Tort Of Negligence

Question 0

Caparo v Dickman (modern test for DOC)

Answer 0

1. Damage was reasonably foreseeable
   - reasonable man would know that that the damage was likely to happen
   - Haley v LEB (contrast) Bourhill v Young
2. Must be sufficient proximity between 2 parties (ie v and d)
   - relationship or distance can form it
   - Osman v Furgison (contrast) Hill v ccsyp
3. It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose duty on D
   - only time there’s an issue is public authority eg. Police
   - Hill or Osman (contrast) Van Cole v Hertfordshire police

Question 1

An obligation to act in a reasonable and Competant way to ensure that you don’t cause damage to the people around you

Answer 1

Duty of care introduced in Donoghue v Stevenson - “neighbour principle”

• you must take reasonable care to avoid acts/ omissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely injure your neighbour
• neighbour = someone so affected by your actions you ought to reasonably have them on your contemplation.

Question 2

Breach of duty
- Res Ipsa Loquitur “the thing speaks for itself”
Used when negligence is obvious but can’t be proven

Answer 2

Scott v London st Katherine Docks

1. Absence of explanation from D
2. Situation was in Ds control
3. Wouldn’t have happened if proper care had been taken

• d has fallen below the standard if care that was expected
• standard of cast measures against the reasonable man
  (Objective test) eg. Vaughan v Menlove, Nettleship v Weston

Question 3

Risk factors

Answer 3

Degree of risk 
Seriousness of harm
Practicality of precautions 
Benefits of taking risk
Characteristics

Question 4

Degree of risk - likelihood of it happening

Answer 4

Bolton v stone (risk is small-no breach)

Haley v LEB (risk is known, no precautions) - likely breach

Question 5

Seriousness of harm - any reasons to suggest that the harm was particularly serious for the claimant

Answer 5

Paris v Stepney borough council

Question 6

Practicality of precautions- risk must be balanced against cost and affect

Answer 6

Paris ( wasn’t practical not to take precautions)

Latimer (precautions taken were practical)

Question 7

Benefits of taking risk- some risks will be outweighed by a potential benefit, if so d may not be liable

Answer 7

Watt v Hertfordshire county council

Saving life outweighed risk of not securing the jack

Question 8

Characteristics- any special, that apply to d or claimant

Answer 8

Eg Paris (one eye claimant- injury, illness)

• mullin v Richards - age applied to reasonable man
• bollom- profession