negligence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

neighbourhood test

A

Donoghue vs Stevenson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

3reasonably foreseeable

A

Kent vs Griffiths

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

3proximity

A

Hill vs Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

3fair,just and reasonable

A

capital and Counties PLC vs Hampshire CC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

reasonable man test

A

blyth vs birmingham waterworks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

higher standard of care-professionals

A

bolam vs friern

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

lower standard of care-children

A

mullins vs richard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

inexperience doesn’t affect standard of care

A

nettleship vs weston

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

characteristics not taken into account

A

nettleship vs weston

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

size of risk

if there is no risk there is no breach

A

roe vs minster of health

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

reasonable person not expect to go large length to prevent small risk

A

miller vs jackson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

risk may be small, potential harm may be great, reasonable person expected to take precaution

A

paris vs stepney BC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

the benefit of taking risk

balance usefulnessness to society with level of risk

A

watt vs hertfordshire CC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

practical precautions

d expected to prevent harm

A

Latimer vs AEC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

special characteristics of claimant

drunkenness taken into account

A

Griffiths vs Brown

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

special characteristics of claimant

disability also taken into account

A

Paris vs Stepney BC

17
Q

res ipsa loquitur

the thing that speaks for itself

A

Scott vs London and st. Katharine docks

18
Q

damage

but for test

A

Barnett vs Chelsea

19
Q

novus actus interveniens

A

Thompson vs Blake James

20
Q

multiple causes

many possible causes of damage

A

Wilsher vs Essex AHA

21
Q

remoteness of damage

when negligence is unexpected not fair to hold d liable

A

re Polemis

22
Q

reasonable foreseeability test

A

wagon mound 1 and wagon mound number 2

23
Q

doesn’t matter if matter in which damage occurs is not foreseeable

A

Hughes vs Lord Advocate

24
Q

thin skull rule

A

Smith vs Leech