Negligence Cases

Question 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 1

DoC first def, Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle: “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

Question 2

Caparo Industries v Dickman

Answer 2

3 part test but only in a “novel situation”

Question 3

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 3

-now following, courts apply CRs

Question 4

Darnley v Croydon NHS Trust

Answer 4

Lord Reed X Caparo, hospital -> patient

Question 5

Sumner v Colborne and Others

Answer 5

X Caparo, motorist -> other RUs

Question 6

Kent v Griffiths

Answer 6

1 CR: some damage reasonably foreseeable

Question 7

Bourhill v Young

Answer 7

2 CR: reasonably proximate (time & space)

Question 8

Watson v British Board of Boxing Control

Answer 8

2001, 2 CR: reasonably proximate (relationship of responsibility

Question 9

Mitchell v Glasgow CC

Answer 9

2009, 3 CR: fair, just & reasonable

Question 10

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 10

1988, 3CR: fair, just & reasonable

Question 11

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police 2

Answer 11

2018, emergency services exception in doubt

Question 12

Vaughan v Menlove

Answer 12

Breach of duty definition

Question 13

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Answer 13

1856, breach of duty defined by Baron Alderson

Question 14

Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital

Answer 14

1957, professional characteristic exception

Question 15

Bolitho v Hackney HA

Answer 15

1997, bolam test amended - “logical basis”

Question 16

Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB

Answer 16

2015, all material risks and informed consent “test of materiality”

Question 17

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 17

1971, characteristic exception: learner/trainee

Question 18

Mullins v Richards

Answer 18

1998, characteristic exception: child

Question 19

Bolton v Stone

Answer 19

1951, 1 RF, size of risk of harm

Question 20

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Answer 20

1951, 2 RF, special characteristics (vulnerability/ serious potential injury)

Question 21

Latimer v AEC LTD

Answer 21

1953, 3 RF, adequate precautions in proportion to cost and practicality

Question 22

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

Answer 22

1954, 4 RF, social utility (public policy)

Question 23

Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital

Answer 23

1969, factual causation “but for”

Question 24

McKew v Holland

Answer 24

1969, legal causation 1 NAI by claimant

Question 25

Carslogie v Royal Norwegian Government

Answer 25

1952, legal causation 2 NAI by nature

Question 26

The Wagon Mound (No1)

Answer 26

1961, remoteness - type of damage reasonably foreseeable

Question 27

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Answer 27

1967, remoteness - liable for full extent (general damage rf)

Question 28

Smith v Leech Brain

Answer 28

1962, remoteness - thin skull rule “take his victim as he finds them”

Question 29

Sayers v Harlow

Answer 29

1958, The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 defence (% reduction)

Question 30

Nettleship v Weston 2

Answer 30

1971, volenti non fit injuria (consent) full defence except road traffic cases

Question 31

Negligence

Answer 31

on the balance of probabilities- d owed him a DoC, d breached that DoC, and c’s damage was caused by d’s breach of duty and was not too remote from it