This subtopic provides foundational knowledge of the tort of negligence, essential for legal secretaries supporting personal injury and clinical negligence
Topic Synopsis
This subtopic provides foundational knowledge of the tort of negligence, essential for legal secretaries supporting personal injury and clinical negligence cases. It covers the establishment of liability through duty of care, breach, causation, and remoteness, as well as key defences and public policy considerations for psychiatric harm. Learners will understand how these principles apply in real-world legal practice to assist in case preparation and client communication.
Key Concepts & Core Principles
- Legal terminology: Understand key terms like 'plaintiff', 'defendant', 'solicitor', 'barrister', 'affidavit', and 'statutory declaration'.
- Document management: Know how to prepare, format, and file legal documents such as wills, contracts, and court forms.
- Confidentiality and data protection: Apply the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR to handle sensitive client information securely.
- Court structure and procedures: Familiarise yourself with the hierarchy of courts (Magistrates', County, High, Crown, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court) and the basic steps in civil and criminal litigation.
- Legal ethics: Understand the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct and the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest.
Exam Tips & Revision Strategies
- In scenario-based questions, systematically work through duty, breach, causation, and remoteness before discussing defences.
- Use case law to support your points; knowing key cases like Donoghue v Stevenson, Caparo v Dickman, and The Wagon Mound is essential.
- When explaining remoteness, remember to address both the type of damage and the manner of its occurrence.
- For psychiatric harm, structure your answer around the policy considerations and the Alcock control mechanisms.
- Be precise with terminology: use 'damage' for actionable harm and 'damages' for the remedy.
Common Misconceptions & Mistakes to Avoid
- Confusing factual causation with legal causation, or treating them as the same test.
- Misapplying the Caparo test by omitting the policy consideration of 'fair, just and reasonable'.
- Incorrectly assuming that a breach of duty automatically establishes negligence without proving damage.
- Failing to distinguish between contributory negligence and volenti as complete vs partial defences.
- Overlooking the distinction between primary and secondary victims in psychiatric harm cases.
Examiner Marking Points
- Award credit for correctly identifying and explaining the three-stage Caparo test: foreseeability, proximity, and fairness.
- Credit for accurately describing the 'reasonable person' standard and how it applies to professionals.
- Look for clear explanation of the 'but for' test and its limitations in complex causation.
- Reward identification of key defences and the circumstances in which each applies.
- Marks should be given for demonstrating understanding of the Alcock criteria for secondary victims in psychiatric harm.