Negligence

Question 1

What are the three points need to be proven to win a case in negligence?

Answer 1

1. Duty of care owed
2. Breach
3. Damage

Question 2

What did D v S Lord Atkin state?

Answer 2

You must take reasonable care to avoid or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

Question 3

Case: 2 police officers knocked over and injured 78 year old, whilst arresting a drug dealer

Answer 3

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Question 4

Why did the Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police not need to go through the Caparo 3 stage test?

Answer 4

There is an ‘established legal principle’.

Question 5

What 3 things are needed to establish a Duty of care owed?

Answer 5

1. Foreseeability
2. Proximity
3. Fair, just and reasonable

Question 6

Case for foreseeable to establish Duty of Care owed

Answer 6

Kent v Griffiths-
Ambulance didn’t respond to 3 calls. Baby lost.
Foreseeable that the delay caused the death

Question 7

Case for proximity(closeness) to establish Duty of Care owed

Answer 7

Bourhill v Young
Bourhill pregnant- cyclist causes crash and dies- off the bus and walked down the road- lead to a miscarriage
Can’t sue Youngs estate as it was not proximate in time and space.

Question 8

Case for Fair, Just and Reasonable to establish a Duty of Care owed

Answer 8

Munroe v London Fire Brigade
Emergency services not held liable for their omissions but only their acts
Here they didn’t check neighbouring premises so no DOC owed

Question 9

What case introduced the ‘reasonable person’ test (Breach)

Answer 9

Blyth v Birmingham
(Expected to be reasonably competent at any task they are performing)

Question 10

What case for: “his incompetent best is not good enough” ( breach)

Answer 10

Nettleship v Weston
Driving lesson

Question 11

What two things does the reasonable person test accept lower standards (breach).

Answer 11

1. Disability
2. Age-
   Orchard v Lee
   13 year old playing tag and ran into supervisor
   ‘Careless to a very high degree’

Question 12

Who does the reasonable person test accept higher standards for?

Answer 12

Professionals.
Wells v Cooper- carpenter

Question 13

What 4 factors does a judge consider when deciding if the conduct was reasonable

Answer 13

1. Degree of risk
2. Cost of precautions
3. Potential seriousness of injury
4. Importance of the activity

Question 14

The degree of risk involved- when deciding whether the defendants conduct was reasonable

Answer 14

Bolton v Stone
Cricket- unlikely

Question 15

Cost of precaution- when deciding whether the defendants conduct was reasonable

Answer 15

Latimer v AEC
Ensured safety
Didn’t close factory as cost would be huge
Not liable

Question 16

Importance of the activity or social utility-when deciding whether the defendants conduct was reasonable

Answer 16

Watt v Hertfordshire
Firemen injured by unsecured weapon
Not liable as emergency service

Question 17

In order to sue in negligence you need to prove two things

Answer 17

1. Legal causation
2. Factual causation

Question 18

Damage/Loss suffered- Legal causation (Remoteness of damage)-case

Answer 18

The Wagon Mound
Oil damage was foreseeable but the fire damage wasn’t.
Thin skull test- could be liable.

Question 19

Damage/Loss suffered- factual causation- case.

Answer 19

But for test
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Management Committee
Hospital owed him a DOC, so we’re in breach, but he would have died anyway.
Not liable

Question 20

What does the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 state?

Answer 20

Anyone partly responsible for their own harm may still succeed in a claim, but their damages will be reduced by a percentage for which they are to blame.

This act establishes contributory negligence as a partial defence, meaning liability is not completely negated.

Question 21

In Sayers v Harlow DC, what percentage of blame was assigned to Mrs. Sayers?

Answer 21

25%

Mrs. Sayers was found partly to blame for her injuries after failing to wait for help when locked in a bus garage toilet.

Question 22

What was the outcome of Revill v Newberry regarding contributory negligence?

Answer 22

The would-be burglar’s claim failed due to his contribution to the negligence.

The claimant entered the defendant’s land intending to steal, which contributed to the incident.

Question 23

How does the age of a child affect the use of contributory negligence as a defence?

Answer 23

A child must be reckless to a very high degree for their age for the defence to be successful.

This takes into account the child’s ability to appreciate risks.

Question 24

In Yachuk v Oliver, why did the defence of contributory negligence fail?

Answer 24

The 9-year-old could not be expected to fully appreciate the dangers of gasoline.

The company was negligent for selling gasoline to a minor.

Question 25

What does 'Volenti Non Fit Injuria' mean?

Answer 25

No injury to he who consents. ## Footnote This principle states that if a claimant voluntarily consents to a risk, they cannot sue for damages.

Question 26

What is an example of consent in the context of Volenti Non Fit Injuria?

Answer 26

A boxer getting into a ring consents to being punched. ## Footnote This illustrates that participation in certain activities may imply acceptance of inherent risks.

Question 27

What happened in Sylvester v Chapman regarding consent?

Answer 27

The claimant jumped into a leopard's cage to extinguish a cigarette and was mauled, with his claim failing due to consent. ## Footnote Since there was no immediate danger, he was found to have consented to the risk.

Question 28

In Wooldridge v Sumner, what was determined about spectators at sporting events?

Answer 28

Spectators voluntarily assume the risk of harm caused by players, provided the players are not reckless or intentional in their actions. ## Footnote This establishes a level of acceptance of risk inherent in attending such events.

Question 29

What was the outcome of Smoldon v Whitworth regarding the use of volenti?

Answer 29

The defence of volenti failed because the rules were not kept to during the match. ## Footnote An injury occurred when the scrum collapsed, contrary to the established rules.

Question 30

What is the legal term for the concept that a person cannot claim damages if they voluntarily assumed the risk?

Answer 30

Volenti ## Footnote This principle is often invoked in cases involving injuries sustained during voluntary activities.

Question 31

In Haynes v Harwood, what was the reason the defendant's plea of volenti failed?

Answer 31

Emergency situation and moral duty to rescue ## Footnote The claimant, an off-duty police officer, acted to prevent harm to others.

Question 32

What was the outcome of Cutler v United Dairies regarding the application of volenti?

Answer 32

Volenti applied; owner not liable ## Footnote The claimant was injured while trying to recapture a horse that was not causing immediate risk.

Question 33

Define 'Act of God' in legal terms.

Answer 33

Severe, unanticipated natural event ## Footnote It usually involves extraordinary weather events for which no human is responsible.

Question 34

What case is associated with the definition of 'Act of God'?

Answer 34

Nichols v Marsland ## Footnote The case involved flooding caused by an extreme thunderstorm, leading to the defendant not being held liable.

Question 35

What are some less likely general defences in tort law?

Answer 35

Necessity and inevitable accident ## Footnote These defences are used in specific situations where actions taken can be justified.

Question 36

What does the necessity defence allow a person to do?

Answer 36

Take action to prevent a greater evil ## Footnote This allows for reasonable actions taken in emergencies.

Question 37

In Cope v Sharp, what action did the defendant take during the fire?

Answer 37

Destroyed vegetation to prevent fire spread ## Footnote The court found this action reasonable and the defendant was not liable.

Question 38

What is the key characteristic of an 'inevitable accident'?

Answer 38

Reasonable precautions taken, yet accident occurs ## Footnote This defence applies when all reasonable measures are in place but an accident still happens.

Question 39

What was the ruling in Stanley v Powell regarding liability for the ricochet bullet?

Answer 39

Defendant not liable ## Footnote The court held that reasonable precautions had been taken by the defendant.