Paper 2: negligence

Question 1

Tort definition

Answer 1

A wrong which entitles the injured party to claim compensation from the person who committed it.

Question 2

Main types of tort

Answer 2

Negligence, defamation, trespasser, occupier’s liability, deceit, breach of statutory duty, nuisance etc

Question 3

What is the definition of negligence?

Answer 3

A civil wrong which entitles the injured party to claim for compensation from the defendant who caused the loss

Question 4

What are the 3 thins to prove or a successful claim?

Answer 4

1) A duty of care was owed
2) There was a breach of the duty
3) The breach caused the damage

Question 5

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks co. (1856)

Answer 5

“… something which a reasonable man.. would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do…”

Question 6

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 6

It was held that Donoghue was owed a duty of care, Lord Atkin decided that she was owed a remedy in law

Question 7

Neighbour principle

Answer 7

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which are reasonably foreseeable to injure your neighbour”

Question 8

Caparo v Dickman: modern day three stage test

Answer 8

1) Was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
2) Is there sufficient proximity between the parties?
3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the D?

Question 9

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Answer 9

It was held that a duty was owed as it was reasonably foreseeable that a person in C’s position would be further injured is an ambulance did not arrive on time

Question 10

What does proximity mean and what can it be in?

Answer 10

It is defined as closeness, this can be in time, space and relationship

Question 11

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Answer 11

No duty was owed by the defendant as the claimant was not there at the time the incident ocured

Question 12

McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983)

Answer 12

The HL said a duty was owed to the C. Even though there was no proximity in space and time, there was proximity through a relationship to those who came within the immediate aftermath of the event

Question 13

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire (1988)

Answer 13

The police owed no duty of care towards the daughter to protect her from the Ripper as it was not fair, just and reasonable. This could lead to police work being carried out with the aim of preventing claims and therefore lead to poor police work

Question 14

How do you breach your duty?

Answer 14

By falling below the standard of care that is required of you

Question 15

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)

Answer 15

“something which a reasonable man.. would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”

Question 16

Roe v Minister of Health (1954)

Answer 16

It must be measured against the state of knowledge at the time of the event and not with the benefit of hindsight. There must be a known risk as this risk was not known here, there was no breach of duty

Question 17

Who is the reasonable person?

Answer 17

..an ordinary person performing the particular task. The ordinary person is expected to perform this task in a reasonably competent manner

Question 18

5 factors affecting the standard of the reasonable man

Answer 18

1) Are there any special characteristics of the defendant
2) Are there any special characteristics of the claimant
3) What is the size of the risk
4) Have all precautions been taken
5) What are the benefits of taking the risk

Question 19

Bolam v Friern Hospital Professionals

Answer 19

A professional must reach the standard of care of another reasonably competent professional, not only that of an ordinary man

Question 20

Mullins v Richards (1998)

Answer 20

D must meet the standard of care of a reasonably competent child.

Question 21

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 21

D was expected to drive at the standard of a reasonably competent driver, even though it was her first lesson

Question 22

Paris v Stepney Bc (1951)

Answer 22

D owed a higher standard of care compared to that of an ordinary man (with two boring eyes) because they knew of the claimants condition

Question 23

What is the general principle of the size of the risk?

Answer 23

The greater the risk, the higher the standard of care that is owed by D.

Question 24

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Answer 24

D met the standard of care required. The ball clearing the fence and injuring someone is something the reasonable man would not have protected against

Question 25

Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)

Answer 25

HL said the D’s had done all that was reasonably expected without closing the factor to reduce the risk of injury, and therefore met the standard of care required

Question 26

Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954)

Answer 26

The benefit of saving a life outweighed the risk of injury to the firefighter. D met their duty of care

Question 27

What is the definition of damage?

Answer 27

The loss that someone has suffered

Question 28

What is the definition of damages?

Answer 28

Refers to the amount of compensation

Question 29

‘But for’ test

Answer 29

But for the defendant’s act or omission, the claimant would not have suffered any harm

Question 30

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1968)

Answer 30

But for the medical consultant not examining the deceased, he still would have died- so test not satisfied

Question 31

The Wagon Mound (1961)

Answer 31

The court held that damage by the oil was foreseeable, but the damage by the fire was not and therefore was too remote

Question 32

Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)

Answer 32

It was foreseeable that the C would suffer some cold-related injury, so the D’s were liable for frostbite even thought it was very unusual. Frostbite was seen as an extreme form of injury from being cold

Question 33

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

Answer 33

The risk of injury by burning was foreseeable, even though the explosion itself was not foreseeable

Question 34

Doughty v Turner Asbestos (1964)

Answer 34

It could be foreseen that things would fall into the molten metal and cause a splash, but the chemical reaction was knot known, and was therefore unforeseeable. The claim therefore failed because the damage was too remote

Question 35

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 35

Take your victim as you find them

Question 36

Smith v Leech Brain (!962)

Answer 36

Some minor injury was at least foreseeable and his extreme reaction was a result of his pre-existing condition, on the principle of taking your victim as you find them, the D was liable and the claim succeeded.