PGDL Tort - Caselaw and relevant statutes Questions & Answers 2024/2025

PGDL Tort - Caselaw and relevant statutes Questions & Answers 2024/2025Blyth 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; defenses, 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 jeweler carrying out an ear piercing was held to the standard of a competent, reasonable jeweler, 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' 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 hypoglycemic 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 Whitehouse v Jordan - ANSWER-Breach of duty, there is a difference between errors of judgement and actual negligence s11 Civil Evidence Act 1968 - ANSWER-Breach of duty, if an incident that caused injury to the claimant also led to criminal prosecution against the defendant, the claimant may be helped by relying on a conviction that results De Freitas v O'Brien and Connolly - ANSWER-Breach of duty, a 'reasonable body of opinion' does not have to be the majority of the relevant profession Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority - ANSWER-Breach of duty, in exceptional circumstances the court may find common professional practice itself to be negligent, where it is not satisfied that the exponents of a body of opinion relied upon can demonstrate this opinion has a logical basis Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board - ANSWER-Breach of duty, doctors are under a duty of care to make patients aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment and of any reasonable alternatives, where a material risk is defined as something a reasonable person in the patient's shoes would attach a risk to Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust - ANSWER-Breach of duty, the courts will consider the emotional state of a patient when they are examining the non-disclosure of a medical risk Gascoine v Sheridan - ANSWER-Breach of duty, doctors need not necessarily be aware of content in obscure medical journals Crawford v Charing Cross Hospital - ANSWER-Breach of duty, it is both impractical and unrealistic to expect a professional to know every new development in his field at any given moment in time Donoghue v Stevenson - ANSWER-Duty of care, 'neighbor principle', you must take reasonable care to avoid your neighbor coming to harm, significantly developed by later judgments, snail in ginger beer Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police - ANSWER-Duty of care, the police owe a duty of care to the public to protect them from reasonably foreseeable physical injury when carrying out arrests; duty of care should be developed through a cautious, incremental approach based on existing authority Poole BC v GN - ANSWER-Duty of care, where there is no clear precede........