# data[].attributes.headline
Xavier left his car parked in the steep driveway of his house. An hour later it rolled into the road. Nick, who was approaching negligently in his car, had to swerve to avoid the runaway vehicle, and, as a result, collided with a lamppost. Nick's car was damaged. Nick was injured and a rare vase on the back seat was smashed. As a result of the accident Nick was unable to buy his usual lottery ticket, which, as it transpired, contained a winning line. When he was taken to hospital, the surgeon, Soraya, told Nick that she was going to use a new technique in operating with lasers, but omitted to tell him that the ninety-eight per cent success rate which she claimed for this method was not conclusively proved. Soraya then carried out the operation negligently but Nick also suffered from a stroke. The effect of everything was to leave Nick permanently paralysed. Advise Nick on any claims he may have in the law of tort. In particular, consider: Does Xavier owe Nick a duty of care? Has Xavier breached his duty of care? What harm has Xavier caused? Will Xavier have any defences available to him? Has Soraya breached her duty of care? What harm has Soraya caused? Can Xavier use Soraya's contribution to the situation to reduce his liability?

# data[].attributes.subject
Xavier left his car parked in the steep driveway of his house. An hour later it rolled into the road. Nick, who was approaching negligently in his car, had to swerve to avoid the runaway vehicle, and, as a result, collided with a lamppost. Nick's car was damaged. Nick was injured and a rare vase on the back seat was smashed. As a result of the accident Nick was unable to buy his usual lottery ticket, which, as it transpired, contained a winning line. When he was taken to hospital, the surgeon, Soraya, told Nick that she was going to use a new technique in operating with lasers, but omitted to tell him that the ninety-eight per cent success rate which she claimed for this method was not conclusively proved. Soraya then carried out the operation negligently but Nick also suffered from a stroke. The effect of everything was to leave Nick permanently paralysed. Advise Nick on any claims he may have in the law of tort. In particular, consider: Does Xavier owe Nick a duty of care? Has Xavier breached his duty of care? What harm has Xavier caused? Will Xavier have any defences available to him? Has Soraya breached her duty of care? What harm has Soraya caused? Can Xavier use Soraya's contribution to the situation to reduce his liability?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Remoteness The Wagon Mound No. 1 The test of remoteness is that of reasonable foreseeability, by which the kind of damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. Viscount Simmonds "It does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality, that for an

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Causation in Tort Starting Point 'But For' Test Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital But for the Defendant's negligence, would the claimant have suffered the loss? A bit of fun to help you remember! (Warning bad language!) Is it a concurrent or a consecutive cause? But For

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A CLAIM!! Remoteness Causation What is the standard of care required of the defendant in the circumstances? As a matter of fact has the defendant attained that standard? Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co Per Alderson B "Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable

# data[].attributes.headline
3) What was the judgment of the Court of Appeal and explain the legal reasoning of that court in either allowing or dismissing the appeal? [65%]

# data[].attributes.subject
3) What was the judgment of the Court of Appeal and explain the legal reasoning of that court in either allowing or dismissing the appeal? [65%]

# data[].attributes.headline
2) Explain the arguments upon which the appeal was based. [25%]

# data[].attributes.subject
2) Explain the arguments upon which the appeal was based. [25%]

# data[].attributes.body
Plaintiff -

Standard skilled carpenter1

Provided foresight of the harm is in existence, it is not necessary to foresee the actual harm 2

Factual - Too short and therefore breach

There is one standard of care which is not variable

Thomas Cremin

Defence -

Lay person standard of care - Repeating citation - https://libguides.swansea.ac.uk/Oscola/RepeatingCitations

Blyth v Birmingham

Task related - question of degree to be decided by judge on fact, variable.

Footnote

1. Wells v Cooper [1958] 2 Q.B. 265, 268

2. Bolton v Stone [1951] A.C. 850

3. Wells (n1)

4. Blyth v Birmingham

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: OSCOLA referencing guide (Online): Repeating Citations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mae'r dudalen hon hefyd ar gael yn Gymraeg

# data[].attributes.headline
1) What tortious1 issues are raised by this case? [10%]

# data[].attributes.subject
1) What tortious1 issues are raised by this case? [10%]

# data[].attributes.body
Facts - basics - Defendant installed a door handle with nails that were too short. Visitor opened the door, the handle fell off and he fell down some stairs injuring himself.

Area law - Negligence - Breach

Issue - 'held' section can be useful to identify the issue. Do not refer to this section in qu 2 and 3.

In relation to the standard of care in fixing the handle to the door.