Law paper 2 section B Tort Law (pink booklet)

• What is the Robinson approach?

  Judge should look first at existing precedent
• What principal did the donoghue v Stevenson case make?

  Neighbour principal
• What is the Caparo test?

  When there is no previous statute or precedent this is used to determine to establish a duty of care. Only in novel cases
• 3 elements of the caparo test?

  Was the harm Reasonable foreseeable

  was there sufficient proximity

  is it fair just and reasonable
• Caparo test was the harm reasonably foreseeable?

  Foreseeable that ds act or omission could cause harm to someone

  objective test whether a reasonable person in Ds position would foresee harm
• Key cases in Camaro test reasonable foreseeable?

  KENT V GRIFFITHS

  reasonably foreseeable that Cs condition would worsen if the ambulance didn’t arrive promptly

  TOPP V LONDON COUNTRY BUS

  not foreseeable that the bus would be stolen and that the driver would run someone over just from leaving keys inside
• Caparo test was there sufficient proximity?

  Refers to closeness of c to d

  either physical sense (time,space)or legal relationships (manufacture > customer)
• Key cases for Campari test proximity?

  BOURHILL V YOUNG

  pregnant lady miscarried after hearing motorcycle accident around the corner

  not close enough

  MCLOUGHILN V O’BRIEN

  mum arrived in immediate aftermath of serious accident involving family

  sufficient proximity
• Capazo test is it fair just and reasonable?

  policy based decision

  judges take into account the best interests of society when deciding to impose duty
• Key cases in Caparo test fair just and reasonable?

  HILL V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE

  not FJR to impose duty on police for failing to catch killer sooner
• Breach of duty Key parts?

  Comparing ds conduct with the standard of care expected from a reasonable person

  considering various risk factors which may raise or lower that standard
• Bod (breach of duty) reasonable person test?

  D would have breached duty if they fail to act in a way which a reasonable person would have
• How will the standard of care be changed for children, amateurs and professionals?

  CHILDREN

  will be that of a reasonable child of the same age MULLINS V RICHARDS

  AMARTURS

  against another reasonably skilled amateurs doing same task provided it is one a reasonable home owner might carry out WELLS V COOPER

  PROFESSIONALS

  will be judged against competent experts in same field BOLAM V BARNET HOSPITAL
• In the reasonable person test what is generally ignored?

  Particular characteristics eg

  inexperience NETTLESHIP V WESTON
• Do medical professionals have to ensure that their patients are fully aware of all material risk involved In treatment?

  Yes
• Risk factors that affect breach of duty?

  Probability of harm

  Cost and practicality of precautions. seriousness of potential harm

  potential benefits

  unknown risks.
• Breach of duty risk factors probability of harm?

  Harm is low d won’t be expected to take as much care to guard against risk
• Breach of duty risk factors probability of harm Key cases?

  BOLTON V STONE

  likelihood of cricket ball begging hit out of the grounds injuring a passer by was very low (5m high fence) reasonable precautions

  HALEY V LEB

  workmen propped up a hammer to warn people of hole in road

  blind man fell in

  court decided probability of harm was high could have done more to guard
• Breach of duty risk factors seriousness of harm?

  If potential of harm could be serious standard of care might be raised
• Breach of duty risk factors seriousness of harm Key case?

  PARIS V STEPNEY

  welder already lost sight in one eye

  employer under higher duty to provide protective goggles

  as risk higher to him of being completely blind
• Breach of duty risk factors cost and practicality of taking precautions?

  Court will balance size of risk with the cost and effort to d to guard against it
• Breach of duty risk factors cost and practicality Of taking precautions let case?

  LATIMER V AEC LTD

  c slipped on wet floor

  d taken reasonable precautions (laying sawdust) to reduce the effects

  to eliminate risk fully would have meant closing factory
• Breach of duty risk factors potential benifts?

  standard of care may be lower if there is a greater public benefit to the activity
• Breach of duty risk factors potential benifts Key case?

  DAY V HIGH PERFORMANCE SPORTS

  c frozen while climbing in door wall

  had to be rescued

  rescuer caused c to fall
• Breach of duty risk factors unknown risks?

  If the risk of harm is unknown there can be no breach
• Breach of duty risk factors unknown risks Key case?

  ROE V MINISTER OF HEALTH

  c paralysed by a contaminated anaesthetic

  since it was unknown to medical experts no breach occurred
• Breach of duty was there damage?

  Must have suffered damage (personal injury or property damage)

  factual causation

  remoteness
• Breach of duty damage factual causation?

  But for test

  intervening acts =can break chain of causation
• Breach of duty damage factual causation key cases?

  CHESTER V AFSHAR

  doc failed to warn patient abt risks involved in back surgery

  if c was warned wouldn’t have had surgery and not have suffered injury
• Breach of duty damage remoteness?

  only claim for types of loss that is reasonable foreseeable

  thin skull rule
• Breach of duty damage remoteness Think skull rule?

  Take v as they are
• Breach of duty damage remoteness Key cases?

  WAGON MOUND (No.1)

  d negligently spilled oil in water of harbour

  spark ignited oil

  caused fire damage

  oil pollution reasonable foreseeable not fire
• Defences in negligence?

  contributing

  consent
• Defence of contributing negligence?


  D alleges that c party caused damage
• Defence of contributing negligence Key cases?

  FROOM V BUTCHER

  c head injury’s caused by him not wearing seatbelt
• Defence of consent in negligenc?

  complete defence

  c consents to knowledge to risk of harm then they cannot complain when they suffer injury
• Defence of consent in negligence Key cases?


  MORRIS V MURRAY

  afternoon drinking

  c and d take flight in ds aircraft

  plane crashed killing d and seriously injuring c

  c brought claim against ds estate

  c voluntarily assumed risk of injury accepting flight by obviously intoxicated pilot
• What are the two types of compensatory damages?

  Special

  general
• What do Special damages cover?

  Pre trial expenses (loss of earnings)

  Loss of property (destroyed, damaged)
• What do general damages cover?

  Post trial losses

  up to judge how much

  include;

  future losses (medical care, loss of earnings)

  pain and suffering (c must be able to appreciate their condition)

  loss of amenity (things they enjoy eg sport)

  specific injury’s (set amount for injury itself)