Case Law

Question 1

The neighbour principle

Answer 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 2

Three part formulation for establishing duty in a novel situation (foreseeability, proximity, fair just and reasonable)

Answer 2

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman

Question 3

Existing duty of care

Answer 3

Nettleship v Weston

Question 4

(Caparo) Would a reasonable person have foreseen a risk of harm to the claimant as a result of defendant’s acts or omissions?

Answer 4

Smith v Littlewoods Organisations Ltd

Question 5

(Caparo) Was there sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant?

Answer 5

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control

Question 6

(Caparo) Is it fair just and reasonable on public policy grounds to impose a duty of care?

Answer 6

L and Another v Reading Borough Council and Others

Question 7

Courts are reluctant to impose a duty on statutory authorities (1) but not blanket immunity, generally duty will not be imposed for an omission (2)

Answer 7

(1) Hill v CC of West Yorkshire

(2) Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire

Question 8

Sorrow and grief cannot be compensated

Answer 8

Hinz v Berry

Question 9

Primary victim is someone in zone of danger to whom physical harm was reasonably foreseeable

Answer 9

Page v Smith

Question 10

Established requirements of secondary victim as being; psych harm reasonably foreseeable, close relationship of love and affection, physically close, witness accident/aftermath with own unaided senses, sudden shock.

Answer 10

Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire

Question 11

Standard of care is objective - did the person act as a reasonable person would have done?

Answer 11

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

Question 12

When deciding standard of care, no allowance is made for an individual’s lack of knowledge or experience

Answer 12

Nettleship v Weston

Question 13

When deciding standard of care, it is accepted that children do not have the same awareness of risk

Answer 13

Orchard v Lee

Question 14

The standard of care is not normally adjusted to reflect the personal characteristics of the defendant

Answer 14

Dunnage v Randall and Another

Question 15

Professionals must achieve the standard of an ordinary skilled person exercising their special skill

Answer 15

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

Question 16

Medical professionals must act in accordance with the standard of reasonably competent professionals at the time provided the standard is reasonably supported

Answer 16

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority

Question 17

Harm must be reasonably foreseeable - a person is not required to possess expertise beyond that of others in their own profession at the time of the event

Answer 17

Roe v Minister of Health

Question 18

Has a breach occurred? Magnitude of risk - more likely the risk, the more foreseeable it is deemed to be and the more care should have been taken to avoid

Answer 18

Bolton v Stone

Question 19

Has a breach occurred? Vulnerability of claimant - the higher the risk of serious injury, the more caution is required

Answer 19

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Question 20

Has a breach occurred? Importance of D’s objective - if engaged in a socially desirable activity at the time of the breach, it may be justifiable to take an abnormal risk

Answer 20

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

Question 21

Has a breach occurred? Cost of avoiding harm - it is not necessary for D to go to extreme lengths to protect against a risk

Answer 21

Latimer v AEC

Question 22

Causation in fact - the but for test

Answer 22

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

Question 23

Causation in fact - but for becomes more likely than not

Answer 23

Page v Smith (No 2)

Question 24

Causation in fact - where an injury is indivisible, the but for test applies and it must be proved that it was more probable than not that D’s act caused the harm (over 50%)

Answer 24

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

Question 25

Causation in fact - where injury is divisible, the material contribution test applies so D is liable if they contributed to the risk or to the harm. Liable for the proportion of damage to which they contributed.

Answer 25

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw

Question 26

Causation in fact - industrial disease cases where it is scientifically impossible to determine who is at fault there is no need to prove on balance of probabilities D caused harm, just that they materially increased the risk

Answer 26

McGhee v National Coal Board

Question 27

Causation in fact - successive causes of harm. (1) further deliberate or negligent act will not end tortfeasor’s liability (2) natural disease will end it

Answer 27

(1) Baker v Willoughby

(2) Jobling v Associated Dairies

Question 28

Novus actus interveniens - unforeseeable act of third party

Answer 28

Knightley v Johns

Question 29

Novus actus interveniens - entirely unreasonable act of claimant

Answer 29

McKew v Holland

Question 30

Causation in law (remoteness) - was the kind of damage reasonably foreseeable

Answer 30

The Wagon Mound

Question 31

Causation in law - Thin skull rule, victim should be taken as found, d is liable for full extent of injury as long as some harm is foreseeable

Answer 31

Smith v Leech Brain

Question 32

Control Test

Answer 32

Yewens v Noakes

Question 33

Organisation Test

Answer 33

Cassidy v Minister of Health

Question 34

Multiple Test

Answer 34

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions

Question 35

Vicariously liability - mutuality of obligation

Answer 35

Carmichael v National Power

Question 36

Example of relationship between organisation and individual being “akin to employment”, meaning it could be fair to find the organisation vicariously liable.

Answer 36

Cox v Ministry of Justice

Question 37

Employer can be vicariously liable for an act “closely connected” to the employee’s role

Answer 37

Lister v Hesley Hall

Question 38

Ex turpi causa - complete defence if claimant was engaged in a criminal activity at time of alleged negligence

Answer 38

Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority

Question 39

Ex turpi causa - inextricable link (a person cannot recover damages arising from a punishment imposed for an unlawful act)

Answer 39

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd and Another

Question 40

Violenti non fit injuria - complete defence if claimant freely consented to risk of harm in full knowledge of risk they were taking

Answer 40

Stermer v Lawson

Question 41

Contributory negligence, partly to blame for accident

Answer 41

Froom v Butcher / Fitzgerald v Lane

Question 42

Contributory negligence, put themselves in dangerous position

Answer 42

Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd

Question 43

Courts are reluctant to find a rescuer contributorily negligent

Answer 43

Harrison v British Railways Board

Question 44

The dilemma principle - courts are less likely to find a claimant contributorily negligent if they were in a difficult situation

Answer 44

Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council