There are three stages to go through when answering a scenario question on Tort:
- Is a duty of care owed?
- Has the person fallen below the standard of care?
- Is there sufficient damage?
Is a duty of care owed?
- State the 'Neighbour' test - Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) - you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
- Other relevant cases - Home Office V Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) (Unsupervised boys damaging yacht). Bourhill V Young (1943) (Motorcycle accident, stillborn child died) .
- However, the test was changed in the case of Caparo V Dickman; this added a new three part test:
1. Proximity - whether the relationship between the defendant and the claimant was close (time, location, context). Hill V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988) (Yorkshire ripper and last victim was not sufficiently close).
2. Reasonably foreseeable - injury suffered must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence. Langley V Dray (1998) (Car chase, a car crash is reasonably foreseeable).
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? Mulcahy V Ministry of Defence (1996) (Soldier with damaged ears, not fair because of combat/war situation.
Has the defendant fallen below the standard of…