Negligence, Duty of care

Question 1

What is the definition of negligence, as per the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks C (1856)

Answer 1

‘Failing to do something which the reasonable person would do, or doing something which the reasonable person would not do’

Question 2

What are the three elements to prove a case of negligence?

Answer 2

1. A duty of care must be owed by the defendant to the claimant
2. The suty must have been broke through a failure to reach the required standard of care
3. The duty broken must have caused the damage or injury

Question 3

What are the three requirements to impose a duty of care, as per the case of Caparo (Caparo Test)

Answer 3

1. Is there a sufficiently close or proximate relationship between C and D?
2. Could a reasonable person see that some harm or damage is reasonably forseeable in C’s position
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

Question 4

What is the case for the first requirement of the Caparo test (Is there a sufficiently close or proximate relationship between C and D) and what happened in it?

Answer 4

McLoughlin v O’Brien (1982):
C’s husband and three of her children were involved in a serious road traffic accident in which their car was struck by a lorry due to the negligence of the lorry driver (D). One child died on impact. An ambulance took the injured to the hospital. The mother was told of the accident and they visited the hospital. She suffered shock and depression.

Question 5

What is the case for the second requirement of the Caparo test (Could a reasonable person see that some harm or damage is reasonably forseeable in C’s position) and what was it about?

Answer 5

Kent V Griffiths (2000):
C was pregnant and had asthma. Her GP dialed 999 and requested an ambulance. The ambulance took 38 minutes the arrive and as a result the plaintiff (c) suffered a respiatory arrest with grave consequences such as substantial memory impairment, personality change and miscarriage.

Question 6

What is the case for the third requirement of the caparo test, which determines a new relationship (Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care) and what happened in it?

Answer 6

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire Police (1990):
A man committed 13 murders and 8 attempted murders over a five year period. The final victim’s mother made a claim against the Chief Constable on the grounds that the police had been negligent in their detection and detention of D.

Question 7

What case is used to determine an already known relationship? This replaces the third requirement of the Caparo Test.

Answer 7

Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire Police:
C was a 76 year old woman who was knocked over by a drug dealer who was being chased by the police. The two officers also tripped and fell onto the claimant when she was on the ground.