Notes

1. Duty of Care
The concept of duty of care was firmly established by the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). In this case, a woman became ill after consuming a bottle of ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail. The court ruled that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers, establishing the "neighbour principle," which means that people should take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm others.

The duty of care principle has since evolved, and in most cases today, it’s assessed using the Caparo test (from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)), which has three elements:

Foreseeability: Could a reasonable person in the defendant’s position foresee the risk of harm to the claimant? For instance, a driver can foresee that speeding might cause an accident.
Proximity: There needs to be a relationship of proximity between the parties, such as a relationship based on time, space, or situation. For example, a doctor owes a duty of care to their patient because of the proximity created by the medical relationship.
Fair, just, and reasonable: The court must decide whether it is fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care in the specific circumstances. In some situations, even if the harm is foreseeable, a duty may not be imposed for public policy reasons (e.g., in emergency services cases).
2. Breach of Duty
Once a duty of care has been established, the claimant must prove that the defendant breached that duty by failing to act with the level of care expected of a "reasonable person."

The Reasonable Person Test: This is an objective test. The court asks what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation, rather than what the defendant personally thought was reasonable. For example, in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856), the court held that a reasonable person would have taken measures to prevent water damage from a fire hydrant during freezing conditions.
Factors Affecting the Standard of Care:
Experience and skill: A professional is held to the standard of a reasonably competent professional in their field (as seen in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)).
The seriousness of harm: If the potential harm is more serious, a higher standard of care may be required. For example, a hospital would need to take extra precautions when treating vulnerable patients.
Practicality of precautions: The court considers whether reasonable steps were taken to avoid the risk. If the precautions were too costly or impractical, the defendant might not be found in breach.
3. Causation
Causation has two components: factual causation and legal causation.

Factual Causation: The "but-for" test is commonly used to establish factual causation. The claimant must show that, but for the defendant’s actions, the harm would not have occurred. A key case here is Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969), where a man died of arsenic poisoning after being turned away by a hospital. The court found that, even if he had been treated, he still would have died. Therefore, the hospital’s negligence did not cause the death.
Legal Causation: Legal causation addresses whether the harm was too remote from the breach. The damage must be foreseeable, as in The Wagon Mound (1961), where a ship's oil spill caused a fire. The court held that while the oil spill was foreseeable, the fire was too remote.
Additionally, there are sometimes intervening acts (known as novus actus interveniens) that can break the chain of causation. If an unforeseeable event occurs after the defendant’s breach and causes the harm, the defendant may not be liable.

4. Damages
For a successful claim, the claimant must prove that they suffered actual damage as a result of the breach of duty. Damages can be compensatory, intended to put the claimant in the position they would have been in if the negligence hadn’t occurred.

Damages are typically divided into two categories:

Special Damages: These cover specific financial losses, such as medical bills or lost earnings. These losses can usually be quantified and are specific to the claimant.
General Damages: These cover non-financial losses, such as pain and suffering or loss of amenity (enjoyment of life). Since these are harder to quantify, courts use various guidelines to determine a fair amount.
Defences to Negligence
Defendants can raise several defences in negligence cases:

Contributory Negligence: If the claimant contributed to their own harm, the damages they receive can be reduced. For example, in Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958), a woman was injured after trying to escape from a public toilet, and her compensation was reduced due to her own carelessness in attempting to escape.
Volenti non fit injuria (Consent): If the claimant willingly accepted a known risk, they may be barred from claiming compensation. This defence often arises in sports or activities where the risk of harm is understood, such as in Simms v Leigh RFC (1969), where a rugby player could not sue for injuries sustained in a legal tackle.
Illegality (Ex turpi causa): This defence is used when the claimant was engaged in illegal activity at the time of the harm. In Pitts v Hunt (1991), the claimant was injured while riding on the back of a motorbike with a drunk driver. Since they were both engaged in illegal activity, the court rejected the claim.
Key Cases in Negligence
Nettleship v Weston (1971): A driving instructor was injured by a learner driver. The court held that a learner is held to the same standard as a qualified driver and therefore owes the same duty of care.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957): In this medical negligence case, the court established the Bolam Test, which states that a professional is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted by a responsible body of professionals in their field.