Negligence Evaluation

Question 1

Intro Flashcard

Answer 1

The law on negligence is mostly fair but still raises concerns. Decisions are sometimes based on policy rather than justice, and the flexibility judges have can lead to inconsistent or unfair outcomes. There are also issues around the duty of care, breach, and how damage is caused and limited.

Question 2

Conclusion Flashcard)

Answer 2

: Overall, negligence law does aim to protect claimants and keep things fair, but it’s not always consistent. Some areas—like judge-made policy decisions, high expectations for professionals, and unclear rules on damage—can make the law feel unfair or unpredictable. More consistent rules and better balance between claimants and defendants could improve the law.

Question 3

(Front - P):

Imposing a duty of care is often based on policy, not justice.

Answer 3

Dev/l/E/H:

•	Dev: Judges sometimes decide duty based on public policy, not fairness to the individual.
•	Impact: This can be unfair and lead to inconsistent decisions for claimants.
•	Example: Courts have refused duties in some cases to avoid opening the floodgates.
•	However: Duty is important in a fair society and courts must have flexibility to respond to new situations.

Question 4

(Front - P):

Lawyers used to have immunity from being sued.

Answer 4

Dev/l/E/H:.

•	Dev: Courts didn’t allow claims against barristers to avoid disrupting court work.
•	Impact: This denied claimants justice if harmed by legal mistakes.
•	Example: This immunity was removed because professional bodies now regulate lawyers.
•	However: The original fear of too many claims may still be a risk.

Question 5

(Front - P):

The reasonable person test holds everyone to the same standard. except professionals.

Answer 5

Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: Professionals are judged against others in their field, not the average person.
• Impact: This protects the public from expert negligence but weakens the original “one standard” rule.
• Example: A learner driver is held to the same standard as a qualified driver (Nettleship v Weston).
• However: It’s fair to expect more from trained professionals due to their specialist knowledge.

Question 6

(Front - P):
Causation depends on whether the injury was reasonably foreseeable.

Answer 6

Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: A defendant is only liable for harm they could have foreseen.
• Impact: This limits liability and seems fair, but can be hard to prove what the defendant foresaw.
• Example: The Wagon Mound set the rule that damage must be reasonably foreseeable.
• However: It can still lead to unfairness where obvious risks are ignored due to strict rules.

Question 7

(Front - P):
Different judges interpret remoteness inconsistently.

Answer 7

Dev/I/E/H:
• Development: Some judges apply strict rules while others use a more flexible, fairer approach.
• Impact: This creates legal uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes for both claimants and defendants.
• Example: Harsh outcomes in Doughty v Turner vs. the fairer result in Jolley v Sutton.
• However: Judicial flexibility allows the law to adapt to different factual situations and do justice.