neglegance Flashcards
Mullin V Richard’s
Children are owed a higher duty of care because they are less careful than adults - breach of duty
Bolam V Barnet hospital
Did the defendant act in a way that the ordinary competent member of that profession would have acted - breach of duty
Montgomery V Heath Board - risk factors
Higher risk the higher the care required - breach of duty
Bolton V stone
Likelihood of risk - breach of duty
Paris v Stephen
Magnitude of risk - breach of duty
Latimer v AEC
Did the defendant take adequate precautions cost to prevent the risk - breach of duty
Roe V minister of Health
Not expects to protect against unknown risks - breach of duty
Day V High performance sports
A lower Standard of care is expected in emergency situation - breach of duty
Barnett V Chelsea
Factual causation - damage caused
Mckew V Hollands
Acts of the claimant - damage causes
Carslogie Steamship
An act of nature - damage caused
Knightly v Johns
An act of a third party - damage caused
The Wagon Mound
Remoteness of Damage - damage causation
The Wagon Mound
Remoteness of Damage - Damage caused by
Smith v Leech Brain
Eggshell Skull Rule - damaged caused
Donoghue v Stevenson
you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably injure your neighbour - duty of care
Caparo v Dickman
3 part neighbour test - duty of care
Bourhill v Young
Sufficient Proximity - duty of care
Kent v Griffiths
Was damage reasonably foreseeable - duty of care
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
Is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care - duty of care
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
Courts should seek to apply exisiting precedent and only apply the Caparo test when there is no existing precedent.
Fairchild expectation
Might have caused danger but can’t prove it
