Negligence

Question 1

Elements for a cause of action in negligence

Answer 1

1) Duty of Care
2) Breach of Duty
3) Damage
4) Causation
5) Remoteness

Question 2

Duty of care

Answer 2

First needs to be established whether this is a situation in which D ought to have avoided causing loss to C

Question 3

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 3

Emerging of the neighbour principle
Lord Atkin:
a person “must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions that are likely to cause injury to your neighbour”

Neighbour: so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably have them in contemplation as being so affected when you think about the act
(criteria: 1) Proximity 2) Foreseeability)

Question 4

Home Office v Dorset Yacht

Answer 4

Development of neighbour principle:

should work as working presumption

Question 5

Ann v Merton

Answer 5

Development of a testfor duty of care:
1) is there sufficiently close relationship so that it must have been in reasonabe contemplation of C that carelessnes on his part would be likely to cause damage to D
(procimity is established by foreseeability)
-> if yes priema facie duty
2) countervening policy consideration which have influence on scope of duty?

Question 6

CURRENT TEST FOR NOVEL SITUATIONS

Answer 6

Caparo v Dickmann

1) Damage must be foreseeable
2) Proximity of relationship
3) fair, just and reasonable

Question 7

Caparo

Answer 7

Lord Bridge
onus on C:
1) Damage must be foreseeable
-> reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer harm if D acted careless in the way he did
2) Proximity of relationship
3) fair, just and reasonable
- policy considerations come into play as in Ann v Merton

this test applies where there is not a previous category of duty guided by different rules

Question 8

Lord Bridge
onus on C:
1) Damage must be foreseeable
-> reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer harm if D acted careless in the way he did
2) Proximity of relationship
3) fair, just and reasonable
- policy considerations come into play as in Ann v Merton

this test applies where there is not a previous category of duty guided by different rules

Answer 8

Caparo

Question 9

1) Foreseeability of damage

Answer 9

What would a reasonable person in Ds position ought to have anticipated at the moment at which they were about to commit the act

Question 10

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 10

Proximity of Relationship requirement failed (police /victim)

Question 11

Proximity of Relationship requirement failed (police /victim)

Answer 11

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Question 12

McFarlane

Answer 12

Fair just and reasonable

Cost of unintended child could not be sued for due to perspective of distributive justice

Question 13

Mulcahy

Answer 13

negligent orders from sergeant
it was common sense that on the battlefield you cant expect people to take care of others.
- combat immunity

Question 14

Fair just and reasonable

Cost of unintended child could not be sued for due to perspective of distributive justice

Answer 14

McFarlane

Question 15

negligent orders from sergeant
it was common sense that on the battlefield you cant expect people to take care of others.
- combat immunity

Answer 15

Mulcahy

Question 16

Smith v MoD

Answer 16

no combat immunity, and case was not decided based on a fair, just and reasonable assesment of duty of care but MINORITY: (mance, carnwarth)
Government decisions on how much to invest into what are not for the court to investigate

Question 17

no combat immunity, and case was not decided based on a fair, just and reasonable assesment of duty of care but MINORITY: (mance, carnwarth)
Government decisions on how much to invest into what are not for the court to investigate

Answer 17

Smith v Mod

Question 18

Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire

Answer 18

not fair just and reasonable to impose a duty on police:

1) would not lead to improvement - police already works on highest standard
2) lead to defensive policing
3) divert resources to resist negligence claims where police should concentrate on crime prevention

Question 19

not fair just and reasonable to impose a duty on police:

1) would not lead to improvement - police already works on highest standard
2) lead to defensive policing
3) divert resources to resist negligence claims where police should concentrate on crime prevention

Answer 19

Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire

Question 20

Art. 6 ECHR

Answer 20

right to fair trial- excluding liability will cause courts to strike out claims

Question 21

Osman

Answer 21

CoA had striked out a claim,
ECHR:
Hill failed requirement of proportionality
from then on: factors that give rise to court denying a claim (fair just and reasonable consideration) would have to be weighed against Cs suffering

it seemed like a claim could no longer be simply struck out but that there would always have to be such a weighing exercise

HOWEVER: Z v United Kingdom

Question 22

Z v United Kingdom

Answer 22

art. 6 had been observed when striking out claims

there would be no requirement to do a proportionality assesment as set out in Osman where the rule that deprives C of bringing a claim is a SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL RULE

Here: it was established that there was in fact no immunity of the police but that the fair, just and reasonable principle, a sustantive legal principle, had been applied in cases such as Hill

Question 23

Brooks

Answer 23

MODIFICATION FROM HILL PRINCIPLE

1) it should be no longer assumed that imposing a duty of care would have no positive effect on police standards as extensive failings had been shown
2) if there had been outrageous negligence this might be a reason to impose a duty of care

nb although the weighing up of factors from Osman was no longer required due to the decision in Z v UK the courts still seemed concerned about hwether degree of negligence and injury had to be considered

Question 24

Van Colle

Answer 24

the concern was that if police was made liable they’d start to neglect crime prevention as well as education
scepticism about “outrageous negligence” from brooks
-> unclear if it still applies as Van Colle as well as Michaels suggest otherwise

Question 25

CoA had striked out a claim, ECHR: Hill failed requirement of proportionality from then on: factors that give rise to court denying a claim (fair just and reasonable consideration) would have to be weighed against Cs suffering it seemed like a claim could no longer be simply struck out but that there would always have to be such a weighing exercise HOWEVER: Z v United Kingdom

Answer 25

Osman

Question 26

art. 6 had been observed when striking out claims there would be no requirement to do a proportionality assesment as set out in Osman where the rule that deprives C of bringing a claim is a SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL RULE Here: it was established that there was in fact no immunity of the police but that the fair, just and reasonable principle, a sustantive legal principle, had been applied in cases such as Hill

Answer 26

Z v United Kingdom

Question 27

MODIFICATION FROM HILL PRINCIPLE 1) it should be no longer assumed that imposing a duty of care would have no positive effect on police standards as extensive failings had been shown 2) if there had been outrageous negligence this might be a reason to impose a duty of care nb although the weighing up of factors from Osman was no longer required due to the decision in Z v UK the courts still seemed concerned about hwether degree of negligence and injury had to be considered

Answer 27

Brooks

Question 28

the concern was that if police was made liable they'd start to neglect crime prevention as well as education scepticism about "outrageous negligence" from brooks -> unclear if it still applies as Van Colle as well as Michaels suggest otherwise

Answer 28

Van Colle

Question 29

Liability for Omission is generally harder to establish ex partner killing woman, who had called the police whp had classified the call as non-urgent DISSENT IMPoRTANT: Hale, Kerr Societys attitudes may have changed and people may no longer find it fair to grant immunity for police from duty of care in such scenarios

Answer 29

Michaels

Question 30

Michaels

Answer 30

Liability for Omission is generally harder to establish ex partner killing woman, who had called the police whp had classified the call as non-urgent DISSENT IMPoRTANT: Hale, Kerr Societys attitudes may have changed and people may no longer find it fair to grant immunity for police from duty of care in such scenarios

Question 31

Hale in Michaels v Chief Constable south wales

Answer 31

Hale: Policy reasons against imposition have largely diminshed by the fact that undert art. 2 echr police owes a common law duty to protect members of public

Question 32

Kerr in Michaels

Answer 32

Sufficient proximity should be recognised where: 1) closeness of association (arises f.e. where info is communicated) 2) info is about serious harm unless action 3) D is an angecy reasonably expected to act and protect 4) D is able to do so without unnecessary danger to himself

Question 33

Emerging principle tests

Answer 33

Donoghue v Stevenson neighbour principle Home Office v Dorset Yacht should apply Ann foreseeability, policy considerations but Caparo : foreseeable, proximity relationship, fair just reasonable

Question 34

Proximity of relationship

Answer 34

Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire | Michaels v Chief Constable South Wales

Question 35

Fair Just Reasonable | Military

Answer 35

Mulcahy | Smith

Question 36

Fair Just Reasonable | Police

Answer 36

``` Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire Osman Z v UK Brooks Van Colle Michael v Chief Constable South Wales ```