Negligence

Question 0

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 0

A novel duty situation arises when there is:

(1) reasonable foresight of harm
(2) sufficient proximity of relationship
(3) it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Question 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 1

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour
Neighbour are persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question

Question 2

The Nicholas H

Answer 2

Held not to be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on a non-profit-making society of maritime surveyors

Question 3

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 3

The police was held not to owe a duty of care to any individual as their duty is to the public at large

Question 4

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

Answer 4

Here the police was held to owe a duty of care to the prisoner, as the police had assumed responsibility towards him. The claimant was not a mere member of the public, but someone who had been entrusted to the care of the police

Question 5

Osman v UK

Answer 5

To grant an immunity to the counterpart can constitute an infringement of the right to a fair trial (art. 6 ECHR).
The approach of English courts was held in Z v UK not to breach art 6 ECHR
The police might have a duty to take positive action to protect an individual’s right to life (art 2 ECHR) where they were aware of a ‘real and immediate risk’

Question 6

Brooks v Commissioner of the police for the metropolis

Answer 6

The police cannot generally be held liable for careless conduct in investigating crime

Question 7

Osman v Ferguson

Answer 7

(With reference to Hill) The relevant policy considerations still apply even where the police has received advanced warning that a particular individual posed a danger to the plaintiffs

Question 8

Bourhill v Young

Answer 8

Passer-by walks to the accident scene and suffers shock and miscarriage –> No duty of care owed to the passer-by because she was not a foreseeable victim

Question 9

Haley v Lonodn Electricity Board

Answer 9

Blind man walked into a hole –> the duty of care owed by persons excavating a highway was to ensure the reasonable safety of all persons whose use of the highway was reasonably foreseeable

Question 10

Stovin v Wise

Answer 10

The highway authority knows that a junction is dangerous and a traffic accident happens –> no duty of care owed to road-users to alleviate the danger

Question 11

East Suffolk Rivers v Kent

Answer 11

Sea wall was breached. Defendant has no duty, but a statutory power to repair it. It took a long time to repair it. Q: liability for teh extra period of flooding? –> No. If no duty is owed, even careless intervention triggers no liability, unless intervention makes matters worse

Question 12

Home Office v Dorset Yacht

Answer 12

Boys with previous criminal record damage a yacht –> Home Office held liable because it had control over the boys

Question 13

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation

Answer 13

An occupier’s duty does not extend to keeping his premises locked up so securely as to prevent vandals getting in and damaging adjoining property.
The crucial point was that the defendants did not have any control over the vandals who were breaking in (note differences with Dorset Yacht)

Question 14

Bolton v Stone

Answer 14

The relevant standard of care is that of an ordinarily careful man in the defendant’s position

Question 15

Bolam v Friern Hospital

Answer 15

Doctors must meet the standard of their profession. This principle applies to everyone who exercises a special skill

Question 16

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 16

Here the court adopted the standard of a qualified driver, instead of the less demanding standard of the learner driver

Question 17

Wells v Cooper

Answer 17

A householder who attempts a job normally done by a professional is negligent if the job should not even have been attempted without appropriate training

Question 18

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

Answer 18

The standard is tailored to the task or post, not to the doctor’s individual level of experience

Question 19

Mullin v Richards

Answer 19

A child defendant will be expected to show such care as can reasonably be expected of an ordinary child of the same age

Question 20

Paris v Stepney BC

Answer 20

In assessing the standard of care the magnitude of the risk must be taken into account (facts: half-blind worker loses his other eye)

Question 21

Latimer v AEC

Answer 21

In assessing the relevant standard of care, the cost and practicability of precautions must be taken into account. Facts: workers slipped on slippery floor, due to previous heavy storm. Decision not to close down the relevant part of the factory held to be reasonable on a cost-benefit analysis

Question 22

Watt v Hertfordshire

Answer 22

In assessing the relevant standard of care, the purpose of the defendant’s activity must be taken into account. If human life is at stake, a defendant may be justified in taking abnormal risks

Question 23

Re The Herald of Free Enterprise

Answer 23

A commonly accepted practice can be held to be negligent. Facts: cross-Channel ferry sank. Practice not to check whether bow door is closed before setting sail

Question 24

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

Answer 24

But for test: but for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the harm to the claimant have occurred?

Question 25

Bonnington v Wardlaw

Answer 25

(Swing grinders/pneumatic hammer case) In a multiple cause case the claimant does not need to show that the defendant’s breach of duty was the only cause of the damage to the claimant, or even the main cause. The claimant simply has to show that it materially contributed to the damage

Question 26

McGhee v National Coal Board

Answer 26

In cases of scientific uncertainty, it suffices for the claimant to show that the defendants had materially increased the risk of teh claimant contracting dermatitis

Question 27

Holtby v Brigham

Answer 27

Claimant developed asbestosis over a period of time during which he had worked for several different employers. He sued one of them –> claimant succeeded, as the employer had made a material contribution to his damage

Question 28

Fairchild v Glenhaven

Answer 28

(mesothelioma case) Where two or more employers have caused the harm, but it cannot be said because of scientific uncertainty who among them caused the harm, the claimant is entitled to recover against both employers

Question 29

Scott v Shepherd

Answer 29

defendant threw a firework in a crowd; X and Y pick it and threw it away; eventually the claimant was injured –> no actus interveniens, because instinctive reaction

Question 30

Knightley v Johns

Answer 30

accident at the end of the tunnel. Police inspector orders the claimant (a constable) to drive back against the traffic. Claimant is injured –> intervening act by the police inspector

Question 31

McKew v Holland

Answer 31

The defendant’s negligence had weakened the claimant’s leg. When the claimant descended a steep staircase without handrail, his leg gave way and he suffered further injuries –> claimant acted unreasonably and broke the chain of causation

Question 32

Wieland v Cyril

Answer 32

defendant had injured the claimant, who was fitted with a neck-collar. Consequently the claimant fell down the stairs –> no intervening act, as the claimant acted reasonably

Question 33

The Wagon Mound (1)

Answer 33

the test for remoteness of damage is one of reasonable foreseeability –> if a reasonable person would not have foreseen the damage it cannot be recovered.
Remember the two provisos!

Question 34

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Answer 34

First proviso to Wagon Mound: similar in type rule. Facts: boy falls in a hole and suffers bad burns due to paraffin lamp explosion

Question 35

Robinson v Post Office

Answer 35

Second proviso to Wagon Mound: egg-shell skull rule

Question 36

Smith v Baker

Answer 36

A worker knowing of a certain risk does not accept it merely because he continues working

Question 37

Haynes v Harwood

Answer 37

rescuers do not accept the risk if they act under a compelling (moral) duty and their conduct in all the circumstances is reasonable and a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s negligence

Question 38

Pitts v Hunt

Answer 38

A claim must fail when the character of the enterprise is such that it is impossible for the court to determine the appropriate standard of care

Question 39

Froom v Butcher

Answer 39

Contributory negligence seatbelts

Question 40

Capps v Miller

Answer 40

Contributory negligence crash helmets

Question 41

OWens v Brimmel

Answer 41

Contributory negligence drunken drivers

Question 42

Goughv Thorne

Answer 42

Contributory negligence children

Question 43

BAker v Hopkins

Answer 43

Contributory negligence rescuers

Question 44

Murphy v Brentwood

Answer 44

Economic loss suffered acquiring a defective item of property is not recoverable

Question 45

Spartan Steel v Martin

Answer 45

Only consequential economic loss, i.e. loss following from physical damage to property belonging to the claimant, can be recovered. (Opposition to pure economic loss)

Question 46

Hedley Byrne v Heller

Answer 46

A duty of care arises in a case of negligent statements causing pure economic loss when there is a special relationship between the persons giving and receiving the advice

Question 47

Caparo v Dickman (economic loss)

Answer 47

Assumption of responsibility is present when: (1) the adviser knew the purpose for which the advice was required (2) the adviser knew the advice would be communicated to the advisee (3) the adviser knew that the advisee was likely to act on the advice without independent inquiry (4) the advice was acted upon by the advisee to its detriment

Question 48

Chaudhry v Prabhakar

Answer 48

no duty of care will be owed in respect of advice given in social situations because there is no assumption of responsibility

Question 49

Spring v Guardian Assurance

Answer 49

Extension of Hedley Byrne to cases where the negligent statement was not made to the claimant (former employer reference case)

Question 50

White v Jones

Answer 50

Duty of care owed by a solicitor to potential beneficiaries under a will he was delayed in drafting

Question 51

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates

Answer 51

A claimant can rely on a claim in tort even though he also has a contract with the defendant

Question 52

Smith v Bush

Answer 52

When assessing reasonableness of a disclaimer the factors in Sch 2 UCTA 1977 should be taken into account

Question 53

Page v Smith

Answer 53

A primary victim is someone who was actually involved in the accident. He either was in the actual area of danger or he reasonably believed to be in danger.
Primary victims are owed a duty of care in relation to their pure psychiatric harm provided the risk of physical injury was foreseeable

Question 54

Alcock v South Yorkshire Police

Answer 54

Secondary victims can recover their psychiatric harm only if (1) basic conditions for primary victims are fulfilled (2) psychiatric harm was foreseeable (3) proximity of relationship (4) proximity in time and space (5) proximity of perception

Question 55

McLaughlin v O’Brian

Answer 55

Proximity in time and space held to be present (claimant arrived at the hospital one hour after the accident and saw her family in oil and mud)

Question 56

White v South Yorkshire Police

Answer 56

With regard to psychiatric harm, a rescuer does not hold a special status. Same rules for primary/secondary victims apply