Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks - Caparo Industries v Dickman - Law Assignment Answer

Internal Code: 1AGAHD

Law Assignment Answer

TASK: To establish whether the defendant is negligent the claimant will have to prove on the balance of probability that the defendant: 1. Owes the C a duty of care 2. That duty has been breached 3. The breach caused the damage and it is not too remote a consequence to compensate Duty of care To establish whether D owes C a duty of care we need to look at the neighbour test from Donoghue v Stephenson and the 3 part test from Caparo Industries v Dickman: ? Is it foreseeable? ? On the facts and in the circumstances is it just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? ? Is there proximity? foreseeable, ? Say what is foreseeable. ? Although C must be a foreseeable victim they do not have to be identifiable. ? It is enough that he belongs to a class of people who are foreseeably likely to be harmed in the same way Hayley v London Electricity Board (1965) ? Likely that this would be satisfied proximity ? Is there sufficient proximity between C and D? ? Apply - likely would to other road users/ client ? Is it fair just and reasonable – yes policy would dictate that it would be reasonable to impose a duty of care Breach of duty of care To establish breach it is necessary to look at the standard of care required Apply the (objective) reasonable man test from Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks. The man on the Clapham Omnibus Consider any other factors that should be taken into account to determine whether the standard is breached: ? Was it likely that harm would happen? The ‘reasonable person does not have to take precautions against risks that are very small– Bolton v Stone: ? However, in Hayley v LEB – likelihood of a blind person falling down the hole was not so small that the D may ignore it. ? If harm occurred was it likely to be serious? The decision in Bolton v Stone does not mean that the reasonable person is always justified in ignoring a very small risk - ? Paris v Stepney BC- Plaintiff blind in 1 eye and employed by D in a garage. Fragment of metal hit him in his good eye causing him to go blind. Risk of injury really small however did not justify the risk of supplying employees with goggles such as Paris. ? Application: Even if the risk is small it is likely that foreseeable damage could be serious. Economic factors ? How easy/difficult/expensive etc. would it be to prevent the harm?

This LAW Assignment has been solved by our LAW experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style. , Download the solution from our nursing assessment expert.