Negligence

Question 1

What are the 3 things that must be proved to show that someone has been negligent?

Answer 1

• D owed a duty of care
• D breached that duty of care
• D’s breach caused the damage, which was not too remote

Question 2

Which case first established a duty of care?

Answer 2

Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 3

What is the 3 part test for duty of care and which case created this?

Answer 3

Caparo v Dickman

• damage must be reasonably foreseeable
• there must be proximity between C and D
• it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care onto D

Question 4

Describe what is meant by reasonably foreseeable and give 2 cases/their outcomes

Answer 4

Whether the harm to C could be anticipated by the reasonable person
Jolley v Sutton - was reasonably foreseeable
Bourhill v Young - Wasn’t reasonably foreseeable

Question 5

Which 2 ways can proximity between C and D be established?

Answer 5

A relationship of dependency or through time and space

Question 6

What is the case showing a relationship of dependency?

Answer 6

Osman v Ferguson (police and victim/his family had proximity through a relationship of dependency)

Question 7

What is the case that can be used for proximity through time and space?

Answer 7

Vowles v Evans (rugby game)

Question 8

What is the general rule regarding whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Answer 8

It will be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D

Question 9

When will it not be right to impose a duty on D? (give cases)

Answer 9

• if there is a genuine rescue attempt which made the situation worse
• if the court feels it would be expecting too much of the person (Griffiths v Lindsay - taxi driver case)

Question 10

What is the old law and case on whether public authorities owe a duty of care?

Answer 10

Hill v CC of South Yorks Police showed that the presumption for public authorities was that they did not owe a duty of care to others

Question 11

What is the new law and case for public authorities owing a duty of care, and what can they still take into account?

Answer 11

Robinson v CC of West Yorks Police shows that there is now no presumption that public authorities do not owe a duty of care (therefore they owe a duty of care to others), however the court can still take into account the public policy considerations, such as whether it would open the floodgates of claims

Question 12

In which case did courts decide not to impose a duty on the school due to it expecting too much and potentially opening the floodgates for claims?

Answer 12

Bradford-Smart v West Sussex CC

Question 13

How does Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks define a breach?

Answer 13

Where D does something which a reasonable person would not do or when D does not do something that a reasonable person would do

Question 14

What case shows that inexperience does not lower the standard of care expected?

Answer 14

Nettleship v Weston

Question 15

What does the case of Mullins v Richards show?

Answer 15

Age can lower the standard of care expected - children would be compared to reasonable children of the same age

Question 16

Which case shows that professionals will be compared to fellow professionals?

Answer 16

Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC

Question 17

How can courts decide whether the defendant has reached the standard of care expected of him?

Answer 17

By use of risk factors

Question 18

What are the 4 risk factors used (along with cases)

Answer 18

• size of risk (Bolton v Stone and Miller v Jackson
• seriousness of potential harm (Paris v Stepney BC)
• practicability of precautions (Paris v Stepney BC)
• do the benefits outweigh the risk? (Watt v HCC)

Question 19

What does res ipsa loquitur mean?

Answer 19

‘the facts speak for themselves’ - the situation was so obviously D’s fault

Question 20

What are the 3 conditions for res ipsa to apply as set out in Scott v London and St Katherine Docks

Answer 20

• the situation is under D’s control
• the harm would not have happened if D had taken proper care
• D cannot provide an alternate explanation for the harm

Question 21

Which case did res ipsa apply to?

Answer 21

Ward v Tesco Stores

Question 22

What case is used for factual causation when deciding whether D’s breach caused the damage to C?

Answer 22

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

Question 23

Which case is used for intervening acts under the law of negligence?

Answer 23

Reeves v MPC (V’s own actions)

Question 24

What does Reeves v MPC show about intervening acts

Answer 24

If the intervening act is foreseeable, it will not break the chain of causation

Question 25

What does it mean by damage being too remote a result of D’s breach?

Answer 25

If the type of damage suffered by C is not reasonably foreseeable

Question 26

What is the main case for remoteness of damage?

Answer 26

The Wagon Mound case (oil igniting was not reasonably foreseeable)

Question 27

What part of C’s damage must be foreseeable?

Answer 27

The type of damage

Question 28

Which case shows that how the harm is caused can be unforeseeable?

Answer 28

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Question 29

What does the case of Bradford v Robinson Rentals show?

Answer 29

The extent/seriousness of the harm can be unforeseeable

Question 30

What is the ‘eggshell skull’ rule? Give the case

Answer 30

If C suffers more serious harm due to a vulnerability, this will not be too remote
Smith v Leech Brain
(similar to the thin skull rule in criminal law)