Negligence

Question 1

‘neighbour test’ for duty of care

Answer 1

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]- foreseeability test

Question 2

‘proximity and neighbourhood’ test for duty of care

Answer 2

Anns v Merton LBC [1978]

Question 3

current test for novel situations for duty of care

Answer 3

Caparo [1990]- a response to the previously expansionist approach to liability, critisised as being unjust to defendants in the 70s/80s

Question 4

examples of policy considerations + relevant case law

Answer 4

defensive practices- Marc Rich [1995]
floodgates and fraudulent claims- Alcock [1992]

Question 5

police are not immune to liability for negligence

Answer 5

Robinson [2018]

Question 6

the last element of the Caparo Test- fairness is capable of being manipulated to produce desired outcomes- case law; think-police case

Answer 6

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire

Question 7

no duty for omissions- the general rule

Answer 7

Smith v Littlewoods[1987]; Stovin v Wise [1996]

Question 8

why is there no liability for omissions- justification

Answer 8

it would be an invasion of a person’s freedom- Stovin v Wise [1996]

Question 9

control imports responsibility for the acts of a 3rd Party

Answer 9

Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970]; Lewis [1955]

Question 10

Liability may arise when negligently creating a source of danger

Answer 10

Haynes v Harwood [1935]

Question 11

Foreseeability of harm alone is insufficient to establish duty of care

Answer 11

Mitchelll v Glasgow City Council [2009]

Question 12

the ‘reasonable man’ case

Answer 12

Blyth [1856]

Question 13

high magnitude of mischief

Answer 13

Paris v Stepney BC [1951]

Question 14

RES IPSA LOQUITER

Answer 14

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks [1865]

Question 15

a medical professional will not be in breach of their duty of care if they acted in a manner which was in accordance with practices accepted as proper by a responsible body of other medical professionals

Answer 15

Bolam [1957]

Question 16

failure to disclose risks to a patient is negligent

Answer 16

Montgomery [2015]

Question 17

road users case

Answer 17

nettleship v weston [1971]

Question 18

remoteness case

Answer 18

Wagon Mound [1961]

Question 19

‘but for test’- fatual causation

Answer 19

Barnett [1969];Cork [1952]

Question 20

cumulative multiple causes of injury

Answer 20

Bonnington; McGhee- substantial increase in risk of injury

Question 21

independent multiple causes

Answer 21

Wilsher v Essex- no liability!

Question 22

mesothelioma case law

Answer 22

Fairchild

Question 23

Fairchild exception is rarely applied, but…

Answer 23

Sienkiewicz- here there was one tortfeasor exposing to asbestos + environmental exposure

Question 24

what is a somewhat alterative to the but for test?

Answer 24

NESS test

Question 25

multiple sufficient causes- tort+tort

Answer 25

Baker v Willoughly- extended liability!

Question 26

multiple sufficient causes- tort+natural

Answer 26

Jobling- no extended liability!

Question 27

4 potential breaks to the chain of legal causation

Answer 27

-Acts by the Claimant
-Medical negligence, which is palpably wrong
-3rd Party acts- not connected to the defendant
-Natural Events- Humber Oil v Sivand

Question 28

Acts by the Claimant may be divided into being reasonable and unreasonable- give examples

Answer 28

reasonable- Wieland- C fell down the stairs- no break in chain
unreasonable- McKew- went against doctor’s advice- breaks the chain of causation

Question 29

thin skull rule

Answer 29

Smith v Leech Brain

Question 30

Eggshell personality

Answer 30

Corr v IBC Vehicles

Question 31

thin wallet rule

Answer 31

Lagden v O’Connor

Question 32

a comparisson of the broad and narrow classification of remoteness

Answer 32

Jolley v Sutton [2000]

Question 33

what is the broad classification in remoteness + case law

Answer 33

‘precise injury need not be foreseeable’- Bradford

Question 34

what is the narrow classification in remoteness + case law

Answer 34

Tremain- the type of damage must be foreseen

Question 35

How do the courts choose, which classification approach to apply? give 2 contrasting cases

Answer 35

Hartwell [2000]- depending on circumstances
Camden [1981]- on an instinctive feeling

Question 36

give an example of policy concerns- for and against

Answer 36

for- loss allocation, justice, maintaining high standards
against- opening floodgates, defensive practices

Question 37

one is likely to be found liable for breach of duty if they deliberately evaded a common practice

Answer 37

Re Herald [1987]

Question 38

What is the balancing exercise, when assessing whether D has fallen below the standard of care?

Answer 38

likelihood of harm v magnitude of harm
cost and practicality of precautions v utility of D’s actions

Question 39

no awareness of disability will exclude breach of duty

Answer 39

Mansfield [1998]

Question 40

creating a dangerous situation may mean liability for omissions, but courts are reluctant to impose

Answer 40

Topp [1993]

Question 41

sports/competitions injury cases- low success rate for claimants

Answer 41

Hall [1933]; Browning [2014]

Question 42

unfortunate side effect of medical operation

Answer 42

Thefaut v Johnson [2017]

Question 43

in emergency situations rescuers are allowed to make errors- reasonable man

Answer 43

Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954]

Question 44

careless causing of harm when rescuing does fall below the standard of care expected

Answer 44

Ward v London CC [1938]

Question 45

3 requirements of Res Ipsa Loquiter

Answer 45

-such an act does not occur without negligence- George v Eagle Air Services Ltd
-exclusive control of D
-no other plausible explanation- unlike in the case of Ng Chun Pui [1988]

Question 46

negligent medical treatment is treated like any NIA - recent case

Answer 46

Jenkinson [2023]

Question 47

driver’s standard of care is not IDEAL

Answer 47

Stewart v Glaze [2009]