A sudden gust of wind lifts the bouncy castle into the sky with little Timmy in it. Timmy lands on the neighbours rose garden and now has a fear of roses for life. Alice sues Bob for negligence.

(Capero V Dickman)

Was the harm foreseeable? Yes, tying the castle down with shoelaces may not secure it properly. (Kent v Griffiths)

Relationship of proximity? Yes, Alice was the customer of Bob. Making it his responsibility to install the castle. (Bourhill v Young)

Is it fair, just and reasonable? Yes, people expect bouncy castles to stay on the ground and for it to be safe fun. Bob ignored this and put his customers at risk. (Hill v West Yorkshire Police)

Reasonable Precautions

Did Bob meet the standard of a reasonable person? A reasonable operator would have secured it properly. Bob used laces, below the standard expected of a bouncy castle expert.

(Bolam v Friern Hospital)

Level of risk

A very big risk was taken in not properly securing the bouncy castle.

Special Characteristics

Timmy also is also a vulnerable child which increases the risk. Should have secured it to make child-proof. (Paris v Stepney)

Using the “but for” test. Bob failed to secure the castle. If he didn’t, Tim would be fine. (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital)

Wagon Mound test. Risk of injury from an unsecured bouncy castle is not remote. Not unforeseeable. (The Wagon Mound)

Duty of care

Caparo test

foreseeable: it was foreseeable that if you do not leave a wet floor sign somebody would get injured. Kent v Griffiths

Proximity: she was inside the shop. Bourhill v young. Direct relationship between customer and business owner.

Fair just and reasonable: it was fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care onto John ( the owner of the cafe) in this situation. Hill v chief constable of South Yorkshire.

Breach of duty

Reasonable person- a reasonable person would have put up a wet floor sign when mopping the floor to prevent injury. Blyth v Birmingham waterworks.

Size of risk- not putting the sign will cause damage. The greater the possible damage is, the greater the precautions needed. If there was a possibility that someone would get injured, there must be a sign in place. Hayley v London electricity board. Bolton v stone.

Damage

Factual causation- but for Johns actions, Jane wouldn’t have gotten injured.Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital.

Remoteness of damage- proximity is not far fetched. The wagon mound. Reasonable foreseeable.

• Steve was responsible for making sure the measurements were correct

• It was reasonably foreseeable that the excessive amount could cause harm for someone

• Proximity: Jeremy was using the swimming pool (it was his local swimming pool)

• He breached his duty of care by failing to put in the correct measurements (Smith v Leech Brain)

• Fair, just and reasonable: fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on Steve to make sure the measurements were correct. (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks) Reasonable person would put measurements in correctly

• Damage: but for steve’s actions, jerky wouldn’t be in the hospital because of his skin condition worsening because of the chlorine.

Tesco owed tegan a duty of care as a customer.

-It was reasonably foreseeable that tegan could fall on the wet floor. (Kent v Griffiths)

-Tesco and tegan had a relationship of proximity as a customer and supermarket. (McLoughlin v O’Brien)

-It was fair, just and reasonable as Tesco is at fault for the accident for not putting a wet floor sign up. (Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire)

They breached this duty by failing to clean the floor or warn customers. (Bolton v Stone, size of risk)

tegan suffered harm (her injury) as a result of their negligence. But for the defendants actions, the injury would not have happened (Corr v IBC Vehicles- factual causation) (Bradford v Robinson Rentals- remoteness of damage, the injury wasn’t far fetched)

Duty of care:

foreseeability: Mike knew the risk and foreseen that their is a possibility that damage/harm may have been done. Kent v Griffiths

Proximity: The relationship of the claimant and defendant is close as mike is responsible for jack and they are working in the same area Mcloughlin v O’Brien

Fair, just and reasonable: Mike had a duty of care to protect the safety of jack and he failed. Hill v Chief constable of south Yorkshire

Breach of duty:

“size of the risk” The size of the risk was high as Mike noticed a danger and did not decide to say anything. Bolton v Stone

Damage:

causation: Since mike had a duty to protect Jack it is clear that the injury only occurred because mike didn’t say anything. Barnett V Chelsea and kensington Hospital

remoteness: mike was the reason for the damage done to jack therefore the damage was not too remote for mike not to be liable. The wagon mound

1. Duty of care

   There was a duty of care from the chef to Tom and Matt to ensure that the lasagna was cooked fully. The chef has made this dish many times before and was responsible in ensuring it was safe to eat.

   It is foreseeable that Tom would fall sick from eating improperly cooked lasagna. We see this in Kent v Griffiths where an ambulance was called to attend to a patient suffering from an asthma attack but the ambulance failed to turn up on time leading to the victim suffering respiratory arrest. It was held by court that that it was foreseeable that a person in the claimants position would be further injured if the ambulance fails to arrive on time.

   The proximity of Tom and the chef’s relationship is sufficiently closed as he cooked the lasagna and served it to him.

   It if fair just and reasonable as the chef must only serve properly cooked food to customers and didn’t in this situation. We see this in Mcloughin v O’Brien where the claimants husband and child were involved in a fatal accident and upon seeing their bodies at the hospital she suffered psychiatric harm which caused her to sue the person who caused the accident and the court ruled that due to the close proximity the defendant was liable.

2. Breach of duty

   There was a breach of duty as the size of the risk was high.All precautions had not need taken as the food evidently hadn’t been cooked properly. The chef as a defendant is expected to meet the standard of the reasonable person cooking.

3. Damage

   There was damage as Tom fell sick and Matt had discomfort from the experience.

Reasonably foreseeable - Was foreseeable that these homemade fireworks would not work leading to damage of spectators. Kent V Griffith

Proximity - Sean was standing next to the firework

(Bournhill V Young)

Fair just and reasonable - Andy had a duty of care to have safety precautions in place

(Robinson v Chief constable West Yorkshire Police)

2. Breach of duty

   Size of Risk - Bolton v Stone: was a large risk and Andy realised this.

3. Damage- Sean had 3rd degree burns and had to miss work meaning he missed out on money

   
   

Factual Causation - “But for” Andy’s actions, Sean wouldn’t have received these injuries

(Smith V Littlewoods)

Remoteness - Andy would be liable for damage as it was reasonably foreseeable (Bradford v Robinson Rentals)

a girl on her way home saw a dog crossing the roads in a busy high street. She sprint towards the dog wanting to stop it from going futher. When the incoming diver hit the breaks the car behinded him, of which its driver is a wheelchair user (speeding), crashed into him injuring the disabled driver's arms and eyes.

the drivers tried to sue each other for the damage done, the girl for taking an unjustifible risk, and the city council for unable to prevent similar incidents taking place again.

Duty of care

"Neighbour principle"/ Caparo: Forseeability

• Could the reasonable man in the defendants position have reasonably forseen that the plaintiff might be injured?

• From the non-disabled drivers P.O.V., No for he did not expect any driver to exceed the speed limit in a busy high street. And it is reasonably forseeable that there is a possiblity the you would crashed into someone or something if you are speeding.

• But could he forsee a person rush out of the pedestrian roads? May be, since the dog was already there. Thus, a reasonable man would have hit the breaks or attempt to avoid hitting th dog.

• Kent v Griffiths

Caparo test: Proximity?

• Yes

• McLoughlin v O'Brien

Caparo test: Fair, just and reasonable...

• To sue the city council? Yes for similar incidents happended where a person walked out of the pedestrian roads. Despite so the city council did not take any action to prevent pedestrian from crossing the roads inappropriately.

• To sue the driver (non-disbale)? No. He wasn't speeding; it was reasonable that he hit the breaks when he saw a person, or an animal crosses the roads.

• To sue the disabled driver? Yes. He was speesing.

• To sue the girl? No

Breach of duty of care

?

Damage

Factual causation

• but for the defendant (the girl) action, the driver would not have to hit the breaks in a suddent.

• but for the defendant (the disabled drivers) action (speeding), he would possibly crashed into someone or something else.

• but for the defendant (the non-disabled driver) action (suddebly hitting the breaks) the speeding car behind him (speeding) could still possible crash into him or other drivers.

• but for the city council's action (unable to implement measures to prevent similar incident from taking place), I don't know :(

Remoteness of damage

?