Tort Law - Negligence

Question 1

Order

Answer 1

Duty, breach, damage

Question 2

Duty

Answer 2

Pre existing duty(Robinson) or novel situation(Camaro v dickman)

Question 3

Duty - pre existing duty

Answer 3

Driver(nettleship v Weston), doctor(WhiteHouse v Jordan), sportsman(condon v basi), employer(walker v northumberlan CC), policeman(Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police), lawyer(Hall v Simon), public body(Clunis v Camden and Islington), judiciary(Sirros v Moore), fire brigade(Capital &. Counties v Hampshire CC)

Question 4

Novel situation

Answer 4

1. Harm/injury was reasonably foreseeable (Kent v Griffith)
2. Proximity between C and D - time, space, relationship (Bourhill v young)
3. Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty and there are no. Public policy reasons to. Not hold the D liable (Mulcahy v MOD)

Question 5

Breach

Answer 5

Reasonable man test and other things the courts will consider

Question 6

Breach - the reasonable man test

Answer 6

Ordinary and competent person act the same as the D/did not do (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks)
Ordinary person (Wells v Cooper)
Reasonable child (Mullins v Richard’s)
Reasonable person (Bolom v Friern Hospital)
No allowance made for inexperience (Nettleship v Weston)

Question 7

Breach - other risk factors court will consider

Answer 7

Likelihood of harm/size of risk (Bolton v Stone)
Characteristics of C (Paris v Stepney)
Cost of practical precaution (Latimer v AEC)
Social utility/benefit (Watts v Herts CC)

Question 8

Damage

Answer 8

Causation

Question 9

Damage - factual causation

Answer 9

But for test (Barnett v Chelsea Hospital)
Novus actus interveniens-
Act of C (Mckew v Holland)
Act of nature (Carslogie)
Act of third party (Knightly v Johns)

Question 10

Damage - legal causation

Answer 10

Damage is reasonably foreseeable and not to remote (the wagon mound No1)
Harm not reasonably foreseeable but D still liable(if applicable)-
Type of damage caused ( Bradford v Robinson Rentals)
Sequence of events (Hughes v Lord Advocate)
Thin skull rule (Smith v Leech Brain)

Question 11

Defences

Answer 11

Consent and contributory negligence

Question 12

Defences - consent

Answer 12

C knows there’s a risk of D acting negligently and freely consents to that risk (Morris v Murray)
Consent not freely given-C has little choice (Smith v Baker) or C felt a moral obligation (Haynes v Harwood)

Question 13

Defences - contributory negligence

Answer 13

Partial defence. The law reform (contributory negligence act) 1945. Only applies when Cs own behaviour has fallen bellow standard expected of the reasonable man and C contributed to own loss. C contributed to accident (Brandon v Airtours). C made their injuries worse (Froom v Butcher)

Question 14

Remedies

Answer 14

Special damages - can be precisely calculated
General loss - cannot be precisely calculated. Pecuniary or non pecuniary
Pecuniary loss - future loss of earnings, medical expenses
Non pecuniary loss - pain and uffering, loss of amenity, bereavement