Negligence Quiz

In order to established a claim in [blank_start]negligence[blank_end], the following four elements must be satisfied: [blank_start]actionable damage[blank_end], [blank_start]duty of care[blank_end], [blank_start]breach of duty[blank_end] and [blank_start]causation[blank_end]. Once a [blank_start]claim[blank_end] is established, we must consider any possible [blank_start]defences[blank_end] and remedies.

What is the damage? Is it [blank_start]actionable[blank_end]? o Psychiatric harm must be [blank_start]medically recognisable[blank_end] ([blank_start]Hinz v Berry[blank_end]) o [blank_start]Personal[blank_end] injury must be more than merely [blank_start]trivial[blank_end] ([blank_start]Rothwell[blank_end] v Chemical & Insulating Co)

DUTY OF [blank_start]CARE[blank_end]: Apply [blank_start]CAPARO[blank_end]: o There must be a relationship of [blank_start]proximity[blank_end] between C and D o The harm suffered must be [blank_start]foreseeable[blank_end] ([blank_start]Bhamra v Dubb[blank_end]) o It must be fair, just and [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] to impose a duty of care on D ([blank_start]MacFarlane[blank_end] v Tayside Health Board) IF there is a consumer-[blank_start]manufacturer[blank_end] relationship, mention the [blank_start]Neighbourhood[blank_end] Principle in Donoghue v [blank_start]Stevenson[blank_end]

DUTY OF CARE: OMISSIONS: Stovin v [blank_start]Wise[blank_end] – generally no liability for an [blank_start]omission[blank_end] Barrett v Ministry of Defence – where D agrees to act or [blank_start]voluntarily[blank_end] accepts a [blank_start]responsibility[blank_end], his later failure to do so will render him liable Where there is a special relationship between C and D, there is a [blank_start]legal duty[blank_end] to act e.g. doctor and patient ([blank_start]Bolam v Friern[blank_end]) Home Office v [blank_start]Dorset Yacht[blank_end] Co – a [blank_start]duty of care[blank_end] is owed for an omission where D is in [blank_start]control[blank_end] of a 3rd party who caused the [blank_start]damage[blank_end] and it was [blank_start]foreseeable[blank_end] that harm would result from their inaction [blank_start]Haynes v Harwood[blank_end] – D will be liable where he has created the source of [blank_start]danger[blank_end]

DUTY OF CARE: ECONOMIC LOSS: [blank_start]Spartan Steel[blank_end] - Generally no duty of care is owed to avoid causing another to suffer a loss which is purely [blank_start]economic[blank_end] [blank_start]Hedley Byrne[blank_end] - Where the economic is caused by negligent [blank_start]mis-statement[blank_end] as opposed to a [blank_start]negligent[blank_end] act, liability may be imposed

BREACH OF DUTY: Apply the [blank_start]reasonable man[blank_end] test in [blank_start]Blyth[blank_end] v Birmingham Waterworks Co BUT if there is an exceptional scenario - [blank_start]HORSEPLAY[blank_end]: Only a DOC if recklessness or high level of carelessness ([blank_start]Blake[blank_end] v Galloway) PROFESSIONAL: Held to the standard of a [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] person within that profession (Wilsher v Essex) LEARNER DRIVER: Must reach the standard of a competent [blank_start]qualified[blank_end] driver ([blank_start]Nettleship v Weston[blank_end]) [blank_start]DOCTOR[blank_end]: If the Dr has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a [blank_start]professional body[blank_end], he is NOT liable (Bolam v [blank_start]Friern[blank_end]) The opinion must be [blank_start]defensible[blank_end] and rooted in [blank_start]logic[blank_end] ([blank_start]Bolitho[blank_end] v City & Hackney HA) CHILD: Judged by standard of a reasonable child of the same [blank_start]age[blank_end] ([blank_start]Mullin v Richards[blank_end]) ILLNESS: The Courts have not taken a consistent approach due to [blank_start]policy[blank_end] reasons [blank_start]Roberts v Ramsbottom[blank_end] - personal injury thus a breach of duty was found in order to ensure V was compensated Mansfield v Weetabix – [blank_start]property[blank_end] damage so covered by insurance

CAUSATION: FACTUAL: Apply the [blank_start]BUT FOR[blank_end] test ([blank_start]Barnett v Chelsea[blank_end]) UNLESS… o D did not cause the [blank_start]initial harm[blank_end] (Performance Cars v Abrahams) o C’s [blank_start]hypothetical conduct[blank_end] 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 ([blank_start]Wilsher v Essex AHA[blank_end]) MULTIPLE CAUSES – SUCCESSIVE: 2 [blank_start]independent[blank_end] events causing harm [blank_start]Baker v Willoughby[blank_end] – the 1st D should be liable to compensate for his original harm caused continually Jobling v Associated Dairies – the 2nd event cut off the [blank_start]liability[blank_end] of the 1st D because the harm suffered was not related to the initial harm [blank_start]CONCURRENT[blank_end]: 2 or more concurrent events causing harm Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw – C must only prove that D’s [blank_start]breach of duty[blank_end] made a material contribution to the harm suffered. D will be liable for the full [blank_start]extent[blank_end] of the harm ([blank_start]Divisible[blank_end] injuries) Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services – Causation is proved by stating that D [blank_start]materially contributed[blank_end] to the risk of harm ([blank_start]Indivisible[blank_end] injuries) LOSS OF CHANCE CASES: Hotson v East Berkshire & [blank_start]Gregg v Scott[blank_end] - The Courts are reluctant to impose liability for a loss of chance in [blank_start]personal injury[blank_end] Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons – Loss of a chance in [blank_start]pure economic loss[blank_end] may be recoverable MEDICAL [blank_start]NON-DISCLOSURES[blank_end]: Chappel v Hart – D liable where the harm falls within the scope of the risk C should have been [blank_start]warned[blank_end] about. [blank_start]Chester v Afshar[blank_end] – 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 [blank_start]risks[blank_end] and where C admits she may still have had the surgery anyway.

CAUSATION: LEGAL: REMOTENESS: is the type of damage [blank_start]foreseeable[blank_end]? (Wagon Mound No [blank_start]1[blank_end]) [blank_start]NOVUS ACTUS[blank_end] INTERVENIENS: 3 possible scenarios – 1. Act of [blank_start]Nature[blank_end] [blank_start]Carslogie Steamship Co[blank_end] v Royal Norwegian Government – an act of nature can break the causation chain 2. Act of a [blank_start]Third Party[blank_end] Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co – was their act foreseeable? The [blank_start]conduct[blank_end] of the boys must have been very likely, otherwise the chain of causation is broken, per Lord [blank_start]Reid[blank_end] Lamb v Camden LBC – a high degree of [blank_start]foresight[blank_end] is required (affirmed principle in [blank_start]Dorset Yacht[blank_end]) [blank_start]Knightley v Johns[blank_end] – a negligent act is more likely to break the chain of causation. 3. Act of Claimant – did C act [blank_start]reasonably[blank_end] in the circumstances? (McKew v Holland) Corr v IBC Vehicles – where suicide is a response to a [blank_start]psychological[blank_end] illness, C is not making an informed choice [blank_start]Reeves v Commissioner of Police[blank_end] – where a [blank_start]duty[blank_end] is owed in the first place, there cannot be a NAI