CILEx L6 Tort Law 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], Lord Atkin articulated which foundational principle in the law of negligence?
- The neighbour principle, requiring care towards those closely and directly affected by one's acts (Correct answer)
- The strict liability rule for dangerous products regardless of fault
- The res ipsa loquitur doctrine shifting the burden of proof to the defendant
- The principle that manufacturers owe no duty of care to ultimate consumers
Correct answer: The neighbour principle, requiring care towards those closely and directly affected by one's acts
Lord Atkin's neighbour principle established that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour, forming the foundation of modern negligence law.
Question 2: Which case established the modern three-stage test for determining whether a duty of care exists in novel situations?
- Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978]
- Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970]
- Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] (Correct answer)
- Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners [1964]
Correct answer: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] established the three-stage test: (1) reasonable foreseeability of damage, (2) proximity between claimant and defendant, and (3) that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
Question 3: The Bolam test for professional negligence, supplemented by Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1997], now requires that a professional's practice must:
- Be endorsed by the majority of practitioners in the relevant field
- Be capable of withstanding logical scrutiny and analysis by the court (Correct answer)
- Comply with published statutory or regulatory guidelines
- Have been in use by the profession for at least five years
Correct answer: Be capable of withstanding logical scrutiny and analysis by the court
Bolitho added that the court may reject expert evidence supporting a professional practice if that practice cannot withstand logical scrutiny, preventing the Bolam test from being satisfied merely by adducing expert evidence.
Question 4: In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969], the claimant's negligence claim failed on which element of liability?
- The hospital owed no duty of care to the patient
- The doctor's breach of duty was insufficiently serious to attract liability
- Causation — even if the doctor had examined the patient, he would have died from arsenic poisoning anyway (Correct answer)
- The damage suffered was too remote from the defendant's breach
Correct answer: Causation — even if the doctor had examined the patient, he would have died from arsenic poisoning anyway
The claim failed the 'but for' test: medical evidence established the patient would have died even if he had been examined and treated, so the doctor's breach did not cause the death.
Question 5: The Privy Council's decision in Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] changed the test for remoteness of damage in negligence by replacing:
- The neighbour principle with a three-stage duty of care test
- The direct consequence test from Re Polemis with a reasonable foreseeability test (Correct answer)
- The Bolam standard of care with an objective reasonable person test
- Contributory negligence as a complete bar with a proportionate reduction of damages
Correct answer: The direct consequence test from Re Polemis with a reasonable foreseeability test
Wagon Mound (No 1) overruled Re Polemis, holding that a defendant is only liable for damage of a type that was reasonably foreseeable, not for all direct consequences of their negligence however unforeseeable.
Question 6: The 'eggshell skull' (thin skull) rule, applied in Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962], provides that a defendant:
- Is only liable for the foreseeable extent of physical injury suffered by the claimant
- Must take the claimant as they find them and is liable for the full extent of harm, even where the extent was unforeseeable (Correct answer)
- Is only liable where the claimant's pre-existing condition was known to the defendant at the time of the breach
- May have their liability reduced proportionately where the claimant's vulnerability contributed to the harm
Correct answer: Must take the claimant as they find them and is liable for the full extent of harm, even where the extent was unforeseeable
Smith v Leech Brain held that once a foreseeable type of harm occurs, the defendant is liable for the full extent of that harm even if the claimant's pre-existing condition caused far greater damage than could have been foreseen.
Question 7: The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 changed the common law position by enabling courts to:
- Find claimants wholly at fault and dismiss their claims where their contribution exceeded 50%
- Reduce the claimant's damages in proportion to their share of responsibility for the damage suffered (Correct answer)
- Award additional damages against a defendant who wrongly attempts to blame the claimant
- Transfer the burden of disproving contributory negligence to the defendant once it is raised
Correct answer: Reduce the claimant's damages in proportion to their share of responsibility for the damage suffered
Before the 1945 Act, contributory negligence was a complete defence; the Act introduced apportionment, allowing courts to reduce a claimant's award by the degree to which their own negligence contributed to their loss.
CILEx L6 Tort Law 1
In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], Lord Atkin articulated which foundational principle in the law of negligence?