Tort Law Flashcards

In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], Lord Atkin articulated which foundational principle in the law of negligence?

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.

Which case established the modern three-stage test for determining whether a duty of care exists in novel situations?

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.

The Bolam test for professional negligence, supplemented by Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1997], now requires that a professional's practice must:

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.

In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969], the claimant's negligence claim failed on which element of liability?

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.

The Privy Council's decision in Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] changed the test for remoteness of damage in negligence by replacing:

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.

The 'eggshell skull' (thin skull) rule, applied in Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962], provides that a defendant:

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.

The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 changed the common law position by enabling courts to:

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.