LIABILITY: NEGLIGENCE; Duty Of Care Flashcards
What case did the caparo three-part test stem from? (1)
Caparo v Dickman (1990)
What is meant by ‘neighbour’ in the neighbour test? (2)
Your neighbour is a person so closely ad directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in your contemplation as being so affected.
What cases cover the 1 principle where duty applies by omission? (2)
Kent v Griffith (2001)
Barnett v Chelsea hospital management committee (1969)
What is tort law? (1)
A body of rights, obligations and remedies that is applied by the courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered from the wrongful acts of others.
What are the elements are needed first negligence to apply? (3)
-a duty of care
-a breach of that duty of care
-damage caused by that breach
What occurred in the case of self v liford and district hospital management committee (1970)? (2)
Prisoner tried to harm himself, guards knew this and made no attempt to stop him from killings himself. (Suicide)
What occurred in the case of Mulcahy v ministry of defence? (2)
A soldier fired his weapon next to another soldiers ear, damaging his hearing, he tried to sue the ministry of defence but they were not liable. (Public policy)
What case must you use when determining whether a duty exists in common law? (1)
Robinson (2018)
What occurred in the case of smith v littlewoods organisation (1987)? (2)
Claimant suffered loss when his property was damaged due to arson on the neighbouring property which was derelict and bought by the defendants pending development (duty owed)
What can a duty of care come from? (2)
Statute law
Common law
What does Robinson (2018) say about duty of care? (1)
If there’s a duty in a similar previous case there’s a duty here and vice versa (uses analogies and comparisons to assess differences).
What is the floor gate theory? (1)
If you allow a case to go through court you are opening up the courts to a large volume of cases (flooding the court)
What occurred in the case Kent v Griffith (2001)? (3)
An ambulance accepted a call but was not provided in good enough time (went on a lunch break) the claiment went into respiratory arrest. It was reasonable foreseeable.
What is meant by proximity in terms of the caparo three part test? (1)
The relationship between the defendant and the claimant was sufficiently close in terms of time, location and context.
What occurred in the case home office v Dorset yacht co Ltd (1970)? (3)
A group of young offenders who were known for escaping were working under the supervision of officers, 7 escaped and boarded a yacht to sail away. They collided with another yacht. Held; escape should have been anticipated, a damage was foreseeable home office was liable,
What are the circumstances in which a duty can apply by omission? (3)
-you have started a task (1)
-there is a personal situation/relationship between the parties (2)
-harm is caused by a third party the defendant should have had control over (3)
What is an example of a duty of care from statute law? (1)
The occupiers liability act 1957
What cases cover proximity in terms of the caparo three part test? (3)
Hill v chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)
McLoughin v O’Brien (1983)
Bourhill v young (1943)
What is meant by ‘fair just and reasonable’ in terms of the caparo three part test? (1)
The courts will consider the scope of the duty of care to be imposed and the need for justice.
What cases cover fair, just and reasonable, in terms of the caparo three part test? (1)
Mulcahy v ministry of defence (1996)
What occurred in the case of hill v chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)? (2)
Yorkshire ripper murdered 12 women. Mother of the last victim sued the police department for negligence (failure to find killer) alleging inefficiency and errors in handling investigation. House of Lords suggested that there was a public policy issue for not allowing the claim.
What occurred in the case of Langley v dray (1998)? (2)
Dray stole a car and the police officer chasing the car crashed his car as a result. The high speed chase was a reasonably foreseeable result so Dray had a duty of care.
What cases cover reasonable foreseeability in terms of the caparo three part test? (3)
Langley v dray (1998) - reasonable foreseeability
Bourhill v young (1943) - not reasonably foreseeable
Kent v Griffith (2001)
What occurred in the case of Mcloughin v O’Brien (1983)? (3)
The claimant was told that her immediate family had been involved in a car accident, one of her children died while the other and her husband were in critical condition. There was a proximity by relationship and so her claim was successful.
What occurred in the case of Bourhill v young (1943)? (3)
Mr young was negligently riding his motorcycle and was Involved in a car crash that subsequently killed him. Bourhill saw the crash and received psychiatric damage and suffered a miscarriage. Mr young was not liable as the event was not foreseeable.
What is meant by reasonable foreseeability, in terms of the caparo three part test? (1)
The injury suffered by the claimant was reasonable foreseeable consequence of the behaviour (either act or omission) of the defendant.
What are the three parts of the caparo three part test? (3)
Reasonable foreseeability
Proximity
Fair, just and reasonable
Where is there a general duty? (7)
Motorists/road users
Doctors/patients
Manufactures/consumers
Parents/children
Employers/employees
Teachers/pupils
Occupiers/visitors
How do the courts establish a duty without Robinson (2018)? (1)
They look at past cases which a duty had applied
Neighbour test and the caparo three part test
What cases did the neighbour test stem from? (1)
Stevenson v donoghue (1932)
What occurred in the case of nettleship v Weston (1971)? (2)
Learner drivers owe the same standard of care as other drivers, passenger claimed for damages was up held by the court of appeal.
What does the neighbour test state? (1)
‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbours”
What cases cover the 3 principle where the duty applies by omission? (3)
Smith v littlewoods organisation (1987)
Hill v chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)
Home office v Dorset yacht co Ltd (1970)
What cases cover the 2 principle where duty applies by omission? (2)
Self v liford and district hospital management committee (1970)
Knight v home office (1990)
What occurred in the case of Barnett v Chelsea hospital management committee (1969)? (1)
A&E departments owe a duty of care to patients and an omission can create a liability.
