Question 18

But-for test

Answer 18

“If the damage would not have occurred but for a particular fault, then that fault is the cause”

				Cork v Kirby

Question 19

Novus Actus Intervenus

Answer 19

A new intervening act may break the chain of causation.

Question 20

Novus Actus Intervenus can be:

Answer 20

Third party act
Claimant’s act
Act of nature

Question 21

Third part acts

Answer 21

Jobling v Associated Dairies

Question 22

Claimant’s acts

Answer 22

Where the claimant is responsible for own damage,

McKew v Holland

Question 23

Acts of nature

Answer 23

Must be unforeseeable and separate from primary acts.

Question 24

Remoteness

Answer 24

Asks to what extent a defendant’s damage is attributable to

the claimant.

Question 25

The remoteness test:

Answer 25

The kind/type of damage sustained is immaterial and it must be directly traceable to the negligent act.
Re Polemis and Furness applied a reasonable foreseeability test.