negligence

Question 1

test

Answer 1

duty
breach
causation
damage
remoteness
defences

Question 2

duty

Answer 2

caparo - rf, prox, j f and r
robinson - novel, develop law incrimentally

Question 3

overkill argument

Answer 3

– a body would be so worried about getting sued that they focus more on liability than work -personally say this shows the test is working, bodys will be careful.

Question 4

breach

Answer 4

reasonable person
professing that skill - bolam
Watt – stuck under car and didn’t have right equipment but attempted anyways. Acted reasonably

Question 5

walker

Answer 5

2 mental breakdowns in work, employers job to encourage mental wellbeing.
Workers are held to standard of the reasonable worker

Question 6

bolam

Answer 6

professing that skill

Question 7

Watt

Answer 7

stuck under car and didn’t have right equipment but attempted anyways. Acted reasonably

Question 8

Montgomery

Answer 8

mother wasn’t debriefed about an issue that was 10% likely for diabetic mothers during childbirth. All risks should be disclosed to patient.

Question 9

nettleship v weston

Answer 9

learner drivers
Denning justified this decision explaining how it would be unfair to passengers or different road users if different drivers were held to a different standard.

Question 10

Randall

Answer 10

mental capacity not considered.

Question 11

Mansfield v Weetabix

Answer 11

driver blacked out at the wheel, defendant simply is not responsible

Question 12

Mullins v Richards

Answer 12

children held to standard of a child their age

Question 13

Wooldridge

Answer 13

a person attending a game or a competition as a spectator voluntarily takes the risk of any damage caused to him by a participant.

Question 14

causation

Answer 14

but for
legal
nai

Question 15

barnett

Answer 15

sengt back home and died, would have happenedd anyways
but for

Question 16

Hart and Honroe on but for

Answer 16

argue that but for is too broad. Anything could fit but for. They prefer a ‘common sense’ approach

Question 17

McWilliams

Answer 17

wasn’t provided with safety belt and fell to his death. The deceased would not have worn a belt even if provided so weren’t cause of death

Question 18

legal

Answer 18

how far they are responsible

Question 19

ward

Answer 19

virtually certain

Question 20

Dorset Yacht Co Ltd

Answer 20

third party conduct must be ‘very likely to happen.’

Question 21

Lamb v Camden

Answer 21

C moved out and a group of squatters move in and smash place up. D wasn’t responsible. ‘a degree of likelihood amounting almost to inevitability’

Question 22

ocassoining harm

Answer 22

set the scene for another to do harm
nai

Question 23

Troman

Answer 23

c had told d to lock house. He didn’t and was a burglary. Reasonably foreseeable harm by leaving door open. Didn’t burgle but set the scene

Question 24

McGhee

Answer 24

wasn’t provided with adequate shower facilities and contracted dermatitis. Couldn’t 100% be sure this was sole cause. Still succeeded. C must show that D (i) breached the duty owed and (ii) materially increased the risk to which C was exposed. ‘The creator of the risk’ should ‘suffer from the inherent evidential difficulty’
compensation act 3(1)

Question 25

Sienkiewicz

Answer 25

deceased had worked where exposed to asbestos. In the area low levels of asbestos in general atmosphere. even if there is another source of asbestos fibre in play, whether naturally occurring, non-tortious, or tortious D liable for the full loss

Question 27

damage

Answer 27

damage caused usally obvious

Question 28

Hotson

Answer 28

Were treated so late in the hospital they had a permanent disability. Claimed they were robbed of a proper chance. Had 25% chance of full recovery if treated properly. Had compensation for loss of chance. HoL said disability was harm and as the harm was 75% likely they were not liable

Question 29

remoteness

Answer 29

extenent of loss recoverable or non recoverable

Question 30

egg shell

Answer 30

smith v leech brain co

Question 31

wagonmound

Answer 31

reasonably forseeable test

Question 32

Hughes

Answer 32

the precise sequence of events does not have to be foreseeable.

Question 33

Corr

Answer 33

suffered ptsd from injuries and committed suicide 6 years later. Bingham – suicide is not a voluntary informed decision. D was responsible

Question 34

defences

Answer 34

illegality - c wrongfuk consent - c consented Excluded from learner driver cases – have third party insurance so not accept that legal risk should fall on him contrib - percentage taken off (contrib neg act)