3.3 Liability in Negligence Flashcards
what test established duty of care
The Caparo test
what are the 3 points of the Caparo test
- damage must be reasonably foreseeable
- there must be a relationship of proximity between parties
- it must be fair just and reasonbale to impose duty of care
‘Damage must be reasonably foreseeable’
objective test
‘there must be a relationship of proximity between parties’
close in terms of time space and relationship.
‘It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care’
Allows judges to decide that a duty of care should not be owed if it’ll open floodgates, or place a burden on funds.
What is a key case for duty of care
Kent v Griffiths (2000)
Facts of Kent v Griffiths
C was having an asthma attack and was pregnant. Ambulance was called but it took 38 minutes to arrive and as a result she suffered miscarriage and respiratory arrest.
what was held in this case
London ambulance service was found liable as it was reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer damages as a result of ambulances delay.
What is the objective test when it comes to breach of duty of care
Ommitting to do something a reasonable man would do, or doing something a reasonable man would not do.
Where does this objective test come from
Blyth v birmingham water works (1856)
When it comes to a person in a preffesion, how is he compared when he has breached a duty of care
He is not compared to a reasonable person in society, but a reasonable person in that profession.
What are the 4 factors that determine whether the D has acted reasonably?
- degree of risk involved
- cost of precautions
- potential seriousness of injury
- importance of the activity
‘Degree of risk involved’
The greater the risk, more precausions needed to prevent it from happening.
‘Cost of precautions’
Cost of precausions would not expect to outweight risk involved. Not expected to guard against minor risks
‘Potential seriousness of injury’
More serious of injury, more level of care required to be compared to the reasonable person.
‘Importance of the activity’
Some risk may be acceptable if the risk undertaken is socially important
Case for breach of duty of care
Mullins v Richards
Facts of Mullins v Richards
2 15 year old girls were play fighting with plastic rulers. The rulers snapped and it went into one of the girls eyes causing blindness.
Held in Mullins v Richards
the girl was expected to reach the standard of a 15 year old girl not a grown adult. So she was not found in breach
whats the threshold that ‘damages’ must be in order to claim
- caused by a breach
- Not too remote from the breach
In damages what doesn’t have to be foresseable and what does have to be foreseeable.
Foreseeable: Chain of events leading to damage
Not foreseeable: extent of the damage
Key case in damages in negligence
The wagon mound
Facts of the case
A fire started on a boat due to cotton debris was swallowed by oil and the oil caught fire, fire spread into Sydney harbour that led to a fire. Destroyed a wharf and boats
what was held in Wagon mound case.
D was liable for full damages as the foreseeability of the damage was present.
What is the point of law in the Wagon Mound case
Damage must be of the foreseeable type
What is the duty of care in pure economic loss
No duty of care owed to avoid causing someone making a loss that purely economic.
What are the exceptions of this?
If that finantial loss is due to personal injury or damage to property
How would a court make up for this
Covering lost wages due to negligence
What is a case for pure economic loss in negligence
Spartan steels and alloys v Martin
Facts of Spartan steels and alloys v Martin
While digging a trench D negligently cut off the electricity supply to C’s steel works. C suffered loss of profits and damage to steelworks in process.
What was held in Spartan Steel and alloys
Economic loss of the metal in process was recoverable. But the loss of profits of the future melts that could have happened due to power cut were not recoverable.
What was the point of law in Spartan stell and alloys
That damages that were ‘pure economic loss’ were not recoverable due to policy decisions to limit liability of D
What if the pure economic loss was caused by negligent misstatement.
Then liability may be imposed if the economic loss was due to negligent misstatement.
What is a key case in negligent misstatement
Hedley Bryne v Heller
Facts of Hedley Bryne v Heller
HB relied on a credit reference for a client from Heller and partners, info gave was incorrect and client went into liquidation.
Held in Hedley Bryne v Heller
Claim failed as Heller has a disclaimer set whcih was enough to protect them from liability.
This case created a new rule for negligent misstatement, what was it.
D owes duty to C only if theres ‘special relationship’ between them while making the statement.
what are the 4 key points used to establish a special relationship
- D making statement possesses some skill ralating to the statement
- Knows its likely C will rely on statement
- C does rely on it, suffering economic loss
- Reasonable for C to rely on it
what are the 4 key points used to establish a special relationship
- D making statement possesses some skill ralating to the statement
- Knows its likely C will rely on statement
- C does rely on it, suffering economic loss
- Reasonable for C to rely on it
What is psychiatric injury
A long term, medically diagnosed, mental illness greater than shock and grief.
What does not amount to psychiatric injury
Grief, sorrow, fear, panic and terror.
What case illustrates this
Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus
Facts of behrens v bertram mills circus
during a performance, a dog antagonised an elephant. This caused the the elephant, along with others, to stampeed onto a nearby dwarf show. Dwarfs were injured and suffered shock
Held in this case
Claim for psychiatric injury failed as the C suffered fright which could not amount to psychiatric injury, even though the judge would have liked to compensate him.
What are the 2 types of victims in psychiatric injury.
Primary (in the zone of physical crime)
Secondary (not in the zone but has witnessed the crime)
What is the test to establish primary victim
- C need to establosh harm was foreseeable
- if personal injury was forseeable psychiatric injury doesnt need to be proved
What is the test to establish secondary victim
Victim must…
- close relationship with primary victim
- Witness event with unaided sense
- be proximate to event or immidiate aftermath
- recieve psychiatric injury as a result of event
How are rescuers dealt with in dangerous events
Neither primary or secondary victim so cannot claim
