negligence🎀

Question 1

Identify

Answer 1

C may have a claim against D in negligence

Question 2

Definition

Answer 2

Negligence has a 3 stage test:
•Did the D owe C a DoC?
•Was this duty breached?
•Did the breach cause damage to C?

Question 3

Stage 1: Duty of Care (D)

Answer 3

(Donoghue v Stevenson) established the test for DoC through the neighbour principle, you still owe a duty to your “neighbour in law”

Question 4

Stage 1 (E)

Answer 4

However, this has recently been updated in (Robinson)-If there is a clear and obvious relationship, then it will be fair just and reasonable to establish a DoC

Question 5

Stage 1 (A)

Answer 5

There is a clear and obvious relationship between (C) and (D) as [doctor & patient etc]. Therefore, it is FJ&R to impose a Doc on (D)
-CONCLUDE-

Question 6

Stage 2: Breach in duty (D)

Answer 6

(Objective test) (Anderson B in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks) defined breach as “doing something the reasonable man wouldn’t do” / vise versa.

Question 7

Judged to the standard of…

Answer 7

•Expert = another expert (Bolam v Bolitho)
•Learner = inexperienced (Nettleship v Weston)
•Child = another child (Mullins v Richards)
•No category = reasonable man (Vaughan v Menlove)

Question 8

Risk factors

Answer 8

•Probability of harm - More care need to be taken (Bolton v Stone)

•Magnitude of the risk - Bigger the serious risk, more care needs to be taken (Paris v Stepney Council)

•Cost and practicality of precautions - Taking precaution cost is too high, D may not be in breach (Latimer)
-CONCLUDE-

Question 9

Stage 3: Breach Caused the damage

Answer 9

Factual causation must be proved - “but for the D’s actions, would the damage have occurred?” (Barnett v Chelsea Hospital)

Question 10

Legal causation

Answer 10

Was the damage to C reasonably foreseeable or was it too remote (unrelated) (Wagon Mound No1)

Question 11

Side Rule: Thin Skull Rule

Answer 11

(Smith v Leech Brain Co) - the D must take the V/C as they find them
-CONCLUDE-