negligence Flashcards
3 main components of negligence
duty+breach=damage/loss
what case gives the 3 questions to if a legal duty of care is owed
caparo v dickman (1990)
what 3 questions are in caparo v dickman for duty of care?
is the loss foreseeable?
is there a proximity between the parties?
is it fair to impose a duty of care?
case for is the loss foreseeable?
donogue v stevenson (1932) “neighbour test”
persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question.’
A duty of care will be held to exist when it is reasonably foreseeable that another person will suffer loss as a result of the defendant’s activities also kent v griffins(2000) ambulance
case for is there proximity between the parties
Caparo v Dickman (1990) accountants did not know what the accounts were being used for thus they could not reasonably foresee a loss and there was not enough proximity between the parties
Law Society v. KPMG Peat Marwick and others (2000) distingushed from Caparo v Dickman (1990) because the accountants did now what the records would be used for
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988) no duty of care owed by the police in detection of a crime
Bourhill v. Young (1943) defendant could have not seen claimen in field of vision thus not enough proximity
case for is it fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988) would not be fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care because police would not have known Jacqueline Hill was a likely victim of Peter Sutcliffe and to decide a duty of care was owed would have had significant ramifications for Police operational decisions
MPC v Reeves (2000) police knew of suicide risk so they had a duty of care to prevent ir vs Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2002) police did not know of suicide risk and there was no information suggest the prisoner was of suicide risk no duty of care imposed
proximity between the parties meaning?
the closeness of relationship between the person suffering loss and the person causing the wrong, ‘proximity of time and space’ as it’s now referred to
2 questions for is it fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
The floodgates argument. Courts are naturally reluctant to ‘open the floodgates’ by recognising too many claims, which would overload the court system.
Insurance. A party that is insured may affect a court’s decision in deciding liability. The aim of negligence is to compensate the victim. If this is achieved via insurance, it is not necessary to create a new precedent.
what test is used for the breach of a duty of care?
an objective test
what is held in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856)
“Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The standard demanded is thus not of perfection but of reasonableness. It is an objective standard taking no account of the defendant’s incompetence - he may do the best he can and still be found negligent”
omission to do something a reasonable man would do or doing something a prudent and reasonable man would not do
objective test for breach case?
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856)
what kind of things will courts take into consideration when deciding if a duty of care has been breached?
The degree of risk. The Potential seriousness of injury. The cost of precaution. The importance of the activity. Learners and professionals. ALL JUDGED BY WHAT A REASONABLE MAN WOULD HAVE DONE
case for degree of risk
Bolton v Stone (1951) cricket ball flying over 17 ft wall incident happened 6 times in last 25 years and no one was injured or damaged
The court held that the cricket club had done everything that was reasonable to minimise the risk, given that the degree of risk was minimal. They did not breach the duty of care owed.
Latimer v. AEC Ltd (1953) closing factory would have not been reasonable and the sawdust was excercising their duty of care
case for potential seriousness of injury
Paris v. Stepney Borough Council (1951) defendants already aware he was blind in one eye and reasonable employers would have provided the claimant with goggles. no duty would have been owed to a normal sighted client but there was a higher potential seriousness of injury, thus a duty of care was owed to somebody in the claimants position
Morrell v Owen (1993) organisers and coaches of disabled sports events have a higher duty of care then abled-bodied sports events
case for cost of precaution
Bolton v Stone not reasonable to spend lots of money on a new cricket wall if the risk was very minimal
