Nelgignece

Question 1

P1

Answer 1

No definition of proximity

Question 2

P1 AO1

Answer 2

Incremental approach
Bourhill V young - physical
Mclonglin V o Brien - relationship
Alcock - not for secondary victim

Question 3

P1 ao3

Answer 3

Left up to judges for proximity and relationship
Creates inconsistencies and hard for lawyer to advise
Large powers to judges and not separation of powers
Takes long time for cases as not set requirements

Question 4

P1 however

Answer 4

Allows for flexibility

Alcock- secondary victim form alcock is clear cannot just witness an offence

Question 5

P2

Answer 5

Public policy and compensation culture

Question 6

P2 Ao1
Public policy

Answer 6

Hugged V lord advocate - if damage suffered was reasonably foreseenable it does not matter if occurred in unforeseen way

However

Wagon mound - not too remote

Question 7

P2 ao3
Public policy

Answer 7

Allowing foreseeable damage that occurred in unforeseen way allows for large amount of claims high wait times
should someone be held accountable for somthing occurring in unforeseen way despite in being foreseeable in some way

Question 8

P2 ao3 howver

Answer 8

Not allowing remoteness of damage reduces claims and not CREATE COMPENSATION CULTURE

Protect public policy under reasonable man
Bollom - medical profession ensures they are held as professional
Nettle ship V western - learning is no excuse

Question 9

P3

Answer 9

Risk factors and society

Question 10

Risk factors Ao1

Answer 10

Degree of probability harm will be done - balton V stone

Mag of likely harm - Paris V Stephany

Cost and practically of preventing - Latimer

Benefit to risk - Dan born V bath tramways

Question 11

Risk factor ao3

Answer 11

Benefit to risk - should a benefit to society be able to harm someone

Bentham harm principle- greatest good for greatest number. Howver negligent claim would harm the few

Question 12

P4

Answer 12

Damages

Question 13

P4 Ao1

Answer 13

Look at insurance
Nominal damages -
Contributory negligence act 1945
Froome V butcher

Question 14

P4 ao3

Answer 14

Unfair to look at insurance and penalise a prepared party
No point in nominal damages - case should not waste time in court if aim of damages is not being for filled

However lane commission reform in contributory negligence act is good

Question 15

Damages ao3

Answer 15

Should no penalised a prepared party for having insurance

Nominal damages - should not be allowed to waste court time if aim of damages is not being for filled - no point in them

Contributory negligence is good and clear - fair for defendants

Question 16

Final paragraph

Answer 16

Reforms

Question 17

Reform idea 1

Answer 17

State run benefit system
- C can claim for government instead of individual- howver expense on tax but could be saved in costs of courts

Question 18

Reform idea
2

Answer 18

Set sets for each stage like what is proximate, what makes a case just and reasonable. Set test for risk factors as to what level of probability is needed

Respect separation of powers
Howver precedence has worked for so long and creates consistency why change it now. Could also increase case wait times as acts are normally Broad so judge would have to make new precedence to fill gaps