Tort - Negligence

Question 1

Definition + case

Answer 1

Act or omission resulting in personal injury or property damage. (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks)

Question 2

Duty of care case?

Answer 2

Donoghue V Stevenson - Neighbour principle

Question 3

Novel situation?

Answer 3

Three Stage test (Caparo V Dickman)

Question 4

Caparo test and cases

Answer 4

1. Was damage/harm reasonably foreseeable? (Kent V Griffiths)
2. Was relationship sufficiently proximate? (Mcloughlin v O’brien)
3. Fair, just, reasonable? (Hill v CC W. Yorkshire)

Question 5

Not novel?

Answer 5

Robinson v CC W. Yorkshire - similar precedent that established DOC should be followed

Question 6

Breach of duty?

Answer 6

Standard is objective and that of a reasonable person

Question 7

1st factor of breach?

Answer 7

1. Professionals judged to standard of whole profession. (Bolams case)

Question 8

2nd factor?

Answer 8

Learners judged by standard of experienced. (Nettleship v Weston)

Question 9

3rd factor?

Answer 9

Children judged at standard of D’s age at time. (Mullin v Richards)

Question 10

5 Risk factors?

Answer 10

1. Special characteristics (Paris v Stepney BC)
2. Size of risk (Hayley v LEB)
3. Appropriate Precautions (Latimer v AEC ltd.)
4. Knowledge of risk (Roe v Minister of health)
5. Public Benefit (Watt v Hertfordshire CC)

Question 11

What is damage?

Answer 11

What was caused by the breach and if it was too remote

Question 12

Two types of causation?

Answer 12

Factual: ‘But for’ test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington hospital)
Legal: Intervening acts (Knightly v Johns)

Question 13

Remoteness of damage case and two factors

Answer 13

1. The Wagonmound
   - Type of injury was foreseeable (Hughes v Lord Advocate)
   - Take as find ‘eggshell’ (Smith v Leech Brain)

Question 14

Contributory negligence cases and principles?

Answer 14

1. Partial defence (25% reduc.) - Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council
2. Possible for 100% reduction - Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) Ltd.
   - No crash helmet (O’connell v Jackson)
   - No seatbelt (Froom v Butcher)
   - Accept lift from drunk (Stinton v Stinton)

Question 15

Consent cases and principles?

Answer 15

1. Knowledge of precise risk (Stermer v Lawson) - Doesn’t need to know all risks (Sidaway)
2. Exercise free choice (Smith v Baker)
3. Voluntary acceptance of risk
   - Police (Haynes v Harwood)
   - Firemen (Ogwo v Taylor)