Principles

Question 1

Bonnington Principle

Answer 1

This is the “but for” test.

Demonstrates that D’s actions caused C’s injury.

But for D’s …negligence, C is now injured.

Very effective at showing material contribution.

Question 2

Caparo Test

Answer 2

Damage needs to be foreseeable; Sufficient Proximate relationship between the parties; Fair, just and Reasonable to impose that Duty of Care.

Question 3

Bolam Test

Answer 3

Any medical professional who would be in the same situation as the Defendant would have done the same and resulting in the same outcome.

Question 4

Neighbour Principle

Answer 4

Reasonable Foreseeability: D would reasonably foresee that the failure to take care will result injury to another.

Proximity: A claimant needs to be closely and directed affected by D’s actions. (Close and Direct Relations)

Foreseeability + Sufficient Proximity = DOC

e.g. A manufacturer owes a duty of care to ensure that their drinks do not contain anything harmful that might result in injury to the consumer and therefore owe a DOC to the consumer.

Question 5

Thin Skull Rule

Answer 5

Take the victim as you find them. Doesn’t matter if the injury is more serious due to a person’s condition.

Question 6

BOD Factors

Answer 6

Likelihood of the Harm; Seriousness of the Injury; Cost of Precautions; social Value

Question 7

All or Nothing Approach

Answer 7

This is where C has to prove that D has contributed to an injury 51% or more in order to be awarded 100% of the damages.

If the C only manages to prove 50% or less, he gains nothing as stated in the name of the approach.

Question 8

Vicarious Liability

Answer 8

There has to be a bond between employer-employee.

There has to be a Tortious Act committed.

Tort has to be committed in the course of employment.

Question 9

Alcock Criteria

Answer 9

Recognised Psychiatric Illness -> Close ties of Love and Affection with Victim -> Single Shocking Event -> Proximity in Time and Space (NO AIDED SENSES).