#Exam 2(2)- Liability In Negligence Flashcards
what are the three aspects of negligence
duty of care
breach of duty
damage caused
which case originally showed duty of care
donoghue v stevenson
what did Caparo v Dickman show
creates the test we have now for duty of care
what falls under duty of care
harm which is reasonable forseeable
sufficient proximity
fair just and reasonable
what happened in kent v griffths
ambulance took unreasonable time- more injury - reasonable forseeable
Bourhill v Young
woman heard accident on road and had miscarriage- no proximity in relationship
Mcloughlin v O’Brian
mother suffers shock after seeing injured family- close in proximity
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
not fair to impose duty on police- Yorkshire Ripper
what are the special people to be considered under breach of duty
professionals
learners
children and young people
what are risk factors under breach of duty
size of risk special characteristics of V cost knowledge of danger public benefit
what happened in Bolam v Friern Barnet hospital management
held that professionals held in account with standards of that profession
what is bolam test
1) does it fall below standard
2) would a substantial body have supported Ds action
what does Nettleship v Weston show
learners judged at the standard of ordinary person
Mullins v Richards
judged at defendants age at the time of accident
Paris v Stepney b council
has the claimant got any special characteristics to be aware of.
Bolton v Stone
cricket case
more higher the risk the greater care should be taken
Latimer v AEC
flooded factory
Risk involved is balanced against the cost of precautions
Roe v Minister of health
if risk is not known there is not a breach
antiseptic in tubes
haley v LEB
higher risk of injury the standard is higher
watt v Hertfordshire
greater risk is allowed in emergency situations
day v high performance sports
duty of care not breached in emergency - rock climber
what is factual causation
the but for test. but for Ds act would injury have happened
what does Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital show
but for test
wagon mound
the damage caused must not be too remote
hughes v lord advocate
something can still be forseeable even if the exact injury wasnt
bradford v robinson rentals
consequence forseeable even if more severe
doughty v turner asbestos
consequence not known so injury not forseeable
smith v leech brain and co
defendant liable for all consequences of negligence
what are the defences for negligence
contributory negligence
consent
what does sayers v harlow show
if C partially responsible then damages reduced
O’Connell v Jackson
no crash helmet - 15%
froom v Butcher
no seat belt 20%
Stinton v Stinton
lift from drunk driver 33%
Stermer v Lawson
No consent as claimant had not been properly shown how to ride a motorbike
Smith v Baker
Claimant had not choice but to do work - no consent
Haynes v Harwood
Police or firemen did not consent to injuries when doing public duty
Sidaway v governors or the Bethlehem royal hospitals
Not every possible risk has to be explained before valid consent can be given
ICI ltd v shatwell
A claimant ignoring his employer’s instructions and not following statutory rules can’t use consent
Wool ridge v summer
Must be tort committed to use w defence
