Overview
Case Study
James is the recent owner of a resurfaced driveway for his house by a local construction firm called QuickPave Ltd. The property owner's sidewalk was exposed to a spill of loose gravel during construction that was caused by the negligence of a QuickPave crew member. A QuickPave employee carelessly allowed gravel to accumulate on a public sidewalk outside the property owner's home during construction works. The next morning, as Margaret strolls past Margaret's old house, an older man, who happens to be their neighbour, follows her. She slides on the free dirt, stumbles, and ends up with a broken wrist that needs surgery and weeks off her part-time job.
Margaret is upset and feels there must be someone to blame for her harm and losses.
Questions
Question 1 (10 marks)
With the aid of the three-stage test laid out in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990], advise Margaret on whether QuickPave Ltd owed her a duty of care.
Question 2 (10 marks)
Using the "reasonable person" test in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856), consider whether QuickPave Ltd breached the duty of care.
Question 3 (5 marks)
Explain briefly whether or not Margaret will establish causation and damage, making reference to “but for” effect from the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969].
Guidance Notes for Students
Use law to address the facts do not provide a purely theoretical solution to the problem.
Refer to case law to justify answers.
Use the IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) for your answer.