PGDL Tort - Caselaw And Relevant Statutes Exam With Complete Solutions 2024

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks - correct 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 - correct answer-Breach of duty, the reasonable man is the "man in the Clapham omnibus" Nettleship v Weston - correct 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; defences, claimants must consent to the risk tortious injury for the defence of consent to apply, driving instructor sues his student Phillips v William Whitely - correct answer-Breach of duty, a jeweller carrying out an ear piercing was held to the standard of a competent, reasonable jeweller, not that of a surgeon Wells v Cooper - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct answer-Breach of duty, defendant who was unaware he was at risk of a hypoglycaemic 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 - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct 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 - correct 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