2B - Negligence - Case List Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson
First established the idea of duty of care as well as the neighbour principle: ‘you must take reasonable care not to injure your neighbour’ neighbour meaning anyone closely and directly impacted by your actions
Also established manufacturers owed a duty of care to consumers
Caparo v Dickman
HOL set the three-stage test for owing a duty of care. They decided that the D didn’t owe the claimants a duty of care
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
The Caparo test doesn’t have to be strictly applied in every case, instead, the courts should look to existing or analogous duty that can be applied
^^^ if there’s a precedent situation you don’t need the Caparo test
Kent v Griffiths
Court decided it was ‘reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer further illness if the ambulance didnt arrive promptly and no good reason was given for the delay
Bourhill v Young
C had to prove that she was proximate to the motorcyclist so he owed a duty of care. HOL decided that he couldn’t anticipate that if he was in an accident, it would cause mental injury to a woman and result in a miscarriage. Didn’t owe her a duty
McLoughlin v O’Brian
HOL decided the lorry driver owed C a duty of care and extended the class of persons who would be considered proximate to the event to those who came within the immediate aftermath of the event (in this case it was 2 hours after)
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
HOL decided the relationship between the V and the police was not sufficiently proximate for the police to be under a duty of care and that it was not fair, just, or reasonable for the police to owe a duty of care to the general public. They knew the killer may strick again but they had no knowledge of who that may be
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Court decided that the D was not liable because they had done everything a reasonable person would have in that situation. No negligence as there had been no breach of duty; it was simply an accident. Evidence showed that the D’s routinely took precautions against cold weather and only due to particularly and unforeseeably cold winters did any damage occur
Nettleship v Weston
Able to claim against her because the court held that she was required to reach the standard of a reasonable driver: ‘the learner driver may be doing his best, but his incompetent best is not good enough. He must drive in as good manner as a driver of skill, experience, and care’
Mullin v Richards
Court held that D should be judged against the standard of a reasonable 15-year-old and not the standard of a ‘reasonable man’. They said that children often engage in ‘horseplay’ and therefore D had not breached her duty of care
Bolam v Friern Hospital
Judge said that the test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that particular medical skill. A doctor who acts in accordance with a practice approved by a responsible body fo medical opinion is not negligent even if there is another responsible body with a contrary opinion. Therefore, the defendant was not liable
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
Law now requires a doctor to take ‘reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments’
Haley v London Electricity Board
If potential harm is likely then the defendant is expected to take steps to prevent it
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
If potential harm is particularly serious then the D is expected to take further steps to prevent it
Bolton v Stone
The amount of time and money that D’s should spend trying to prevent the risk should be in proportion to the likelihood and seriousness of the potential harm
Watts v Herts CC
If the actions of the defendants in taking the risk has a benefit to society then there may not be a breach, and a lower standard may be expected
Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital
Neild J’s judgement said:
‘my conclusions are: that the plaintiff has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the deceased’s death resulted from the negligence of the D’s, my view being that, had all care been taken, the deceased might still have died’
Wagon Mound No 1
Although damage done to the wharf by oil being spilled was reasonably foreseeable. This type of damage was too remote from the original negligent act of spilling the oil
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
Providing the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, it does not matter that the damage occurred in an unusual way or to a greater extent than expected; the defendant is still liable
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Court decided that the boy was able to claim for his injuries as it was foreseeable that a child might explore the site, break a lamp, and be burnt. The type of injury he suffered was foreseeable, even though the explosion itself was not foreseeable
Scott v Shepherd
The injury to the C was the direct and unalwful act of the D who originally threw the explosive. The other people were not ‘free agents’ in this situation and threw on the firework for their own safety and this is justifiable. The throwing on was classed as a continuation of the defendant’s action, which was intended. Whatever followed this was part of the D’s original act
Smith v Leech Brain
The court decided that as a burn was reasonably foreseeable, because of the think skull rules the D was liable for the man’s death