100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Summary Negligence - Duty of Care PQ Notes (First Class) $3.88
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. University College London (UCL)
  4.  
  5. Bachelor Of Law LLB
  6.  
  7. Tort Law

Summary

Summary Negligence - Duty of Care PQ Notes (First Class)

1 review
 1 purchase
  • Course
  • Tort Law
  • Institution
  • University College London (UCL)

Comprehensive first class Tort Law PQ notes from University College London (2010/2020). Notes include concise case summaries, key reasonings to reconcile conflicting case law and detailed answer outlines to problem questions

Preview 2 out of 9  pages

Document information

  • October 29, 2020
  • 9
  • 2019/2020
  • Summary

Subjects

  • tort law

Written for

  • University College London (UCL)
  • Bachelor of Law LLB
  • Tort Law
All documents for this subject (10)

1  review

review-writer-avatar

By: chungcherry • 2 year ago

Seller

avatar-seller
firstclasslawnotes

Reviews received

Content preview

Negligence: Duty of Care


Introduction
a.  Elements of a cause of action in negligence
o Duty of care
o Breach
o Damage
o Causation
o Remoteness

 Law uses requirement of duty of care to limit liability

b. General Test

Donoghue v Stevenson
o Woman bought a bottle of ginger beer  as she drank, decomposed snail came out
 suffered shock and physical illness
o Lord Atkin
o You must not injure your neighbor  neighbor defined as people whom you
expect to be affected by your acts
o Lord Macmillan
o Preferred alternative approach of looking at categories of cases where duty of
care applies  categories are flexible

Anns v Merton
o Test for duty of care
o Is damage reasonably foreseeable? If so, D prima facie owes a duty of care
o Are there any good public policy reasons for there not to be a duty of care?

d. Causation
 must be causal link between claimant’s injury and defendant’s breach of duty of care
 must be established that the defendant’s negligent conduct was the cause of the
claimant’s loss; a but-for test to be applied.
 claimant’s loss must fall within scope of defendant’s liability; must consider whether
intervening acts/omissions negate defendant’s responsibility for injury
 if claimant makes use of something which obviously has a dangerous defect?
o Dependent on whether he ignored the danger deliberately or inadvertently
o Lord Wright in Grant: the man who consumes or uses a thing which he knows to
be noxious cannot complain of whatever mischief follows

Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd [1936] 1 All ER 283
o plaintiffs sued defendant when defective windscreen broke and showered them with
glass

, Negligence: Duty of Care


o however, claim failed as there was no evidence that even assuming the defendant’s
negligence, that that was the cause rather than something else

Burrows v March Gas & Coke Co (1872) LR 7 Ex 96
o defendants supplied plaintiffs with defective pipe which leaked gas
o gas-fitter was called in to look for the source of the escaped gas and lit a match, which
exploded and injured the plaintiff
o held that the defendants could not be liable for damage which resulted from a third
party’s reckless conduct

e. Three-Stage Test
o Contrasted with the 2-stage test from Anns v Merton (what is the value of the Anns
test)

Caparo v Dickman
o Three-stage Test
o C must show it was reasonably foreseeable that C would be damaged if D was
careless
o C must establish that there is a proximity of relationship
o Must be shown that it is fair, just and reasonable that a duty of care should
arise
o Fair, just and reasonable requirement is policy-oriented. Tort is about relationships
between individuals, but tort decisions have effects beyond two individuals 
controversial whether tort decisions should take into account broader policy
implications

o Lord Bridge’s 3-stage test is not conclusive  qualifies that the law should be
developed incrementally, by analogy with existing duty situations




Assumption of Responsibility Test

Hedley v Heller
o Test
o Whether D assumed responsibility to C

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller firstclasslawnotes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $3.88. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

69052 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now

Start selling
$3.88  1x  sold
  • (1)
Add to cart
Added