Tort Rules & Theory + Negligence Cases

• Fault


  Some wrongdoing by defendant, required in negligence + occupier's liability cases NOT Rylands v Fletcher, nuisance and vicarious liability
• Cases showing compensation culture

  • Liebeck v Mcdonald's (Hot coffee case)
• Aim of damages


  To return the claimant to their original position before the tort took place (eg personal injury), another remedy could be an injunction which is a court order to stop an action (eg trespass and nuisance)
• Protected interests in tort

  • Harm to a person inc death (PI claims)
  • Damage to property
  • Enjoyment of property ie not being disturbed (nuisance)
  • Harm to the due process of law (rights)
• Actionable Personal injury (inc death)


  Defined in Dryden v Johnson Matthey plc (2018) as: 1) An impairment of a person's physical condition 2) that is more than trivial 3) and the person must be physically or economically worse off, so that compensation is an appropriate remedy. This also includes an injury to a person's physical capacity to enjoy life, even without obvious signs of damage does not prevent a condition amounting to actionable PI.
• Negligence cases


  Require a duty of care
• Duty of care tests


  1. The neighbour principle (Donoghue v Stevenson 1932) 2) Caparo 3 part test (Caparo v Dickman 1990)
• Negligence formula


  Duty + Breach + Causation
• Neighbour principle


  You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee are likely to injure your neighbour (anyone so closely and directly affected by your actions that you ought to consider them)
• In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018), the Caparo test only needs to be used in novel type cases (new situations with no precedent) and we do not need to do the 3 Caparo test if we know a duty of care already exists
• Reasonably foreseeable


  Objective test, e.g. Kent v Griffiths (2000), Jolley v Sutton LBC (2000)
• Proximity


  Relationship between parties in terms of time, space, relationship, e.g. Bourhill v Young (1943), Mcloughlin v O'brian (1983)
• Fair, just and reasonable


  Policy test/control by judges restricting the imposition of a duty, particularly where imposing a duty might place an unreasonable burden, e.g. Hill v Chief Constable v West Yorkshire (1988)
• Breach of duty of care


  Objective test from Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856): Omitting to do something a reasonable man would do, or doing something a reasonable man would not do
• Reasonable man


  Not overly confident or apprehensive
• Bolam test


  Standard of care for experts and professionals, from Bolam v Frien Hospital Management Committee (1957)
• Learners


  Judged at the standard of a competent person, not the Bolam test, from Nettleship v Weston (1971)
• Child


  Judged by the standard of a reasonable child, from Mullin V Richards (1998)
• Risk factors to determine reasonable conduct


  • Degree of risk
  • Cost of precautions
  • Potential seriousness of injury
  • Importance of the activity
• Degree of risk


  The greater the risk, the more precautions a defendant will have to take, from Bolton v Stone 1951
• Cost of precautions


  Should not outweigh the risk involved, from Latimer v AEC (1952)
• Potential seriousness of injury


  The more serious the potential injury, the greater level of care required, from Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)
• Importance of the activity

  Risk may be acceptable if its socially important, from Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)