Paper 1: Negligence

Question 1

what’s Judicial precedent?

Answer 1

A decision made by a judge in a case. other judges follow the previous decision when another case arises with the same or similar facts

Question 2

how can courts avoid following previous precedent set?

Answer 2

1) more senior courts can be overrule a precedent set by a lower court
2) any judge can distinguish a case from a previous case of the facts are significantly different

Question 3

what are the three elements of negligence?

Answer 3

1) defendant owed the claimant a duty of care
2) defendant breached the duty of care (failed to act)
3) defendant caused claimant to suffer foreseeable damage

Question 4

Case for duty of care

Answer 4

Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 5

The modern approach to duty of care -case

Answer 5

Robinson V chief constable of West Yorkshire

Question 6

what is the modern approach of duty of care?

Answer 6

where a situation arises which is given by an existing rule - the court should follow the existing rule ( Donoghue v Stevenson)

where a situation arises which is very similar to an existing precedent- the court should follow the existing precedent

where novel situation arises- the court should use the Caparo V Dickman

Question 7

what are the three steps to the Caparo v dickman test?

Answer 7

1) the damage (harm) to the claimant was reasonably for seeable ( kent v griffins)

2) there was a proximity between the claimant and the defendant
- time and space
vowels v Evans
-a relationship
Osman v Ferguson

3) it is fair, jusy and reasonable to impose a duty of care
vowels v Evans

Question 8

Kent v Griffins

Answer 8

caparo v dickman

damage is reasonable foreseeable

Question 9

Osman v Ferguson and Vowels v Evans

Answer 9

there was proximity between the claimant and defendant
relationship - Osman v Ferguson
time and space - Vowels and Evans

Question 10

Vowels v Evans

Answer 10

it’s just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care on a private individual or business

Question 11

when defendant is a public authority

Answer 11

a duty of care will not be imposed due to policy and circumstances

Circumstances - Robinson v chef constable of west Yorkshire

policy - Hill v chef constable of south Yorkshire

Question 12

Robinson v chef constable of west Yorkshire

Answer 12

circumstance - public authority

Question 13

Hill v chief constable South Yorkshire

Answer 13

policy - Public authority, will not impose a duty of care

Question 14

policy reason against imposing a duty of care on a public authority

Answer 14

1) floodgate
allowing people to sue public authorities would open ‘floodgate’ to list of claims

2) defensive policing
public authority would be worried about being sued. This could lead to them becoming defensive in doing their jobs and lower there standard of work

3)resources
money would need to set aside funding legal cost. this money could be better spent doing the actual job

Question 15

Blyth v Birmingham waterworks

Answer 15

Defines breach of duty as where the defendant does not do something a reasonable man would or would not do

Question 16

nettleship v weston

Answer 16

inexperienced will be expected to meet the standard of the reasonable man

Question 17

what two characteristics which vary the standard of care

Answer 17

1) if they are a child

2) they are a professional

Question 18

what is the case for a child standard of care?

Answer 18

Mullins v richard
if the defendant is a child, will be compared so a child of the same age.
Standard of care is lowered than the reasonable man

Question 19

what is the case for the professional standard of care?

Answer 19

Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC
the standard of care will be compared to another professional in the same job.
standard of care is higher than the the reasonable man.

Question 20

what is the case for the average man for standard of care?

Answer 20

Wells v copper

compared to the reasonable man carrying out that activity. The standard of care is not different.

Question 21

define stare decisis

Answer 21

“to stand by what has been decided”

Question 22

what are the four risk factors and there cases?

Answer 22

1) the size of the risk
- Boton v stone
- Miller v Jackson

2) special characteristics of claimant
- Paris v Stepney brough council

3) practicability of precautions
- haley v London electricity board
- Latimer v AEC

4) Benefits of taking the risk
- watt v Mentfordshire county council

Question 23

What does the cases , Boton v stones outline and what does Miller v Jackson outline?

Answer 23

Both establish the side of the risk

Boton v stone - if the risk of harm is small the reasonable man would take less care. standard of care expected is lower

Miller v Jackson - if the risk of harm is bigger the reasonable man would take more care. standard of care expected is higher.

Question 24

what does the case Paris v Stepney brough council outline?

Answer 24

special characteristics of claimant
- if the claimant has special characteristics which put them in a greater danger then the reasonable man would take more care. Standard of care is higher

Question 25

what do the cases Haley v London Electricity Board and Latimer v AEC outline?

Answer 25

practicability of precaution
-Haley v London Electricity Board
if it was quick/easy/cheap to take precautions to guard against the risk, the reasonable man would take.
standard of care is higher

Latimer v AEC
-the reasonable man will take precautions which are proportionate to the size of risk and seriousness of protental harm.
If defendant has done this they have meet the standard of care expected and will not have breached their duty of care.

Question 26

What does the case Watt v Mentforshire County council outline

Answer 26

Benefits of taking the risk
if the risk involved a benefit to society the this outweighs the taking of the risk.
defendants is less likes to have breached there duty of care.

Question 27

what are the two types of causation?

Answer 27

Factual causation and legal Causation

Question 28

what are the tested used to find factual causation ?

Answer 28

The ‘but for’ test

Question 29

what are the tested used to find legal causation ?

Answer 29

sufficiently connected

Question 30

cases for factual causation

Answer 30

Barnett v Chelsea and kensington HMC

‘but for’ test

Question 31

Case for legal causation

Answer 31

Knightly v Johns

chain of causation beteeen defendant breach and their damage is unbroken.

Question 32

What are the three inverting acts?

Answer 32

1) action of a third party
2) claimants own actions
3) act of god

Question 33

It’s only a intervening act if

Answer 33

1) it is sufficiently independent if defendants actions

2) it is serious enough to break the chain of causation

Question 34

remoteness of dames cases

Answer 34

-the wagon mound
type of damage is reasonably foreseeable

-Hughes v Lord advocate
provide the type of hard claimant has suffered is foreseeable doesn’t matter how it happened

• Bradford v Robinson Rentals
  provides the type of harm claimant had suffered is foreseeable it doesn’t matter if the harm suffered is rare or extreme

-smith v Leech brain
provide the this if harm claimant has suffered is foreseeable if doesn’t matter if it’s more serious due to a hidden weakness of claimant

Question 35

the wagon mound

Answer 35

type of damage is reasonably foreseeable

Question 36

Hughes v Lord advocate

Answer 36

provide the type of hard claimant has suffered is foreseeable doesn’t matter how it happened

Question 37

Bradford V Robinson Rentals

Answer 37

provided the type of harm claimant had suffered is foreseeable it doesn’t matter if the harm suffered is rare or extreme

Question 38

Smith v Leech Brain

Answer 38

provide the this if harm claimant has suffered is foreseeable if doesn’t matter if it’s more serious due to a hidden weakness of claimant

Question 39

what does Res Ipsa Loquitur translate to?

Answer 39

“the facts speak for themselves”

Question 40

when will Rea Ipsa Loquitur be applied? Case

Answer 40

Scott V London’s and st Kathrine Docks co

Question 41

when will Rea Ipsa Loquitur be applied in what conditions?

Answer 41

1) the situation was under defendant’s control
2) the barn would not have happened if the defendant had taken proper care
3) there is no other obvious reason why harm occurred

Question 42

what is the effect of Rea Ipsa Loquitur?

Answer 42

1) burden of proof shifts to defendant
2) defendant must then give an explanation why they were not negligent
3) if they cannot then they will be found liable

Question 43

The law reform ( contributory negligence) act 1954

defined contributory negligence as ?

Answer 43

defined:

where claimant contributes to their own damage/injuries/loss

Question 44

name the two cases for contributory negligence

Answer 44

1) Sawyer V Harrow urban district Council
- reduce claimants compensation

2) Jayesh v IMI ( kynoch) ltd
court decides it’s 100% the claimant fault and no compensation will be given

Question 45

Sawyer V Harrow urban district

Answer 45

where the claimant contributes to their own damage/loss/injuries the court will reduce the claimants.

Question 46

Jayesh v IMI ( kynoch) ltd

Answer 46

A court can decide that the claimant is responsible for 100% of their own damage/interest/losses if so they will receive no compensation at all