negligence ao3

Question 1

strength - clarification of doc

Answer 1

Robison case clarified when doc exists
if case similar to one that has precedent , follow precedent
if diff , use caparo 3 part test

clarityy, fairness, dont apply test randomly

Question 2

strength - reasonable person standard

Answer 2

judged based on whats reasonable for their role e.g junior doctor expected to act like actual doctor
- fair , injured person still gets compensation , professionals still be careful even if new

Question 3

strength - vulnerable ppl

Answer 3

more care needed when vulnerable
e.g blind person , haley v leb
- fair , these ppl hurt more easily , needs more protection

Question 4

strength - hard cases

Answer 4

harder cases = courts can say D caused significant risk instead of proving exact cause , helps claimant get justice even when proof is hard

Fairchild v glenhaven

Question 5

unfair - caparo test

Answer 5

caparo test , asks if its fair just and reasonable , what that means = not clear
- doesn’t explain what counts as being close enough ( proximity) to owe a duty

confusing , unpredictable

Question 6

unfair- forseeability mentioned

Answer 6

comes up more than once in negligence
may overlap and confuse ppl

Question 7

unfairness - multiple ppl

Answer 7

hard to prove who caused harm if more than 1 person ddi it
- might get no compensation

Question 8

unfair- responsbility with foreseeing something

Answer 8

even if something bad has happened , can say it wasn’t foreseabile so D not responsible
- unfair to claimant