All-you-need document in format of answer structure ideal for A-level law grades of A/A*. Fully outlines all necessary steps in answering any tort law questions including cases for relevant areas. Up to date and in easy to follow format.
All second year aqa law notes and cases documents available...
Negligence:
Three things need to be proven:
1. The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care
2. The defendant breached the duty of care
3. The breach of duty caused the damage AND that damage was reasonably
foreseeable
(1)Duty of care;
The neighbour principle (Donoghue v Stevenson) - You have a duty of care to anyone you
ought to have in mind who might be affected by your actions.
a) Was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable? (Kent v Griffiths)
b) Proximity of relationship must be sufficiently close or proximate (Bourhill v Young
BUT McLoughlin v O’Brien)
c) Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire)
(2)Breach of duty of care;
- Professionals are judged against the standard expected by their profession (Bolam v
Friern Barnett Hospital Management Committee)
- Learners are judged against the standard of the more experienced person (Nettleship
v Weston)
- Children and young people are judged against the standard of a reasonable person
of their age (Mullin v Richards)
Risk factors -
- Special characteristics (Paris v Stepney Borough Council)
- Size of risk (Bolton v Stone / Haley v London Electricity Board)
- All appropriate precautions taken (Latimer v AEC LTD)
- Knowledge of risk (Roe v Minister of Health)
- Public benefit in taking the risk (Day v High performance sports)
(3)Resultant and foreseeable damage;
Causation-
- Factual causation; BUT FOR test (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Management
Committee)
- Multiple concurrent causes (McGhee v National Coal Board BUT Wilsher v Essex
Health Authority)
- Intervening act
Remoteness of damage-
- The damage must not be too remote, must be reasonably foreseeable (The Wagon
Mound)
- D will be liable if the type of injury was reasonably foreseeable even if the way it
occurred was not (Hughes v Lord Advocate / Bradford v Robinson Rentals)
- The court may not feel that the injury is reasonably foreseeable (Doughty v Turner
Asbestos)
The eggshell skull rule-
- If the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable but is much more serious because C
has a pre-existing condition then D will be liable for all the consequences (Smith v
Leech Brain and Co.)
, Psychiatric injury;
- Must be a recognised actual psychiatric condition (Tredget v Bexley Health
Authority / Vernon v Bosley)
- The person claiming must fall into a category acceptable to the courts:
- Primary victims; present at the scene and either injured or at risk of injury, only needs
to be foreseeable of some harm not necessarily psychiatric (Dulieu v White)
- Secondary victims; present at the scene (but not at risk of harm) or present at
immediate aftermath, must satisfy Alcock criteria and the threshold test:
(1) Alcock criteria - close ties of love and affection with the victim of the incident
(Hambrook v Stokes Bros / Dooley v Cammell Laird / Owens v Liverpool
Corporation), must experience or witness the incident or immediate aftermath
(McCloughlin v O’Brien / King v Phillips / Bourhill v Young), claimant must
show witnessing or hearing of the incident caused the psychiatric harm
(2) Threshold test; a reasonable person in that position would have suffered the
shock.
- Rescuers; can claim if they are actively involved (Chadwick v British Rail) and put
themselves at risk or if they are secondary victims and can satisfy the Alcock criteria
and threshold test (White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire)
- Bystanders; cannot claim if merely witness (McFarlane v EE Caledonia)
- Property owners; not at risk physically but present when property destroyed (Attia v
British Gas)
Economic loss;
When you suffer loss from someone's negligence you can claim for personal injury and
damage to property.
- General rule of pure economic loss; cannot be claimed for (Spartan Steel v Martin)
UNLESS the loss has been caused by a negligent misstatement rather than a
negligent act (Hedley Byrne v Heller).
- Negligent misstatement: statement made negligently and special relationship.
- Special relationship (Caparo v Dickman):
(1) Special skill or expertise
(2) Reliance on the advice
(3) Advice given directly
(4) Knowledge of the purpose for the advice
(5) No disclaimer
DEFENCES TO NEGLIGENCE:
- Contributory negligence (partial defence);
(1) D must show that C failed to take reasonable care for his own safety
(2) AND that negligence of C was a cause of the harm suffered (Jones v Livox
Quarries).
- Volenti non fit injuria (consent);
(1) C had knowledge of the precise risk involved (Sterner v Lawson)
(2) C exercised free choice (Smith v Baker)
(3) C voluntarily accepted the risk
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
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
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
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 abimay. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.39. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
