Negligence

Question 1

Which case originally defined negligence ?

Answer 1

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)

Question 2

What did Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) define negligence as ?

Answer 2

“Failing to do something which the reasonable person would do, or doing something which the reasonable person would not do”

Question 3

What is the four-part test to establish liability for negligence ?

Answer 3

1. Duty of Care
2. Breach in the Duty of Care
3. Damage
4. Defences

Question 4

Which case defined the test for Duty of Care ?

Answer 4

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Question 5

What is the test for a Duty of Care ? (+cases)

Answer 5

1. Existing statutes – (Road Traffic Act)
2. Pre-existing duty – “reason by analogy”
3. New Novel situation - (Caparo v Dickman)

Question 6

Which test is used to establish a duty of care in new novel situations ?

Answer 6

The Caparo Test

Question 7

What is the Caparo Test ? (+cases)

Answer 7

1. Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable ? (Kent v Griffiths)
2. Is there a close proximity between C and D ? (time, space or relationship) (Bourhill v Young)
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty ? (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire).

Question 8

Which case defined the neighbour principle ?

Answer 8

Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 9

What did Lord Aikin define the neighbour principle as ?

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Which test is used to establish a breach in a duty of care ?

Answer 10

The objective “reasonable man test”.

Question 11

What are the four main categories, under the reasonable man test in breach in duty ?

Answer 11

• Professional Standards
• Learners
• Children and Young people
• The Reasonable Man

Question 12

What is defined under “professional standards” ? (+case)

Answer 12

Professionals are judged by the standard of the profession as a whole, and a substantial body of opinion within the profession should support the
course of action taken by the defendant (Bolam)

Question 13

What is defined under “Learners” ? (+case)

Answer 13

Learners are judged to the standard of the competent and more experienced person (Nettleship v Weston)

Question 14

What is defined under “Children and Young People” ? (+case)

Answer 14

Judged to the standard of the reasonable person of D’s age at the time of the incident. (Mullin v Richards)

Question 15

What is defined under “Reasonable Man” ? (+cases)

Answer 15

If D doesn’t fall into any of the other categories, they are judged to the standard of the ordinary person performing that task (Vaughen v Menlove)

Question 16

What risk factors must be considered in relation to a breach in duty of care ? (6)

Answer 16

1. “Special characteristics” (Paris v Stepney Borough Council)
2. “Size of the risk” (Bolton v Stone)
3. “A higher risk requires a greater of care” (Haley v London Electricity Board)
4. “Have all appropriate precautions been taken” (Latimer v AEC Ltd)
5. Were the risks known at the time? (Roe v Minister of Health)
6. “Benefit to taking the risk” (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council)

Question 17

In the third stage of the test, what is meant by “damage” ?

Answer 17

Must be established that the D’s breach in duty “caused” the damage/injury.

Question 18

Which two tests are used to establish causation in a negligence claim ?

Answer 18

1. Factual causation (Barnett)
2. Legal causation (The Wagon Mound)

Question 19

How is factual causation established ?

Answer 19

Must be proven that “but for” the D’s act or omission, the harm would not have arisen.

Question 20

How is legal causation established ?

Answer 20

Damage must not be too remote from the negligence of D, and the the injury or damage must be reasonably foreseeable

Question 21

Established by the “Wagon Mound” which factors must also be considered under legal causation ? (+cases)

Answer 21

• Type of damage caused (Bradford v Robinson Rentals)
• Sequence of events (Hughes v Lord Advocate)
• The thin skull rule (Smith v Leech Brain)

Question 22

What is meant by “type of damage caused”, under legal causation ?

Answer 22

D will be liable if the type of injury was reasonably foreseeable, even if the precise
way the injury would occur was not.

Question 23

What is meant by “sequence of events”, under legal causation ?

Answer 23

The damage is not too remote when the damage/injury was foreseeable, however the chain of events which led to such damage/injury was unforeseeable.

Question 24

What is meant by the “thin skull rule”, under legal causation ?

Answer 24

“Defendant must take victim, as he finds him”, if V has a pre-existing condition for example, then D will be liable all subsequent consequences, as a result of their condition.

Question 25

What are the two defences, which may be available in a negligence claim ?

Answer 25

1. Volenti non fit injuria (Consent) 2. "Contributory Negligence"

Question 26

What is meant by "Volenti non fit injuria" ?

Answer 26

A full defence, which translates to, ‘to a willing person, no injury is done’, and covers situations where the claimant themselves consented to the act in question, meaning the defendant may not be liable for the damage incurred.

Question 27

What is the test for the availabity of the defence of "consent" ?

Answer 27

1. The claimant had knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk involved 2. The claimant freely and voluntarily gave their consent

Question 28

In which act was the ruling regarding "contributory negligence given" ?

Answer 28

"Law Reform (Contributory negligence) Act" (1945)

Question 29

What are the two elements to consider when deciding the availability of "contributory negligence" as a defence ? (+cases)

Answer 29

1. Claimant contributed to accident (Brannon v Airtours) 2. Claimant made their injuries worse (Froom v Butcher)