NEGLIGENCE TABLE
TOPIC 1: NEGLIGENCE – COMPLETE SUMMARY TABLE
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
| Area | What Students Must Apply | Key Cases / Statutes | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of negligence | Claimant must prove defendant failed to take reasonable care and caused legally recoverable damage. | Donoghue v Stevenson | Any negligence problem question. |
| Full negligence chain | Duty of care → breach → factual causation → legal causation → remoteness → damage → defences. | Donoghue; Caparo; Barnett; Wagon Mound | Use this structure in every negligence answer. |
| Personal liability | Defendant liable for own negligent conduct. | Donoghue v Stevenson | Defendant personally caused harm. |
| Vicarious liability | Employer may be liable for employee’s tort if closely connected with employment. | Lister; Mohamud; Cox | Employee causes harm during work. |
| Joint liability | Multiple defendants responsible for same damage; claimant may recover fully from one. | Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 | More than one defendant caused same loss. |
DUTY OF CARE
| Area | What Students Must Apply | Key Cases / Statutes | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of care definition | Legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid harming others. | Donoghue v Stevenson | First step in negligence. |
| Neighbour principle | Defendant must avoid acts/omissions likely to injure people closely and directly affected. | Donoghue v Stevenson | Foundation of duty of care. |
| Established duty categories | No need to over-analyse Caparo if duty is already recognised. | Doctor/patient, driver/road user, employer/employee, teacher/student | Obvious relationship exists. |
| Novel duty situations | Apply Caparo test. | Caparo v Dickman | New/unusual duty question. |
| Foreseeability | Was harm reasonably foreseeable? | Caparo | Harm was predictable. |
| Proximity | Was relationship sufficiently close? | Caparo | Physical, relational or circumstantial closeness. |
| Fair, just and reasonable | Court considers policy before imposing duty. | Caparo; Hill; Michael | Public authority, police, economic loss, nervous shock. |
| Policy considerations | Floodgates, defensive practices, public resources, economic burden, fairness. | Hill; Michael; Home Office v Dorset Yacht | Court may deny duty despite foreseeability. |
| Public authorities | Courts cautious in imposing duties. | Hill; Michael | Police/public body failed to prevent harm. |
BREACH OF DUTY
| Area | What Students Must Apply | Key Cases / Statutes | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach definition | Defendant falls below required standard of care. | Vaughan v Menlove | After duty is established. |
| Objective test | Defendant judged by reasonable person standard. | Vaughan v Menlove | Defendant says they did their best. |
| Learner drivers | Judged by competent qualified driver standard. | Nettleship v Weston | Inexperienced driver. |
| Children | Judged by reasonable child of same age. | Mullin v Richards; Orchard v Lee | Child defendant. |
| Professionals | Judged by reasonably competent professional standard. | Bolam; Bolitho | Doctor, solicitor, expert, accountant. |
| Junior professionals | Judged by standard of post occupied, not personal experience. | Wilsher v Essex | Trainee/junior doctor or professional. |
| Foreseeability of harm | No breach if risk was very unlikely. | Bolton v Stone | Low probability risk. |
| Magnitude of risk | Greater possible harm requires greater precautions. | Paris v Stepney | Serious injury likely or vulnerable claimant. |
| Cost/practicality | Reasonable precautions required, not perfect safety. | Latimer v AEC | Defendant took some precautions. |
| Social utility | Public benefit may justify risk. | Watt v Hertfordshire; Compensation Act 2006 s1 | Emergency services/socially useful act. |
| Vulnerable claimant | More care required if vulnerability foreseeable. | Haley v London Electricity Board; Paris | Blind, disabled, one-eyed or child claimant. |
| Res ipsa loquitur | Negligence may be inferred where accident speaks for itself. | Scott v London and St Katherine Docks | Cause unclear but accident strongly suggests negligence. |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
CAUSATION
| Area | What Students Must Apply | Key Cases / Statutes | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factual causation | Apply “but for” test. | Barnett v Chelsea Hospital | Did breach actually cause damage? |
| But for test | But for defendant’s breach, would claimant have suffered damage? | Barnett | Always start causation here. |
| No causation | If damage would happen anyway, claim fails. | Barnett | Breach made no difference. |
| Multiple causes | Defendant liable if breach materially contributed to injury. | Bonnington Castings | Several causes combine to cause same injury. |
| Material contribution | Breach need not be sole cause; must be more than minimal. | Bonnington Castings | Dust, pollution, disease exposure. |
| Material increase in risk | Risk increase may prove causation in limited cases. | McGhee; Fairchild | Scientific uncertainty, industrial disease. |
| Limitation on risk cases | Risk increase not always enough where multiple distinct causes exist. | Wilsher | Several different possible causes of injury. |
| Successive causes | Later event may affect liability depending on nature of event. | Baker v Willoughby; Jobling | Injury followed by later injury/illness. |
| Later tortious act | Original defendant may remain liable. | Baker v Willoughby | Later wrongdoer injures same claimant. |
| Natural illness | Damages may be reduced from point illness would affect claimant. | Jobling | Later unrelated disease/illness. |
| Legal causation | Breach must remain operating and significant cause. | R v Cheshire | Something happens after defendant’s breach. |
| Third-party intervention | Independent negligent third-party act may break chain. | Knightley v Johns | Third party causes later accident. |
| Claimant’s own act | Unreasonable claimant conduct may break chain. | McKew | Claimant behaves recklessly after injury. |
| Rescue attempts | Reasonable rescue usually does not break chain. | Haynes v Harwood | Claimant injured while rescuing. |
| Medical treatment | Ordinary medical negligence rarely breaks chain. | R v Smith; R v Cheshire | Injury worsened by treatment. |
| Gross medical error | Exceptionally abnormal treatment may break chain. | R v Jordan | Medical treatment is overwhelmingly independent cause. |
REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE
| Area | What Students Must Apply | Key Cases / Statutes | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remoteness definition | Limits liability to legally recoverable damage. | Wagon Mound | After causation is proven. |
| Old test | Direct consequences test. | Re Polemis | Historical comparison only. |
| Modern test | Type/kind of damage must be reasonably foreseeable. | Wagon Mound No 1 | Main remoteness rule. |
| Exact manner | Exact way damage occurs need not be foreseeable. | Hughes v Lord Advocate | Injury occurs in unusual way. |
| Unforeseeable type | If type of damage unforeseeable, claim fails. | Doughty v Turner | Unexpected kind of harm. |
| Thin skull rule | Defendant takes claimant as found. | Smith v Leech Brain | Claimant has unusual vulnerability. |
| Full extent of harm | If some injury foreseeable, defendant liable for full extent. | Smith v Leech Brain | Minor injury triggers severe condition. |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY, JOINT LIABILITY AND DEFENCES
| Area | What Students Must Apply | Key Cases / Statutes | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vicarious liability meaning | One party liable for another’s tort. Usually employer/employee. | Lister; Mohamud | Employee causes damage. |
| Close connection test | Tort must be closely connected to employment. | Lister v Hesley Hall | Wrongdoing linked to work role. |
| Employee assault | Employer may be liable if assault connected to employment duties. | Mohamud v Morrisons | Employee attacks customer. |
| Employment-like relationship | Formal contract not always required. | Cox v Ministry of Justice | Worker not technically employee. |
| Joint liability | Multiple defendants liable for same damage. | Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 | Two or more defendants caused loss. |
| Contribution | Defendant who pays more than fair share may claim contribution from others. | Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 | One defendant pays full damages. |
| Contributory negligence | Damages reduced if claimant partly responsible. | Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 | Claimant careless too. |
| Social utility statute | Courts may consider whether liability discourages desirable activities. | Compensation Act 2006 s1 | Emergency/public benefit cases. |
FINAL NEGLIGENCE EXAM METHOD TABLE
| Step | What To Write | Case/Authority |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Identify harm | State claimant suffered personal injury, property damage or other loss. | Depends on facts |
| 2. Duty | Established duty or apply Caparo. | Donoghue; Caparo |
| 3. Policy | Discuss fair, just and reasonable if novel/public authority. | Hill; Michael |
| 4. Breach | Apply objective standard and breach factors. | Vaughan; Bolton; Paris; Latimer; Watt |
| 5. Defendant class | Adjust standard if child/professional/learner. | Mullin; Nettleship; Bolam; Bolitho |
| 6. Factual causation | Apply “but for” test. | Barnett |
| 7. Multiple causes | Use material contribution/risk where needed. | Bonnington; McGhee; Fairchild; Wilsher |
| 8. Legal causation | Check if chain broken. | Knightley; McKew; Haynes; Cheshire |
| 9. Remoteness | Was type of damage foreseeable? | Wagon Mound |
| 10. Thin skull | Defendant liable for full extent if some injury foreseeable. | Smith v Leech Brain |
| 11. Defences | Consider reduction or complete defence. | Law Reform Act 1945; volenti cases if relevant |
| 12. Conclusion | Liability succeeds/fails/reduced/shared. | Use facts |
ONE-LINE CASE MEMORY TABLE
| Case | One-Line Rule |
|---|---|
| Donoghue v Stevenson | Neighbour principle; foundation of negligence. |
| Caparo v Dickman | Foreseeability, proximity, fair just and reasonable. |
| Vaughan v Menlove | Objective reasonable person standard. |
| Nettleship v Weston | Learner drivers judged as competent drivers. |
| Mullin v Richards | Children judged by reasonable child of same age. |
| Bolam | Responsible body of professional opinion. |
| Bolitho | Professional opinion must be logical. |
| Bolton v Stone | Low risk may mean no breach. |
| Paris v Stepney | Greater seriousness requires greater precautions. |
| Latimer v AEC | Reasonable precautions, not perfect safety. |
| Watt v Hertfordshire | Social utility may justify risk. |
| Scott v London Docks | Res ipsa loquitur. |
| Barnett | “But for” factual causation. |
| Bonnington | Material contribution to injury. |
| McGhee | Material increase in risk. |
| Fairchild | Special rule for asbestos/mesothelioma risk. |
| Wilsher | Risk increase not always enough. |
| Baker v Willoughby | Later tort may not remove original liability. |
| Jobling | Later natural illness may reduce damages. |
| Knightley v Johns | Third-party act may break chain. |
| McKew | Claimant’s unreasonable act may break chain. |
| Haynes v Harwood | Reasonable rescue does not break chain. |
| R v Jordan | Gross medical treatment may break chain. |
| R v Cheshire | Medical negligence rarely breaks chain. |
| Wagon Mound | Foreseeable type of damage required. |
| Hughes v Lord Advocate | Exact manner need not be foreseeable. |
| Doughty v Turner | Unforeseeable type of damage not recoverable. |
| Smith v Leech Brain | Thin skull rule. |
| Lister | Close connection test for vicarious liability. |
| Mohamud | Employer liable for closely connected employee assault. |
| Cox | Employment-like relationship can create vicarious liability. |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.