AQA A-LEVEL LAW 2 -2023- FINAL EXAM ACTUAL
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS ALREADY GRADED
A+ GUARANTEED SUCCESS
> is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a DOC?
(Neg) Kent v Griffiths
The damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable - D's actions judged by the standards
of a reasonable person (objective test)
(Neg) Bourhill v Young
Relationship of close proximity between C & D - proximity of time & space, and
legal relationship
Where risks known about at time of injury? D only liable for risks within
'reasonable contemplation'
(Neg) Bolton v Stone/ Hayley v London Electricity Board
Size of risk and probability of harm caused
> small risk = less precautions (Bolton)
> high risk = more precautions (Hayley)
(Neg) Paris v Stepney Council
OIR: C has a special characteristic that makes them more suseptible to harm/
makes harm more serious
(Neg) Latimer
OIR: Where all practical precautions taken at the time of injury/ damage? Cost and
practicality are considered
(Neg) Watt v Hertfordshire Council
OIR: Is there a public benefit to taking the risk? If there is, a lower standard is
expected
(Neg) Resulting Damage
1
,Must be a link between C's damage and D's act or omission (chain of causation)
(Neg) Barnett v Chelsea Hospital
Factual Causation - "but for D's acts/ omission would C have suffered harm?"
(Neg) Wagon Mound
Legal Causation - remoteness test ('remoteness of damage') - was the damage to C
"reasonably foresseable or "too remote" from breach
(Neg) Hughes v Lord Advocate
Legal Causation - no need to predict the exact way the injury/ damage occured, just
the injury/ damage of the same type is foreseeable
(Neg) Thin Skull Rule
OIR: Smith v Leech Brain - D must take C as he finds them, including any pre-
existing medical condition that makes them more suseptible to harm
(Neg) Intervening Acts
OIR:
> Act of C - McKew v Holland
> Act of God/ Nature - Carslogie Steamship
> Act of 3rd Party - Knightley v Johns
> Multiple Causes - Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
(Neg) DEFENCES: Contributory Negligence
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945: C contributes to own injury/
damage so damages reduced accordingly (partial defence)
> Froom v Butcher - damages reduced 25%
> Morales v Eccelston - no age limit at which you can contribute to own injuries
(Neg) DEFENCES: Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Consent - full defence providing 3 conditions are satisfied
> Murray - C has knowledge of risk
> Morris v Murray - C's consent must be freely given
2
, > Smith v Baker - C exercises free choice
(Neg) REMEDIES: Damages
It is fair just & reasonable to impose a DOC (public issue, floodgate argument) - if
an omission then NOT fair (Hill), but it its a positive act it is (Robinson)
(Neg) Duty of Care
C must prove D owed them a DOC
(Neg) Breach of Duty
Used to establish D's liability for his actions/ omissions and the SOC they owe to C
Blyth v Birmingham - D is "judged by the standards of an ordinary person in that
same situation with similar experience"
(Neg) Well v Cooper
If D is an ordinary person, then they will not be expexted to act like a professional
(Neg) Bolam
> Bolam - if D is an expert/ possesses a skill then judged to standards of other
reasonably competent professionals
> Bolithio - if there is a body of professional opinion supporting D's actions, the
judge will examine this and may deem it illogical so D still liable
(Neg) Bolam - OIR
> Wilsher v Essex - no account taken for D's actual experience
> Montgomery - doctor must make patient aware of material risks
> Chester v Afshar - doctor must inform of side effects
(Neg) Nettleship v Weston
If D is inexperience/ learner then judged by standards of experienced - standard
never lowered
(Neg) Mullins v Richards
Children judged to standard of a similar age
(Neg) Disabled
3
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS ALREADY GRADED
A+ GUARANTEED SUCCESS
> is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a DOC?
(Neg) Kent v Griffiths
The damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable - D's actions judged by the standards
of a reasonable person (objective test)
(Neg) Bourhill v Young
Relationship of close proximity between C & D - proximity of time & space, and
legal relationship
Where risks known about at time of injury? D only liable for risks within
'reasonable contemplation'
(Neg) Bolton v Stone/ Hayley v London Electricity Board
Size of risk and probability of harm caused
> small risk = less precautions (Bolton)
> high risk = more precautions (Hayley)
(Neg) Paris v Stepney Council
OIR: C has a special characteristic that makes them more suseptible to harm/
makes harm more serious
(Neg) Latimer
OIR: Where all practical precautions taken at the time of injury/ damage? Cost and
practicality are considered
(Neg) Watt v Hertfordshire Council
OIR: Is there a public benefit to taking the risk? If there is, a lower standard is
expected
(Neg) Resulting Damage
1
,Must be a link between C's damage and D's act or omission (chain of causation)
(Neg) Barnett v Chelsea Hospital
Factual Causation - "but for D's acts/ omission would C have suffered harm?"
(Neg) Wagon Mound
Legal Causation - remoteness test ('remoteness of damage') - was the damage to C
"reasonably foresseable or "too remote" from breach
(Neg) Hughes v Lord Advocate
Legal Causation - no need to predict the exact way the injury/ damage occured, just
the injury/ damage of the same type is foreseeable
(Neg) Thin Skull Rule
OIR: Smith v Leech Brain - D must take C as he finds them, including any pre-
existing medical condition that makes them more suseptible to harm
(Neg) Intervening Acts
OIR:
> Act of C - McKew v Holland
> Act of God/ Nature - Carslogie Steamship
> Act of 3rd Party - Knightley v Johns
> Multiple Causes - Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
(Neg) DEFENCES: Contributory Negligence
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945: C contributes to own injury/
damage so damages reduced accordingly (partial defence)
> Froom v Butcher - damages reduced 25%
> Morales v Eccelston - no age limit at which you can contribute to own injuries
(Neg) DEFENCES: Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Consent - full defence providing 3 conditions are satisfied
> Murray - C has knowledge of risk
> Morris v Murray - C's consent must be freely given
2
, > Smith v Baker - C exercises free choice
(Neg) REMEDIES: Damages
It is fair just & reasonable to impose a DOC (public issue, floodgate argument) - if
an omission then NOT fair (Hill), but it its a positive act it is (Robinson)
(Neg) Duty of Care
C must prove D owed them a DOC
(Neg) Breach of Duty
Used to establish D's liability for his actions/ omissions and the SOC they owe to C
Blyth v Birmingham - D is "judged by the standards of an ordinary person in that
same situation with similar experience"
(Neg) Well v Cooper
If D is an ordinary person, then they will not be expexted to act like a professional
(Neg) Bolam
> Bolam - if D is an expert/ possesses a skill then judged to standards of other
reasonably competent professionals
> Bolithio - if there is a body of professional opinion supporting D's actions, the
judge will examine this and may deem it illogical so D still liable
(Neg) Bolam - OIR
> Wilsher v Essex - no account taken for D's actual experience
> Montgomery - doctor must make patient aware of material risks
> Chester v Afshar - doctor must inform of side effects
(Neg) Nettleship v Weston
If D is inexperience/ learner then judged by standards of experienced - standard
never lowered
(Neg) Mullins v Richards
Children judged to standard of a similar age
(Neg) Disabled
3
