paper 2 B tests

Question 1

Negligence
1. DOC
2. BOD
3. Risk
4. Damages

Answer 1

Baron Anderson’s definition- ‘failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something which the reasonable person wouldn’t do’
1) Duty of Care- established tests
(list them)
2) Breach of Duty- Professional, Learner(Nettleship v western), Children, RM
3) Risk Factors- C have special characteristics?, size of risk?, precautions taken?, risks known at time?, is there a benefit?
4) Damages
C must prove damages are caused by breach- Causation in fact but for, causation in law, not too remote
NAI and eggshell

Question 2

Occupiers 1957 Lawful Visitors
1. Adults
2. Children
3. Tradesmen
4. Independent Contractors

Answer 2

occupiers liable for injury in there land
occupier- tenant or owner (wheat v lacon)

1. (laverton v kiapasha)
   (dean v de bell) occuiper must make sure land is reasonably safe for visitors and if there is danger it will be foreseeable
   no duty if accidental
   no duty if other cause to damage
2. additional duty owed
   S.2(3) occuiper must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults so must be reasonably safe for that age.
   should guard against allurement (glasgow v taylor)
   if very young d not be liable if child should have been supervised (phillips v rochester)
3. tradesmen owed a DOC
   s.2(3)B occuiper not liable when tradesmen failed to guard against risk they should have know about (roles v nathan)
4. if a visitor is hurt by the work of a tradesmen then the occupier could pass the blame on if work was negligent.
   -Reasonable for occuiper to give the work to independent contractor
   -contractor hired must be competent
   -occupier must check work done properly

Question 3

Occuipers 1984 Trespassers
1. Adults
2. Children

Answer 3

trespassers have no permission.
adults and children treated the same.
personal injury only.
occuiper owes duty if:
s.1(3)
(A) aware of danger or reasonable grounds it exists
(B) aware of trespasser or reasonable grounds they are in the vicinity
(C) danger is one the occupiers should provide protection for.

Adults-
occuiper not liable if the danger is obvious (Radcliff v McConnell)
time of year and day considered when accident happened.
occupier doesn’t have to spend lots of money removing all danger, if signed not followed, not liable.
not liable if had no reason to believe trespasser is present (higgs v foster)
Children is same as adults (Keown v Coventry health)

Question 4

Nuisance
1. Intro
2. Parties to an action
3. Unlawful
4. Reasonableness Factors
5. Defences/ Remedies

Answer 4

1-People have the right to do what they want in they’re own home provided it doesn’t annoy their neighbours.
Direct, Indirect?
must be unreasonable
Prima Facie- easy to see
Cannot claim Personal Injury (marine v laskey)

2-Claimant, must have interest over land
there enjoyment must be effected
must have interest in land (hunter v canary wharf)
Defendant, person causing or allowing nuisance
doesn’t need to have an interest in the land.

3. is it reasonable for claimant to suffer particular interference? if wasnt then it will be classified as unlawful (hunter v canary wharf)
4. if not prima facie courts will decide ‘reasonableness’
   - Locality, has character of neighbourhood changed?
   - Duration, needs to be continuous and at unreasonable times
   - sensitivity of claimant, if C is sensitive, D not liable for that
   - Malice, will be considered unreasonable