Paper 2.7 - Negligence Flashcards
What is tort law and what is its aim?
Tort law is when a person wrongs another; its aim is to compensate reasonable claimants.
What is negligence?
Negligence is an action or omission that causes injury or damage to another person or their property.
What are the three elements of negligence?
D owes C a duty of care.
D breaches this duty.
Breach causes foreseeable damage / injury (causation).
When testing whether D owes C a duty of care, what are the two tests a judge could do?
The Neighbour Test / Principle.
The Caparo Test.
What is the Neighbour Principle and what case created this?
‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee injury to your neighbour.’
Donoghue vs Stevens
Dead snail found in C’s beer; however, the drink was purchased as a gift by her friend. It was decided the manufacturer was liable.
When did the Caparo test replace the Neighbour Principle?
1990.
What are the three stages of the Caparo test?
Was damage reasonably foreseeable?
Is there significant proximity between C & d?
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
According to Caparo, damage must be reasonably foreseeable. What is the case example of this?
Kent (v Griffiths) 2000
Ambulance took a very long time to deliver C to hospital during asthma attack for no reason, causing respiratory arrest; hospital were liable to compensation as the damage to C were foreseeable.
What three elements make up proximity under Caparo?
Time, space or relationship.
According to Caparo, the relationship between C & d must be proximate. What is the case example for this?
Bourhill (1943)
C, pregnant, hears the sound of an accident and searches for the scene. When she finds it, she is so shocked that her baby dies. She sues a relative of the dead motorcyclist. However, there was no proximity between C & d so there was no liability.
OR
McLoughlin (1982)
C’s husband and children are killed in a serious car accident due to the negligence of a lorry driver. She suffered from shock and depression in the immediate aftermath and sues the lorry driver. D is related to C by killing her family; therefore he was liable.
According to Caparo, the duty of care must be fair, just and reasonable (FJR) to enforce. What is the case example of this?
Hill (1989)
C’s daughter is killed by the Yorkshire Ripper, a serial killer police were aware of and could have arrested before the murder. However, it was decided that the police weren’t liable as it would not be FJR to enforce a duty of care on the police.
OR
Robinson (2018)
C was injured by police who were chasing after a drug dealer. Supreme Court overruled Hill and decided that it was FJR to enforce a duty of care on police.
Aside from allowing lawsuits against police, what other major legal point did Robinson establish?
Caparo test was not needed when there was already an established duty of care.
In Caparo, C has to show that the duty of care has been breached. What is the standard for this proof?
Objective; eg a reasonable person’s point of view.
Would a reasonable —– have acted in the same way?
In element two of negligence, C has to show that the duty of care has been breached by an objective standard. What is the case example of this?
Blythe (1856)
C sued d, who installed a faulty water plug. Since d is compared to a reasonable tradesperson, they were found liable.
In element two of negligence, professionals are held to a different standard of care than a normal person. What is the case example of this?
Bolam (1957)
C was receiving shock treatment for an illness. He signed a consent form that failed to mention the risk of injury and broke his pelvis because the doctors did not give him any relaxant meds. However, since the meds were only recommended, the doctor acted in a reasonable way; not liable.
In element two of negligence, learners are held to the same standard of care as a normal person. What is the case example for this?
Nettleship (1971)
D, a learner driver, injures C with her dangerous driving. She was liable, as learners are held to the standard of fully qualified individuals.
In element two of negligence, children are held to a different standard of care than a normal person. What is the case example for this?
Mullins (1998)
D, a child, snaps a ruler into C’s eye. D was not liable because children are held to the standard of other children.
What are the four risk factors that fall under Caparo element 2?
Special characteristics.
Adequate precautions.
Public benefit.
Size of risk.
In negligence, in the event that d is not aware of a risk that causes harm, are they liable? What case decides this?
No.
Roe (1954)
Due to lack of scientific knowledge at the time, cleaning liquid seeped into C’s anaesthetic, paralysing him. D was not liable due to lack of knowledge of the risk.
What is a special characteristics risk factor and what is the case example?
Special characteristics is when a c requires more care due to their condition eg injury, illness.
Paris (1951)
C, blind in one eye, sustains damage to his working eye while working due to a lack of protective equipment. Employer should have taken greater care due to his condition and was liable to more damages.
What is an adequate precautions risk factor and what is the case example of this?
The d has put adequate precautions in place to counteract the danger, nullifying their liability.
Latimer (1953)
Factory floods with oil and water, making the floor slippery. Owner puts sawdust on the ground to reduce the slip and workers continue. Worker slips and is injured, however there is no breach due to sawdust.
What is a public benefit risk factor and what is the case example for this?
There is great public benefit that makes d’s action or omission worth the risk of injury.
Watt (1954)
C, a fire-fighter, is sent to a scene with an unsecured jack on his personal truck as no fire engines were available. The jack falls off and hurts C, however the fire service were not liable due to the urgency of getting to the scene.
What is a size of risk risk factor and what is the case example of this?
The size of risk is already so small, it requires no further reduction to warrant reaching their duty of care.
Bolton (1951)
D hits a cricket ball over his club’s fence and hits a lady. The ball only escaped the fence 6 times in the last 30 years. The miniscule size of risk meant D was not liable for injuries.
What are the two requirements of the final element of negligence?
Damage must be caused.
Damage must not be too remote.
