Negligence (Physical Damage)

Duty of Care - General Principle

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'.

Duty of Care - Caparo Test

In 'new' duty situations, Caparo asks: 1. Was harm reasonably foreseeable? 2. Was there proximity between claimant and defendant? 3. Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty?

Duty of Care - Robinson's Clarification

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

Breach of Duty - Reasonable Man Test

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.

Breach of Duty - Standard of Care

The reasonable man is judged by an ordinary and competent standard in their activity. Examples of this include: Learner drivers: Judged as qualified drivers (Nettleship v Weston), Children: Judged as reasonable children of their age (Mullin), Professionals (including trainees): Judged by professional standards (Bolam, Wilsher v Essex), DIY enthusiasts: Judged as competent amateurs (Wells v Cooper).

Breach of Duty - Risk Factors: Likelihood of Harm

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).

Breach of Duty - Risk Factors: Special Characteristics

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).

Breach of Duty - Risk Factors: Social Utility

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).

Breach of Duty - Risk Factors: Unforeseen Risks

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).

Damage - Causation in Fact

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

Damage - Remoteness of Damage: Foreseeability

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).

Damage - Remoteness of Damage: Manner of Harm

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

Damage - Remoteness of Damage: Extent of Harm

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

Damage - Thin Skull Rule

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.'

Damage - Multiple Causes

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).

Damage - Breaking the Chain of Causation: Natural Events

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.

Damage - Breaking the Chain of Causation: Criminal Acts

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

Damage - Breaking the Chain of Causation: Gross Negligence

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

Damage - Breaking the Chain of Causation: Victim's Instinctive Reaction

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