Negligence

Question 1

Negligence

def:

Answer 1

The failure to exercise reasonable care resulting in physical damage

Question 2

Physical damage means
1.
2.
3.

Answer 2

1. Death
2. Personal injury
3. Damage to property.

Question 3

3 elements

Answer 3

1. Duty of care
2. Breach of duty.
3. Resulting damage

Question 4

Original case:

Answer 4

Donoghue vs Stevenson

Question 5

What is the first element of duty of care?

Answer 5

Claimant must prove that the defendant owes her a duty of care

Question 6

If the situation is a novel one, how is duty of care established

Answer 6

The Caparo test/ Incremental approach.

Question 7

Caparo Industries v Dickman

Answer 7

Created the Incremental approach

Question 8

What are the 3 elements of the 3 stage approach?

Answer 8

1. Is the damage reasonably foreseeable?
2. Sufficient proximity
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

Question 9

Which case created the incremental approach

Answer 9

Caparo Industries v Dickman

Question 10

Bourhill v Young

Answer 10

D couldn’t reasonably foresee that C would be affected by his actions

Question 11

Kent V Griffiths

Answer 11

It was reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer as a result of a late ambulance

Question 12

Proximity can be in
1.
2.
3.

Answer 12

1. Time
2. Space
3. Proximity

Question 13

Hill v Chief Constable of Yorkshire

Answer 13

No relationship between police and potential victims as police would have no idea who potential victims will be

Question 14

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire county council

Answer 14

It will be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on public authorities if they increase/create danger

Question 15

Factual causation CIVIL CASE:

Answer 15

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital management committee.

Question 16

Multiple causes case

Answer 16

Fairchild v Glenhaven funeral services

Question 17

If there are multiple causes of the claimant’s suffering, what happens. (Materially increase risk test)
1.
2.

Answer 17

1. They can claim total compensation from the D.

2. The D can then, in turn, claim joint responsibility with other Ds.

Question 18

Jobling v Associated Dairies

Answer 18

Intervening Acts break the chain of causation

Question 19

What is intervening act in latin?

Answer 19

Novus Actus Interveniens

Question 20

Smith vs Littlewoods

Answer 20

Example of NOVUS ACTUS

INTERvenIENS

Question 21

The Wagon Mound

Answer 21

Type of damage was not reasonably foreseeable

Question 22

Tremain v Pike

Answer 22

The disease was rare so the type of damage wasn’t reasonably foreseeable.

Question 23

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Answer 23

Type of damage wasn’t too remote at it was reasonable foreseeable that C might suffer some harm.

Question 24

Smith v Leech Brain & Co

Answer 24

Thin Skull principle.

Question 25

Donoghue vs Stevenson

Answer 25

Manufacturers owe customers a duty of care

Question 26

Type of damage wasn't too remote at it was reasonable foreseeable that C might suffer some harm. Case?

Answer 26

Bradford v Robinson Rentals.

Question 27

Thin Skull principle. Case?

Answer 27

Smith v Leech Brain & Co

Question 28

The disease was rare so the type of damage wasn't reasonably foreseeable. Case?

Answer 28

Tremain v Pike

Question 29

Legal causation. Case?

Answer 29

The Wagon Mound

Question 30

Fairchild v Glenhaven funeral services

Answer 30

Multiple causes case.

Question 31

Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea hospital management committee

Answer 31

but for test

Question 32

It was reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer as a result of a late ambulance. Case?

Answer 32

Kent v Griffiths

Question 33

It will be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on public authorities if they increase/create danger. Case?

Answer 33

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire county council

Question 34

No relationship between police and potential victims as police would have no idea who potential victims will be. Case?

Answer 34

Hill v Chief Constable of Yorkshire

Question 35

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks co defines breach of duty as......

Answer 35

"Doing something that a reasonable man would not do or not doing something that a reasonable man would do."

Question 36

To satisfy breach of duty 2 things must be certain. What? 1. 2.

Answer 36

1. Standard of care expected. | 2. 4 risk factors.

Question 37

Wells v Cooper

Answer 37

The normal standard of care expected is that of the reasonable person.

Question 38

Roe v Minister Health

Answer 38

Professionals will be judged by the standard of their professional peers. Judges will reply on experts in that field.

Question 39

Mullins v Richards

Answer 39

Children are judged against children of the same age as the D

Question 40

``` 4 risk factors. Cases? 1. 2. 3. 4. ```

Answer 40

1. Bolton v Stone 2. Paris v Stepney 3. Latimer v AEC 4. Marshall v Osmond.

Question 41

Claimant must prove that D was negligent on a ___ __ ___

Answer 41

balance of probabilities.

Question 42

Likelihood of harm case

Answer 42

Bolton v Stone

Question 43

Seriousness of harm case

Answer 43

Paris v Stepney

Question 44

Cost of avoiding risk case

Answer 44

Latimer v AEC

Question 45

Social benefit case

Answer 45

Marshall v Osmond

Question 46

Bolton v Stone

Answer 46

Likelihood of harm case

Question 47

Paris v Stepney

Answer 47

Seriousness of harm case

Question 48

Latimer v AEC

Answer 48

Cost of avoiding risk case

Question 49

Marshall v Osmond

Answer 49

Social benefit case