Unit 1 : Dispute Solving in Civil Law - Activity one

Question 1

Negligence

Answer 1

Failing to do something that a reasonable person would do

Question 2

What are the three things that need to be proved for negligence?

Answer 2

1. Duty of Care
2. Breach of Duty
3. Cause of Damage

Question 3

Tort Law

Answer 3

This area of Law compensates a person who has been injured or whose property is damaged

Question 4

Route 1 : Existing Statues and Precedents

Answer 4

The courts should consider existing Statues and Precedents which tells us the duty of Care exists

Question 5

What Duty of Care does the case of Donoghue v Stevenson(1932) show?

Answer 5

Manufacturer - Consumer

Question 6

What Duty of Care does Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital show?

Answer 6

Doctor - Patient

Question 7

What Duty of Care does Nettleship v Weston/Road Traffic Act 1998 show?

Answer 7

Driver - Pedestrian

Question 8

What Duty of Care does Arthur JS Hall v Simons show?

Answer 8

Lawyer - Client

Question 9

What Duty of Care does Latimer v AEC Ltd/ Health and Safety Act 1974 show?

Answer 9

Employer - Employee

Question 10

Route 2 : Reason by Analogy

Answer 10

This is where the Courts try and look for similar cases and establish duty of care because there is no one case which establishes the duty of care between claimant and defendant.

Question 11

Route 3 : New and Novel situations

Answer 11

This is where the case is completely new and could not satisfy duty of care with route one or route two

Question 12

Examples of new and novel situations

Answer 12

• Protesters + Civilians
• Artificial Intelligence
• Crypto currency
• Drone technology

Question 13

How is Route 3 established?

Answer 13

Caparo test

1. Was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
2. Is there proximity (close) between the claimant and the defendant - this can be established through a relationship, time or place.
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

Question 14

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Answer 14

In this case, a pregnant woman who had asthma dialled 999, however the ambulance took too long to arrive, this caused severe damage to D. It was held that the ambulance was liable as it was reasonably foreseeable that the condition of D would have gotten worse.

Question 15

Mcloughlin v Brian

Answer 15

C’s husband and kids had just been involved in a car accident caused by the negligence of a lorry driver, one of her kids died instantly and the others along with her husband were taken to the hospital. C was told of the accident and saw her family prior to treatment, causing severe shock + depression. She claimed that D owed her a duty of care. It was held that there was sufficient proximity of time between D and C as she saw the aftermath of the incident.

Question 16

Hill v Chief Constable of west Yorkshire

Answer 16

The Yorkshire ripper had been murdering women. C’s daughter was the 13th victim of the ripper and it was argued that by the time of her death, the police already had more than enough information on the killer, so could arrest him but were negligent in not doing so. The mother claimed the police owed a duty of care to her daughter. It was held that the relationship between the police and relatives of victims of crimes was not close enough for the police to be under a duty of care and that it was not fair, just or reasonable for the police to owe a duty of care.

Question 17

How to answer Route 1 or Route 2?

Answer 17

In this scenario, there is/is not a duty of care between the D and C established through…..Case :….. Because……..

Question 18

How to answer Route 3?

Answer 18

To apply, a reasonable person would have foreseen…….Case : Kent v Griffiths. Furthermore, Proximity is established through…….Case : …….. Because……..Lastly, It is fair, reasonable and just to impose a duty of care as……..

Question 19

Breach of Duty

Answer 19

This will occur if the person wing the duty falls below the standard of behaviour expected from them.

Question 20

What do you need to establish Breach of Duty?

Answer 20

1. Required Standard of Care
2. Risk
3. Fail to meet the standard of Care

Question 21

Reasonable man test

Answer 21

D must have acted according to the standard of the ordinary,prudent and reasonable man performing the task in question

Question 22

What is the required standard of care for a learner?

Answer 22

Same standard as a non-learner, (Nettleship v Weston)

Question 23

What is the required standard of care for a professional?

Answer 23

It is adjusted to what is reasonable in that profession , (Montogomery)

Question 24

How does age affect the required standard of care?

Answer 24

It is adjusted based on age, (Orchard v Lee)

Question 25

How to answer a question for Breach of Care :

Answer 25

In order to prove D has breached their duty of Care, we must first establish the required standard of care. In application to the scenario, the required standard of care is....

Question 26

What is Risk?

Answer 26

Are there any risk factors that lower or increase the required standard of care?

Question 27

What are the risk factors that may affect the required standard of care?

Answer 27

1. Size 2. Emergency situations 3. Special characteristics 4. Practical Precautions

Question 28

Size of the Risk?

Answer 28

The size of the risk may lower/increase the required standard of care The greater the risk the more D must do to avoid breaching their duty of care, increases required standard of care The lower the risk, the fewer precautions that need to be taken.

Question 29

Bolton v Stone

Answer 29

A cricket ball hit a female passer by in the street outside of the cricket ground. There was a 17ft high fence around the ground and the wicket was a long way from the fence. There was also evidence that a cricket ball had only been hit out of the ground 6x in 30 years. The courts held that the cricket club had reached the appropriate standard of care and not broken its duty.

Question 30

What case do we use when the size of risk is higher?

Answer 30

Haley v London Electricity Board.

Question 31

What case do we use when the size of risk is lower?

Answer 31

Bolton v Stone

Question 32

Emergency situations

Answer 32

When D is acting in an emergency situation or for a social benefit, this will lower the required standard of care.

Question 33

Case for emergency situations?

Answer 33

Watt v Hertforshire County Council.

Question 34

Special Characteristics

Answer 34

This takes into account any special characteristics of C so that if C has a particular susceptibility to harm which D knows about. D must take extra care to avoid that harm, this increases the required soc.

Question 35

Case for special characteristics?

Answer 35

Paris v Stephney borough council.

Question 36

Practical Precautions

Answer 36

Here the courts will assess whether it was relatively easy or unreasonable to take any such precautions and reflect the standard of care owed. The reasonable man only has to take reasonable precautions to avoid risks. There is no expectation that people should go to extraordinary lengths, especially if the risk of harm is minimal. Overall, this decreases the required standard of care.

Question 37

Case for Practical Precautions?

Answer 37

Latimer v AEC Ltd

Question 38

What risk factors should you always mention when talking about risk?

Answer 38

Size of risk + practical Precautions only mention others if they apply to scenario.

Question 39

Fail to meet standard of care

Answer 39

Did D's actions fall below the required standard of care and why?

Question 40

What two issues do we need to consider for Causation?

Answer 40

1. Factual Causation 2. Legal Causation

Question 41

Factual Causation

Answer 41

This is satisfied through the 'but for' test : The claimant's damage would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's breach

Question 42

How to answer Factual Causation :

Answer 42

'But for' D's Breach, the consequence would not have happened, therefore factual causation is satisfied.

Question 43

What is the case for Factual Causation?

Answer 43

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital - three night watchmen from a college went to the casualty ward of the hospital at around 5 am on New Year's complaining about vomiting and stomach pains after drinking tea. The doctor who was on duty refused to see them or examine them and sent them home to go to their own doctors. A few hours later one of the men died from arsenic poisoning. Held : although the doctor had breached his duty by sending the men home, he was not the cause of the death because even if he had treated them, they would have still died because of how long the arsenic had been in their system before they sought treatment. Therefore, the failure to treat the men was not the factual cause of death

Question 44

How to answer factual causation?

Answer 44

'But for' D's breach, the consequence would not have happened, therefore factual causation is satisfied (Barnett v Chelsea)

Question 45

Legal Causation

Answer 45

This is only satisfied if the damage is a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty and not too remote.

Question 46

What does 'Remote' mean?

Answer 46

Far,Distant,Disconnected

Question 47

What is the case for Legal Causation if the damage is not foreseeable?

Answer 47

Wagon Mound - Due to negligence of the defendant, bunkering oil was leaked into the harbour from a tanker . The oil floated on the water across to C's wharf and mixed with patches of cotton wadding. Nearby the wharf, someone was welding, sparks from the welding ignited the oil soaked cotton wadding and set fire to ships being repaired in the wharf. The oil also caused fouling to the wharf itself. Held : The fouling of the wharf by the oil was foreseeable and could be claimed for but the fire damage was far too remote and could not be claimed for.

Question 48

What is the case for legal causation if the damage is foreseeable?

Answer 48

Bradford v Robinson Rentals - C was sent by his employers on a long journey from Exeter to Bedford in severe winter weathers in a van with no heating. He suffered frostbite as a result and sued for negligence. The employers tried to argue that suffering frostbite in England was so unlikely that his damage was too remote. Held : as some sort of cold related injury WAS foreseeable in the circumstances it didn't matter that the injury in question was the rather unusual form of frostbite. The harm was not too remote and the employers were negligent.