tort law - negligance personal injuries

Question 1

Watson v British boxing Board of Control.

Answer 1

• the board owed him a duty of care.

legal principle - allows for novel situations to be investigated

Question 2

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

ASK MISS CURRY

Answer 2

2 police men struggled with an arrest. resulted in them knocking over women
- she claimed damages for foreseeable personal injury caused by their negligence.

legal principle - courts rejected what was held in hill, where it was decided that police could not be held responsible for the whole public. this case overrules this.

Question 3

elements of negligance

Answer 3

1. there was a duty of care awed to the claimant
   - reasonably foreseeable harm
   -proximity of relationship
   - fair just and reasonable to claim they owed a duty.
2. the duty of care has been breached
   - d falls below standard of care
   - appropriate to the degree of risk
3. the breach of duty has caused the damage
   - defendants breach caused the damage
   - damage was reasonable foreseeable

Question 4

element one of negligence
1. Duty of care

Answer 4

• sets out a legal relationship between the claimant and the defendant
• this was established in Donoghue v Stephenson - the neighbour principle

Question 5

Donoghue v Stephenson

Answer 5

Drink at café had a dead decomposing snail in it. she suffered psychiatric and psychological injuries.
- she could not claim through law of contract as her friend had brought the drink so she sued the manufacture of negligence. - she said there was a fault in the manufacturing process and they owed her a duty of care.

extra info - House of Lord Atkin - when a person would owe a duty to another - “you must take care to ovoid omission which you can reasonably foresee, would be likely to injure your neighbour”

WHO iS YOIU NEIGHBOUR? - person who is closely and directly affected by my act,

lp- the neighbour principle

Question 6

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 6

company, they thought business was making a profit until they brought it ad looked at the detailed accounts.
lp - sets out the 3 stage test for owing a duty of care - a novel situation

Question 7

elements of Caparo test

Answer 7

• was used when neighbour principle was hard to apply

1. was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
2. is there a sufficiently close relationship between the claimant and the defendant. - apply neighbour principle
3. is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty.

Question 8

first element of Caparo test.
1. was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable.
- based upon the reasonable person test

Answer 8

• this is based on the reasonable person test it depends on the facts of the case.
• kent v griffths 2000
  out lines - it was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer further illness if the ambulance did not not arrive promptly.

Question 9

1. Caparo test element 1 - reasonably forseeeable

Kent v Griffiths 2000

Answer 9

• ambulance was called, ambulance failed to arrive. claimants injured worsened.

lp - outlines it was reasonably foreseeable claimant would suffer further injury if the ambulance id not arrive.

Question 10

2. element 2 of Caparo test
   - proximity of relationship

Answer 10

• even if the harm is reasonably foreseeable, needs to be shown there is a relationship between d and the claimant.
• covers cases where d is not directly related to d but they can still sue.
• must be a link between 2 parties.

Question 11

Bourhill v Young.

Answer 11

pregnant women heard accident. went to have a look the motorcyclist died
- she birthed a still born
- she sued the family of the dead motor cyclist. under the neighbour test - she had to show she was proximate to the motorcyclist so that she was owed a duty of care.

lp- it was considered the relationship between the 2 was not close enough for their to be a duty of care - this reduces loads of other claims being made

Question 12

McLooughlin v O’brien 1982

Answer 12

claimants husband and children got in a car accident. child died due to lorry driver negligence. wife suffered from this causing psychiatric injury’s which she is claiming about. courts decided lorry driver owed a duty of car
lp = owed a duty of care to a family member

Question 13

element 3.
- fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Answer 13

• allows the courts to decide if it is right, to impose a duty of care on the defendant
• allows the courts to consider what is best for society as a whole
• also consider if the claim will open flood gates for other similar cases
• courts are often reluctant to find that it is fair just and reasonable to impose a impose a duty of care on public authorities as it would lead to an increase in people suing the police - impact public spending.

Question 14

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 14

Yorkshire ripper - murdered women
mum of v who died sued the police for not finding the ripper sooner.
- she said the police had a duty of care against her daughter
lp -had no way of knowing who the v might have been
- held that the police are not responsibke for whole of public
- held

Question 15

2. breach of duty - objective standard.

• bolam test

Answer 15

• once it has been established that a duty of care is owned, it then needs to be established that the duty of care has been breached.
• this is the objective standard of a reasonable person.
• example of a reasonable person - driver, doctor, manufacturer
• courts needs to decide if there are any special characteristics that the defendant has for example - inexperienced leaner, professional or a child

Question 16

Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Managemnet Committee.

Answer 16

lp - sets the Bolam test
need to ask oter proffesionals

Revise

Question 17

The Bolam test

Answer 17

• 2 questions to ask when deciding if a professional has breached their duty of care.
• does the d conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary, member of the profession
• • is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course of action taken by the defendant.

Question 18

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 18

lp - learners are expected to show the same standard as passed drivers

ensures that any claims made against the driver are covered by the insurance policy and drivers cant get out of paying. - learner drivers

Question 19

Mulin v Richards

Answer 19

2 15 yr old girl were play fighting with plastic rulers . One of the ruler snapped and fragments entered Teresa Mullins eye results in her loosing all useful eyesight.
courts decided that the other girl Heidi Richards had to meet the standard of a 15v year old school girl.
she had reached the required standard she had not breached her duty of care.
- it was reasonable for a 15 year old girls to play fight with rulers.

lp - children are assessed against the standard of a reasonable person of the same age

Question 20

Risk factors

Answer 20

• courts can also consider risk factors - this can raise or lower the standard of care.
• has the claimant got any special characteristics that should be taken account of
• what is the size of the risk
• have all appropriate precautions been taken
• were the risks known about at the time of the accident.

Question 21

special characteristics

• Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

Answer 21

lp - has the claimant any special characteristics that should be taken account of.

Question 22

Bolton v Stone 1951

Answer 22

p - when there is a higher risk of injury, the more precautions should be taken .

Question 23

Hayley v London Electricity Board 1965c

Answer 23

p - the higher the risk, the higher the standard of care

Question 24

Appropriate precautions

Answer 24

court will consider the cost and effort in taking precautions verses the risk.

Question 25

Appropriate precautions

Answer 25

Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953

Question 26

Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953

Answer 26

someone slipped on factory floor however, sign were put up rop minimise the risk

lp,- there is no breach as sufficient steps have been taken to prevent injury.

However if this happened today, it would be reasonable for the factory to close until the issue was dealt with.
- risk of harm increases the standard of care.
- health and saftey today aswell

Question 27

Unknown risks.