1. (1) Duty of Care
   1. Neighbourhood Principle
      1. Donoghue v Stevenson [CL]
         1. C was given a drink with a snail in it & suffered gastroenteritis. Could not sue under contract law.
         2. Principle: Lord Atkin established the Neighbourhood Principle and ruled that the manufacturers owed a duty of care to C
      2. One must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that one can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure one's neighbour. A neighbour is someone closely and directly affected who I ought to have in my contemplation (WHEN DIRECTING MY MIND TO THE ACT, ONE MUST THINK ABOUT?)
   2. 3-Part Test
      1. Caparo v Dickman [DF]
      2. Foreseeability
         1. The damage must be reasonably foreseeable
         2. Kent v Griffiths [CL]
            1. Ambulance driver was very late, so V suffered a deterioration in their condition as a result
            2. Principle: It is reasonable to foresee that a delay in attending a medical emergency could cause a deterioration in a patient's condition
         3. OTHER CASE NEEDED
      3. Proximity
         1. Needed in SPACE, TIME and RELATIONSHIP
         2. Bourhill v Young [DF]
            1. D was a motorcyclist, fatally injured. C knew the accident had occurred and went to look. The shock of seeing the aftermath caused her to have a miscarriage
            2. Principle: No proximity in space, time or relationship (she was not actually there when it happened & was a stranger to D)
         3. McLoughin v O'Brien [CL]
            1. D caused accident involving C's family. One of C's children died. C suffered severe nervous shock
            2. Principle: No proximity in space or time, but YES in RELATIONSHIP to the victims that she saw
      4. Just, Fair & Reasonable
         1. It must be fair to impose a DoC - the courts don't want to open the 'floodgates' for litigation
         2. Public sector workers have less liability imposed on them
         3. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [DF]
            1. C was mother of Yorkshire Ripper victim who claimed V could have been saved if D did their work properly
            2. Principle: No duty of care owed to victims of released suspects
         4. Reeves v MPC [CL]
            1. Known suicide risk, V, committed suicide because D left the hatch open
            2. Principle: Duty of cared owed to a KNOWN suicide risk
         5. Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
            1. V committed suicide in jail cell, despite D's checks to ensure he was not a suicide risk
2. (2) Breach of Duty
   1. Reasonable Man
      1. Ordinary Person
         1. When an ordinary person does something, they are often judged against was is expected of an ordinary competent person
         2. Wells v Cooper [DF]
            1. D fitted a door handle as a DIY job. C pulled on it, it fell off and C fell over
            2. Principle: Since it was reasonable to expect it to be a DIY job, D did not owe the same standard of care as a professional carpenter
      2. Learner / Trainees
         1. Trainees or Learners are expected to have the same responsibility as their fully qualified equivalent
         2. Nettleship v Weston [CL]
            1. D was a learner driver, crashed car with C in it. C suffered injuries
            2. Principle: The learner driver was judged by the same standard of care owed by a qualified driver and was held liable
      3. Professional
         1. Professionals are judged by the standard of the profession itself. E.g. if there is a medical body in support of a certain medical method, the judge is inclined to rule for the professional
         2. HOWEVER: Judge can overrule this if they believe the medical standard is wrong or obsolete
         3. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [DF]
            1. C was receiving electric-shock therapy for his mental illness. Doctors did not give relaxant drugs or restrain the patient, so the patient knocked about & injured themselves
            2. Principle: None of the precautions that would have prevented this were used usually, so the 'standard of care' was not breached
         4. Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [DF]
            1. C suffered brain damage during a procedure because D failed to clear the airway using intubation
            2. Principle: A body of medical opinion stated intubation wasn't necessary. Bolam test applied.
      4. Young People
         1. Young people are judged by the standard of a reasonably competent person of their age
         2. Mullin v Richards [DF]
            1. D snapped a ruler, causing fragments of shattered plastic to injure C's eye.
            2. Because D was young, they were not expected to have known that the ruler would shatter like that
   2. Special Factors
      1. Special Characteristics
         1. The special characteristics of the claimant may increase the standard of care owed, causing a breach when there previously wouldn't have been
         2. Paris v Stepney Borough Council
            1. C was a one-eyed welder. D did not give him sufficient safety equipment & he became blind in his other eye
            2. Principle: Because C was already blind, D should have provided extra safety equipment
      2. Size of Risk
         1. The probability of the risk occurring should be taken into account
         2. Bolton v Stone [DF]
            1. A cricket ball was hit out of the park, hitting C.
            2. Principle: This rarely occurred, so the risk was small. ALso, the club had taken precuations
      3. Practical Precautions
         1. The judge may consider what precautions the defendant took to prevent the incident
         2. Latimer v AEC [DF]
            1. D owned a factory that was just flooded. He covered the floor to soak up the water, else the factory would have to be closed. C slipped on uncovered area.
            2. Principle: The judge ruled that D had taken reasonable practical precautions
         3. See Also: Bolton v Stone [DF]
      4. Benefits / Importance of Taking Risk
         1. Public utility - there is a lower standard of care when responding to an emergency
         2. The court must balance the risk against the measures taken and the benefit of public good
         3. Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [DF]
            1. In responding to an emergency, firefighters loaded heavy equipment into the back of an unsuitable lorry as it was the only vehicle available. C suffered injury as the equipment fell onto him
            2. Principle: The benefit of saving a woman’s life outweighed the risk of injury to a firefighter when using the best, but still unsuitable vehicle in an emergency.
3. (3) Causation
   1. Factual
      1. 'But For' Test
         1. Asks "But for the negligent act, would the harm to the claimant have occurred? If 'NO' -> D is liable
         2. Barnett v Kensington Hospital Management [DF]
            1. C was posioned by arsenic, but D refused to examine him. He later died
            2. Principle: It was too late to save him anyway, he still would have died.
   2. Legal
      1. Thin Skull Rule
         1. You must take your victim as you find them - if they have an underlying condition that makes their injury worse than if it were to happen on a normal person, you are liable for the fullest extent. Also, you are liable for some further injuries that occur as a result of the incident
         2. Smith v Leech Brain [CL]
            1. C was wife of V, a welder. D failed to provide V with suitable safety equipment, so some molten metal splashed onto V's lip. V later suffered cancer and died.
            2. The burns were foreseeable, so the company was liable for the full extent (the cancer)
      2. Novus Actus Interveniens
         1. An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
         2. Smith v Littlewoods [DF]
            1. D bought a cinema and locked it, planning to demolish it. Vandals set fire to the cinema and it spread to neighbouring buildings.
            2. Principle: D not liable as he wasn't aware that there were arsonists in the area, and the arson was deemed an intervening act
      3. Multiple Causes
         1. When there is more than one cause of the harm, C does not have to show that D's breach was the only / specific cause of the damage, or even the main cause
         2. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [CL]
            1. A number of workers, C, contracted an asbestos-related disease.
            2. CoA Principle: No liability, the workers could not pin-point the periods in which they inhaled the asbestos that caused the disease. Some worked for other companies before & after.
            3. HoL Principle: Liable. It is enough to show that [A] employer was negligible
4. (4) Remoteness of Damage & BoP
   1. Remoteness of Damage
      1. Remoteness test
         1. D is liable for damage only if it is the foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty
         2. Wagon Mound [DF]
            1. Oil spilled from a ship caused a fire when it caught alight from welding sparks on the wharf
            2. Principle: Only damage from pollutiuon was foreseeable, not damage from fire
      2. The kind of damage must be foreseeable
         1. As long as the type of damage is foreseeable it does not matter that the form it takes is unusual
         2. Bradford v Robinson Rentals [CL]
            1. C was instructed by D to transport a van, despite protests from C. The weather was extremely cold and the van had no heating. C suffered frostbite.
            2. Principle: A form of cold-related injury was foreseeable, so D was liable for the full extent of it even though frostbite is rare in the UK
         3. Hughes v Lord Advocate [CL]
            1. A manhole was covered with paraffin lamps either side. Two boys picked up the lamps and uncovered the manhole, but one boy fell in, the lamp exploded and caused burns
            2. Principle: The source of danger was known, so D's were liable even though the way in which the damage occurred was not foreseeable
   2. Burden & Standard of Proof
      1. Burden of Proof
         1. The claimant must establish the facts to prove the defendants liability
      2. Standard of Proof
         1. How convincing must the facts be?
         2. On the balance of probabilities - it must be 'more likely than not'
      3. Res Ipsa Loquitur
         1. The acts speak for themselves
         2. With this rule, there is no burden of proof required
         3. PROCESS
            1. (1) Was the thing under D's control? (If yes, proceed)
            2. (2) Could the accident have happened without negligence? (If no, proceed)
            3. (3) Is there any other explanation of the injury inflicted upon the claimant? (If no, D is liable)
5. Civil Courts & Damages
   1. Damages
      1. Special Damages
         1. Damages that can be worked out before the court case
         2. Tend to be monetary
         3. EXAMPLES
            1. Emergency medical treatment
            2. Immediate loss of work (i.e. from sick leave)
            3. Repair of damage e.g. of car
      2. General Damages
         1. Damages worked out during the court case
         2. Tend to be difficult to calculate - guidelines are used
         3. EXAMPLES
            1. Loss of future earnings
            2. Loss of limbs
            3. Reduction in quality of life
            4. Future care / treatment costs
      3. Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary
         1. Pecuniary = Monetary
         2. Non-Pecuniary = Non-monetary
   2. Civil Courts
      1. Small Claims
         1. County Court
         2. Personal Injury - Under £1000
         3. Other - Under £5000
      2. Fast Track
         1. County Court
         2. Personal Injury - £1000 - ???
         3. Other - £5000 to £25000
      3. Multi-Track
         1. High Court
         2. ALSO hears complex fast-track cases
         3. Personal Injury - ???
         4. Other - £25000 - £50000