©EVERLY 2024/2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
PGDL Tort - Caselaw and relevant statutes
Exam Questions And Answers (Guaranteed
A+)
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks - Answer✔Breach of duty, "negligence is the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate
the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do."
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing - Answer✔Breach of duty, the reasonable man is the "man in the
Clapham omnibus"
Nettleship v Weston - Answer✔Duty/breach, drivers owe a duty of care to other road users, a
learner driver is judged by the standard of an ordinary, competent driver; defences, claimants
must consent to the risk tortious injury for the defence of consent to apply, driving instructor
sues his student
Phillips v William Whitely - Answer✔Breach of duty, a jeweller carrying out an ear piercing
was held to the standard of a competent, reasonable jeweller, not that of a surgeon
Wells v Cooper - Answer✔Breach of duty, a householder attempting DIY. The standard the
defendant needed to meet when carrying out carpentry tasks around his home was that of a
reasonably competent, amateur carpenter and that standard was met. If, however, the job had
been too technical and, therefore, had far exceeded his capability, he would have been negligent
in attempting the work which should have been done by a professional carpenter.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee - Answer✔Breach of duty, professionals must
act in accordance with a "reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular art", and it
does not matter if another body of professionals disagrees with that practice
Mullin v Richards - Answer✔Breach of duty, for 15 year olds, the correct test is whether a
reasonable and careful 15 year old would have foreseen the risk of injury
Orchard v Lee - Answer✔Breach of duty, standard of care for children is that of an ordinary,
careful & reasonable child of that age, 'for a child to be liable in negligence, their conduct must
be careless to a high degree'
1|Page
, ©EVERLY 2024/2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Wilsher v Essex - Answer✔Breach of duty, principle of 'act, not actor', a junior doctor was held
to the same standard of care as an ordinary, competent doctor; causation, material increase in risk
does not apply where multiple agents are involved
Roberts v Ramsbottom - Answer✔Breach of duty, a driver began to feel 'queer' as he was having
a stroke. Court held he should be judged on the standard of the reasonable driver, as the
reasonable driver would have stopped as soon as he knew his driving was impaired
Mansfield v Weetabix - Answer✔Breach of duty, defendant who was unaware he was at risk of a
hypoglycaemic attack was judged in comparison with a reasonably competent driver who is
unaware that he is suffering a condition that impairs his ability to drive
Re Herald of Free Enterprise - Answer✔Breach of duty, court may rule that a common practice
is, itself, negligent and so this will not allow the defendant to escape liability
Bolton v Stone - Answer✔Breach of duty, the likelihood of harm must be taken into account
when examining breach of duty, a man hit on the head by a cricket ball was judged such an
unlikely event that there was no breach of duty
Paris v Stepney Borough Council - Answer✔Breach of duty, the magnitude of harm must be
taken into account when examining breach of duty, a man with one eye was subject to a severe
risk of becoming blind
Latimer v AEC - Answer✔Breach of duty, if it would be unreasonable to require the defendant
to take the necessary precautions, even against a clearly foreseeable risk, the court will not
impose liability, claimant slipped on the floor of a flooded factory; the duty of the employer is
only to take reasonable care
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council - Answer✔Breach of duty, risks taken when responding to
emergency situations and attempting to save lives may not result in liability
s1 Compensation Act 2006 - Answer✔Breach of duty, when considering a claim in negligence,
the court must have regard to whether its decision might prevent or limit a desirable activity or
discourage people from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 - Answer✔Breach of duty, when
considering a claim in negligence, the court must consider whether the defendant was acting for
the benefit of society or intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger
Woolridge v Sumner - Answer✔Breach of duty, in a sporting event, a defendant is likely to take
risks in the heat of the moment and this should not be regarded as negligent
Blake v Galloway - Answer✔Breach of duty, in the context of 'horseplay' there is a breach of the
duty of care only where the defendant's conduct amounts to recklessness or a very high degree of
carelessness.
Roe v Minister of Health - Answer✔Breach of duty, 'state of the art' defence, unforeseeable risks
cannot be guarded against or mitigated and so failing to guard against them is not negligence
2|Page
PGDL Tort - Caselaw and relevant statutes
Exam Questions And Answers (Guaranteed
A+)
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks - Answer✔Breach of duty, "negligence is the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate
the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do."
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing - Answer✔Breach of duty, the reasonable man is the "man in the
Clapham omnibus"
Nettleship v Weston - Answer✔Duty/breach, drivers owe a duty of care to other road users, a
learner driver is judged by the standard of an ordinary, competent driver; defences, claimants
must consent to the risk tortious injury for the defence of consent to apply, driving instructor
sues his student
Phillips v William Whitely - Answer✔Breach of duty, a jeweller carrying out an ear piercing
was held to the standard of a competent, reasonable jeweller, not that of a surgeon
Wells v Cooper - Answer✔Breach of duty, a householder attempting DIY. The standard the
defendant needed to meet when carrying out carpentry tasks around his home was that of a
reasonably competent, amateur carpenter and that standard was met. If, however, the job had
been too technical and, therefore, had far exceeded his capability, he would have been negligent
in attempting the work which should have been done by a professional carpenter.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee - Answer✔Breach of duty, professionals must
act in accordance with a "reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular art", and it
does not matter if another body of professionals disagrees with that practice
Mullin v Richards - Answer✔Breach of duty, for 15 year olds, the correct test is whether a
reasonable and careful 15 year old would have foreseen the risk of injury
Orchard v Lee - Answer✔Breach of duty, standard of care for children is that of an ordinary,
careful & reasonable child of that age, 'for a child to be liable in negligence, their conduct must
be careless to a high degree'
1|Page
, ©EVERLY 2024/2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Wilsher v Essex - Answer✔Breach of duty, principle of 'act, not actor', a junior doctor was held
to the same standard of care as an ordinary, competent doctor; causation, material increase in risk
does not apply where multiple agents are involved
Roberts v Ramsbottom - Answer✔Breach of duty, a driver began to feel 'queer' as he was having
a stroke. Court held he should be judged on the standard of the reasonable driver, as the
reasonable driver would have stopped as soon as he knew his driving was impaired
Mansfield v Weetabix - Answer✔Breach of duty, defendant who was unaware he was at risk of a
hypoglycaemic attack was judged in comparison with a reasonably competent driver who is
unaware that he is suffering a condition that impairs his ability to drive
Re Herald of Free Enterprise - Answer✔Breach of duty, court may rule that a common practice
is, itself, negligent and so this will not allow the defendant to escape liability
Bolton v Stone - Answer✔Breach of duty, the likelihood of harm must be taken into account
when examining breach of duty, a man hit on the head by a cricket ball was judged such an
unlikely event that there was no breach of duty
Paris v Stepney Borough Council - Answer✔Breach of duty, the magnitude of harm must be
taken into account when examining breach of duty, a man with one eye was subject to a severe
risk of becoming blind
Latimer v AEC - Answer✔Breach of duty, if it would be unreasonable to require the defendant
to take the necessary precautions, even against a clearly foreseeable risk, the court will not
impose liability, claimant slipped on the floor of a flooded factory; the duty of the employer is
only to take reasonable care
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council - Answer✔Breach of duty, risks taken when responding to
emergency situations and attempting to save lives may not result in liability
s1 Compensation Act 2006 - Answer✔Breach of duty, when considering a claim in negligence,
the court must have regard to whether its decision might prevent or limit a desirable activity or
discourage people from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 - Answer✔Breach of duty, when
considering a claim in negligence, the court must consider whether the defendant was acting for
the benefit of society or intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger
Woolridge v Sumner - Answer✔Breach of duty, in a sporting event, a defendant is likely to take
risks in the heat of the moment and this should not be regarded as negligent
Blake v Galloway - Answer✔Breach of duty, in the context of 'horseplay' there is a breach of the
duty of care only where the defendant's conduct amounts to recklessness or a very high degree of
carelessness.
Roe v Minister of Health - Answer✔Breach of duty, 'state of the art' defence, unforeseeable risks
cannot be guarded against or mitigated and so failing to guard against them is not negligence
2|Page
