Negligence Quiz

In order to established a claim in , the following four elements must be satisfied: , , and .
Once a is established, we must consider any possible and remedies.

What is the damage?
Is it ?
o Psychiatric harm must be ()
o injury must be more than merely ( v Chemical & Insulating Co)

DUTY OF :

Apply :
o There must be a relationship of between C and D
o The harm suffered must be ()
o It must be fair, just and to impose a duty of care on D ( v Tayside Health Board)

IF there is a consumer- relationship, mention the Principle in Donoghue v

DUTY OF CARE:

OMISSIONS:

Stovin v – generally no liability for an
Barrett v Ministry of Defence – where D agrees to act or accepts a , his later failure to do so will render him liable
Where there is a special relationship between C and D, there is a to act e.g. doctor and patient ()
Home Office v Co – a is owed for an omission where D is in of a 3rd party who caused the and it was that harm would result from their inaction
– D will be liable where he has created the source of

DUTY OF CARE:

ECONOMIC LOSS:

- Generally no duty of care is owed to avoid causing another to suffer a loss which is purely
- Where the economic is caused by negligent as opposed to a act, liability may be imposed

BREACH OF DUTY:

Apply the test in v Birmingham Waterworks Co

BUT if there is an exceptional scenario -

: Only a DOC if recklessness or high level of carelessness ( v Galloway)

PROFESSIONAL: Held to the standard of a person within that profession (Wilsher v Essex)

LEARNER DRIVER: Must reach the standard of a competent driver ()

: If the Dr has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a , he is NOT liable (Bolam v )
The opinion must be and rooted in ( v City & Hackney HA)

CHILD: Judged by standard of a reasonable child of the same ()

ILLNESS: The Courts have not taken a consistent approach due to reasons
- personal injury thus a breach of duty was found in order to ensure V was compensated
Mansfield v Weetabix – damage so covered by insurance

CAUSATION:

FACTUAL:

Apply the test () UNLESS…
o D did not cause the (Performance Cars v Abrahams)
o C’s can be proved (McWilliams v Sir William Arrol Co)
o If there are multiple reasons and D’s conduct is only one of them, D cannot be held liable ()

MULTIPLE CAUSES –

SUCCESSIVE: 2 events causing harm

– the 1st D should be liable to compensate for his original harm caused continually
Jobling v Associated Dairies – the 2nd event cut off the of the 1st D because the harm suffered was not related to the initial harm

: 2 or more concurrent events causing harm

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw – C must only prove that D’s made a material contribution to the harm suffered. D will be liable for the full of the harm ( injuries)
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services – Causation is proved by stating that D to the risk of harm ( injuries)

LOSS OF CHANCE CASES:

Hotson v East Berkshire & - The Courts are reluctant to impose liability for a loss of chance in
Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons – Loss of a chance in may be recoverable

MEDICAL :

Chappel v Hart – D liable where the harm falls within the scope of the risk C should have been about.
– Causation inferred on reasons of fairness and justice (policy decision).
Only applies in cases where C is suing the Dr for failing to warn her about the and where C admits she may still have had the surgery anyway.

CAUSATION:

LEGAL:

REMOTENESS: is the type of damage ? (Wagon Mound No )
INTERVENIENS: 3 possible scenarios –

1. Act of
v Royal Norwegian Government – an act of nature can break the causation chain

2. Act of a
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co – was their act foreseeable? The of the boys must have been very likely, otherwise the chain of causation is broken, per Lord
Lamb v Camden LBC – a high degree of is required (affirmed principle in )
– a negligent act is more likely to break the chain of causation.

3. Act of Claimant – did C act in the circumstances? (McKew v Holland)
Corr v IBC Vehicles – where suicide is a response to a illness, C is not making an informed choice
– where a is owed in the first place, there cannot be a NAI