Negligence

Question 1

Landmark case

Answer 1

Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 and ginger beer. Suffered personal injury from snail in ginger beer and made a claim against the manufacturer.

Question 2

Tort of negligence 3 principles

Answer 2

Duty of care must be owed
Breach of duty of care
Damage arising from breach of that duty

Question 3

Duty of care cases - reasonable proximity

Answer 3

Topp V London County Bus 1993. Harm was reasonably foreseeable because of the minibus left in lay-by over night unlocked with keys incit. Theories stole the bus and drove away knocking women off her bike. Decided not reasonably foreseeable so no duty of care.

Home office v Dorset Yachy 1970 was seen reasonably foreseeable as the young offenders should have been looked after by home office.

Question 4

Duty of care cases - relationship of proximity

Answer 4

Bourhill v Young 1943 - claimant was pregnant fishwife and got off tram as defendant drove his motorcycle at speed he collided with a car. Was killed upon impact. Claimant heard but didn’t see incident. Short time later walked past the incident and blood was on the road causing the claimant to have a stillborn in shock. It was seen there was no duty of care as not sufficient proximity.

Also McCloughlin vs O brien where mother turned up to hospital for family members and suffered shock and it was said there was a sufficient proximity.

Question 5

Duty of care cases - fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

Answer 5

Capital and counties vs Hampshire council where fire sprinkler era were turned off resulting in a fire damaging property. Decided the damage would’ve been far less if the fire brigade had not turned the sprinklers off.

Question 6

Duty of care cases - policy considerations

Answer 6

Courts are not quick to impose a duty of care when public bodies are involved. It’s aim to create precedent that is fair.

Hillsborough disaster case 1992 and that people killed at football game. The police were at fault but also there were primary victims and secondary victims. Secondary victims were not in zone of danger. To Apple for psychiatric harm they must meet criteria.

Question 7

Breach of duty has to do with the standard of care expected as shown in

Answer 7

Blythe Vs Birmingham water works. The test is objective.

Question 8

What needs to be taken into account when there’s a breach of duty

Answer 8

Unknown risks - syringe through cracks
Size of risk - cricket ball hit someone unlikely to happen
Public benefit / emergency

Question 9

Damages are the third element that need to be proven and it needs to be proven the damage is not too

Answer 9

Remote. As shown in wagon Mound and the defendants negligently discharged fuel into harbour and two days later welding hit the oil sparking it. Was held the chance of a fire was unforeseeable and therefore were not guilty.

Question 10

Other issues. But for test and factual causation and balance of probabilities. Case

Answer 10

Barnett vs Chelsea and Kengsinfton where the victim died because of arsenic pounding and the duty of care existed however the victim would’ve died anyways.

Question 11

Loss of chance and speculation on illness and how much would’ve loss allowing the court to decide

Answer 11

How much damages to award

Question 12

Defences to negligence

Answer 12

Contributory negligence

Consent and that claimant accepts voluntary assumption of the risk of harm.