Negligence (Physical Damage) ?

1. What principle was established in Donoghue v Stevenson regarding duty of care?

Established in Donoghue v Stevenson, the 'neighbour principle' states that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure their 'neighbour'.

2. What is the Caparo test used for in duty of care?

In 'new' duty situations, Caparo asks whether it is appropriate to impose a duty of care using three stages.

3. What is the first stage of the Caparo test for duty of care?

Was harm reasonably foreseeable?

4. What is the second stage of the Caparo test for duty of care?

Was there proximity between claimant and defendant?

5. What is the third stage of the Caparo test for duty of care?

Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty?

6. What clarification did Robinson provide about when to use the Caparo test?

Robinson stated that Caparo is rarely needed, as existing duty situations along with an analogous approach are generally sufficient. Foreseeability of harm remains essential.

7. What is the reasonable man test established in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co?

In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, negligence was described as 'the omission to do something which a reasonable man… would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.' The test is objective.

8. What standard of care is expected under the reasonable man test?

The reasonable man is judged by an ordinary and competent standard in their activity.

9 (OIR).What standards are learner drivers held to under the reasonable man test?

They are judged against the standard of qualified drivers (Nettleship v Weston).

10 (OIR).What standards are children held to under the reasonable man test?

They are judged as reasonable children of their own age (Mullins v Richards).

11 (OIR).What standards are professionals held to under the reasonable man test?

They are judged by the standards of professionals (Bolam v Friern); this also includes trainees (Wilsher v Essex).

12 (OIR).What standards are DIY enthusiasts held to under the reasonable man test?

They are judged against the standard of the reasonable competent amateur but not against a professional working for reward (Wells v Cooper). 

13. What is the role of the likelihood of harm in determining breach of duty?

Courts look at a number of factors to decide what is reasonable. The likelihood of harm must be compared to the practicality of precautions required. The defendant is expected to take reasonable steps, but they don't have to go to great lengths or expense to eliminate all possible risks (Latimer).

14 (OIR). How do special characteristics of the claimant affect the standard of care?

If the claimant has special characteristics, such as being disabled, greater care is required. A reasonable person must take the claimant's vulnerabilities into account when deciding on the standard of care (Paris).

15 (OIR). How does social utility influence the standard of care?

If the activity has social value or importance, the reasonable person may take greater risks. Social utility justifies taking significant risks if the activity is valuable, like an emergency service worker responding to a call (Watt v Hertfordshire).

16 (OIR). What is the rule regarding unforeseen risks in negligence claims?

A defendant is not expected to guard against unforeseeable risks. The reasonable person would not be expected to prevent harm that could not have been foreseen (Roe v Minister of Health).

17. What is the 'but for' test in causation?

The 'but for' test - damage must not have occurred without the defendant's breach (Barnett).

18. What does foreseeability mean in remoteness of damage?

Only losses that are reasonably foreseeable are recoverable. If the type of harm is foreseeable, the defendant can be held liable, even if the specific way the harm occurs is not (The Wagon Mound).

19. Does the manner in which harm occurs need to be foreseeable?

The manner in which harm occurs does not need to be foreseeable, as long as the type of harm was (Hughes v Lord Advocate).

20. Does the extent of harm need to be foreseeable for liability?

The precise extent of harm does not need to be foreseeable, as long as the type of harm is foreseeable (Bradford v Robinson Rentals).

21. What is the thin skull rule in negligence?

Under the thin skull rule (Smith v Leech Brain), the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage caused, even if the claimant has an unknown vulnerability. The defendant must 'take their victim as they find them.'

22. What happens when there are multiple possible causes of damage?

If the defendant's breach is one of several possible causes, there is no liability (Wilsher v Essex). If there are multiple possible defendants, a claim may still succeed (Fairchild).

23. How can natural events break the chain of causation?

The chain of causation may be broken by natural events like a severe storm at sea (Carslogie Steamship Co.), where the event is unforeseeable and sufficiently intervenes in the chain.

24. How can criminal acts break the chain of causation?

The chain of causation can be broken by criminal acts of third parties (Lamb v Camden).

25. How can gross negligence break the chain of causation?

The chain of causation may be broken if there is gross negligence on the part of a third party (Knightley v Johns).

26. Will the victim's instinctive reaction break the chain of causation?

However, the chain of causation will not be broken by the victim's instinctive reaction (Scott v Shepherd).