©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tort law BPP ( GDL Notes)
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee - answer✔Where the defendant is
professional, the standards are that of the defendant's profession or that of the reasonably
competent professional in the circumstance
Bolam principle: a professional is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with a practice
accepted by a reasonable body within that profession (even if their is a contrary body of
opinion)
In exams PLEASE READ AND HEAVILY tHIS - answer✔info to consider IMPROANT
- Failure to apply Capro on duty and no precedent situation in the general negligence question
_ conclude on every claim as well
_ VL claims in EL and Clinical negligence
_ close test connections L and Clinical negligence
-In clinical negligence sue the hospital for VL and direct liability
ALWAYS consider - answer✔if there a third party involved apply Smith v Littlewoord and then
the Capro as down.
1|Page
, ©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALWAYS consider 2 - answer✔General rule: no liability for pure omissions (Smith v Littlewoods)
Exceptions:
1-Positive duty imposed by statute (OLA 1957).
2-Contractual duty (Stansbie v Troman).
3-Def has a high degree of control over the Cl (Reeves v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis).
4-Pre-existing relationship between the Def and Cl where the D assumes responsibility for the
Cl (Barrett v MOD; Costello).
5-Def creates the risk (Haynes v Harwood; Stansbie v Troman).
--
1- Proximity (special relationship) between Cl and Def (Stansbie v Troman; Home Office v
Dorset Yacht; Osman v Ferguson).
2 -Proximity (special relationship) between Def and TP (Home Office v Dorset Yacht;
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis).
3-Def negligently creates or allows the creation of a danger and the C is injured as a result
(Haynes v Harwood; Stansbie v Troman).
4- Def knows or ought to know of a danger on their property created by a TP (Smith v
Littlewoods).
In relation to Duty of care: - answer✔General notes about Duty of care:
2|Page
, ©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
In terms of duty of care remember the standard is it professional and did he meet it and there
is the ordinary standard as well. Always consider Bolam .
Now in relations to the ordinary and regular standard, there is Blyth v Brimingham , Glasgow
crop v muir
Also in term of people trained the act, not the actor applies in Willsher v EHA and nettleship v
weston ( he should meet the standard of reasonably competent driver and even state Willsher
in driving no issues.( Afterward apply Capro friend listed in the start of cards) such as the
Likelihood of harm and all. Think of the risk and harm you may cause.
Remember whitely v Phipllie and white v jones as well.
The lower standard is applying in children ( Mullins v Richard) , illness the driving cases stated
out in Robert v Rambootm and mansfield v weetabix
__
Note to self - answer✔The standards sets :
Was the standard breached
_ For instance : The Likelihood of harm consider was it foreseeable
Haley v LEB
3|Page
, ©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Boltan v Stone
_Serious of injury
Waston v BBC
Stepney v Paris
_utility of D conduct
__Watt v Herts
__Ward v London
_
Did the D take the precaution
4|Page
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tort law BPP ( GDL Notes)
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee - answer✔Where the defendant is
professional, the standards are that of the defendant's profession or that of the reasonably
competent professional in the circumstance
Bolam principle: a professional is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with a practice
accepted by a reasonable body within that profession (even if their is a contrary body of
opinion)
In exams PLEASE READ AND HEAVILY tHIS - answer✔info to consider IMPROANT
- Failure to apply Capro on duty and no precedent situation in the general negligence question
_ conclude on every claim as well
_ VL claims in EL and Clinical negligence
_ close test connections L and Clinical negligence
-In clinical negligence sue the hospital for VL and direct liability
ALWAYS consider - answer✔if there a third party involved apply Smith v Littlewoord and then
the Capro as down.
1|Page
, ©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALWAYS consider 2 - answer✔General rule: no liability for pure omissions (Smith v Littlewoods)
Exceptions:
1-Positive duty imposed by statute (OLA 1957).
2-Contractual duty (Stansbie v Troman).
3-Def has a high degree of control over the Cl (Reeves v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis).
4-Pre-existing relationship between the Def and Cl where the D assumes responsibility for the
Cl (Barrett v MOD; Costello).
5-Def creates the risk (Haynes v Harwood; Stansbie v Troman).
--
1- Proximity (special relationship) between Cl and Def (Stansbie v Troman; Home Office v
Dorset Yacht; Osman v Ferguson).
2 -Proximity (special relationship) between Def and TP (Home Office v Dorset Yacht;
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis).
3-Def negligently creates or allows the creation of a danger and the C is injured as a result
(Haynes v Harwood; Stansbie v Troman).
4- Def knows or ought to know of a danger on their property created by a TP (Smith v
Littlewoods).
In relation to Duty of care: - answer✔General notes about Duty of care:
2|Page
, ©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
In terms of duty of care remember the standard is it professional and did he meet it and there
is the ordinary standard as well. Always consider Bolam .
Now in relations to the ordinary and regular standard, there is Blyth v Brimingham , Glasgow
crop v muir
Also in term of people trained the act, not the actor applies in Willsher v EHA and nettleship v
weston ( he should meet the standard of reasonably competent driver and even state Willsher
in driving no issues.( Afterward apply Capro friend listed in the start of cards) such as the
Likelihood of harm and all. Think of the risk and harm you may cause.
Remember whitely v Phipllie and white v jones as well.
The lower standard is applying in children ( Mullins v Richard) , illness the driving cases stated
out in Robert v Rambootm and mansfield v weetabix
__
Note to self - answer✔The standards sets :
Was the standard breached
_ For instance : The Likelihood of harm consider was it foreseeable
Haley v LEB
3|Page
, ©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Boltan v Stone
_Serious of injury
Waston v BBC
Stepney v Paris
_utility of D conduct
__Watt v Herts
__Ward v London
_
Did the D take the precaution
4|Page
