(Neg) The 3 stages of negligence? ANS:Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Damage
(Neg) Donoghue v Stevenson ANS:'Neigbour principle' (Lord Atkin) - "your neighbour is anyone closely affected by your actions or omissions"
(Neg) Robinson 2018 ANS:Caparo test need only be used in novel situations and prov...
AQA A-Level Law Paper 2
(Neg) The 3 stages of negligence? ANS:Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Damage
(Neg) Donoghue v Stevenson ANS:'Neigbour principle' (Lord Atkin) - "your neighbour is anyone closely
affected by your actions or omissions"
(Neg) Robinson 2018 ANS:Caparo test need only be used in novel situations and provided established
DOC
> doctor to patient - Bolam
> driver to road user - Nettleship v Weston
> manufacturers to consumers - Donoghue v Stevenson
> solicitor to client - Arthur JS Hall v Simons
(Neg) Caparo v Dickman 1990 ANS:Caparo 3 stage test
> was damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable?
> was there a relationship of close proximity between C & D?
> is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a DOC?
(Neg) Kent v Griffiths ANS:The damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable - D's actions judged by the
standards of a reasonable person (objective test)
(Neg) Bourhill v Young ANS:Relationship of close proximity between C & D - proximity of time & space,
and legal relationship
(Neg) Hill v CC of W Yorkshire/ Robinson ANS:It is fair just & reasonable to impose a DOC (public issue,
floodgate argument) - if an omission then NOT fair (Hill), but it its a positive act it is (Robinson)
(Neg) Duty of Care ANS:C must prove D owed them a DOC
(Neg) Breach of Duty ANS:Used to establish D's liability for his actions/ omissions and the SOC they owe
to C
Blyth v Birmingham - D is "judged by the standards of an ordinary person in that same situation with
similar experience"
(Neg) Well v Cooper ANS:If D is an ordinary person, then they will not be expexted to act like a
professional
,(Neg) Bolam ANS:> Bolam - if D is an expert/ possesses a skill then judged to standards of other
reasonably competent professionals
> Bolithio - if there is a body of professional opinion supporting D's actions, the judge will examine this
and may deem it illogical so D still liable
(Neg) Bolam - OIR ANS:> Wilsher v Essex - no account taken for D's actual experience
> Montgomery - doctor must make patient aware of material risks
> Chester v Afshar - doctor must inform of side effects
(Neg) Nettleship v Weston ANS:If D is inexperience/ learner then judged by standards of experienced -
standard never lowered
(Neg) Mullins v Richards ANS:Children judged to standard of a similar age
(Neg) Disabled ANS:D's judged to standard appropriate to the reasonable person with the same
disability
(Neg) Risk Factors ANS:Increase or decrease SOC required by D
(Neg) Roe v Minister of Health ANS:Where risks known about at time of injury? D only liable for risks
within 'reasonable contemplation'
(Neg) Bolton v Stone/ Hayley v London Electricity Board ANS:Size of risk and probability of harm caused
> small risk = less precautions (Bolton)
> high risk = more precautions (Hayley)
(Neg) Paris v Stepney Council ANS:OIR: C has a special characteristic that makes them more suseptible to
harm/ makes harm more serious
(Neg) Latimer ANS:OIR: Where all practical precautions taken at the time of injury/ damage? Cost and
practicality are considered
(Neg) Watt v Hertfordshire Council ANS:OIR: Is there a public benefit to taking the risk? If there is, a
lower standard is expected
(Neg) Resulting Damage ANS:Must be a link between C's damage and D's act or omission (chain of
causation)
(Neg) Barnett v Chelsea Hospital ANS:Factual Causation - "but for D's acts/ omission would C have
suffered harm?"
(Neg) Wagon Mound ANS:Legal Causation - remoteness test ('remoteness of damage') - was the damage
to C "reasonably foresseable or "too remote" from breach
, (Neg) Hughes v Lord Advocate ANS:Legal Causation - no need to predict the exact way the injury/
damage occured, just the injury/ damage of the same type is foreseeable
(Neg) Thin Skull Rule ANS:OIR: Smith v Leech Brain - D must take C as he finds them, including any pre-
existing medical condition that makes them more suseptible to harm
(Neg) Intervening Acts ANS:OIR:
> Act of C - McKew v Holland
> Act of God/ Nature - Carslogie Steamship
> Act of 3rd Party - Knightley v Johns
> Multiple Causes - Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
(Neg) DEFENCES: Contributory Negligence ANS:Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945: C
contributes to own injury/ damage so damages reduced accordingly (partial defence)
> Froom v Butcher - damages reduced 25%
> Morales v Eccelston - no age limit at which you can contribute to own injuries
(Neg) DEFENCES: Volenti Non Fit Injuria ANS:Consent - full defence providing 3 conditions are satisfied
> Murray - C has knowledge of risk
> Morris v Murray - C's consent must be freely given
> Smith v Baker - C exercises free choice
(Neg) REMEDIES: Damages ANS:Aim to put C in position before tort was committed (special & general) -
Remoteness test (Wagon Mound)
SPECIAL = pecuniary & specific value
GENERAL = non-pecurinary & not precisely calculated
Psychiatric Injury ANS:For C to be owed a DOC, must show they are suffering from:
> a recognised psychiatric injury causing long term effects - Reilly
> illness caused by traumatic event or "assault on senses" - Sion v Hampstead Health Authority
(Psych Inj) Primary Victim ANS:A person who reasonably fears for their own safety or is within the zone
of danger
(Psych Inj) Page v Smith ANS:Must prove
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 johnlynn297. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
