Negligence - Basic Standard

Question 1

Woolridge v Sumner

Answer 1

Photographer was trampled by horse, the rider wasn’t liable as they were doing all they could in the heat of the moment.

Question 2

Blake v Galloway

Answer 2

It is partly the need to act quickly and partly the legitimate expectations of consenting participants that justify the variations in standard.

Question 3

Roberts v Ramsbottom

Answer 3

Man suffered stroke while driving, held he wasn’t allowed to escape liability unless the actions were completely out of his control.

Question 4

Mansfield v Weetabix

Answer 4

Driver who did not know that he had hypoglycaemia was exonerated, key issue was lack of knowledge.

Question 5

Dunnage v Randall and UK Insurance

Answer 5

Nephew was badly burned when he tried to stop his uncle from killing himself. Sued the uncle’s estate. The uncle had a mental disorder, but there was no principle to excuse a person from liability where they failed to meet the “normal” standard.

Question 6

Mullin v Richards

Answer 6

Objective test took account of girls ages, what would the ordinary, prudent and reasonable fifteen year old do?

Question 7

Jackson v Murray

Answer 7

Thirteen year old girl was injured when she walked out behind a bus and was hit by a car, damages were reduced by 50% to reflect her share of the fault.

Question 8

James v Butler

Answer 8

Builder helped neighbour with work way within the scope of his abilities, he was responsible for the resulting injuries.

Question 9

Luxmoore May v Messenger May Baverstock

Answer 9

Small town auctioneers not held to same standard as Christies in London.

Question 10

Phillips v William Whitely

Answer 10

Ear piercers not held to same standard as surgeons.

Question 11

Perry v Harris

Answer 11

Reasonable parent test. Child was injured at birthday party when parent momentarily left bouncy castle unattended. Held that it was not foreseeable that such injury would occur, standard of care was that which would protect the children of risk of foreseeable injury.

Question 12

Williams v Williams

Answer 12

Distinguished Perry v Harris, mother was 25% responsible for child’s injuries in car crash as she was not using the correct car seat.

Question 13

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 13

Learner driver was held to the same standard as ordinary experienced driver.

Question 14

Bolam v Friern Hospital

Answer 14

No negligence if a medical professional has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.

Question 15

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA

Answer 15

In rare cases expert knowledge may be dismissed as illogical.

Question 16

Penney v East Kent HA

Answer 16

Bolam doesnt apply to findings of fact.

Question 17

Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB

Answer 17

Woman was not warned about risk of shoulder dystocia when she should have been. Held that Bolam doesnt apply to determination of risks which should be disclosed to patients. The doctor cannot form an objective view of what the patient deems relevant. The patient should have been presented with the information and a discussion should have happened.

Question 18

The Wagon Mound

Answer 18

Risk was unreasonable, shouldn’t have been run.

Question 19

Bolton v Stone

Answer 19

Cricket balls leaving pitch, risk was low, cost of building a taller fence wasn’t comparative to risk of harm.

Question 20

Learned Hand’s Formula

Answer 20

Liability exists where burden of avoidance is less than the probability of injury.

Question 21

US v Carroll Towing

Answer 21

Court set extremely high damages to stop people taking risks simply because the benefits were higher than the potential damages.

Question 22

Ward v Tesco Stores

Answer 22

C slipped on yoghurt in Tesco store, evidence of the accident constituted a prima facie case, the accident wouldn’t have occured without negligence.

Question 23

Piccolo v Larkstock

Answer 23

Defendant should have had a proactive system of cleaning to prevent accidents.

Question 24

Bolam v Friern Hospital

Answer 24

No negligence if a medical professional has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.

Question 25

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA

Answer 25

In rare cases expert knowledge may be dismissed as illogical.

Question 26

Penney v East Kent HA

Answer 26

Bolam doesnt apply to findings of fact.

Question 27

Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB

Answer 27

Woman was not warned about risk of shoulder dystocia when she should have been. Held that Bolam doesnt apply to determination of risks which should be disclosed to patients. The doctor cannot form an objective view of what the patient deems relevant. The patient should have been presented with the information and a discussion should have happened.

Question 28

The Wagon Mound

Answer 28

Risk was unreasonable, shouldn’t have been run.

Question 29

Bolton v Stone

Answer 29

Cricket balls leaving pitch, risk was low, cost of building a taller fence wasn’t comparative to risk of harm.

Question 30

Learned Hand’s Formula

Answer 30

Liability exists where burden of avoidance is less than the probability of injury.

Question 31

US v Carroll Towing

Answer 31

Court set extremely high damages to stop people taking risks simply because the benefits were higher than the potential damages.

Question 32

Ward v Tesco Stores

Answer 32

C slipped on yoghurt in Tesco store, evidence of the accident constituted a prima facie case, the accident wouldn’t have occured without negligence.

Question 33

Piccolo v Larkstock

Answer 33

Defendant should have had a proactive system of cleaning to prevent accidents.