Negligence Law and Duty of Care
50 Questions
0 Views

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is one method to establish a duty of care?

  • Sufficient evidence proving the defendant assumed responsibility (correct)
  • The presence of a written contract
  • The existence of a good faith agreement
  • The financial status of the claimant

    • In which situation should the Caparo test be applied?

  • In novel situations where courts have not previously considered a duty of care (correct)
  • When appealing a decision related to duty of care
  • In cases where a duty of care has already been established
  • In all negligence cases regardless of existing precedents

    • What element of foreseeability looks at harm that is not foreseeable?

  • Causation
  • Statutory duty
  • Remoteness (correct)
  • Assumed responsibility

    • What was a significant outcome in the case of Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co?

    <p>Defendants were held liable for harm caused by their negligence (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What does the incremental category refer to in establishing a duty of care?

    <p>A series of established relationships recognized by courts (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, what was the primary query of the courts regarding duty of care?

    <p>Whether a duty of care applies automatically to core police duties. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the general rule regarding liability for omissions in negligence cases?

    <p>There is no liability for a pure omission unrelated to any conduct. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What key principle did Lord Hoffmann articulate regarding omissions?

    <p>The law cannot impose a duty for inaction towards harm from third parties. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In Smith v Littlewoods Ltd, who was ultimately held liable for the damage caused by the fire?

    <p>The defendants for failing to secure the premises. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What does the case Mitchell v Glasgow City Council imply about the existence of a duty of care?

    <p>Knowledge of a potential victim does not always establish a duty of care. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What does it mean that the defendant must take the victim as they find them?

    <p>The defendant is liable for any injury that exacerbates a victim's existing condition. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In Page v Smith, what was determined regarding the foreseeability of harm?

    <p>Personal harm includes both physical and psychiatric harm. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What was held in Grieves v FT Everard regarding the claimant's apprehension?

    <p>Only immediate risks can warrant claims for damages. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    How is foreseeability related to remoteness of damage?

    <p>They are linked but treated separately in legal reasoning. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What does the term 'proximity' refer to in tort law?

    <p>The closeness in relationship between the defendant's actions and the claimant's harm. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What must a claimant prove to establish a breach of duty in a medical negligence case?

    <p>The defendant fell below the relevant standard of care. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In which case was it established that the standard of care expected of a doctor is not influenced by their experience?

    <p>Wilsher v Essex AHA (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What standard of care applies to a medical practitioner when judging negligence?

    <p>The ordinary skilled man practicing in the relevant field. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What was a significant finding in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee?

    <p>Conforming to an approved medical practice negated liability. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the context of medical negligence, what does the term 'ordinary skill' refer to?

    <p>The competence demonstrated by the average practitioner in the field. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What must a doctor demonstrate to avoid being found negligent in the context of established medical practices?

    <p>Conformance to a practice accepted by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    According to the Bolam test, what does the term 'responsible body of medical men' imply?

    <p>A group of medical practitioners whose opinions can be logically backed (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    How does the Bolitho case add to the Bolam standard regarding medical negligence?

    <p>It allows the court to determine negligence even if a doctor acts according to peer practices (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the implication of having only one accepted practice in the medical field?

    <p>Following this practice is not considered negligent and is exempt from legal scrutiny (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is questioned in terms of a doctor's liability when there are multiple accepted practices?

    <p>The logical and reasonable nature of the followed practice (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the standard of care in negligence primarily assessed as?

    <p>Objective based on the reasonable man standard (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In assessing the reasonable man standard, which of the following characteristics is NOT typically considered?

    <p>Defendant's personal history (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What standard of care is applied to children regarding negligence?

    <p>Standard based on the capacity and prudence of a child of the relevant age (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is a significant consideration when determining if a defendant met the standard of care?

    <p>The defendant's ability to foresee dangers (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What did the case of Mullin v Richards determine about the behavior of children in negligence cases?

    <p>Children’s actions are judged against their age-appropriate behavior (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What principle determines if a defendant is liable for harm caused to a claimant based on their conduct?

    <p>Conduct must be a necessary condition for the claimant’s harm to occur. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital MC, what was the argument made by the defendant after conceding negligence?

    <p>The patient would have survived regardless of the diagnosis. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of the following best describes the ‘but for’ test in determining liability?

    <p>Assesses if the harm would have occurred without the defendant's actions. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the situation of multiple potential defendants, what does the outcome of Cook v Lewis imply about liability?

    <p>Liability can be assigned to one of the defendants despite not knowing which one caused the harm. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is indicated by a probability of 50% or below concerning a defendant's liability?

    <p>The defendant is not liable for any damages caused. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What was the primary argument made by the claimant in the case of Gregg v Scott?

    <p>The doctors misdiagnosed a form of cancer. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the case of Gregg v Scott, what did Baroness Hale advocate regarding the calculation of damages?

    <p>Damages should be calculated based on a 100% certainty of causation. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    According to Lord Hoffman in Gregg v Scott, what principal does he believe should be preserved?

    <p>The 'but for' principle in causation. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What concern did Lord Nicholls express in his dissent regarding patient recovery prospects?

    <p>They should be completely disregarded below a 50% chance. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What was the outcome of the court's decision in the case of Gregg v Scott?

    <p>Claimant's argument was upheld by a narrow majority. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the case of Fitzgerald v Lane, how was liability apportioned among the parties involved?

    <p>25% Driver A, 25% Driver B, 50% Claimant (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What principle did the court apply in the case involving A, B, and C when each contributed to X's death?

    <p>NESS test (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the context of multiple independent causes, what was the conclusion in Wilsher v Essex Area HA?

    <p>No clear cause could be determined (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What was the reasoning behind the court's decision to impose equal liability on the drivers in Fitzgerald v Lane?

    <p>Both drivers’ negligence contributed to the harm (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What aspect of the pedestrian crossing incident in Fitzgerald v Lane contributed to the claimant's liability?

    <p>Crossing against traffic lights (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the primary focus of factual causation in tort law?

    <p>Evaluating the factual circumstances that led to harm (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which test is traditionally used to establish factual causation?

    <p>The 'but for' test (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Why have courts moved away from relying on the 'but for' test?

    <p>It is too simplistic for complex cases. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What does legal causation evaluate in the context of harm suffered?

    <p>Whether the breach of duty establishes liability (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What aspect is considered when determining if damage is too remote from a breach of duty?

    <p>The existence of an intervening act (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Study Notes

    Lecture 2: Duty of Care

    • This session is recorded for module use only. Do not share materials or recordings.

    Polleverywhere Quiz

    • Access the quiz using the App, enter meryldickins587
    • Or go to www.pollev.com and enter meryldickins587

    Different methods of establishing a duty of care

    • Existing statutory duty determining if a duty of care is owed?
    • Analogous judicial precedent; incremental categories?
    • Sufficient evidence of defendant assuming responsibility over the claimant?
    • Can the three elements of the Caparo tripartite test be satisfied? (amended by [2018] UKSC 4 Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire.)

    Robinson v Chief Constable or West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4

    • Public Authority Liability case; covered thoroughly in police liability.
    • Prior case law (incremental category) often establishes a duty of care, covering many relationships.
    • Courts should avoid hesitation in finding a duty of care; rather, focus on the series of requirements (breach, causation, recognition of claimable harm).
    • Caparo should only be used in novel situations where courts haven't established a duty of care. This applies specifically to police omissions.

    Foreseeability

    • Foreseeability and remoteness are two sides of the same coin.

    • Harm that is foreseeable is considered. When is harm so remote it isn't foreseeable. (Old view)

    • Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co [1921] KB 560: A spark caused a fire that destroyed a ship; the defendants were liable, even if the direct cause of the fire from the board falling wasn't foreseeable.

    • The Wagon Mound Litigation: Damage due to oil caught fire. Liability is restricted to foreseeable damage. What is a reasonable expectation for the defendant?

    • Hughes v Lord Advocates [1963] AC 837: Foreseeable that an accident might happen; the specific way the accident occurred wasn't the issue.

    • Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082: Foreseeable that children would meddle with the boat; therefore a duty of care was owed.

    Foreseeability: Some Identity Problems

    • Skilled claimants (Roles v. Nathan [1963], Ogwo v. Taylor [1987]).
    • Sensitive claimants (Haley v. London Electricity Board [1965], Robinson v. Kilvert [1889]).
    • Children (Taylor v. Glasgow CC [1922])

    The 'egg shell skull' rule

    • Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405: A pre-existing condition combined with an injury, the defendant still takes the victim as they find them. Liability still exists for the full extent of damage (foreseeable or unforeseeable).

    Extension beyond Physical Injury

    • Page v Smith [1966] 1 AC 155: The duty expands to all forms of personal harm, including psychological harm.

    • Grieves v FT Everard [2008] 1 AC 281: Damages limited unless a foreseeable event was immediately linked to the risk.

    Summary

    • Foreseeability refers to reasonably foreseeable harm; separate from but connected to remoteness of harm.
    • The type of harm, not the exact cause, is important.
    • Assumed children are more likely to act mischievously.
    • Courts are willing to consider distinctions in harm types regarding foreseeability.
    • Harm is not restricted solely to physical harm.

    What is Proximity?

    • Tort law concepts of 'neighbourhood' or 'closeness' in a D and C relationship.
    • Several, metaphorical notions, including neighbourhood, closeness, are used conceptually.
    • (D) carelessly releasing a projectile could cause extensive damage (C).
    • Spatial closeness does not always need to be involved in 'proximity'

    Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923

    • Proximity is not a separate ingredient, distinct from fairness, and reasonability.
    • Proximity identifies a relationship between parties where it is fair, just and reasonable to determine a duty of care.

    Case Law

    • Details relevant case law examples (Bourhill v Young, Hedley Byrne v Heller, Calvert v William Hill, Marc Rich, Watson).

    Marc Rich and Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd (The Nicholas H) [1996] AC 211

    • Defendant (shipping classification society) inspected repairs of a ship.
    • Ship declared seaworthy with a warning; failed a few days later; sank with cargo lost.
    • Didn't meet the fairness, justice, and reasonability requirement of the tripartite test for a duty of care.
    • Defendant (independent non-profit organisation) working in a public role. Did not have enough accountability for a duty of care.

    Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] QB 1134

    • Boxer suffered brain damage.
    • Insufficient medical equipment at the side of the ring.
    • Courts imposed liability, applied tripartite test.
    • Amateur sports have the same expectation for the medical standard as professionals.

    Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53

    • Mother of the serial killer victim (Yorkshire Ripper) sued police (failure to catch the killer earlier).
    • Courts applied tripartite test; failed the required third prong.
    • Policy considerations: public policy, floodgates argument, proportionality, clashes with statutory interpretation, and creating defensive action (public services).

    Robinson v Chief Constable or West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4

    • 76-year-old knocked over by a police officer.
    • Courts considered whether the Caparo test applies to all police duties.
    • Established that Caparo should only be used in novel situations involving police omissions.

    Omission

    • General rule: no liability for an omission (absence of action).
    • Not liable for a pure omission unrelated to a course of conduct.

    Why pick on me?

    • Stovin v Wise [1996]: sound reasons for treating omissions differently than positive actions.
    • The law distinguishes between a positive act that is liable for the harm created or escalated and an omission that is not the clear cause of harm. (actions of third parties or natural causes)

    Smith v Littlewoods Ltd [1987] 1 All ER.710

    • Defendants owned disused cinema; intended to demolish, but unknown arsonists damaged adjoining property.
    • Owners sued defendants for negligence.
    • Defendants were not liable as they didn't cause the damage.

    Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11

    • Deceased and neighbour (D) were tenants of the council.
    • Neighbour (D), had a history of anti-social behaviour and violence towards claimant (specifically).
    • Damaged deceased's home with an iron bar.
    • Deceased's family argued the council should have protected claimant.
    • Court said foreseeability alone didn't create a legal duty.

    Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11

    • Foreseeability of harm wasn't enough for imposing a duty of care.
    • Proximity, fair justifiable behaviour, and reasonability test must be met.
    • Common law doesn't require a positive duty to prevent harm by a third party just based on foreseeability.
    • The responsibility of the local authority (to prevent the harm of a deceased) is an issue of fairness and policy (that foreseeability was not enough).

    Exceptions

    • Defendant assumes responsibility
    • Defendant in a position of responsibility (control)
    • Defendant creates the danger
    • Social Action, Responsibility and Hero Act 2015 (SARAH): Sections 2, 3, and 4 provide specific rules regarding a defendant's actions benefiting society in a responsible way, protecting others, or performing heroically in emergency situations.

    Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 3 All ER 87

    • Off-duty pilot drank excessively, collapsed, and died from choking on his vomit.
    • Court found that failure to ensure medical aid, after the pilot was unconscious, was a breach.
    • However, the deceased pilot was also 25% responsible.

    Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999] СА

    • Female police constable attacked by a prisoner.
    • Did not receive help, despite calls; another officer was present.
    • Court of Appeal agreed that a positive duty of care is imposed on police officers to help each other.

    The defendant is in a position of responsibility

    • Examples regarding parent-child, doctor-patient, captain-passenger, teacher-pupil, lifeguard-swimmer, employer-employee, police-prisoner relationships.

    Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360

    • Prisoner in police custody committed suicide.
    • Court said that the police had a duty of care; didn't prevent the suicide.

    Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360

    • Police's duty extends to taking reasonable steps to assess suicide risk for prisoners in custody.
    • Justification based on police's control over prisoners and high risk of suicide, even for those without a known mental illness.

    Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2001] EWCA Civ 611

    • Man in police custody committed suicide.
    • Widow argued the police should have taken measures to prevent the suicide attempt.
    • Court found a duty of care, though not enough to hold police liable in this case. Police did not have a duty because it was not foreseeable in this case.

    The defendant creates the danger

    • If the defendant has created or increased danger, there is a duty to act.
    • Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997]: Defendants were negligent; the fire officer ordered the sprinkler to be turned off; the factory burned down.

    Liability for the acts of third parties

    • No liability for harm caused by third parties in general.
    • Perl v London Borough of Camden [1984]: Defendant didn't have control, so couldn't be liable for this particular third-party act of harm.

    Exceptions: Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241

    • Exceptions to the general rule regarding liability for harm caused by third parties.
    • Special relationships: where a relationship exists between the defendant/third party (contractual, etc.).

    Special relationship (proximity)

    • Defendant control over third-party's actions creates proximity if foreseeable harm exists for the claimant.
    • Examples of proximate relationships include "parent-child", "doctor-patient", or other close relationships, as well as situations where assuming responsibility (control.)
    • Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970]: Supervisory liability due to a special relationship.

    Home Office V Dorset Yacht Co [1970] 2 All ER 294

    • Young offenders escaped from a camp, damaged claimant's yacht; it was foreseeable that if they escaped the boys would take a yacht and cause incident and harm. The officers had ignored instructions by leaving the boys unsupervised, and were responsible for controlling the boys.

    Rescuers: Duty Owed by Rescuers

    • No general duty to rescue someone in danger.
    • Courts hesitate to find rescuers negligent, or contributory negligent.
    • Tolley v Carr [2010]: Negligent driving caused a hazard; rescuer injured in trying to move the car. Rescuer reasonably acted.

    Rescuers: Duty Owed to Rescuers

    • If defendant creates danger, owes duty of care to rescuer (if foreseeable).
    • Haynes v Harwood [1935]: Rescuer injured after a runaway horse incident related to negligent acts of a defendant.
    • Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967]: Rescuer suffered psychiatric harm after a train crash. Defendant owed a duty.
    • *Ogwo v Taylor [1988]: Duty of care to a fire officer who was injured putting out a fire in the defendant’s house.

    Rescuers: Defendant puts themselves in danger

    • If the defendant negligently puts themselves in danger, a duty of care may be owed to rescuers (if rescuer acts reasonably).
    • Baker v Hopkins [1959]: Several individuals injured while trying to help others who were also in danger; imposed liability.

    Social Action, Responsibility and Hero Act 2015 (SARAH)

    • Social Action, acting for the benefit of society or members.
    • Responsible approach.
    • Heroism- when acting heroically during emergency to help an individual in danger.

    Studying That Suits You

    Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

    Quiz Team

    Related Documents

    Lecture 2 - Duty of Care PDF
    Lecture 3 Breach of Duty - Negligence
    Lecture 4 Causation PDF

    Description

    Test your knowledge on the principles of negligence law, particularly focusing on the establishment of duty of care and key cases that shaped its interpretation. This quiz includes questions on landmark cases such as Re Polemis and Robinson v Chief Constable, as well as concepts like the Caparo test and foreseeability in negligence. Perfect for law students and practitioners.

    More Like This

    Duty of Care in Negligence Law
    18 questions

    Duty of Care in Negligence Law

    DiligentIndicolite avatar
    DiligentIndicolite
    Law & Ethics
    21 questions

    Law & Ethics

    StateOfTheArtSnowflakeObsidian avatar
    StateOfTheArtSnowflakeObsidian
    Negligence and Duty of Care Quiz
    21 questions

    Negligence and Duty of Care Quiz

    LuckyRationality914 avatar
    LuckyRationality914
    Tort Law
    185 questions

    Tort Law

    ModernAcer avatar
    ModernAcer
    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Open
    Browser
    Browser