Negligence

Question 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 1

• You must take reasonable care to not injure your neighbour.
• Neighbour Principle

Question 2

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 2

• Injury or damage has to be reasonably foreseeable.
• There must be proximity of relationship.
• It must be fair and reasonable to owe a duty of care.
• Caparo Test Principles

Question 3

Kent v Griffiths

Answer 3

• Ambulance took unreasonable time to arrive and take patient to hospital.
• Reasonably Foreseeable

Question 4

Bourhill v Young

Answer 4

• Woman had accident and suffered shock when saw blood on road.
• Proximity of Relationship

Question 5

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 5

• Not fair, just or reasonable to owe a duty to member of public not known to them.
• Fair, Just and Reasonable to Owe a Duty

Question 6

Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management

Answer 6

• Professionals judged according to standards in profession.
• Professionals/Experts
• Breach of Duty

Question 7

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 7

• Learners judged at the standard of the competent, more experienced person.
• Learners
• Breach of Duty

Question 8

Mullin v Richards

Answer 8

• Judged at standard of Ds age at the time of the accident.
• Children and Young Persons
• Breach of Duty

Question 9

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Answer 9

• Has claimant any special circumstances to be taken account of?
• Vulnerable Victim
• Breach of Duty

Question 10

Bolton v Stone

Answer 10

• Greater care to be taken if higher chance of injury.
• Size of Risk
• Breach of Duty

Question 11

Latimer v AEC

Answer 11

• Risk involved is balanced against the costs and efforts of taking precautions.
• Costs of Precautions
• Breach of Duty

Question 12

Roe v Minister of Health

Answer 12

• If risk not known at the time of accident, can be no breach.
• Knowledge of Danger
• Breach of Duty

Question 13

Haley v Leb

Answer 13

• If high risk of injury the standard of care is higher.
• Knowledge of Danger
• Breach of Duty

Question 14

Watt v Hertfordshire

Answer 14

• Greater risks can be taken in emergency situations
• Public Benefit (Utility)
• Breach of Duty

Question 15

Day v Higher Performance Sports

Answer 15

• Duty of care not breached in view of emergency.
• Public Benefit (Utility)
• Breach of Duty

Question 16

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

Answer 16

• ‘But for’ test - but for Ds act or omission the injury would not have happened.
• Factual Causation

Question 17

Wagon Mound

Answer 17

• Injury or damage can be claimed if reasonably foreseeable.

- Remoteness of Damage

Question 18

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Answer 18

• Consequence foreseeable even if exact cause of injury isn’t foreseeable.
• Foreseeability

Question 19

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Answer 19

• Consequence foreseeable, even if more severe.

- Foreseeability

Question 20

Doughty v Turner Asbestos

Answer 20

• Consequence not known so injury not foreseeable.

- Foreseeability

Question 21

Smith v Leech Brain and Co

Answer 21

• D liable for all consequences of all negligence.

- Take Your Victim as You Find Him