Tort Law - SQE Exam With Complete Solutions 100% Verified
To establish a claim in negligence you must consider. - ANSWER 1. Loss
2. Damage
3. Breach
4. Causation
5. Remoteness
6. Defences
Donoghue v Stevenson - Neighbour principle - ANSWER First case to establish Doc.
Proximity and foreseeability important in deciding who you owe a DoC to.
Old law - replaced by Caparo.
Three-stage approach to DoC. - ANSWER established by Caparo.
1. Foreseeability of harm - test is objective; what could the reasonable person be
expected to foresee.
2. Sufficient proximity between claimant and defendant
3. It must be fair, just and reasonable
Courts have indicated this is the starting point for determining a DoC in novel cases -
should be applied incrementally by analogy with established authorities.
Policy considerations that can narrow or broaden scope of claims - ANSWER
,Floodgates
Insurance
Crushing liability
Deterrence
Maintenance of high standards
Defensive practices
If there is a precedent making clear whether a DoC is owed - ANSWER apply said
precedent
If there is not present a precedent making clear whether or not a duty is owed. -
ANSWER 1. Consider whether duty should be imposed by analogy with existing cases
within the context of Caparo criteria .
2. The harm suffered must be reasonable foreseeable
3. There must be suffienct proximity
4. Involves consideration of what is fair, just and reasonable
General rule for liability for omissions - ANSWER There is no such duty for a mere failure
to act (i.e. an omission)
However - there are some exceptions
Exceptions to general rule of no liability for omissions - ANSWER 1. Where there is a
statutory duty; i.e. a positive duty is imposed on D by statute
2. Where there is a contractual duty
, 3. Where the defendant has sufficient control over the claimant (e.g. parent over child)
4. Where the defendant assumes responsibility for the claimant
5.Where the defendant creates the risk
Omissions and the emergency services - ANSWER Ambulance services - owe a duty of
care to respond to a 999 call within a reasonable time.
Fire brigade owes no duty of care to attend a fire but if they do attend, they owe a duty
not to make the situation worse through a positive act.
The police owe no duty of care to respond to emergency calls.
Liability for acts of third parties - ANSWER General rule = tort only imposes duty on
those who directly cause injury/damage to another.
No such duty is imposed upon a failure to prevent third-party harm.
Exceptions to general rule that no duty is imposed on a failure to prevent third-party
harm: - ANSWER 1. sufficient proximity between defendant and claimant
2. sufficient proximity between the defendant and third party
3. defendant created the danger
4. risk was on the defendant's premises
Exceptions to general rule that no duty is imposed on a failure to prevent third-party
To establish a claim in negligence you must consider. - ANSWER 1. Loss
2. Damage
3. Breach
4. Causation
5. Remoteness
6. Defences
Donoghue v Stevenson - Neighbour principle - ANSWER First case to establish Doc.
Proximity and foreseeability important in deciding who you owe a DoC to.
Old law - replaced by Caparo.
Three-stage approach to DoC. - ANSWER established by Caparo.
1. Foreseeability of harm - test is objective; what could the reasonable person be
expected to foresee.
2. Sufficient proximity between claimant and defendant
3. It must be fair, just and reasonable
Courts have indicated this is the starting point for determining a DoC in novel cases -
should be applied incrementally by analogy with established authorities.
Policy considerations that can narrow or broaden scope of claims - ANSWER
,Floodgates
Insurance
Crushing liability
Deterrence
Maintenance of high standards
Defensive practices
If there is a precedent making clear whether a DoC is owed - ANSWER apply said
precedent
If there is not present a precedent making clear whether or not a duty is owed. -
ANSWER 1. Consider whether duty should be imposed by analogy with existing cases
within the context of Caparo criteria .
2. The harm suffered must be reasonable foreseeable
3. There must be suffienct proximity
4. Involves consideration of what is fair, just and reasonable
General rule for liability for omissions - ANSWER There is no such duty for a mere failure
to act (i.e. an omission)
However - there are some exceptions
Exceptions to general rule of no liability for omissions - ANSWER 1. Where there is a
statutory duty; i.e. a positive duty is imposed on D by statute
2. Where there is a contractual duty
, 3. Where the defendant has sufficient control over the claimant (e.g. parent over child)
4. Where the defendant assumes responsibility for the claimant
5.Where the defendant creates the risk
Omissions and the emergency services - ANSWER Ambulance services - owe a duty of
care to respond to a 999 call within a reasonable time.
Fire brigade owes no duty of care to attend a fire but if they do attend, they owe a duty
not to make the situation worse through a positive act.
The police owe no duty of care to respond to emergency calls.
Liability for acts of third parties - ANSWER General rule = tort only imposes duty on
those who directly cause injury/damage to another.
No such duty is imposed upon a failure to prevent third-party harm.
Exceptions to general rule that no duty is imposed on a failure to prevent third-party
harm: - ANSWER 1. sufficient proximity between defendant and claimant
2. sufficient proximity between the defendant and third party
3. defendant created the danger
4. risk was on the defendant's premises
Exceptions to general rule that no duty is imposed on a failure to prevent third-party
