Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


General Negligence Notes

GDL Law Notes > GDL Tort Law Notes

Updates Available  

A more recent version of these General Negligence notes – written by Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students – is available here.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Tort: General Negligence


- Definition: breach of a legal duty of care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant, to the claimant (Winfield).

- Negligence structure:

1. Parties

2. Liability: Damage Duty Breach Causation Remoteness

3. Defences

4. Remedies

- Set out parties + heads of loss, then deal with each claim: break down into heads of loss.

Duty of Care

A. Does duty exist?

- 1. Existing precedent? (incremental approach - Caparo v Dickman). manufacturer to consumer (Donoghue v Stevenson) employer to employee (Paris v Stepney BC) doctor to patient (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee) parent/adult to child (Surtees v Kingston BC) school to pupil (Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis) driver to passenger/pedestrian (Nettleship v Weston) + pilot to passenger (Morris v Murray) contracting parties (Stansbie v Troman) reference giver to former employee (Spring v Guardian Assurance plc) advocate to client (Hall & Co v Simons) + auditor to client (Law Society v KPMG) referee to player (Vowles v Evans) + regulator to player (Watson v British Boxing Board of Control).

- 2. Novel situations: Caparo v Dickman test (universal: Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co. Ltd)

1. loss reasonably foreseeable: objective test (Donoghue v Stevenson).

2. proximity (D v S neighbour principle: e.g. Hill v CC W Yorks: police not proximate to all potential victims).

3. policy: 'fair, just + reasonable': insurance, defensive practices, crushing liability, floodgates (e.g. Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine: no duty because risk governed by shipping law).

- ... Restricted duty situation?: policy considerations negate duty. Lawyers: no blanket immunity (Hall & Co v Simons), but only liable in criminal case if negligence affected outcome (Hunter v CC W Midlands Police). Police: general duty to public, not individuals (Hill),

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Tort Law Notes.

More GDL Tort Law Samples