Obligations 1A Sec A

Question 1

Explanation of the ‘neighbourhood principle’ in reference to quotations from Lord Atkin’s speech…

Answer 1

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

Who is proximate enough that I should consider them in my actions and omissions?

Question 2

What authorities can be relied on for the Contemporary DoC since Donoghue is relevant but not the leading authority to reference?

Answer 2

Hedley v Heller (bank statement to the company that wasn’t credit worthy)
there cannot be an assumption of responsibility if you declare you have no duty prior to the act.

Did they voluntarily undertake to ensure that the claimant achieved what they were aiming for (e.g. got to her job interview)? Did they know that the pursuer was relying on them for this service? Did the pursuer rely on them to perform that service? Legal test for misrepresentation.

Question 3

Duty of Care as a Threshold Device authorities…

Answer 3

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (no Caparo, ‘reasonable foreseeability’ of risk from negligent actions, rather than a concrete set of standards to meet in Caparo.)

not an unlimited general rule. It must be in line with public policy considerations.

Question 4

Pure Economic Loss authorities

Answer 4

Hedley v Heller (limiting the scope of claims for PEL)

Refer to twomax for Scottish authority.

Question 5

Personal Injury for threshold DoC

Answer 5

Mitchell v Glasgow City Council. the narrowness of what can be claimed for under personal injury, apply Robinson.

Question 6

Strong Primary and Secondary Victimhood Authorities (including nervous shock)

Answer 6

Bourhill v Young (no relationship between primary and secondary victimhood = no claim)

McLoughlin (

Question 7

Definition of ‘Shock?’

Answer 7

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire -

The shock must be sudden, not a long period of slow building psychological harm.

Got to be perceived, you must see it either by sight or sound.

Not trauma but a single horrific incident.

Question 8

Test for Nervous shock and secondary victimhood

Answer 8

1. There is a risk to personal injury to the primary victim - there was a risk of injury from the faulty harness.
2. Close tie or bond - ?
3. Proximity to the event - he actually perceived the event
4. Direct perception of the act, the secondary victim perceives the event at the time or immediate aftermath - he saw it personally.

McLoughlin v O’brien

Question 9

Definition of a secondary victim with authority

Answer 9

Page v Smith - those not directly involved in the accident but perceive it through their bond with the primary victim.

Question 10

Involuntary actions cannot constitute to negligence, Authority?

Answer 10

Waugh v James K Allan 1964

Question 10

Recognised Psychological Injury definition and authority

Answer 10

Simpson v ICI 1983 - This shock must leave a lasting effect and proves that they have suffered a physical, mental or nervous injury.

Question 11

Defining the limits of secondary victimhood with authority

Answer 11

Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust 2024.

Question 12

Calculus of Risk six factors

Answer 12

Probability of Injury

Severity of the Injury

Utility of pursuer’s actions

Precautions of the defendant

Practicality of the precautions

Workplace norms and practices

Question 13

Probability of Injury risk authority

Answer 13

Bolton v Stone 1951

Question 14

Severity of the Injury risk authority

Answer 14

Paris v Stepney Borough Council 1951 - In determining the duty of care which an employer owes to his employees, the test must be what precautions would the ordinary, reasonable and prudent man take.

Question 15

Social Utility of the pursuer’s actions

Answer 15

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council 2003 - pursuer dived into a pond, quarry did not pose a threat

Question 16

Practicality of precautions risk authority

Answer 16

Bowes v Highland Council - driving accident, bridge damaged and ignored by council

Question 17

Cost of Precautions risk authority

Answer 17

Collins v Quench Retailing - armed robbery case

Question 18

Workplace practice standards and norms risk authority

Answer 18

Brown v Rolls Royce Ltd - A negligent activity cannot be excused merely because it is common practice. Nevertheless, the fact that something is generally practised may be strong evidence that it is not negligent.

Question 19

Factual causation and authority

Answer 19

‘But for’ test - Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management.

Question 20

Legal Causation and authority

Answer 20

Donaghy v NCB - last proximate cause for the loss caused, proximate cause.

Question 21

Novus actus interveniens authority

Answer 21

McKew v Holland and Hannon and Cubitts - damages for first claim, second claim no claim since he caused the second leg break.

Question 22

Volenti non fit injuria authority and test.

Answer 22

Titchener v British Railways Board 1984

1. The pursuer knew of the risk of danger before the act or omission which caused harm.

2. The pursuer knowingly and willingly undertook that risk created by the defender’s breach of duty of care.  If this is proved, the liability of the defender is expunged.

Question 23

Contributory negligence test and authority/s

Answer 23

Sawyer v Harlow District Council - contributing to the loss in some way

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s1.

reduce damages to an extent at the leisure of the court, no defeat to a defence.