PREP TASK
Your firm has just started to act for Kate Moffet, who wants to
claim damages for an injury which she sustained during an RTA
in October 2024.
1. PEFORM A CASE ANALYSIS
STARTS ON PAGE 31/32 [CHAPTER 3 OF THE TEXTBOOK]
STARTS PAGE 13 LPC BUDDY
(a) STEP ONE: WHAT CLAIM IS THIS?
Negligence
(b) STEP TWO: WAS THERE A DUTY OR CARE AND WHAT IS THE
STANDARD?
All road users have a duty of care to avoid causing injury to other users
whom it may be reasonably injured the by their actions or failure to
act.
i.e. one road user to another
A road user includes those driving or riding motorbikes as well as cars
[amongst other things]. Therefore, both the vehicle driver and Kate
owed each other and other road users a duty of care
i.e. it doesn’t matter whether your driver a car/motorbike or any kind of
vehicle it’s a duty to take care of other road users
[As per Nettleship v Weston] The standard of care is that of the
ordinary skilful driver
(c) STEP THREE: WAS THERE A BREACH OF DUTY?
i.e. what did D do wrong on the facts?
Breaches are a matter of fact that you can find from various parts of
the evidence
KM was driving at a normal speed and the vehicle cut across KM
without checking if it was safe to do so while KM had right of way, This
caused KM to brake sharply. Therefore, there is a clear breach of duty
because the driver was not driving to the standard of an ordinary skilful
driver.
The vehicle driver broke that duty as care, he did not act the way an
ordinary competent driver would.
, by cutting Katie off and causing her to break suddenly, the vehicle
driver broke this duty of care – he did not act how a reasonable driver
would
PTN: She was driving appropriate speed [from 50 to 40 – applied
brakes and slowed down to 30] and therefore would say she is driving
at the standard of the ordinary skilful drive + She was keeping
(d) STEP THREE: CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Was there contributory negligence on part of the claimant i.e. does was
the claimant wearing a seat belt or driving too fast etc?
It is likely that the defendant may argue that somehow Kate is at fault
or at the very least they may argue that she is partly at fault.
They may argue that she was going to safe and there caused the injury
suffered.
PTN: As per section 1(1) Law Reform (contributory Negligence) act
1945: “where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own
fault” the amount of damages shall be reduced to such extent at the
court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimants’ share in
the responsbility
PTN: She was driving appropriate speed [from 50 to 40 – applied
brakes and slowed down to 30] and therefore would say she is driving
at the standard of the ordinary skilful drive.
She was keeping a good look out – paying attention
Weakness of KM – were 50,40, 30 safe? Arguably she should have been
going slower and therefore contributory negligence can be argued
against her
We can look at the Highway Code to see if she was driving at an
appropriate distance – potentially relevant factor [guidance to show
that you are driving with the standard]
(e) STEP FOUR: DID THE BREACH OF DUTY CAUSE THE LOSS?
i.e. did the wrongful act. Omission cause the injury/loss? i.e. but for the
wrongful act or omission would the injury of happened?
i.e. ‘but for’ the breach [name what the breach is] they would not have
suffered the injury they sustained.
KM [i.e. being the claimant] will have to prove that the breach of duty
cause the loss & damage complained of.
The claimant will have to show that ‘but for’ the defendants’ breach,
the injuries would not have arisen.
‘But for’ the fact the defendant [insert their name] drove across Kate
while she was trying to go down towards to the roundabout she
, wouldn’t have had to brake sharply, and she wouldn’t have therefore
fallen heavily on her helmet and arms.
The case of Barnett v Chelsea
(f) STEP FOUR: HAS THE CLAIMANT SUFFERED LOSS?
The claimant will have to substantiate their losses and show that these
were reasonably foreseeable and not too remote
Special damages:
Loss of earnings
Clothing and person effects e.g. leather suit, gloves, boots, bike
Travel costs
General damages
PSLA
Future loss of earnings
Cost of care
Loss of congenial employment
FOR EXAM QUESTION BE MORE SPECIFIC
(g) STEP FIVE: WAS THE LOSS SUFFERED REASONABLY
FORSEEABLE AND NOT TOO REMOTE?
In order to succeed with a claim in negligence, the loss suffered must
have been reasonably foreseeable.
i.e. The Wagon Mound No 1 [1961], damages will be reasonably
foreseeable if it of a kind which is foreseeable
The loss suffered is not too remote, the dangerous driving would cause
Katie these extensive injuries and the losses are all linked to her
injuries and therefore not too remote.
(h) STEP SIX: DEFENCES
???????
,2. STRENGTHENS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE CLAIM ON THE
CURRENT EVIDENCE
Strengthen
It appears that KM had right of way and that the person in the other car
was cutting across in front of her right of way [what does the Highway
code say on this]?
Her claim is strong because there is clear evidence that she suffered
substantial injuries, and her motorbike was written off [i.e. from
medical report]
Medical report has been obtained which detail the injuries [and
describe them as serious]
She slowed down when she saw the other car
Weaknesses
There is not much idea as to who caused the injuries and if there is no
CCTV or anyone else to identify the vehicle driver then it might be
difficult finding them.
Lack of witnesses [little to support what happened]
Katie was not hit by the driver; her injuries are a result of her breaking
too hard and going over the handlebars – was it her fault?
We don’t have much evidence on the condition of her bike or the
condition of the road, weather conditions etc
she noticed the car and that it was moving slowly
Key weakness – are those speeds she was driving at safe?
, 3. STEPS YOU WOULD TAKE TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER
FROM LOUISE MARRIOTS LECTURE VIDEO:
There is no point in investigating quantum and spending money and
time on that if liability cannot be established in the first place.
Police accident report
Often, there’ll be a Police Accident Report in an RTA case where the
police have been called to the scene of an accident and
if you’re acting in an RTA case - you should obtain that as soon as
possible.
you should request it as soon as possible to make sure that it’s not
destroyed before you have asked for a copy to be sent to you.
The Police Accident Report will contain statements from the parties and
a sketch plan as well as the police officer’s comments on how the
accident happened, and also other useful information such as the
speed limit for the road, condition of the vehicles, also weather
conditions as well as statements from any witnesses. And it will also
contain details of any criminal proceedings that were commenced as a
result of the accident. It may also contain photographs of the scene.
So, all in all a lot of useful information on liability.
Other documents/evidence
If there wasn’t a police report, you’ll need to make a sketch plan and
take photographs yourself, take witness statements etc., and you may
need to do some of that work anyway because the Police Accident
Report, for example, will only contain outline statements of any
witnesses who were at the scene, for example. So, you’ll need to take
detailed statements from your client and any witnesses as to what
happened, even if there are some sketched out statements in the
Police Accident Report
Criminal convictions
Your firm has just started to act for Kate Moffet, who wants to
claim damages for an injury which she sustained during an RTA
in October 2024.
1. PEFORM A CASE ANALYSIS
STARTS ON PAGE 31/32 [CHAPTER 3 OF THE TEXTBOOK]
STARTS PAGE 13 LPC BUDDY
(a) STEP ONE: WHAT CLAIM IS THIS?
Negligence
(b) STEP TWO: WAS THERE A DUTY OR CARE AND WHAT IS THE
STANDARD?
All road users have a duty of care to avoid causing injury to other users
whom it may be reasonably injured the by their actions or failure to
act.
i.e. one road user to another
A road user includes those driving or riding motorbikes as well as cars
[amongst other things]. Therefore, both the vehicle driver and Kate
owed each other and other road users a duty of care
i.e. it doesn’t matter whether your driver a car/motorbike or any kind of
vehicle it’s a duty to take care of other road users
[As per Nettleship v Weston] The standard of care is that of the
ordinary skilful driver
(c) STEP THREE: WAS THERE A BREACH OF DUTY?
i.e. what did D do wrong on the facts?
Breaches are a matter of fact that you can find from various parts of
the evidence
KM was driving at a normal speed and the vehicle cut across KM
without checking if it was safe to do so while KM had right of way, This
caused KM to brake sharply. Therefore, there is a clear breach of duty
because the driver was not driving to the standard of an ordinary skilful
driver.
The vehicle driver broke that duty as care, he did not act the way an
ordinary competent driver would.
, by cutting Katie off and causing her to break suddenly, the vehicle
driver broke this duty of care – he did not act how a reasonable driver
would
PTN: She was driving appropriate speed [from 50 to 40 – applied
brakes and slowed down to 30] and therefore would say she is driving
at the standard of the ordinary skilful drive + She was keeping
(d) STEP THREE: CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Was there contributory negligence on part of the claimant i.e. does was
the claimant wearing a seat belt or driving too fast etc?
It is likely that the defendant may argue that somehow Kate is at fault
or at the very least they may argue that she is partly at fault.
They may argue that she was going to safe and there caused the injury
suffered.
PTN: As per section 1(1) Law Reform (contributory Negligence) act
1945: “where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own
fault” the amount of damages shall be reduced to such extent at the
court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimants’ share in
the responsbility
PTN: She was driving appropriate speed [from 50 to 40 – applied
brakes and slowed down to 30] and therefore would say she is driving
at the standard of the ordinary skilful drive.
She was keeping a good look out – paying attention
Weakness of KM – were 50,40, 30 safe? Arguably she should have been
going slower and therefore contributory negligence can be argued
against her
We can look at the Highway Code to see if she was driving at an
appropriate distance – potentially relevant factor [guidance to show
that you are driving with the standard]
(e) STEP FOUR: DID THE BREACH OF DUTY CAUSE THE LOSS?
i.e. did the wrongful act. Omission cause the injury/loss? i.e. but for the
wrongful act or omission would the injury of happened?
i.e. ‘but for’ the breach [name what the breach is] they would not have
suffered the injury they sustained.
KM [i.e. being the claimant] will have to prove that the breach of duty
cause the loss & damage complained of.
The claimant will have to show that ‘but for’ the defendants’ breach,
the injuries would not have arisen.
‘But for’ the fact the defendant [insert their name] drove across Kate
while she was trying to go down towards to the roundabout she
, wouldn’t have had to brake sharply, and she wouldn’t have therefore
fallen heavily on her helmet and arms.
The case of Barnett v Chelsea
(f) STEP FOUR: HAS THE CLAIMANT SUFFERED LOSS?
The claimant will have to substantiate their losses and show that these
were reasonably foreseeable and not too remote
Special damages:
Loss of earnings
Clothing and person effects e.g. leather suit, gloves, boots, bike
Travel costs
General damages
PSLA
Future loss of earnings
Cost of care
Loss of congenial employment
FOR EXAM QUESTION BE MORE SPECIFIC
(g) STEP FIVE: WAS THE LOSS SUFFERED REASONABLY
FORSEEABLE AND NOT TOO REMOTE?
In order to succeed with a claim in negligence, the loss suffered must
have been reasonably foreseeable.
i.e. The Wagon Mound No 1 [1961], damages will be reasonably
foreseeable if it of a kind which is foreseeable
The loss suffered is not too remote, the dangerous driving would cause
Katie these extensive injuries and the losses are all linked to her
injuries and therefore not too remote.
(h) STEP SIX: DEFENCES
???????
,2. STRENGTHENS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE CLAIM ON THE
CURRENT EVIDENCE
Strengthen
It appears that KM had right of way and that the person in the other car
was cutting across in front of her right of way [what does the Highway
code say on this]?
Her claim is strong because there is clear evidence that she suffered
substantial injuries, and her motorbike was written off [i.e. from
medical report]
Medical report has been obtained which detail the injuries [and
describe them as serious]
She slowed down when she saw the other car
Weaknesses
There is not much idea as to who caused the injuries and if there is no
CCTV or anyone else to identify the vehicle driver then it might be
difficult finding them.
Lack of witnesses [little to support what happened]
Katie was not hit by the driver; her injuries are a result of her breaking
too hard and going over the handlebars – was it her fault?
We don’t have much evidence on the condition of her bike or the
condition of the road, weather conditions etc
she noticed the car and that it was moving slowly
Key weakness – are those speeds she was driving at safe?
, 3. STEPS YOU WOULD TAKE TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER
FROM LOUISE MARRIOTS LECTURE VIDEO:
There is no point in investigating quantum and spending money and
time on that if liability cannot be established in the first place.
Police accident report
Often, there’ll be a Police Accident Report in an RTA case where the
police have been called to the scene of an accident and
if you’re acting in an RTA case - you should obtain that as soon as
possible.
you should request it as soon as possible to make sure that it’s not
destroyed before you have asked for a copy to be sent to you.
The Police Accident Report will contain statements from the parties and
a sketch plan as well as the police officer’s comments on how the
accident happened, and also other useful information such as the
speed limit for the road, condition of the vehicles, also weather
conditions as well as statements from any witnesses. And it will also
contain details of any criminal proceedings that were commenced as a
result of the accident. It may also contain photographs of the scene.
So, all in all a lot of useful information on liability.
Other documents/evidence
If there wasn’t a police report, you’ll need to make a sketch plan and
take photographs yourself, take witness statements etc., and you may
need to do some of that work anyway because the Police Accident
Report, for example, will only contain outline statements of any
witnesses who were at the scene, for example. So, you’ll need to take
detailed statements from your client and any witnesses as to what
happened, even if there are some sketched out statements in the
Police Accident Report
Criminal convictions
