negligence- duty of care

Question 1

who defined this

Answer 1

Baron Alderson

Question 1

negligence definition

Answer 1

 failure to take proper care over something

Question 2

what did Baron Alderson define this as

Answer 2

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

Question 3

can negligence be done through an act or omission

Answer 3

both

Question 4

what case classes actions as ‘failure to take proper care’

Answer 4

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856

Question 5

what are 2 ways this case states is a failure of taking care of something

Answer 5

failure of inspection, failure to warn him of the dangers

Question 6

what 3 things need to be proven in negligence

Answer 6

Duty of care

Breach of duty

Causation of damage

Question 7

what is it meant by duty of care

Answer 7

to establish a legal relationship between the parties. A duty of care is a responsibility to look out for someone’s wellbeing.

Question 8

what case did this definition come from

Answer 8

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Question 9

what does this case bring (the rule)

Answer 9

the neighborhood principle- you must take reasonable care to avoid acts of omissions which you can reasonably foresaw would be likely to injure your neighbor

Question 10

what cases proposes what should be used to see if a duty of care is needed

Answer 10

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)

Question 11

what are the 2 things it puts forward
(a question and test)

Answer 11

‘is it a novel case?’
the caparo test

Question 12

‘is it a novel case?’- if yes…

Answer 12

judges will need to make a decision based on a number of principles, including- reasoning by analogy which asks are there similar situations where comparisons could be drawn to come to a logical conclusion?

Question 13

if no…

Answer 13

the courts should use the precedent of other similar cases (or a statute) to decide if there is a duty of care

Question 14

what did the caparo test replace (case+rule covered)

Answer 14

the neighbor principle from Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 15

what 3 questions does the caparo test ask

Answer 15

Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?

Is there sufficient proximity in the relationship between the claimant and defendant?

Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

Question 16

was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable case

Answer 16

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Question 17

sufficient proximity case

Answer 17

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Question 18

fair, just and reasonable case

Answer 18

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)

Question 19

development of the law questions next- not needed in scenario but could be an 8 marker!

Answer 19

do these in like reverse like also do them like calc over the left side too

Question 20

what case is about a duty of care outside a contractual situation

Answer 20

Winterbottom v Wright 1843

Question 21

what case stated a duty of care exists where the parties are in such proximity to one another that damage may be caused if care is not taken (2nd caparo qu)

Answer 21

Heaven v Pender 1883

Question 22

what case created neighborhood principle

Answer 22

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Question 23

what case stated a duty of care exists unless there is some ‘justification or valid explanation for its exclusion’ such as policy reasons. This is very broad

Answer 23

Home Office v Dorset Yacht 1970

Question 24

what case stated there was a 2 stage test to determine a duty of care

Answer 24

Anns v Merton London Borough Council 1977

Question 25

what were these 2 stages

Answer 25

sufficient legal proximity

absence of any policy reason to deny the duty of care

Question 26

what case applied a duty pf care in a purely contractual relationship- showing the duty pf care applies to economic losses too

Answer 26

Junior Books v Veitchi 1983

Question 27

what case brought the caparo test

Answer 27

caparo v dickman

Question 28

why was it introduced

Answer 28

there was concerns the law had become too broad to where a duty of care was owed