Candidates were asked here to explain the three elements of the tort of negligence.

A candidate would therefore not only have identified the three elements, namely
duty of care, breach of that duty and damage arising as a result of the breach but
would have gone on to explain each. A possible explanation of the first could have
been by way of reference to the 3 stage test of Caparo v Dickman or candidates
could have discussed the possibility of an existing duty of care situation (e.g
between road users). A possible explanation of the breach of a duty of care could
have referred to the reasonable man test of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks or
explained that the test is objective. An explanation of damage arising should have
referred to both causation in fact (but for or material increase in risk test) and in
law (remoteness). Relevant cases could have included Caparo v Dickman [1990],
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856), Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943],
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] or The
Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961].
(b) This part of the question required application of the law relating to breach of
duty of care only to the facts of the scenario. A candidate would probably have
concluded that there is sufficient foreseeability and proximity and that there is no
reason why it should not be just and reasonable to impose a duty of care, here.
Kens failure to remove the ice would appear to be a breach of his duty of care, the
breach appears to have caused the damage in fact (but for/material increase in
risk test) and it would seem foreseeable that this type of damage might be caused
(causation in law/remoteness).
2. This question, of course, required application of the law on causation to Joshs
subsequent accident and needed consideration of causation in fact, causation in law
and a new intervening act. Relevant points which needed to be made were:
Causation in fact:
Joshs wrist would not have been broken but for Kens breach of duty.
Relevant case law could have been Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
Management Committee [1969].
Causation in law:
Damage to wrist may have been foreseeable but probably not due to the second
accident (too remote?).
Relevant case law could have been the Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961].
Page 5 of 5

New intervening act:

Josh falling in the ambulance was a possible break in the chain of causation.
Due to the intervening act of a third party, namely Marys speeding.
A relevant case could have been Knightley v Johns [1982].
3. (a) To establish whether a person is an employee, the courts would use:
the control test
the organisation test
the multiple (or economic reality) test
An explanation of each was required for a good answer.
Relevant cases could have been Yewens v Noakes [1880], Cassidy v Minister of
Health [1951] or Ready Mixed Concrete (SE) Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968].
(b) This part of the question required application of the law on vicarious liability to
the scenario. Candidates had been told that a contract of employment exists and no
application of the three tests referred to in part (a) was therefore required. A
candidate would have identified that Mary was an employee and that she had
committed a tort (negligence) by driving carelessly. It would probably have
concluded that Kempston Ambulance Service could therefore be liable (although a
reasoned argument to the contrary would have received credit).
(c) A candidate would have explained that, generally, public authorities, such as
Kempston Ambulance Service, are not liable in negligence but would have gone on
to say that immunity is not absolute. Relevant case law could have been Kent v
Griffiths [2000] and mention could also have been made of s1 Compensation Act
2006.
4. (a) The cost of his trousers - 50 and the cost of cleaning his shirt - 10.
(b) Pain and suffering regarding injuries to his leg and wrist, loss of future earnings at the rate of 2,000
per month (less tax) and loss of amenity dancing hobby.

The law
Vicarious liability is where a person is held responsible for paying compensation for a tort
committed by another. The following questions must be answered to impose vicarious
liability: was the person who committed the wrong an employee? Was the tort committed in
the course of his employment.

Law to the particulars of the problem