Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Duty

Question 1

‘Neighbour Principle’

Answer 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 2

What is the definition of a ‘neighbour’?

Answer 2

Persons so closely and directly affected by an act that the defendant ought reasonably to have had them in contemplation when directing their mind to acts or omissions.

Question 3

It is about small, incremental increases in the scope of liability.

Answer 3

Caparo

Question 4

There is no duty on the fire service to help anyone who has called for their help.

Answer 4

Capital & Counties

Question 5

Advocates can be sued for negligent conduct in a trial.

Answer 5

Arthur JS Hall

Question 6

Soldiers fighting in a war cannot be sued for negligence.

Answer 6

Mulcahy

Question 7

Police owe a duty to informants as the total number is relatively small and their work greatly important.

Answer 7

Swinney

Question 8

What is the definition of negligence?

Answer 8

The breach of a legal duty of care owed to a claimant that results in harm to the claimant, undesired by the defendant.

Question 9

A defendant owes a duty of care to a rescuer where they have created a dangerous situation and it is reasonably foreseeable that someone might attempt a rescue.

Answer 9

Baker

Question 10

What are the three elements of the Caparo test for novel duty situations?

Answer 10

(a) Reasonable foresight of harm; (b) Sufficient proximity of relationship; (c) Would it be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

Question 11

The courts must develop the law ‘incrementally and by analogy’ with established authority.

Answer 11

Robinson

Question 12

A case where harm was not reasonably foreseeable.

Answer 12

Bourhill

Question 13

A case where it was held that it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

Answer 13

Bishop Rock Marine Co

Question 14

Police do not owe a duty to the public at large.

Answer 14

Hill

Question 15

Police may owe a duty when they have assumed responsibility for somebody.

Answer 15

Kirkham

Question 16

The police owe no duty to a claimant being harassed by a third party.

Answer 16

Osman

Question 17

There is a key difference between positive acts (a duty will be imposed) and omissions (a duty will not be imposed)

Answer 17

Robinson

Question 18

The general rule is that you do not owe a duty for omissions.

Answer 18

Stovin v Wise

Question 19

If you do not owe a duty but intervene anyway, you will not be liable in Negligence unless you make matters worse.

Answer 19

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board

Question 20

There is a duty to act positively in tort if a person has some sort of power or control over the other person or object.

Answer 20

Dorset Yacht

Question 21

An education authority owes a duty to others to prevent children under their control endangering the public.

Answer 21

Lewis

Question 22

No duty is owed by occupiers to prevent damage caused to neighbouring properties by third parties over whom they have no control.

Answer 22

Littlewoods Organisation

Question 23

A defendant must meet the standards of a reasonable person.

Answer 23

Blyth

Question 24

The test for a ‘reasonable person’ is impersonal.

Answer 24

Glasgow Corp v Muir

Question 25

Professionals must meet the standards of their profession.

Answer 25

Bolam

Question 26

It is always up to the court to decide in final whether a skilled defendant has acted reasonably or otherwise.

Answer 26

Bolitho

Question 27

A learner driver must meet the standards of the reasonably competent driver.

Answer 27

Nettleship

Question 28

A junior doctor on their first shift must meet the standard of a hypothetical competent doctor in that post.

Answer 28

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

Question 29

A householder who attempts a job normally done by a professional is negligent if the job should not even have been attempted without appropriate training.

Answer 29

Wells

Question 30

A child defendant should be expected to show such care as can reasonably be expected of someone of their age.

Answer 30

Mullin

Question 31

A case evidencing a low magnitude of risk.

Answer 31

Bolton v Stone

Question 32

A case evidencing a higher magnitude of risk.

Answer 32

Miller v Jackson

Question 33

An injury to a claimant blind in one eye’s good eye would produce a much more serious consequence than if they were fully sighted.

Answer 33

Paris

Question 34

A defendant’s actions in not shutting down a relevant part of a factory were reasonable because of the relatively small risk of injury and the potential consequences of closure.

Answer 34

Latimer

Question 35

If human life is at stake, a defendant may be justified in taking abnormal risks.

Answer 35

Watt

Question 36

Compliance with an accepted trade practice is strong evidence of abiding by the expected standard of care unless the practice itself is negligent.

Answer 36

Re The Herald of the Free Enterprise

Question 37

Whether a risk is foreseeable must be judged in light of knowledge available to the defendant at the time of the event.

Answer 37

Roe

Question 38

The defendant’s duty is to guard against ‘reasonable probabilities not fantastic possibilities’.

Answer 38

Fardon

Question 39

A rare event is not necessarily a ‘fantastic possibility’.

Answer 39

Lewis

Question 40

What are the three conditions of res ipsa loquitor?

Answer 40

St Katherine Docks Co:

(a) The thing causing the damage is under the control of the defendant or someone for whom they are responsible;
(b) The accident would not normally happen without negligence;
(c) The cause of the accident is unknown to the claimant, i.e. no direct evidence of failure by the defendant to exercise reasonable care.

Question 41

A defendant who has been convicted of a criminal offence is presumed, in any subsequent civil proceedings, to have committed that offence.

Answer 41

s11 Civil Evidence Act (CEA) 1968