LAW REVISION – UNIT 4
CONTENTS
Introduction to Tort
o Duty of Care
o Breach of Duty
o Damage
o Medical Negligence
o Economic Loss
o Psychiatric Harm
o Product Liability (Tort)
o Product Liability (Consumer Protection Act 1987)
o Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
o Occupiers' Liability Act 1984
o Vicarious Liability
o Private Nuisance
o Rylands v Fletcher
o Public Nuisance
o Contributory Negligence
o Volenti (Consent)
o Plan of Justice Essay
,INTRODUCTION TO TORT
Duty of Care (DoC)
Originally set out in the neighbour principle: Donaghue v Stevenson – Established Neighbour
Principle: We owe a duty of care to our neighbour to make sure we take reasonable care to avoid
acts or omissions which might cause them harm.
The modern 3-part test was set out in Caparo V Dickman:
1. Was the harm reasonable foreseeable?
● Was it RF that someone in the C’s position would suffer some harm”
● In Kent V Griffiths it was RF that harm would come to someone if an ambulance did not
arrive in a reasonable level of time
2. Was there sufficient proximity?
● Proximity means legal closeness this can be in time and space or relationship.
● If someone is so closely and directly affected by your act there is proximity
● Proximity by relationship: Watson V British Boxing Board
● Proximity by time and space (NO PROXIMITY): Bourhill V Young
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
● It is a question of public policy, what is in the best interest of the public
● In Hill V Chief constable of west Yorkshire the police did not owe a duty of care to the last
victim of the Yorkshire ripper because it would lead to defensive policing
● The question is would it open the floodgates of litigation or hamper the work of the
emergency services
Breach:
Standard of care:
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks – Negligence is 'the omission to do something which a reasonable
man would, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do'.
Mullins v Richards – The standard of care is that of a reasonable child of that age.
Bolam v Friern HMC – Standard of care that of a reasonably competent member of that profession.
Nettleship v Weston – Standard of care that of a reasonably competent qualified driver.
Risk factors:
RISK OF HARM - Roe V Minister of Health - Risk not known to Science so there was no breach. 'If the
reasonable man could not be expected to have known of the risk then he cannot be expected to
prepare for the risk.'
, SIZE OF RISK – Bolton v Stone – Risk to members of the public was small because it happened so
infrequently that a reasonable man wouldn't see it. 'The greater the risk, the more care the
reasonable man would take and vice versa'
SERIOUSNESS OF INJURY I.E VULNERABILITY – Paris v Stepney Borough Council – The C's employers
had breached duty towards him because they knew he required more care. 'The reasonable man will
show more care to a C who is especially vulnerable in some way'.
UTILITY OF ACT – Watt v Hertfordshire County Council – The fact a women's life was at risk justified
taking the risk of using a fire engine not adapted to carrying the heavier equipment. 'The more
useful the D's act, the more likely that taking a risk to achieve it will be justified.'
THE PRACTICABILITY OF PRECAUTIONS – Latimer V AEC Ltd – The factory owners were not in
breach of their duty to workers because all reasonable practical precautions had been taken. 'The
cost and effort of taking precautions must be weighed up against the risk. The cheaper a precaution
is, the easier it is to take it, the more likely it is that a reasonable man would take that precaution.'
PROVING BREACH & RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Scott v London and St Katherine's Docks – The D has control over the thing that causes harm +
wouldn't happen normally without negligence. 'Burden of proof shifted to the D.'
Damage:
There are two parts to proving damage, causation in fact and causation in law
Causation in fact:
● Uses the ‘But for’ test
● Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital ; but for the C not being admitted to hospital he
still would have died therefore no causation in fact.
Causation in law/ Remoteness:
● The harm to the C must be reasonably foreseeable; The wagon mound
● If the type of harm is RF then the cause does not have to be; Hughes V Lord Advocate
● If the type of harm id RF the seriousness does not have to be; Bradford V Robinsons Rentals
● ‘the thin skull rule’ – an abnormality cannot be used as a defence; Smith V Leech Brain
Damages:
● Purpose - to return the C to the position before the harm
● Type - General and special
⮚ General – Those that cannot be calculated exactly in monetary terms e.g. loss of
future earnings; cost of future medical expenses; pain and suffering.
CONTENTS
Introduction to Tort
o Duty of Care
o Breach of Duty
o Damage
o Medical Negligence
o Economic Loss
o Psychiatric Harm
o Product Liability (Tort)
o Product Liability (Consumer Protection Act 1987)
o Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
o Occupiers' Liability Act 1984
o Vicarious Liability
o Private Nuisance
o Rylands v Fletcher
o Public Nuisance
o Contributory Negligence
o Volenti (Consent)
o Plan of Justice Essay
,INTRODUCTION TO TORT
Duty of Care (DoC)
Originally set out in the neighbour principle: Donaghue v Stevenson – Established Neighbour
Principle: We owe a duty of care to our neighbour to make sure we take reasonable care to avoid
acts or omissions which might cause them harm.
The modern 3-part test was set out in Caparo V Dickman:
1. Was the harm reasonable foreseeable?
● Was it RF that someone in the C’s position would suffer some harm”
● In Kent V Griffiths it was RF that harm would come to someone if an ambulance did not
arrive in a reasonable level of time
2. Was there sufficient proximity?
● Proximity means legal closeness this can be in time and space or relationship.
● If someone is so closely and directly affected by your act there is proximity
● Proximity by relationship: Watson V British Boxing Board
● Proximity by time and space (NO PROXIMITY): Bourhill V Young
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
● It is a question of public policy, what is in the best interest of the public
● In Hill V Chief constable of west Yorkshire the police did not owe a duty of care to the last
victim of the Yorkshire ripper because it would lead to defensive policing
● The question is would it open the floodgates of litigation or hamper the work of the
emergency services
Breach:
Standard of care:
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks – Negligence is 'the omission to do something which a reasonable
man would, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do'.
Mullins v Richards – The standard of care is that of a reasonable child of that age.
Bolam v Friern HMC – Standard of care that of a reasonably competent member of that profession.
Nettleship v Weston – Standard of care that of a reasonably competent qualified driver.
Risk factors:
RISK OF HARM - Roe V Minister of Health - Risk not known to Science so there was no breach. 'If the
reasonable man could not be expected to have known of the risk then he cannot be expected to
prepare for the risk.'
, SIZE OF RISK – Bolton v Stone – Risk to members of the public was small because it happened so
infrequently that a reasonable man wouldn't see it. 'The greater the risk, the more care the
reasonable man would take and vice versa'
SERIOUSNESS OF INJURY I.E VULNERABILITY – Paris v Stepney Borough Council – The C's employers
had breached duty towards him because they knew he required more care. 'The reasonable man will
show more care to a C who is especially vulnerable in some way'.
UTILITY OF ACT – Watt v Hertfordshire County Council – The fact a women's life was at risk justified
taking the risk of using a fire engine not adapted to carrying the heavier equipment. 'The more
useful the D's act, the more likely that taking a risk to achieve it will be justified.'
THE PRACTICABILITY OF PRECAUTIONS – Latimer V AEC Ltd – The factory owners were not in
breach of their duty to workers because all reasonable practical precautions had been taken. 'The
cost and effort of taking precautions must be weighed up against the risk. The cheaper a precaution
is, the easier it is to take it, the more likely it is that a reasonable man would take that precaution.'
PROVING BREACH & RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Scott v London and St Katherine's Docks – The D has control over the thing that causes harm +
wouldn't happen normally without negligence. 'Burden of proof shifted to the D.'
Damage:
There are two parts to proving damage, causation in fact and causation in law
Causation in fact:
● Uses the ‘But for’ test
● Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital ; but for the C not being admitted to hospital he
still would have died therefore no causation in fact.
Causation in law/ Remoteness:
● The harm to the C must be reasonably foreseeable; The wagon mound
● If the type of harm is RF then the cause does not have to be; Hughes V Lord Advocate
● If the type of harm id RF the seriousness does not have to be; Bradford V Robinsons Rentals
● ‘the thin skull rule’ – an abnormality cannot be used as a defence; Smith V Leech Brain
Damages:
● Purpose - to return the C to the position before the harm
● Type - General and special
⮚ General – Those that cannot be calculated exactly in monetary terms e.g. loss of
future earnings; cost of future medical expenses; pain and suffering.
