Negligence

Question 1

1. Duty of Care

Answer 1

Duty is owned under Robinson v CCWY;
A. Existing Statue:RTA
B. Pre-Existing Duty - reason by analogy
C. New novel situations (Caparo Test);
1) Harm/ injury was reasonably foreseeable (Kent v Griffins)
2) Proximity between parties in time, space and relationship (Bourhill v Young)
3) Fair, just and reasonable to impose duty (Hill v CCWY)

Question 2

2. Breach

Answer 2

D owned duty of care and breached it. Reasonable man test applies.

Mention one that applies:
A. Professional standards: judged by the profession as a whole (Bolam)
B. Learners: judged to standard of experienced person (Nettleship v Weston)
C. Children and young people (Mullin v Richards)
D. Reasonable: judged to standard of ordinary person performing that task (Vaughan v Menlove)

Question 3

3. Damage

Answer 3

1. Factual causation: But for test (Barnett v Chelsea Hospital)
2. Legal causation: damage must NOT BE TOO REMOTE from negligence of D. Injury or damage must be foreseeable. (The Wagon Mound)

Only mention if applies:
Situations where harm is reasonably foreseeable even though the way in which it happened was not foreseeable.

Question 4

4. Risk Factors

Answer 4

1. Size of harm (Bolton v Stone)
2. Characteristics of C (Paris v Stepney)
3. Precautions (Latimer v AEC)
4. Social utility/benefit (Watts v Herts)