GNM
Duty of care and breach of duty::
-Neighbour principle. Do not use Caparo
-The 6 omissions
-Complicity in crime (Wacker)
-Contribution to life threatening state of affairs (Evans)
Risk of death:
-Must be risk of death, not injury (Misra)
-"reasonably prudent person would have forseen risk of death" (Singh)
Cause of death:
-Causation
Grossly negligent:
Four things to look out for (in relation to the risk) laid out in Adomako
-Indifference to an obvious risk
-Foresight of the risk
-Appreciation of risk with intention to avoid it
-Inattention or failure to address a risk
Asserting that D's conduct is grossly negligent and that it is a matter for the jury to concern = dodging the question:
On the other hand,candidates were usually able to give an accurate explanation of the test to be applied by the juryin determining whether the negligence was sufficiently gross, though this was often by referenceto the Bateman case, rather than by reference to the specific words used by Lord MacKay inAdomako. Stronger candidates then attempted to provide some rational explanation for theview a jury might be expected to take. Weaker candidates tended to content themselves withthe observation that it was purely a matter for the jury.
-
Most students adopted the Bateman test for the ‘grossness’ of the negligence and many assertedthat, by that test, no matter how circular (a defect applying equally to Lord MacKay’s version of thetest), Beck was grossly negligent. Disappointingly, many students declined to consider what facts might support a conclusion about ‘grossness’ and sheltered behind the undoubted truth that, asLord MacKay emphasised, this was “supremely a jury question”
-
Once again, most candidates attemptedsome discussion of the requirement that the conduct be ‘so bad in all the circumstances’,usually citing the case of Bateman, but very few used the facts of the scenario seriously toquestion whether it could be satisfied.
-
Studentsinvariably recognised the requirement for proof that the negligence was ‘gross’, though theydid not always quote the Adomako description of that requirement, or one of its earlierversions (Bateman, Andrews v DPP). However, application was rather weaker, restinggenerally on simple assertion rather than on an attempt to identify what exactly it was aboutthe facts that made the conduct of James ‘so bad in all the circumstances ...’