UK · Year 2 · Tort Law
Negligence
Duty, breach, causation and remoteness.
Space flip · ← → navigate · S save
Show all 8 questions and answers in this book
1.Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] — principle?
The neighbour principle: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Lord Atkin.
[1932] AC 562 (HL)
2.Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] — three factors for a novel duty?
Foreseeability of damage, proximity of relationship, and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
[1990] 2 AC 605 (HL)
3.Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] — clarified what?
Caparo is not a universal three-stage test; in established categories the courts apply existing law, and for novel situations they develop the law incrementally by analogy.
[2018] UKSC 4
4.Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] — test?
A professional is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professional opinion (refined by Bolitho [1998]).
[1957] 1 WLR 582
5.Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] — held?
Doctors must take reasonable care to ensure patients are aware of any material risks of a treatment and of reasonable alternatives; Bolam does not govern disclosure of risk.
[2015] UKSC 11
6.Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969] — principle?
The "but for" test of factual causation: the patient would have died even with proper treatment, so the hospital's breach did not cause death.
[1969] 1 QB 428
7.The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] — remoteness test?
The defendant is liable only for damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable.
Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock [1961] AC 388 (PC)
8.Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners [1964] — held?
A duty of care can arise for negligent misstatements causing pure economic loss where there is an assumption of responsibility and reasonable reliance.
[1964] AC 465 (HL)