Negligence - Summary Grid
Intro
Intro Negligence An act or a positive act is the defendant actually acting. An
● Act or omission omission is when the defendant fails to act. Duty of care,
● 3 Elements breach of that duty, breach has to result in some damage.
● Case - Blyth v
Birmingham Negligence involves the failure to do something that a
Waterworks (1856) reasonable person would do, or doing something that a
- Byron Alderson reasonable person would not do, given the circumstances.
1. Duty of Care
Basic Duty Donoghue v Stevenson Facts / Principle
of Care (1932) - Neighbour V consumed beer purchased by a friend whilst they were in a cafe. The beer
principle - had a decomposed snail in, this was only discovered once V started
consuming the drink. She suffered from physical illness as a result of that
‘You must take contaminated drink.
reasonable care to
avoid acts or omissions Lord Atkin ruled in favour of V saying a manufacturer owes a duty of care to
which you can the end consumer, even without a direct contract.
reasonably foresee - Individuals could owe a DoC to others who might reasonably be
would be likely to injure affected by their actions.
your neighbour.’
MUST USE Robinson Approach (Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 2018))
Three methods to establish DOC;
A:previous precedents that show the D owes a DoC - cases where facts are very similar.
B:use cases by analogy - cases that are similar so the DoC principle would be applied (presuasive Precedent.
C: this is a novel case, no obvious precedenantt so capar test should be applied - original precedant.
LINK TO PREVIOUS / SIMILAR PRECEDENT CASES OR EXISTING DUTIES
ONLY FOR NOVEL CASES (UNLIKELY) - Caparo test from Caparo v Dickman (1990)
Reasonably Explain RF; Facts / Principle
Foreseeable It means that it’s Kent v Griffiths (2000)
reasonably foreseeable Ambulance took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an
that a negligent act emergency. Ambulance service owed a DoC to Kent, as it took 40 mins to
could happen. Would an arrive even though the distance was relatively short and as a result of this
average person foresee delay, Kent suffered serious health complications, and DoC was breached,
or be able to predict the by being delayed since no legitimate reason for the delay was provided.
negligent act It is RF that a delay in an emergency response could lead to harm to the
happening. E.g. if claimant. Therefore, ambulance service was found liable for the
driving a car and consequences of their unreasonable delay.
speeding is it RF that it Bourhill v Young (1943)
would cause an Plaintiff, pregnant women witnessed aftermath of a motorcycle accident in
accident. which motorcyclist was fatally injured. She didn’t directly witness the
accident, but she saw the aftermath and heard the collision. - caused her
significant distress, resulting in a miscarriage.
It isn’t RF that someone who sees the aftermath of an accident would suffer
shock and injury. - DoC is owed to those who are RF to be affected by one’s
actions, her presence and resulting harm were not reasonably foreseeable.
,Proximity Explain Prox; Facts / Principle
Refers to closeness or Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990)
directness of the Mother of jacqueline hill, one of victims of yorkshire ripper, sued police for
relationship between negligence in failing to apprehend the serial killer. Police didn’t owe DoC to
Defendant and the victim or her family because of lack of proximity. Police didn’t foresee the
claimant, in terms of specific risk to Jacqueline hill compared to the public. Police don’t owe a
time, space or specific DoC to individual members of the public.
relationship.
Osman v Ferguson (1993)
School teacher developed an obsession with one of his students, Ahmet
osman. V’s family reported to the police several times as D possessed erratic
and threatening behaviour. Police didn’t take adequate action leading to D
attacking the Osman family, killing V’s father and seriously injuring the victim.
Police had a close connection to the case because they knew about the
danger and who might harm them. Police recieved multiple warnings about a
specific threat to the Osman family, so they had a reason to foresee that
something bad would happen. Because of this, there was a direct
relationship between the police’s inaction and the harm suffered by the
Osman’s. Police had a failed DoC to them.
Fair, just Explain FJR; Facts / Principle
and Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Reeves (2001)
reasonable V was known to be at risk of suicide, died in police custody by hanging
himself in his cell. It was Fair, Just and reasonable to impose a Duty of care
on the police to prevent self - harm, when they know a person is at risk of
suicide. The police are responsible for the safety of people in their custody,
and if they know someone is likely to harm themselves, they must take
reasonable steps to prevent it. Was fair, just and reasonable to expect them
to take precautions.
Orange v Chief Constable of
West Yorkshire (2001)
Prisoner named orange committed suicide whilst in police custody. Police
didn’t owe a general duty to prevent suicides in custody unless there were
specific indications that the individual was at risk. V didn’t show signs of
being at risk of suicide, so the police didn’ have a reason to take special
precautions. Not fair, just and reasonable to hold police accountable for
unforeseen events.
2. Breach of Duty
Intro BOD Breach of a duty occurs when a party fails to meet the standard of care expected
● Failing to reach under the circumstances.
expected standard The expected standard is typically that of a ‘reasonable person’
● Blyth v BW (1856) Water company took reasonable precautions and the burst was due to an
extraordinary event, not negligence.
Cooper installed a door handle in his home, V injured when the handle came off
● Wells v Cooper (1958) causing him to fall. Cooper took reasonable care in installing the handle, and the
accident wasn’t due to negligence. - Cooper expected to meet standard care of a
reasonably competent person doing similar work. Standard for a non professional
isn’t as high as for a professional.
What was the standard expected? ONLY APPLY WHAT IS NECESSARY
, Nettleship v Weston Learner - during a driving lesson, Weston lost control of the car and crashed, causing
(1971) Nettleship to sustain injuries. Even learner drivers are expected to meet the same
standard of care as experienced drivers. - means they are liable for any negligence
regardless of their inexperience.
Bolam v Friern Barnet Professional - V underwent electroconvulse therapy, during the procedure, he suffered
Hospital Management fractures, not given muscle relaxants or restrained. Standard of care for professionals is
Committee (1957) determined by what other professionals in the same field would do in similar
circumstances. No negligence as the practice of not using muscle relaxants was
accepted by a significant portion of medical professionals.
Mullin v Richard (1998) Children - 2 15 year old schoolgirls play fighting with plastic rulers when one of them
snapped, causing a fragment to injure Mulin’s eye. Standard is based on what could
reasonably be expected from children of similar age and experience. Since Richard’s
actions were typical for a 15 year old, she wasn’t negligent. Children are held to a
standard of care appropriate to their age + level of development, emphasizing that
expected standard can vary based on the context.
APPLY TO SCENARIO - where necessary
What is the Risk? DOES THE SCENARIO TALK ABOUT THE RISK? IF THE RISK IS
OBVIOUS, THIS MAY NOT BE NEEDED
Roe v Minister of No known risk - rob was a patient who suffered paralysis after undergoing a spinal
Health anesthetic. Anesthetic was contaminated because of invisible cracks in the storage
(1954) ampoules, allowing sterilization fluid to seep in. At the time this risk was unknown, and
the medical staff had no reason to suspect that contamination could occur in this way.
Court held that the hospital was not liable for negligence because the risk of
contamination was not known or foreseeable at the time or the procedure. Principle is
that a defendant cannot be held responsible for risks that were not known or could not
be anticipated.
Bolton v Stone (1951) Small Risk - Bolton struck by a cricket ball whilst standing outside her house, near a
cricket ground. Cricket ground had high fences and balls rarely went over them. In fact,
over a long period, only a few balls had ever cleared the fence, making it a very
infrequent event. Court found that the cricket club wasn’t liable as the risk of a ball
hitting someone outside the ground was very small. The club took reasonable
precautions (high fences), and given the low probability of an accident, their actions
were deemed adequate. - if the risk is very small and reasonable precautions have been
taken, liability might not apply.
Haley v London Very real risk - Harley injured whilst walking on the street where the London electricity
Borough Electricity board left an exposed cable hole. Although the hole was marked it wasn’t adequately
Board (1964) secured, leading to a fall and injury. Court ruled that the electricity board was liable for
negligence because the risk of someone falling into an exposed hole was clear and
foreseeable. When there’s a very real and foreseeable risk, the duty to take precautions
is much higher. If reasonable precautions aren’t taken, liability for negligence is more
likely.
APPLY TO SCENARIO - where necessary
Precautions - DO WE KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE CLAIMANT? SHOULD THE
DEFENDANT HAVE TAKEN PRECAUTIONS?
Paris v Stepney Eye - Paris, a mechanic blind in one eye, lost his good eye at work because his employer didn’t
Borough Council provide safety goggles, as a piece of metal flew into his eye rendering him completely blind.
(1951) Employers should take extra precautions if they know a worker has special vulnerabilities. Even if
