Negligence Test Revision

Question 1

What case established a duty of care?

Answer 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 2

Who established the definition of duty of care?

Answer 2

Lord Atkin

“You must take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

Question 3

What did lord atkin define your “neighbour” as

Answer 3

Person so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to reasonably have them in contemplation as being affected when directing my mind to act or omissions called into question “

Simplified- anyone who can be effected by your act or omissions

Question 4

What 4 things must a claimant show on the balance of probability to establish liability in negligence.

Answer 4

1)defendant owed duty of care AND
2) defendant breached that duty AND
3) that breach of duty caused the damage or loss c suffered

Question 5

What was established in nettleship v Weston

Answer 5

A driver owed a duty of care to his passenger and other road users

Question 6

What was established in Montgomery v Lanarkshire

Answer 6

A doctor owes a duty of care to his patients

Question 7

What was established in condon v basi

Answer 7

A sportsman owes a duty of care to another sportsman in the same match

Question 8

What was established in walker v Northumberland CC

Answer 8

An employer owes a duty of care to employees

Question 9

What was established in Arthur JS hall &co V simons

Answer 9

A lawyer owes a duty of care to their client

Question 10

What happens if the facts are similar to one of these cases?

Answer 10

The court will reason by analogy

Question 11

What are the 4 factors we consider of its a novel situation

Answer 11

1) was the harm reasonably foreseeable
2) is there proximity between claimant and the defendant
3) is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on defendant
4) distinction between acts and omissions

Question 12

What is breach of duty?

Answer 12

The court will consider what is expected of D and weather he failed to do it or did it to a poor standard

Question 13

What test do we use for the standard expected? And what case did it come from

Answer 13

Standard of a reasonable man

Blyth v Birmingham waterworks

Question 14

What is factual causation?

Answer 14

Factual causation is satisfied if the damage suffered by c would not have happened “but for” D breach of duty

Question 15

What case established factual causation? 🥶

Answer 15

Barnett v Chelsea hospital

Question 16

Even if the but for test is satisfied, what 3 intervening acts can break it?

Answer 16

Intervening act of claimant- McKew v Holland

Intervening act of nature/god- carslogie steamship Co v royal Norwegian government

Intervening act of 3rd party- knightly v johns

Question 17

What is legal causation?

Answer 17

D will only be liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable. If the damage is not reasonably foreseeable it’s referred to as “too remote”

Question 18

What case established legal causation?

Answer 18

The wagon mound no1

Question 19

What are the 3 situations where legal causation can be satisfied even if it’s not entirely reasonably foreseeable?

Answer 19

Type of damage caused: Bradford v Robinson rentals

Sequence of events: hughes v Lord advocate

The “eggshell skull rule”: Smith v Leech brain

Question 20

What is contributory negligence?

Answer 20

Where D can show that C own behaviour was below standers of reasonable person AND this behaviour contributed to C loss

Question 21

What act created contributory negligence?

Answer 21

Law reform act 1945

Question 22

In what case was the claimant partially to blame for the accident happening?

Answer 22

Brannon V airtours

Led to damages reduced by 50%

Question 23

In what case did C not cause the accident but their actions made their injuries worse?

Answer 23

Froom v butcher

Lead to a 15-25% reduction in damages

Question 24

What is consent in law?

Answer 24

Consent is where the claimant knows there is a risk of D acting negligently and freely consents to take that risk.

Question 25

What are the 3 situations where legal causation can be satisfied even if not entirely reasonably foreseeable

Answer 25

Type of damage caused

Sequence of events

The eggshell skull rule

Question 26

What is sequence of events and what’s the case?

Answer 26

Sequence of events: if the type of damage that results from C’s breach of duty is reasonably foreseeable, it does not matter if the exact sequence of events leading to the damage is not.

Hughes v lord advocate

Question 27

What is type of damage caused and what’s the case

Answer 27

Type of damage caused: if the general type of damage caused is reasonably foreseeable then it does not matter if the precise type of damage was not.

Bradford v robison rentals

Question 28

What is the eggshell skull rule and what’s the case?

Answer 28

The ‘eggshell skull’ rule: as long as some damage is foreseeable, D will be liable for its full extent, even if this could not be foreseen. This also applied to property damage.

Smith v leech brain