Negligence

Question 1

What case covered situations where the claimant and defendant did not directly know each other?

Answer 1

Donoghue which set up the neighbour principle

Question 2

Which case first used ‘reasoning by analogy’

Answer 2

Darnley

Question 3

Which reasonably foreseeable harm case did not display a duty?

Answer 3

Fardon - reasonable probabilities and fantastic possibilities

Question 4

Which reasonably foreseeable harm case found a duty

Answer 4

Hayley - blind man in manhole

Question 5

Which proximity case found a relationship between C + D?

Answer 5

Vowles - rugby referee

Question 6

Which proximity case did not find a relationship?

Answer 6

Bourhill - motorcycle accident and miscarriage

Question 7

In which FJ+R case found no good precedent due to the situation?

Answer 7

Mulcahy - soldier in combat
Defendant did not have duty

Question 8

Which FJ+R cases found that the police had no duty?

Answer 8

Hill - Yorkshire Ripper victims mum
Michael - ex boyfriend stabbing

Question 9

Which FJ+R cases found that the police had a duty?

Answer 9

Robinson - old lady knocked over
DSD & NBV - black cab rapist victims. Sued police for how police treated victims

Question 10

Which case set the legal definition of negligence?

Answer 10

Blyth ‘failing to do something or doing something the reasonable person would/wouldn’t do’

Question 11

Which case stated it was possible to be unintentionally negligent?

Answer 11

Blyth - ‘it is an objective stance taking no account of the defendant’s incompetence’

Question 12

Which case applies to professionals?

Answer 12

Bolam - electric shock treatment
Doctor not found in breach

Question 13

Which cases strengthened Bolam’s ruling?

Answer 13

Bolitho - the practise must be logically supported
Roe - ‘we must not look at 1947 accidents with 1952 spectacles’

Question 14

Which case is about drivers?

Answer 14

Nettleship - learner driver standard does not exist. Crash into lamppost
Defendant was liable

Question 15

Which case is about amateurs?

Answer 15

Wells - door handle
Defendant not in breach

Question 16

Which case was about children?

Answer 16

Mullin - 15 yr old girls with rulers
Defendant not in breach of

Question 17

Which case is about special characteristics?

Answer 17

Paris - welding without safety googles
Defendant found in breach - potential consequences warranted precautions

Question 18

Which case was about a small size risk?

Answer 18

Bolton - cricket ball near house
6 balls in 30 years
Defendant not in breach of- more precautions would have been out of proportion

Question 19

Which case was about a big risk?

Answer 19

Miller - golf damaged house
9 balls in 2 years, defendant was in breach due to frequency

Question 20

Which case was about precautions?

Answer 20

Latimer - factory flood (evacuate, signs, sawdust)
Defendant not found in breach, more precautions would have been out of precaution

Question 21

Which cases found a public benefit?

Answer 21

Watt - fireman hurt during emergency
Defendant not liable ‘saving of life or limb justifies considerable risk’
Daborn - ‘if all trains in country were restricted to 5mph there would be fewer accident but national life would be intolerably slowed’

Question 22

Which case found damages but not causation (but for test)

Answer 22

Barnett - arsenic poisoning
Defendant not liable as he would have died anyway (damage done but was not cause of death)

Question 23

Which case found the defendant only responsible for initial damage? (Intervening acts)

Answer 23

Lamb - council broke water then squatters cause more damage
Council only responsible for initial damage

Question 24

Which case stated that defendant is only liable for foreseeable damage

Answer 24

The Wagon Mound - oil spill led to fire
Defendants responsible for oil damage to slipway but NOT for the fire caused by claimants welding

Question 25

Which case involved foreseeable damage that was greater than expected?

Answer 25

Bradford - driving back with no heater in winter Defendant was liable was foreseeable that cold injury could occur l, hypothermia was just more unexpected

Question 26

Which case involved foreseeable danger that did not occur as expected?

Answer 26

Hughes - boys exploded paraffin lamp Defendant was liable as burn was foreseeable

Question 27

Which case involved damage that occurred in a completely unforeseeable way?

Answer 27

Doughty - cauldron lid reacted with molten metal and exploded Defendant not liable - the way damage was caused was unforeseeable

Question 28

What is the eggshell rule and what case applies to it?

Answer 28

Defendant must take claimant as they come If damage is much more serious due to defendants pre-existing condition D is liable for all subsequent consequences Smith (leech brain) - claimant burnt on lip was more susceptible to cancer and died Defendant liable for death