AQA A-Level Law Paper 2
(Neg) The 3 stages of negligence?>>> Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Damage
(Neg) Donoghue v Stevenson>>> 'Neigbour principle' (Lord Atkin) - "your neighbour is anyone
closely affected by your actions or omissions"
(Neg) Robinson 2018>>> Caparo test need only be used in novel situations and provided
established DOC
> doctor to patient - Bolam
> driver to road user - Nettleship v Weston
> manufacturers to consumers - Donoghue v Stevenson
> solicitor to client - Arthur JS Hall v Simons
(Neg) Caparo v Dickman 1990>>> Caparo 3 stage test
> was damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable?
> was there a relationship of close proximity between C & D?
> is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a DOC?
(Neg) Kent v Griffiths>>> The damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable - D's actions judged by
the standards of a reasonable person (objective test)
(Neg) Bourhill v Young>>> Relationship of close proximity between C & D - proximity of time
& space, and legal relationship
(Neg) Hill v CC of W Yorkshire/ Robinson>>> It is fair just & reasonable to impose a DOC
(public issue, floodgate argument) - if an omission then NOT fair (Hill), but it its a positive act it
is (Robinson)
(Neg) Duty of Care>>> C must prove D owed them a DOC
(Neg) Breach of Duty>>> Used to establish D's liability for his actions/ omissions and the SOC
they owe to C
Blyth v Birmingham - D is "judged by the standards of an ordinary person in that same situation
with similar experience"
(Neg) Well v Cooper>>> If D is an ordinary person, then they will not be expexted to act like a
professional
(Neg) Bolam>>> > Bolam - if D is an expert/ possesses a skill then judged to standards of other
reasonably competent professionals
> Bolithio - if there is a body of professional opinion supporting D's actions, the judge will
examine this and may deem it illogical so D still liable
(Neg) Bolam - OIR>>> > Wilsher v Essex - no account taken for D's actual experience
> Montgomery - doctor must make patient aware of material risks
> Chester v Afshar - doctor must inform of side effects
(Neg) Nettleship v Weston>>> If D is inexperience/ learner then judged by standards of
experienced - standard never lowered
(Neg) Mullins v Richards>>> Children judged to standard of a similar age
(Neg) Disabled>>> D's judged to standard appropriate to the reasonable person with the same
disability
(Neg) Risk Factors>>> Increase or decrease SOC required by D
, (Neg) Roe v Minister of Health>>> Where risks known about at time of injury? D only liable
for risks within 'reasonable contemplation'
(Neg) Bolton v Stone/ Hayley v London Electricity Board>>> Size of risk and probability of
harm caused
> small risk = less precautions (Bolton)
> high risk = more precautions (Hayley)
(Neg) Paris v Stepney Council>>> OIR: C has a special characteristic that makes them more
suseptible to harm/ makes harm more serious
(Neg) Latimer>>> OIR: Where all practical precautions taken at the time of injury/ damage?
Cost and practicality are considered
(Neg) Watt v Hertfordshire Council>>> OIR: Is there a public benefit to taking the risk? If there
is, a lower standard is expected
(Neg) Resulting Damage>>> Must be a link between C's damage and D's act or omission (chain
of causation)
(Neg) Barnett v Chelsea Hospital>>> Factual Causation - "but for D's acts/ omission would C
have suffered harm?"
(Neg) Wagon Mound>>> Legal Causation - remoteness test ('remoteness of damage') - was the
damage to C "reasonably foresseable or "too remote" from breach
(Neg) Hughes v Lord Advocate>>> Legal Causation - no need to predict the exact way the
injury/ damage occured, just the injury/ damage of the same type is foreseeable
(Neg) Thin Skull Rule>>> OIR: Smith v Leech Brain - D must take C as he finds them,
including any pre-existing medical condition that makes them more suseptible to harm
(Neg) Intervening Acts>>> OIR:
> Act of C - McKew v Holland
> Act of God/ Nature - Carslogie Steamship
> Act of 3rd Party - Knightley v Johns
> Multiple Causes - Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
(Neg) DEFENCES: Contributory Negligence>>> Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act
1945: C contributes to own injury/ damage so damages reduced accordingly (partial defence)
> Froom v Butcher - damages reduced 25%
> Morales v Eccelston - no age limit at which you can contribute to own injuries
(Neg) DEFENCES: Volenti Non Fit Injuria>>> Consent - full defence providing 3 conditions
are satisfied
> Murray - C has knowledge of risk
> Morris v Murray - C's consent must be freely given
> Smith v Baker - C exercises free choice
(Neg) REMEDIES: Damages>>> Aim to put C in position before tort was committed (special &
general) - Remoteness test (Wagon Mound)
SPECIAL = pecuniary & specific value
GENERAL = non-pecurinary & not precisely calculated
Psychiatric Injury>>> For C to be owed a DOC, must show they are suffering from:
> a recognised psychiatric injury causing long term effects - Reilly
> illness caused by traumatic event or "assault on senses" - Sion v Hampstead Health Authority
(Psych Inj) Primary Victim>>> A person who reasonably fears for their own safety or is within
the zone of danger
(Psych Inj) Page v Smith>>> Must prove
(Neg) The 3 stages of negligence?>>> Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Damage
(Neg) Donoghue v Stevenson>>> 'Neigbour principle' (Lord Atkin) - "your neighbour is anyone
closely affected by your actions or omissions"
(Neg) Robinson 2018>>> Caparo test need only be used in novel situations and provided
established DOC
> doctor to patient - Bolam
> driver to road user - Nettleship v Weston
> manufacturers to consumers - Donoghue v Stevenson
> solicitor to client - Arthur JS Hall v Simons
(Neg) Caparo v Dickman 1990>>> Caparo 3 stage test
> was damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable?
> was there a relationship of close proximity between C & D?
> is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a DOC?
(Neg) Kent v Griffiths>>> The damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable - D's actions judged by
the standards of a reasonable person (objective test)
(Neg) Bourhill v Young>>> Relationship of close proximity between C & D - proximity of time
& space, and legal relationship
(Neg) Hill v CC of W Yorkshire/ Robinson>>> It is fair just & reasonable to impose a DOC
(public issue, floodgate argument) - if an omission then NOT fair (Hill), but it its a positive act it
is (Robinson)
(Neg) Duty of Care>>> C must prove D owed them a DOC
(Neg) Breach of Duty>>> Used to establish D's liability for his actions/ omissions and the SOC
they owe to C
Blyth v Birmingham - D is "judged by the standards of an ordinary person in that same situation
with similar experience"
(Neg) Well v Cooper>>> If D is an ordinary person, then they will not be expexted to act like a
professional
(Neg) Bolam>>> > Bolam - if D is an expert/ possesses a skill then judged to standards of other
reasonably competent professionals
> Bolithio - if there is a body of professional opinion supporting D's actions, the judge will
examine this and may deem it illogical so D still liable
(Neg) Bolam - OIR>>> > Wilsher v Essex - no account taken for D's actual experience
> Montgomery - doctor must make patient aware of material risks
> Chester v Afshar - doctor must inform of side effects
(Neg) Nettleship v Weston>>> If D is inexperience/ learner then judged by standards of
experienced - standard never lowered
(Neg) Mullins v Richards>>> Children judged to standard of a similar age
(Neg) Disabled>>> D's judged to standard appropriate to the reasonable person with the same
disability
(Neg) Risk Factors>>> Increase or decrease SOC required by D
, (Neg) Roe v Minister of Health>>> Where risks known about at time of injury? D only liable
for risks within 'reasonable contemplation'
(Neg) Bolton v Stone/ Hayley v London Electricity Board>>> Size of risk and probability of
harm caused
> small risk = less precautions (Bolton)
> high risk = more precautions (Hayley)
(Neg) Paris v Stepney Council>>> OIR: C has a special characteristic that makes them more
suseptible to harm/ makes harm more serious
(Neg) Latimer>>> OIR: Where all practical precautions taken at the time of injury/ damage?
Cost and practicality are considered
(Neg) Watt v Hertfordshire Council>>> OIR: Is there a public benefit to taking the risk? If there
is, a lower standard is expected
(Neg) Resulting Damage>>> Must be a link between C's damage and D's act or omission (chain
of causation)
(Neg) Barnett v Chelsea Hospital>>> Factual Causation - "but for D's acts/ omission would C
have suffered harm?"
(Neg) Wagon Mound>>> Legal Causation - remoteness test ('remoteness of damage') - was the
damage to C "reasonably foresseable or "too remote" from breach
(Neg) Hughes v Lord Advocate>>> Legal Causation - no need to predict the exact way the
injury/ damage occured, just the injury/ damage of the same type is foreseeable
(Neg) Thin Skull Rule>>> OIR: Smith v Leech Brain - D must take C as he finds them,
including any pre-existing medical condition that makes them more suseptible to harm
(Neg) Intervening Acts>>> OIR:
> Act of C - McKew v Holland
> Act of God/ Nature - Carslogie Steamship
> Act of 3rd Party - Knightley v Johns
> Multiple Causes - Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
(Neg) DEFENCES: Contributory Negligence>>> Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act
1945: C contributes to own injury/ damage so damages reduced accordingly (partial defence)
> Froom v Butcher - damages reduced 25%
> Morales v Eccelston - no age limit at which you can contribute to own injuries
(Neg) DEFENCES: Volenti Non Fit Injuria>>> Consent - full defence providing 3 conditions
are satisfied
> Murray - C has knowledge of risk
> Morris v Murray - C's consent must be freely given
> Smith v Baker - C exercises free choice
(Neg) REMEDIES: Damages>>> Aim to put C in position before tort was committed (special &
general) - Remoteness test (Wagon Mound)
SPECIAL = pecuniary & specific value
GENERAL = non-pecurinary & not precisely calculated
Psychiatric Injury>>> For C to be owed a DOC, must show they are suffering from:
> a recognised psychiatric injury causing long term effects - Reilly
> illness caused by traumatic event or "assault on senses" - Sion v Hampstead Health Authority
(Psych Inj) Primary Victim>>> A person who reasonably fears for their own safety or is within
the zone of danger
(Psych Inj) Page v Smith>>> Must prove
