Liability in negligence

• What is the neighbour principle?

  You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
• What is the criteria for the three-part test established in Coparo V Dickmann, 1990?

  Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?

  Is there sufficient proximity by space, time or relationship?

  Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
• What is ‘damage or harm that is reasonably foreseeable’?

  Where a reasonable person could foresee that damage or injury could be caused to another person by their actions.

  Kent V Griffiths 2000: The court decided it was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer further illness if the ambulance did not arrive promptly.
• What is ‘proximity of relationship’?

  A duty care that will exist if the relationship between the claimant and the defendant is sufficiently close.

  Bourhill V Young, 1943. The House of Lords held that the claimant was not owed a duty of care because she was not of close relationship with the motorcyclist if he was in an accident.
• What is ‘fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty’?

  It establishes whether it is fair, reasonable and just to impose a duty of care.

  Hil V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, 1990. The House of Lords held that the police was not sufficiently close to the victim, so it was not fair, just or reasonable for the police to owe duty of care.
• What was held in Robinson V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire?

  A duty of care was owed. Where there is an established ground of liability, such as personal injury, there is no need to apply the third stage of the Caparo test.
• Once it has been established that a duty of care exists, the claimant must satisfy that the defendant broke that duty of care by...

  Failing to reach the standard of care required by a reasonable person.
• What did the Occupier’s liability Act 1957 provide?

  It provided statutory duty on the occupier towards lawful visitors in respect of danger caused due to the state of the premises.
• What did the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 provide?

  It imposed a duty of common humanity to trespassers.
• What example case demonstrates the test deciding where the person is an occupier?

  Wheat V E Lacon & Co Ltd: The House of Lords held that both the manager and employers could be occupiers of the pub.
• What does S1(3)(a) of the Occupier’s liability Act 1957 state as definition of premises?

  A person having occupation or control of any ‘fixed or moveable structure’.
• What does S2(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 provide?

  The occupier owes a lawful visitor the common duty of care:

  Adults, children, workmen
• What are the four types of adult visitors? (S2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957)

  invitee

  licencee

  contractual permission

  statutory right
• What is an example case to show that the occupier does not need to make the premises completely safe but only do what is reasonable?

  Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme 2002: The Court of Appeal decided that the shop owners had taken reasonable care to ensure its customers were safe. They were not liable.
• What does S2(3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 provide?

  The occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults so the premises must be reasonably safe for a child - there is an additional special duty owed to child visitors.
• How is the standard of care measured for children?

  Subjectively, according to the age of the child. However, the courts are reluctant to find the occupier liable as the child should be under the supervision of an adult as shown in Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955): The court decided that the council was not liable because the children should have been supervised in potentially unsafe areas.
• What is an example case that shows that children are owed an additional duty of care?

  Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922): The council was liable to the child’s parents because the poisonous shrub was not fenced off.
• What does S2(3)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 provide?

  The occupier owes a tradesman coming on to the premises the common duty of care but expects that person to guard themselves against any special risks because they will not be liable if they fail to do so.
• What is an example case for occupiers’ liability to people carrying out a trade or calling?

  Roles V Nathan 1963: The occupiers were not liable as they expected the chimney sweeps to be aware of the danger.
• What can act as a defence to an occupier in a dispute between a tradesman visitor?

  The tradesmen was injured by something relating to their trade so they didn’t guard themselves of any special risks. S2(4) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
• What are the three requirements that must apply, under S2(4) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?

  It must be reasonable for the occupier to have given the work to the independent contractor.

  The contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task.

  The occupier must check the work has been properly done.
• What are the defences to an occupiers’ liability claim?

  consent

  contributory negligence

  warning notices.
• What are warning notices?

  If the premises are extremely dangerous or they are unusual, the occupier may be required to erect barriers or additional warnings to keep visitors safe.
• What is an example case where warning notices were used?

  Staples v West Dorset District Council (1995) The danger of wet algae on a high wall should have been obvious, and no further warning was required.