/
Civil Law Knowledge Questions
Civil Law Knowledge Questions

Civil Law Knowledge Questions - PowerPoint Presentation

karlyn-bohler
karlyn-bohler . @karlyn-bohler
Follow
135 views | Public

Civil Law Knowledge Questions - Description

Possible Civil Liability Knowledge Questions 1 amp 2 Duty Explain how the law decides whether a duty of care is owed in negligence 8 A claimant proves that a duty of care is owed using ID: 541135 Download Presentation

Tags :

care duty reasonable standard duty care standard reasonable risk court council factors held man explain breach damage test owed

Please download the presentation from below link :


Download Presentation - The PPT/PDF document "Civil Law Knowledge Questions" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Presentation on theme: "Civil Law Knowledge Questions"— Presentation transcript

Slide1

Civil Law Knowledge QuestionsSlide2

Possible Civil Liability Knowledge Questions (1 & 2)

Duty

:

Explain how the law decides whether a

duty of care

is owed in negligence (8)

A claimant proves that a duty of care is owed using

the three-part test

set out in the case of

Caparo

v

Dickman

. Explain the

Caparo

three-part test (8)

Breach

:

Explain

how the law decides whether a duty of care has been breached

, including any

two risk factors

which may affect the court’s decision (8)

Breach of duty requires the defendant’s conduct to have fallen below the standard of the reasonable man. This is decide by applying one or more of various risk factors. Outline

what is meant by the reasonable man

and briefly explain

one of the risk factors

(8)

Breach of duty requires the failure to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man, taking into account various risk factors. Briefly explain

three risk factors

(8)

Damages

:

Damage in negligence involves the rules of

factual causation

and the rules of

remoteness of damage

. Explain these rules (8)Slide3

Explain

how the law decides whether a duty of care is owed in negligence (8 marks

) / A claimant proves that a duty of care is owed using

the three-part test

set out in the case of Caparo v Dickman. Explain the Caparo three-part test (8)

Donoghue v

Stevenson

established the

neighbour principle

in relation to duty of care.

Caparo

v

Dickman

set out a more detailed

3

part

test.

Firstly, foreseeability which is an

objective test,

asks would

a

reasonable person in D’s position

have foreseen that someone in C’s position might be injured?

In

Kent

v Griffiths

it was established that an ambulance service owed a duty of care to a member of the public on whose behalf a 999 call had been made as it was

reasonably foreseeable

he would

be further injured if the ambulance failed

or took too long to arrive.

The second test is proximity which means closeness and can

be by

space, time or relationship

In

Bourhill

v Young

the C did

not see

a motorcycle accident

and was a safe distance away from

it

but decided

to go and see what had

happened. She suffered

shock

and

claimed

this caused

her to

miscarry. It was held

that

D did not owe her a duty of care

as she

chose to see the aftermath voluntarily

therefore there was no proximity.

The final test is whether it

is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of

care. This test will consider whether imposing a duty would open

the

“floodgates of litigation”

by

encouraging a huge number of

claims, which the court would wish to avoid. The court will also consider what

is

best for society as a whole

and Ds

in the public sector are more likely to have claims against them fail as it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on

them.

F

or example in

Hills

v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

the court held there was no

duty of care on the police to the mother of the Yorkshire Ripper’s last

victim who the police had

already interviewed and released

before

he killed again,

due to the

policy

consideration to allow the police to work as efficiently as

possibleSlide4

Explain

how the law decides whether a duty of care has been breached

, including any

two risk factors

which may affect the court’s decision (8)Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. established that D must breach their duty of care by failing to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man who is

the

ordinary person performing the particular task

The standard expected of the reasonable man will

vary

depending on the

individual skills expected on that type of person

In

Nettleship

v Weston the

court held that the

learner driver’s standard of driving should be that of the reasonably competent driver, not a learner driver and so being a learner or trainee will not affect the standard of the reasonable man.

If D is a professional, he would be judged as a reasonably competent professional. In

Bolom

v

Friern

Barnet Hospital Management Committee

the Court held there was

no breach of duty as the hospital had followed a substantial body of opinion within the profession that supported their course of action

If D is a young person under the principle in Mullin v Richards he

is only expected to meet the standard of a reasonable person of the same age not an adult, s

o in this case D was not in breach of her duty as she had

reached the standard of behaviour required of a 15-year old.

There are various risk

factors which may

raise or lower the standard expected

The court will consider the characteristics of C. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council

the

court held the council owed C a higher standard of care because they knew of his

Latimer v AEC

– D’s factory was flooded after an exceptionally heavy rainstorm. Water mixed with some oil made the floor very slippery. D put up warning signs, passed the message around the workforce, and used all its supply of sand and sawdust to try and dry the floor. Despite this, C slipped and was injured. D owed a duty of care but had

not breached the duty of care as all reasonable practical precautions had been taken in the

circumstancesSlide5

Breach of duty requires the defendant’s conduct to have fallen below the standard of the reasonable man. This is decide by applying one or more of various risk factors. Outline

what is meant by the reasonable man

and briefly explain

one of the risk factors

(8)Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. established that D must breach their duty of care by

failing to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man who is

the

ordinary person performing the particular task

The standard expected of the reasonable man will

vary

depending on the

individual skills expected on that type of person

In

Nettleship

v Weston the

court held that the

learner driver’s standard of driving should be that of the reasonably competent driver, not a learner driver and so being a learner or trainee will not affect the standard of the reasonable man.

If D is a professional, he would be judged as a reasonably competent professional. In

Bolom

v

Friern

Barnet Hospital Management Committee

the Court held there was

no breach of duty as the hospital had followed a substantial body of opinion within the profession that supported their course of action

If D is a young person under the principle in Mullin v Richards he

is only expected to meet the standard of a reasonable person of the same age not an adult, s

o in this case D was not in breach of her duty as she had

reached the standard of behaviour required of a 15-year old.

There are various risk

factors which may

raise or lower the standard expected

The court will consider the characteristics of C.

In Paris v Stepney Borough Council

C was employed as a fitter in a garage. His employer, the local council, knew he only had the use of one eye. While he was using a hammer to remove a bolt on a vehicle, a chip of metal flew off and entered his good eye – he became totally blind. Council did not provide goggles for him to wear as this was not standard practice in 1950. Had C have been fully sighted, the council might not have breached duty of care. But, as they knew he was blind in one eye, the

court held the council owed him a higher standard of care because of this known increased riskSlide6

Breach of duty requires the failure to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man, taking into account various risk factors. Briefly explain

three risk factors

(8)

There are various risk factors which may

raise or lower the standard expectedThe court will consider the characteristics of C. In

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

C was employed as a fitter in a garage. His employer, the local council, knew he only had the use of one eye. While he was using a hammer to remove a bolt on a vehicle, a chip of metal flew off and entered his good eye – he became totally blind. Council did not provide goggles for him to wear as this was not standard practice in 1950. Had C have been fully sighted, the council might not have breached duty of care. But, as they knew he was blind in one eye, the

court held the council owed him a higher standard of care because of this known increased

risk

The court will also consider whether D has taken reasonable precautions. In

Latimer

v AEC

– D’s factory was flooded after an exceptionally heavy rainstorm. Water mixed with some oil made the floor very slippery. D put up warning signs, passed the message around the workforce, and used all its supply of sand and sawdust to try and dry the floor. Despite this, C slipped and was injured. D owed a duty of care but had

not breached the duty of care as all reasonable practical precautions had been taken in the

circumstances

The court will also consider whether there is a benefit to taking the risk, sometimes

called

public utility (usefulness)

,

and if there is this

will be balanced with the

risk. In

Watt

v Hertfordshire County Council

firefighters

were injured by lifting gear when travelling an a vehicle not specifically fitted for carrying that gear. The appropriate vehicle was already in use attending an emergency when the call came in to go to another emergency where a woman was trapped under a heavy vehicle. Court held that they must

“balance the risk”

– the

benefit of saving the woman was greater than the risk of injuring

firefighters

by using a vehicle not suited to carrying the heavy gear – duty not breachedSlide7

Damage in negligence involves the rules of

factual causation

and the rules of

remoteness of damage

. Explain these rules (8)Factual causation uses the “but for” test which is satisfied if but for D’s act or omission, C would not have suffered the loss or harm

In

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

a medical casualty officer failed to follow normal practice and speak to or examine a patient. About 5 hours later, he died from arsenic poisoning and medical opinion was that it was likely C would have died from the poisoning even if he had been admitted to hospital and treated therefore there was no factual causation and no liability.

C’s claim will still fail if the damage suffered is

too remote

D is only liable for damage if it is the

foreseeable

consequence

of his breach

In

The Wagon Mound

– D spilt oil which spread over the water to C’s wharf. C was welding and the molten metal fell on floating cotton which smouldered and ignited the oil. C’s wharf was severely damaged. The court held that the damage by the oil was foreseeable but the damage by the fire was too remote and was not foreseeable.

Next we look at the

kind and type of damage

and as long as the type of damage is foreseeable it doesn’t matter that the form it takes is unusual.

In

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

C it was held that it was foreseeable that C would suffer some cold-related injury so D was liable for C’s frostbite even though the specific injury was unusual as it was the same type of damage.

Finally, D must

take C as he finds him

which means he is still liable if C had a pre-existing condition that made the injury worse

In

Smith V Leech Brain

– a minor burn on C’s face triggered his pre-existing cancerous condition and he developed cancer. As some minor injury was at least foreseeable and C’s extreme reaction was a result of his condition, D had to take C as he found him and was therefore liable.