AQA A-LEVEL LAW PAPER 2
COMPLETE SOLUTION 100% VERIFIED
ANSWERS A+ GRADED FREE
(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
COMPLETE SOLUTION 100% VERIFIED
ANSWERS A+ GRADED FREE
(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
