Negligence Case Analysis

Question 1

What is the Neighbour principle and who was it created by?

Answer 1

Created by Lord Atkin
Says that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably forsee with injure your neighbour”

Question 2

Definition of negligence is?

Answer 2

A species of tort which is the failure of behaving with the level of care a reasonable person would in the same context.

Question 3

Common law is about… (3 things)

Answer 3

Stability
Consistency
Predictability

Question 4

Negligence cases in order are?

Answer 4

1. Donoghue v Stevenson
2. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
3. Herschtal v Stewart & Adern
4. Bourhill v Young + Palsgraf v Railroad
5. Bolton v Stone
6. Miller v Jackson
7. Russel v McCabe
8. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co

Question 5

What are the ‘planks’ of negligence?

Answer 5

1. Duty of care?
2. Duty of care breached? (Did they fail to take reasonable care which led to reasonably foreseeable damage)
3. Does anything reduce defendants liability?

Question 6

Egg Shell Skull rule

Answer 6

If you injure someone else you are liable for the full extent of the damage, even if they have a susceptibility already.

Question 7

Contributionary Negligence

Answer 7

The plaintiff playing a role in the negligence which leads to less or not compensation

Question 8

Res ispa loquitor

Answer 8

The facts speak for themselves.

Question 9

Volenti non fit injuria

Answer 9

No harm is done to one who consents

Question 10

Vicarious Liability

Answer 10

As well as seeking compensation from the person who caused the harm, you can also seek it from their employer
= more money.

Question 11

Novus Actus

Answer 11

A new act or omission from someone else that occurs after the negligence breaking the chain of causation.

Question 12

Important quote from H v S & A

Answer 12

“There mere existance of the opporunity for examination is sufficient to break the chain of causation or destroy the proximate relationship”

Question 13

Key quote from B v S on foreseability

Answer 13

“The mere fact an injury occured does not mean anyone was negligent and the fact a risk was forseen does not mean it is negligent not to prevent it if it was a remote, unlikely one”

Question 14

Key quote from B v S on probability over possibility

Answer 14

“There must be sufficient probability to lead to a reasonable man to anticipate it. The existance of some risk is an ordinary incident of life, even when all due care has been, as it must be, taken”.

Question 15

Key quote from H/O v D

Answer 15

“It was a likely consequence of their neglect of duty that the respondents __ would suffer damage”

Question 16

What are the only things the defence can argue for negligence?

Answer 16

Causation: could argue harm would happen anyway
Break in chain of causation: something happened which contributed to the cause
Contributionary negligence: plaintiff is partly responsible
Volenti non fit injuria: no harm is done to one who consents - unjustified intervention

Question 17

Key points of Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 17

Neighbour principle
No possibility of intermediate examination and the manufacturer made error while knowing this

Question 18

Key points of Grant V Australian

Answer 18

Expands neighbour principle to food + drink
Inspection was possible but not detectable

Question 19

Key points of Herschtal v Stewart & Adern

Answer 19

Extends neighbour principle relationship to other occupations like engineer
It was inspectable and detectable but unreasonable

Question 20

Key points of Bourhill v Young & Palsgraf v Railroad

Answer 20

Unforeseeable plaintiffs

Question 21

Key points of Bolton v Stone

Answer 21

It was possible for the ball to hit someone, not PROBABLE - a fluke.

Question 22

Key points of Miller v Jackson

Answer 22

Distinguished from Bolton v Stone because probable not possible
BUT
Had a different remedy - no injunction but damages
Had finger on the pulse of soceity

Question 23

Key points of Russel v McCabe

Answer 23

Intervention was reasonable - doing a duty. So no Volenti non fit injuria

Question 24

Key points of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co

Answer 24

It was foreseable the boys would use the only means of escape. Their neglect of duty led to the damage.