Negligence I Flashcards

1
Q

From which case does the neighbour principle come from?

A

Donoghue v Stevenson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How has the test for finding a duty of care developed?

A

Anns v Merton LBC created a two stage test
Caparo v Dickman then established the three stage test for confirming a duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the Caparo test?

A
  1. Proximity
  2. Obvious risk of harm
  3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What does Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police tell us about the duty of care?

A

The ordinary principles of negligence apply to public authorities, no special immunity for the police

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What does Poole BC v CG tell us about public authorities?

A

Public authorities do not owe a duty of care at common law merely because they have statutory duties or powers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does Bolton v Stone tell us about the standard of care required?

A

Magnitude of risk must be taken into account, remote possibility of injury is not enough, there must be sufficient probability that it would occur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does the The Wagon Mound No2 say in relation to a risk?

A

Even if small, if the D was carrying out an illegal activity which they knew of and could have cleaned this up they will be liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Why was the standard of care different in Paris v Stepney Borough Council?

A

D had fallen below the standard of care by not providing protection to someone with a greater injury risk (this would be taken into account against the reasonable man)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How does the law treat learner drivers, children and professionals?

A

Nettleship v Weston- no change for learner drivers
Mullin v Richards- lower standard of care for children
Bolam- No negligence if a man acts in a way accepted as proper by a responsible body of individuals in that career

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the rule for adults with mental impairments?

A

Dunnage v Randall & UK Insurance, not considered in the standard of care unless the person has not acted at all

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is recoverable as damage in negligence?

A

Hunter v Canary Wharf, must be damage in the sense of a physical change in property
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating, psychiatric illness can be recoverable but with certain restrictions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the test to find whether the defendant has caused injury?

A

The ‘but for’ test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was the question of causation in Bonnington?

A

Whether the thing materially contributed to injury, this meaning more than minimal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Who is the burden of proof on in proving an act caused the injury?

A

Wilsher v Essex Health Authority, burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the act has caused injury on the balance of probabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the rule with scientific uncertainty?

A

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services, where there is scientific uncertainty there should be a relaxation of the but for test
Liable if there was a material increase in risk of injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How should damage be decided in cases where the Fairchild exception applies?

A

Damages for each defendant are limited in proportion to their risk contributed
Barker v Corus Plc

17
Q

What is the law on loss of chance?

A

Loss of chance is not recoverable in negligence
Gregg v Scott

18
Q

What is meant by remoteness?

A

D will not be liable where the injury is too remote (i.e. too far removed) from their original act

19
Q

What was decided in The Wagon Mound No1?

A

D was not liable because they could not have reasonably foreseen the damage occurring due to fire as a result of spilling oil

20
Q

What does Hughes v Lord Advocate tell us about remoteness?

A

It does not matter if the sequence of events that happen are unusual, what matters is if the type of injury is foreseeable or not

21
Q

What is the thin skull rule?

A

A particular weakness of the victim that an ordinary person would not have cannot be used as a defence to negligence even if it means injury was not reasonably foreseeable
Smith v Leech Brain & Co

22
Q

What does Page v Smith tell us about reasonable foreseeability?

A

It does not matter for a primary victim if psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable or not so long as the risk of physical injury is foreseeable

23
Q

What is the SAAMCO Principle?

A

If an adviser is instructed by a client to advise whether to enter into a transaction and is negligent in doing so, the client is entitled to recover all losses from this HOWEVER if an adviser is simply providing information that is used alongside other things, they are only liable for loss from this information if it was incorrect