levo
Log inStart

Liability in Negligence

Duty of care and causation in negligence

  • 3 things to know
  • Component 2

Overview

Recall questions on the elements of negligence, duty of care under Donoghue v Stevenson, Caparo v Dickman and Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, factual causation in Barnett, legal causation and remoteness in The Wagon Mound, and the thin skull rule.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Key term

What are the three parts of the Caparo test for establishing a duty of care?

Who and when

Why did the claim fail in Barnett despite clear negligence?

Key term

What is the 'thin skull' rule?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    Which case established the modern tort of negligence and the neighbour principle?

    Model answer

    Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), where a decomposed snail in a bottle of ginger beer led the House of Lords to hold a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.

  2. 2

    What is the neighbour principle?

    Model answer

    Lord Atkin's principle that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your 'neighbour' — persons so closely and directly affected that you ought to have them in contemplation.

  3. 3

    Who counts as a 'neighbour' in law under Donoghue v Stevenson?

    Model answer

    Persons who are so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in mind as being affected when directing your conduct.

  4. 4

    What are the three parts of the Caparo test for establishing a duty of care?

    Model answer

    (1) Was the harm reasonably foreseeable? (2) Was there a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant? (3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

  5. 5

    Which case set out the three-stage duty of care test?

    Model answer

    Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990).

  6. 6

    What must be shown for the 'proximity' element of the Caparo test?

    Model answer

    A sufficiently close and direct relationship between the claimant and defendant in terms of space, time or relationship.

See the rest and revise

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Civil Courts and Other Forms of Dispute Resolution
Criminal Courts and Lay People
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The Council of .
EuropeMinistersJustice

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AThe injury to the claimant's rights is small.
BThe injury is capable of being estimated in money.
CThe injury can be adequately compensated by a small payment.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

Royal Assent has not been refused since 1708.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

Every question in Liability in Negligence, on a schedule.

Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.

Start revising, £5 a monthSee how the method works

Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.