2B - Negligence Flashcards
What did Lord Atkin say about Donoghue v Stevenson
‘you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’
Neighbour being ‘persons who are so closely and directly affected by my acts that I ought to reasonably have them in contemplation’
What 3 elements must be present for a successful negligence claim?
- A duty of care must be owed by the defendant to the claimant
- The duty of care must have been breached by the defendant
- The breach of duty by the defendant must have caused damage
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test
Foreseeability
Proximity
Policy
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test: Foreseeability meaning
It is reasonably foreseeable that a person would suffer damage or some harm if in C’s position?
This is an objective test
Don’t have to prove ‘the’ harm, just ‘some’ harm
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test: Proximity meaning
Is there proximity between the C and D?
- means closeness and in terms of nearness in space, time, OR relationship
Relationship only included professional relationships
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test: Policy meaning
Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty on the defendant?
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test: Foreseeability Case
Kent v Griffiths
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test: Proximity Cases
Leading case (space): Bourhill v Young Failed - not a proximate relationship as she only heard the accident but didn't actually see it
Further case (time) : McLaughlin v O'Brian Allowed - only so many people can say 'it's my husband and kids' and suffered harm 2 hours after the event
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test: Policy - public policy
Fair, just, and reasonable is sometimes discussed under the heading ‘public policy’.
Generally, courts don’t want to impose an unreasonable burden on police officers, social workers, etc who carry out difficult jobs by making them worried that a mistake could lead to a negligence claim
Not a public authority = not fair, just and reasonable
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test: Policy case
Hill v CC West Yorkshire
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test: Policy - what did Hill v CC West Yorkshire suggest
Indicated that ‘blanket immunity’ existed at least for the police and that generally the police do not owe a duty of care when executing their duties
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test: Policy - what do judges take into account when considering public policy issues?
- whether the floodgates of litigation would open
- whether imposing a duty would have a deterrent value
- whether the defendant is a public authority (eg police)
- protecting professionals, such as police
Step 1: Duty of care: Caparo v Dickman test: Policy - since Hill v CC West Yorkshire what has happened?
There have been many cases showing that a blanket immunity from being sued no longer exists for the police and public authorities
Step 2: Breach of duty: elements
- courts must decide what standard the defendant should have reached
- courts decide balancing various risk factors, if that standard was reached
Step 2: Breach of duty: the standard - what is the standard
the defendant’s conduct is tested against the standard of care which could be expected of a reasonable person doing the same activity
Step 2: Breach of duty: the standard - which case set out the standard?
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Step 2: Breach of duty: the standard - what was the ratio set out in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks?
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something that a reasonable man would not do
