1. Civil Law Knowledge Questions

2. Possible Civil Liability Knowledge Questions (1 & 2) Duty: Explain how the law decides whether a duty of care is owed in negligence (8) A claimant proves that a duty of care is owed using the three-part test set out in the case of Caparo v Dickman. Explain the Caparo three-part test (8) Breach: Explain how the law decides whether a duty of care has been breached, including any two risk factors which may affect the court’s decision (8) Breach of duty requires the defendant’s conduct to have fallen below the standard of the reasonable man. This is decide by applying one or more of various risk factors. Outline what is meant by the reasonable man and briefly explain one of the risk factors (8) Breach of duty requires the failure to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man, taking into account various risk factors. Briefly explain three risk factors (8) Damages: Damage in negligence involves the rules of factual causation and the rules of remoteness of damage. Explain these rules (8)

3. Explain how the law decides whether a duty of care is owed in negligence (8 marks) / A claimant proves that a duty of care is owed using the three-part test set out in the case of Caparo v Dickman. Explain the Caparo three-part test (8) Donoghue v Stevenson established the neighbour principle in relation to duty of care. Caparo v Dickman set out a more detailed 3 part test. Firstly, foreseeability which is an objective test, asks would a reasonable person in D’s position have foreseen that someone in C’s position might be injured? In Kent v Griffiths it was established that an ambulance service owed a duty of care to a member of the public on whose behalf a 999 call had been made as it was reasonably foreseeable he would be further injured if the ambulance failed or took too long to arrive. The second test is proximity which means closeness and can be by space, time or relationship In Bourhill v Young the C did not see a motorcycle accident and was a safe distance away from it but decided to go and see what had happened. She suffered shock and claimed this caused her to miscarry. It was held that D did not owe her a duty of care as she chose to see the aftermath voluntarily therefore there was no proximity. The final test is whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. This test will consider whether imposing a duty would open the “floodgates of litigation” by encouraging a huge number of claims, which the court would wish to avoid. The court will also consider what is best for society as a whole and Ds in the public sector are more likely to have claims against them fail as it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on them. For example in Hills v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire the court held there was no duty of care on the police to the mother of the Yorkshire Ripper’s last victim who the police had already interviewed and released before he killed again, due to the policy consideration to allow the police to work as efficiently as possible

4. Explain how the law decides whether a duty of care has been breached, including any two risk factors which may affect the court’s decision (8) Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. established that D must breach their duty of care by failing to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man who is the ordinary person performing the particular task The standard expected of the reasonable man will vary depending on the individual skills expected on that type of person In Nettleship v Weston the court held that the learner driver’s standard of driving should be that of the reasonably competent driver, not a learner driver and so being a learner or trainee will not affect the standard of the reasonable man. If D is a professional, he would be judged as a reasonably competent professional. In Bolom v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee the Court held there was no breach of duty as the hospital had followed a substantial body of opinion within the profession that supported their course of action If D is a young person under the principle in Mullin v Richards he is only expected to meet the standard of a reasonable person of the same age not an adult, so in this case D was not in breach of her duty as she had reached the standard of behaviour required of a 15-year old. There are various risk factors which may raise or lower the standard expected The court will consider the characteristics of C. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council the court held the council owed C a higher standard of care because they knew of his Latimer v AEC – D’s factory was flooded after an exceptionally heavy rainstorm. Water mixed with some oil made the floor very slippery. D put up warning signs, passed the message around the workforce, and used all its supply of sand and sawdust to try and dry the floor. Despite this, C slipped and was injured. D owed a duty of care but had not breached the duty of care as all reasonable practical precautions had been taken in the circumstances

5. Breach of duty requires the defendant’s conduct to have fallen below the standard of the reasonable man. This is decide by applying one or more of various risk factors. Outline what is meant by the reasonable man and briefly explain one of the risk factors (8) Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. established that D must breach their duty of care by failing to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man who is the ordinary person performing the particular task The standard expected of the reasonable man will vary depending on the individual skills expected on that type of person In Nettleship v Weston the court held that the learner driver’s standard of driving should be that of the reasonably competent driver, not a learner driver and so being a learner or trainee will not affect the standard of the reasonable man. If D is a professional, he would be judged as a reasonably competent professional. In Bolom v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee the Court held there was no breach of duty as the hospital had followed a substantial body of opinion within the profession that supported their course of action If D is a young person under the principle in Mullin v Richards he is only expected to meet the standard of a reasonable person of the same age not an adult, so in this case D was not in breach of her duty as she had reached the standard of behaviour required of a 15-year old. There are various risk factors which may raise or lower the standard expected The court will consider the characteristics of C. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council C was employed as a fitter in a garage. His employer, the local council, knew he only had the use of one eye. While he was using a hammer to remove a bolt on a vehicle, a chip of metal flew off and entered his good eye – he became totally blind. Council did not provide goggles for him to wear as this was not standard practice in 1950. Had C have been fully sighted, the council might not have breached duty of care. But, as they knew he was blind in one eye, the court held the council owed him a higher standard of care because of this known increased risk

6. Breach of duty requires the failure to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man, taking into account various risk factors. Briefly explain three risk factors (8) There are various risk factors which may raise or lower the standard expected The court will consider the characteristics of C. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council C was employed as a fitter in a garage. His employer, the local council, knew he only had the use of one eye. While he was using a hammer to remove a bolt on a vehicle, a chip of metal flew off and entered his good eye – he became totally blind. Council did not provide goggles for him to wear as this was not standard practice in 1950. Had C have been fully sighted, the council might not have breached duty of care. But, as they knew he was blind in one eye, the court held the council owed him a higher standard of care because of this known increased risk The court will also consider whether D has taken reasonable precautions. In Latimer v AEC – D’s factory was flooded after an exceptionally heavy rainstorm. Water mixed with some oil made the floor very slippery. D put up warning signs, passed the message around the workforce, and used all its supply of sand and sawdust to try and dry the floor. Despite this, C slipped and was injured. D owed a duty of care but had not breached the duty of care as all reasonable practical precautions had been taken in the circumstances The court will also consider whether there is a benefit to taking the risk, sometimes called public utility (usefulness), and if there is this will be balanced with the risk. In Watt v Hertfordshire County Council – firefighters were injured by lifting gear when travelling an a vehicle not specifically fitted for carrying that gear. The appropriate vehicle was already in use attending an emergency when the call came in to go to another emergency where a woman was trapped under a heavy vehicle. Court held that they must “balance the risk” – the benefit of saving the woman was greater than the risk of injuring firefighters by using a vehicle not suited to carrying the heavy gear – duty not breached

7. Damage in negligence involves the rules of factual causation and the rules of remoteness of damage. Explain these rules (8) Factual causation uses the “but for” test which is satisfied if but for D’s act or omission, C would not have suffered the loss or harm In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee a medical casualty officer failed to follow normal practice and speak to or examine a patient. About 5 hours later, he died from arsenic poisoning and medical opinion was that it was likely C would have died from the poisoning even if he had been admitted to hospital and treated therefore there was no factual causation and no liability. C’s claim will still fail if the damage suffered is too remote D is only liable for damage if it is the foreseeable consequence of his breach In The Wagon Mound – D spilt oil which spread over the water to C’s wharf. C was welding and the molten metal fell on floating cotton which smouldered and ignited the oil. C’s wharf was severely damaged. The court held that the damage by the oil was foreseeable but the damage by the fire was too remote and was not foreseeable. Next we look at the kind and type of damage and as long as the type of damage is foreseeable it doesn’t matter that the form it takes is unusual. In Bradford v Robinson Rentals C it was held that it was foreseeable that C would suffer some cold-related injury so D was liable for C’s frostbite even though the specific injury was unusual as it was the same type of damage. Finally, D must take C as he finds him which means he is still liable if C had a pre-existing condition that made the injury worse In Smith V Leech Brain – a minor burn on C’s face triggered his pre-existing cancerous condition and he developed cancer. As some minor injury was at least foreseeable and C’s extreme reaction was a result of his condition, D had to take C as he found him and was therefore liable.