# data[].attributes.body
Duty of care - Wilsher

Breach - operation carried out negligently

Causation - Montgomery - failure to advise risks

Defence- stroke was unrelated to the operation.

# data[].attributes.body
Not physical damage to property - economic loss not consequent on physical damage and therefore not foreseeable (see economic loss seminar)

# data[].attributes.body
Depends on above. If causation is proved, can claim for expensive vase?

Remoteness - The Wagon Mound No. 1 - foreseeability of harm. Hughes v Lord Advocate - damage property foreseeable. Vacwell Engineering - entitled to claim full extent.

# data[].attributes.body
Question - X negligent - ie did he put his handbrake on, was it a fault in manufacture, or servicing. Need to determine why it rolled. If it was due to X - Duty - Roaduser - Nettleship v Weston.

Breached - Blyth v Birmingham - would put handbrake on.

Causation - but for Nick driving negligently, would he have been able to avoid the car (Barnett v Chelsea); Performance Cars v Abraham

# data[].attributes.body
Duty - Barrett v MOD

Existing precedent.

Claimaint's argument- Fiona helped Eric - helped him to the door and sent him home.

Breached duty? - Sent home in a state that she knew he wouldn't be able to walk. Blyth v Birmingham - standard reasonable person.

Defence - knowingly drank the alcohol - 'In the present case I would reverse the judge's finding that the defendant was under a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the deceased from abusing alcohol to the extent he did. Until he collapsed, I would hold that the deceased was in law alone responsible for his condition.' (Barrett v MOD per Beldham LJ at 1225)

Time to leave the pub so she wasn't assuming responsibility for him.

# data[].attributes.body
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
Sign on to Thomson Reuters suite of products and services.

# 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.body
Eric, who normally abstains from drinking alcohol, regularly eats his evening meal in the Dog & Duck public house in the village of Nottingley. Eric went to the pub one evening after a bad day at work and told Fiona, the landlady, all about it. Fiona said to Eric “it sounds like you need a proper drink” and persistently encouraged Eric to drink alcohol, with the first drink “being on the house”. Eric eventually accepted. By closing time Eric had consumed 5 double vodkas and was very drunk and unsteady. Fiona helped Eric to the door of the pub and sent him home. Fiona knew that Eric’s journey home involved him walking across a railway line. When crossing the railway line Eric was struck by a train and lost an arm. Explain, with reasons and with reference to caselaw, whether or not Eric could sue Fiona in the tort of negligence.