Negligence

Question 1

Donoghue and Stevenston

Answer 1

manufactures owe a duty of care to consumers/customers

Question 2

Kent v Griffiths - forseeabilty - Caparo v Dickman

Answer 2

further harm to the patient was foreseeable if the ambulance was delayed for no valid reason

Question 3

Bournhill v Young - proximity

Answer 3

no proximity as the claimant was behind the barrier and was not in the zone of danger whilst the accident took place. - caparo

Question 4

Hill v CCMY - duty of care: policy

Answer 4

courts established ‘blanket immunity’ - police do not owe a duty of care when executing their duties.

Question 5

-Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 5

the court rejected the argument of the police which was used in Hill that they have immunity from liability in the tort of negligence and a duty of care is owed
-Blanket immunity from being used no longer existed for the police in relation to personal injuries inflicted by the police. - link to floodgates of litigation

Question 6

Blyth test (standard of care)

Answer 6

a water company is expected to meet the standard another reasonable water company – did not foresee the bad weather

Question 7

Nettleship v Weston - variation of standard - learners

Answer 7

must drive is as good manner as a driver of skill, experience or care. Standard of care is not lowered -

Question 8

Mullins v Richards - variation of standard

Answer 8

– D had not breached her duty of care as she met the standard of a reasonable 15-year-old. Standard of care is lowered - children

Question 9

Bolam v Friern Hospital - professionals

Answer 9

established that another reasonable hospital would have done the same in not providing the drugs ad therefor they had met the standard expected. - standard of care is higher

Question 10

Haley v London Electricity Board - liklihood of harm

Answer 10

the defendant was liable as they failed to consider the needs of a blind person.

Question 11

Paris - seriousness of harm

Answer 11

council was negligent they didn’t provide safety googles to the claimant even though he was already blind in one eye. - obtain special characteristics.

Question 12

Bolten v Stone - cost and practicalities

Answer 12

Cricket grounds were not negligent as a reasonable cricket ground would have the same safety measures. Ball had only been hit out the ground 6 times in the last 30 years.

Question 13

Watt v Hertz CC - social/public benefit

Answer 13

carjack had fallen on the firefighter’s leg but a great public benefit as he was doing a good duty of saving a woman – standard of care was met

Question 14

Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea hospital – facutal causation ‘but for test’

Answer 14

claim was not successful as there was no cure for arsenic poisoning. But for the hospital’s actions the patient would have died anyway.

Question 15

Wagon Mound - remoteness

Answer 15

claimant could not claim for property damage as it was too unforeseeable and too remote.

Question 16

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Answer 16

type of damage was foreseeable does not matter that it occurred in an unusual way (explosion) and the greater extent (burns) therefore the defendant was still liable.

Question 17

Scott v Shepard - legal causation - intervening acts

Answer 17

– forseeable that they would keep throwing the fireworks and the defendant is still liable.

Question 18

Smith v Leech brain - legal causation thin skull rule

Answer 18

the company had to accept the claimant as they found him including the pre-cancerous cells.

Question 19

Morris v Murray - defences

Answer 19

the claimant was not successful as he was fully aware of the risk of injury however other arguments views is that he was too intoxicated to know that there was a risk in the first place.

Question 20

Smith v Baker - defences

Answer 20

simply knowing the risk did not amount to consent especially where the claimant had little choice but to continue to work as he needed a job.