Negligence including General Defences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What 3 things must be proved in a negligence case?

A

D owed C a duty of care
D breached that duty of care
D’s breach caused the damage to C which was not too remote

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

What does Robinson v CCoWY say?

A

If a duty has been owed in a similar situation before, a duty should also be applied in this case.

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

When do you need to use Caparo v Dickman?

A

If a scenario is a novel or new situation.

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

What is the Caparo test?

A

-Would the reasonable person foresee a risk of damage from what D has done?

-Is there a proximity/ closeness (closeness of time and space or closeness through a relationship of knowledge or dependency) between D and C?

-Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D?

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

What does Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks define a breach of duty as?

A

D has fallen below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person doing the same activity.

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

What doesn’t lower the standard of care expected and which case shows this?

A

Inexperience. In Nettleship v Weston, D, a learner driver, was compared to the average competent driver even though she was a learner driver.

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

Which case said that profession or expertise raises the standard of care?

A

Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC. D was compared to the reasonable doctor.

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

What are the situations in which D would be compared to a professional?

A

-D actually has the skills/ expertise of a professional.

-D is acting in a way where they would be expected to be a professional (even if they don’t actually have the expertise).

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

What was the case where D was not compared to a professional because they weren’t a professional and weren’t expected to be one?

A

Wells v Cooper. D was compared to a reasonable person doing DIY.

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

Which case said that age lowers the standard of care and what is the standard lowered to?

A

Mullin v Richards. D will be compared to reasonable children of the same age.

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

What are the 4 risk factors that help determine if D has reached the standard of care expected of them?

A

-Size of risk
-Seriousness of potential harm
-Practicability of precautions
-Benefits of taking a risk

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

How does size of risk affect the likelihood that D breached their duty of care?

A

It looks at how likely is harm to happen. If the risk of harm is small, the reasonable person would take less precautions and so it is less likely D has breached the duty of care. If the risk of harm is high, the reasonable person would take more precautions and so it is more likely D has breached the duty of care.

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

Which cases would you use for size of risk?

A

-Bolton v Stone (1951)- The reasonable man will take less precautions against a small risk of harm.

-Miller v Jackson (1977)- The reasonable man will take more precautions if the risk of harm happening is high.

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

How does seriousness of potential harm affect the likelihood that D breached their duty of care?

A

It looks at how bad harm could be if it happened. The reasonable person would take more precautions if the potential harm to C could be serious and so D is more likely to have breached their duty of care.

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

Which case would you use for seriousness of potential harm?

A

Paris v SBC (1951)- The reasonable man would take more care when the potential harm to C could be serious.

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

How does practicability of precautions affect the likelihood that D breached their duty of care?

A

It looks at how cheap, easy and quick it was to take precautions to reduce the risk of harm. If it would have been cheap, easy and quick then D is more likely to be in breach as the reasonable person would have taken them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Which cases would you use for practicability of precautions?

A

-Paris v SBC (1951)- It would have been cheap,easy and practical for D to use Precautions.

-Haley v LEB (1965)- The precaution has to be practical

-Latimer v AEC (1952)- The reasonable man would take precautions that are proportionate to size of risk and seriousness of potential harm.

18
Q

How does potential benefits of taking a risk affect the likelihood that D breached their duty of care?

A

If the benefit outweighs the risk of harm to the claimant there is no breach. The reasonable person would take the risk if the potential benefit outweighs the risk.

19
Q

Which case would you use for potential benefits of taking a risk?

A

Watt v HCC (1954)- The reasonable man will take a risk if the potential benefit to be gained outweighs the risk.

20
Q

What 2 things must be proven for damage?

A
  • D’s breach caused the damage to C
  • The damage was not too remote
21
Q

Which case would you use for factual causation (but for test)?

A

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)
‘The damage would not have occurred but for the D’s breach of duty’

22
Q

Which case would you use for legal causation for V’s own actions?

A

Act of Victim (Reeves v MPC (1999))

23
Q

Which case would you use for legal causation for actions of a third party?

A

Act of third party (Wilkin-Shaw v Fuller (2013))

24
Q

Which case says that the type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable when deciding if the damage was too remote?

A

The type of damage must be foreseeable (The Wagon Mound (1961))

25
Q

Which case says that how the harm was caused does not have to be reasonably foreseeable when deciding if the damage was too remote?

A

How the damage happened can be unforeseeable (Hughes v Lord Advocate (1964))

26
Q

Which case says that the extent of harm does not have to be reasonably foreseeable when deciding if the damage was too remote?

A

The Extent (seriousness) of the harm can be unforeseeable (Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967))

27
Q

Which case shows the thin skull rule?

A

Thin skull rule (If the C suffers more damage due to a weakness/vulnerability the damage will not be too remote) - Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1961)

28
Q

What does the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 say?

A

That damages awarded to the claimant can be reduced depending on the extent to which the claimant contributed to his own injury. Therefore it is a partial defence because while it reduces the amount of damages, it does not stop D being liable.

29
Q

Which case would you use for contributory negligence and what does it say?

A

Sayers v Harlow(1958)- The court reduced damages because C played a part in causing the injury

30
Q

Is D still liable if volenti applies?

A

No

31
Q

What are the 3 elements to volenti?

A

-C knew the precise risk involved in the situation
-C was able to exercise free choice
-`C voluntarily accepted the risk

32
Q

What does the first element of volenti mean? (C knows the precise risk involved)

A

C knows the nature of the actual risk. It is not if C knew there was a risk, C must know the nature of the exact risk. It also doesn’t matter what the claimant or reasonable person should have known, it is what C actually knew so it is subjective.

33
Q

Which case said that C must know the specific risk involved in volenti?

A

Stermer v Lawson (1977)- C must not know there is a general risk, he must know that there is a risk of what happened, actually happening.

34
Q

What does the second element of volenti mean? (C was able to exercise free choice)

A

If C was forced into doing something through pressure, duress or obligation then they haven’t exercised free choice.

35
Q

Which cases would you use for the second element of volenti?

A

Smith v Baker (1891)- Where C is forced into accepting the risk, he has not exercised free will.

Ogwo v Taylor (1987)- C has a duty to act, they are forced to act and cannot exercise free choice.

36
Q

What does the third element of volenti mean and how is it different to the second? (Voluntary acceptance of risk)

A

Voluntary acceptance is where C chooses to take the risk anyway.
Exercising free will is where C could have chosen to avoid the risk.

37
Q

Which case would you use for the third element of volenti?

A

ICI v Shatwell (1965)- D voluntarily accepted the risk.

38
Q

What is Eval Point no1?

A

Robinson shows that duty of care should usually be decided based on previous precedents, unless it’s a novel case. On the one hand, this creates a lot of certainty because similar cases will be decided in similar ways, which creates fairness and makes it easy for lawyers and citizens to work out if a duty is owed.
However, one can argue that this may ignore the individual facts of these situations and create
rigidity, meaning that justice may not always be served to claimants and/or defendants.

39
Q

What is Eval point no2?

A

Nettleship v Weston shows inexperience does not lower the standard of care. This can be very unfair because it expects D to meet a standard that is higher than common sense would dictate. However, this rule creates certainty because all defendants will be held to the same objective standard, which also ensures high standards are maintained because inexperience will not be an
excuse.

40
Q

What is eval point no3?

A

The Egg shell skull means D is responsible for all damage, even if they didn’t know of C’s weakness. This creates certainty as D can always be sued in these cases and ensures justice for C who will never be blamed for being particularly weak. It also encourages D to take precautions to cover all eventualities. However, this could be unfair on D because they cannot take precautions against a weakness they do not know about, and conditions such as the cancer in Smith v Leech Brain can be very unforeseeable. This rigid rule may therefore create injustice.

41
Q

What is eval point no4?

A

Negligence is based on fault - ie D must have done something wrong (breach) and caused foreseeable damage to be liable. This is fair on D as they would not deserve to be sued if the situation was essentially an unforeseeable accident. This also rewards D for taking good precautions, which incentivises high standards of care. However, this means that C is not guaranteed compensation if they are affected by D’s conduct, which may be unfair on C if they are also not to blame for the incident. It may also only encourage D to take ‘enough’ precautions to escape liability, rather than all possible ones in a stricter system.

42
Q

Which case created negligence?

A

Donoghue v Stevenson