LIABILITY: NEGLIGENCE; Duty Of Care

Question 1

What case did the caparo three-part test stem from? (1)

Answer 1

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Question 2

What is meant by ‘neighbour’ in the neighbour test? (2)

Answer 2

Your neighbour is a person so closely ad directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in your contemplation as being so affected.

Question 3

What cases cover the 1 principle where duty applies by omission? (2)

Answer 3

Kent v Griffith (2001)
Barnett v Chelsea hospital management committee (1969)

Question 4

What is tort law? (1)

Answer 4

A body of rights, obligations and remedies that is applied by the courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered from the wrongful acts of others.

Question 5

What are the elements are needed first negligence to apply? (3)

Answer 5

-a duty of care
-a breach of that duty of care
-damage caused by that breach

Question 6

What occurred in the case of self v liford and district hospital management committee (1970)? (2)

Answer 6

Prisoner tried to harm himself, guards knew this and made no attempt to stop him from killings himself. (Suicide)

Question 7

What occurred in the case of Mulcahy v ministry of defence? (2)

Answer 7

A soldier fired his weapon next to another soldiers ear, damaging his hearing, he tried to sue the ministry of defence but they were not liable. (Public policy)

Question 8

What case must you use when determining whether a duty exists in common law? (1)

Answer 8

Robinson (2018)

Question 9

What occurred in the case of smith v littlewoods organisation (1987)? (2)

Answer 9

Claimant suffered loss when his property was damaged due to arson on the neighbouring property which was derelict and bought by the defendants pending development (duty owed)

Question 10

What can a duty of care come from? (2)

Answer 10

Statute law
Common law

Question 11

What does Robinson (2018) say about duty of care? (1)

Answer 11

If there’s a duty in a similar previous case there’s a duty here and vice versa (uses analogies and comparisons to assess differences).

Question 12

What is the floor gate theory? (1)

Answer 12

If you allow a case to go through court you are opening up the courts to a large volume of cases (flooding the court)

Question 13

What occurred in the case Kent v Griffith (2001)? (3)

Answer 13

An ambulance accepted a call but was not provided in good enough time (went on a lunch break) the claiment went into respiratory arrest. It was reasonable foreseeable.

Question 14

What is meant by proximity in terms of the caparo three part test? (1)

Answer 14

The relationship between the defendant and the claimant was sufficiently close in terms of time, location and context.

Question 15

What occurred in the case home office v Dorset yacht co Ltd (1970)? (3)

Answer 15

A group of young offenders who were known for escaping were working under the supervision of officers, 7 escaped and boarded a yacht to sail away. They collided with another yacht. Held; escape should have been anticipated, a damage was foreseeable home office was liable,

Question 16

What are the circumstances in which a duty can apply by omission? (3)

Answer 16

-you have started a task (1)
-there is a personal situation/relationship between the parties (2)
-harm is caused by a third party the defendant should have had control over (3)

Question 17

What is an example of a duty of care from statute law? (1)

Answer 17

The occupiers liability act 1957

Question 18

What cases cover proximity in terms of the caparo three part test? (3)

Answer 18

Hill v chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)
McLoughin v O’Brien (1983)
Bourhill v young (1943)

Question 19

What is meant by ‘fair just and reasonable’ in terms of the caparo three part test? (1)

Answer 19

The courts will consider the scope of the duty of care to be imposed and the need for justice.

Question 20

What cases cover fair, just and reasonable, in terms of the caparo three part test? (1)

Answer 20

Mulcahy v ministry of defence (1996)

Question 21

What occurred in the case of hill v chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)? (2)

Answer 21

Yorkshire ripper murdered 12 women. Mother of the last victim sued the police department for negligence (failure to find killer) alleging inefficiency and errors in handling investigation. House of Lords suggested that there was a public policy issue for not allowing the claim.

Question 22

What occurred in the case of Langley v dray (1998)? (2)

Answer 22

Dray stole a car and the police officer chasing the car crashed his car as a result. The high speed chase was a reasonably foreseeable result so Dray had a duty of care.

Question 23

What cases cover reasonable foreseeability in terms of the caparo three part test? (3)

Answer 23

Langley v dray (1998) - reasonable foreseeability
Bourhill v young (1943) - not reasonably foreseeable
Kent v Griffith (2001)

Question 24

What occurred in the case of Mcloughin v O’Brien (1983)? (3)

Answer 24

The claimant was told that her immediate family had been involved in a car accident, one of her children died while the other and her husband were in critical condition. There was a proximity by relationship and so her claim was successful.

Question 25

What occurred in the case of Bourhill v young (1943)? (3)

Answer 25

Mr young was negligently riding his motorcycle and was Involved in a car crash that subsequently killed him. Bourhill saw the crash and received psychiatric damage and suffered a miscarriage. Mr young was not liable as the event was not foreseeable.

Question 26

What is meant by reasonable foreseeability, in terms of the caparo three part test? (1)

Answer 26

The injury suffered by the claimant was reasonable foreseeable consequence of the behaviour (either act or omission) of the defendant.

Question 27

What are the three parts of the caparo three part test? (3)

Answer 27

Reasonable foreseeability
Proximity
Fair, just and reasonable

Question 28

Where is there a general duty? (7)

Answer 28

Motorists/road users
Doctors/patients
Manufactures/consumers
Parents/children
Employers/employees
Teachers/pupils
Occupiers/visitors

Question 29

How do the courts establish a duty without Robinson (2018)? (1)

Answer 29

They look at past cases which a duty had applied
Neighbour test and the caparo three part test

Question 30

What cases did the neighbour test stem from? (1)

Answer 30

Stevenson v donoghue (1932)

Question 31

What occurred in the case of nettleship v Weston (1971)? (2)

Answer 31

Learner drivers owe the same standard of care as other drivers, passenger claimed for damages was up held by the court of appeal.

Question 32

What does the neighbour test state? (1)

Answer 32

‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbours”

Question 33

What cases cover the 3 principle where the duty applies by omission? (3)

Answer 33

Smith v littlewoods organisation (1987)
Hill v chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)
Home office v Dorset yacht co Ltd (1970)

Question 34

What cases cover the 2 principle where duty applies by omission? (2)

Answer 34

Self v liford and district hospital management committee (1970)
Knight v home office (1990)

Question 35

What occurred in the case of Barnett v Chelsea hospital management committee (1969)? (1)

Answer 35

A&E departments owe a duty of care to patients and an omission can create a liability.