Miss M’s Simple Negligence Suggested Answer
Ahmed is mowing his lawn with a powerful petrol lawnmower. The mower has a sticker
on it stating that goggles must be worn by anyone who gets close to the mower because
it can throw up small stones. Ahmed’s neighbor, Bilal, comes out of his house and leans
on the fence to chat to Ahmed. Ahmed does not warn Bilal that he should wear goggles
as he knows Bilal has a similar mower and assumes that he will be aware of the
necessary precautions. Ahmed decides to show off by pushing the mower much too fast.
The mower hits a stone which is thrown up and hits Bilal in the face causing him serious
injuries.
Bilal decides to aid his recovery by paying for an overnight stay at the Lush Breaks
Hotel. He awakes in the middle of the night unable to sleep and decides to go to the hotel
swimming pool for a swim. A sign on the door reads: ‘Pool Closed Overnight – No Entry
to Guests During These Hours’. Bilal reads the sign but ignores it and goes in. The
swimming pool is in darkness and Bilal cannot find the light, so he dives in.
Unfortunately, the swimming pool has been emptied for maintenance and Bilal is badly
injured.
Advise whether Bilal will be successful in a claim of negligence against Ahmed.
Bilal may have a claim against Ahmed for negligence under the tort principle of Donoghue v
Stevenson.
The first issue is whether Ahmed owed a duty of care to Bilal under the three-part Caparo
test. Here, some harm could be reasonably as although Bilal is leaning over the fence it is still
likely that Bilal would be hit in the face with a stone (Kent v Griffiths). There is physical
proximity in time and space as Ahmed and Bilal were both there when the incident occurred
(Bourhill v Young). Lastly, it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care to
impose liability as this would encourage Ahmed to take precautions in the future and it would
not lead to the floodgates of litigation opening as Ahmed is not a public authority figure
(Hill/CCWY). As all three parts of the Caparo test have been satisfied Ahmed owes a duty of
care to Bilal.
Next, Ahmed must breach the duty of care. Ahmed is expected to meet the standard of the
reasonable man that takes care of his lawn (Blyth). Applying the risk factors, harm was likely
as Ahmed was pushing the mower too fast and this is reasonably foreseeable that harm could
have occurred (Haley). Ahmed could have avoided the harm to Bilal by using the mower
slower which would not have costed him anything. His action does outweigh the risks
(Bolton). However, the potential harm could be seen as serious as it could be likely that a
stone would hit Bilal when she is leaning over the fence that if the fence was not there but
Ahmed, however, did not take the necessary precautions and this therefore led to Bilal being
injured (Paris). Balancing the factors, it would be likely that Ahmed has fallen below the
standards expected of a reasonable garden who is supposed to have mowed with safety and is
in breach of his duty.
Ahmed is mowing his lawn with a powerful petrol lawnmower. The mower has a sticker
on it stating that goggles must be worn by anyone who gets close to the mower because
it can throw up small stones. Ahmed’s neighbor, Bilal, comes out of his house and leans
on the fence to chat to Ahmed. Ahmed does not warn Bilal that he should wear goggles
as he knows Bilal has a similar mower and assumes that he will be aware of the
necessary precautions. Ahmed decides to show off by pushing the mower much too fast.
The mower hits a stone which is thrown up and hits Bilal in the face causing him serious
injuries.
Bilal decides to aid his recovery by paying for an overnight stay at the Lush Breaks
Hotel. He awakes in the middle of the night unable to sleep and decides to go to the hotel
swimming pool for a swim. A sign on the door reads: ‘Pool Closed Overnight – No Entry
to Guests During These Hours’. Bilal reads the sign but ignores it and goes in. The
swimming pool is in darkness and Bilal cannot find the light, so he dives in.
Unfortunately, the swimming pool has been emptied for maintenance and Bilal is badly
injured.
Advise whether Bilal will be successful in a claim of negligence against Ahmed.
Bilal may have a claim against Ahmed for negligence under the tort principle of Donoghue v
Stevenson.
The first issue is whether Ahmed owed a duty of care to Bilal under the three-part Caparo
test. Here, some harm could be reasonably as although Bilal is leaning over the fence it is still
likely that Bilal would be hit in the face with a stone (Kent v Griffiths). There is physical
proximity in time and space as Ahmed and Bilal were both there when the incident occurred
(Bourhill v Young). Lastly, it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care to
impose liability as this would encourage Ahmed to take precautions in the future and it would
not lead to the floodgates of litigation opening as Ahmed is not a public authority figure
(Hill/CCWY). As all three parts of the Caparo test have been satisfied Ahmed owes a duty of
care to Bilal.
Next, Ahmed must breach the duty of care. Ahmed is expected to meet the standard of the
reasonable man that takes care of his lawn (Blyth). Applying the risk factors, harm was likely
as Ahmed was pushing the mower too fast and this is reasonably foreseeable that harm could
have occurred (Haley). Ahmed could have avoided the harm to Bilal by using the mower
slower which would not have costed him anything. His action does outweigh the risks
(Bolton). However, the potential harm could be seen as serious as it could be likely that a
stone would hit Bilal when she is leaning over the fence that if the fence was not there but
Ahmed, however, did not take the necessary precautions and this therefore led to Bilal being
injured (Paris). Balancing the factors, it would be likely that Ahmed has fallen below the
standards expected of a reasonable garden who is supposed to have mowed with safety and is
in breach of his duty.
