negligence Flashcards
what is the quote that defines negligence
‘failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something that the reasonable person would not do’
what are the three things that must be proven for negligence
- that d owed them a duty of care
- that duty of care was breached
- the breach caused damage
what is the case that established duty of care
donogue v stevenson, snail in a bottle, ‘neighbour test’
what case established the new three part test that replaced stevenson v donoghue ruling
Caparo v Dickman
what is the three part test from caparo v dickman
- harm was reasonably foreseeable
- there was a relationship of proximity
- that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
what is another key case in relation to the caparo test
robinson, old lady was injured by two police officers whilst they were trying to arrest a suspect. officeers were liable. courts said that the caparo test does not have to be strictly applied in every case , instead judicial precedent should be considered
what is a case for damage being reasonably foreseeable
Kent v Griffiths, an ambulance was called to take c to hospital, due to a significant delay in the ambulances arrival c suffer further injuries
what is a case for whether it is fair just and reasonable to impose DOC (courts are reluctant to impose DOC on public authority)
Hill, hills mother made a a claim against yorkshire police for being negligent in their investigation of the yorkshire ripper after her daughter was murdered by him. The courts said that damage suffered by c was reasonable foreseeable but there was nothing linking/ connecting d and c
which case established the term ‘reasonable man’
Blyth
what is the case involving a learner driver and standard of care
Nettleship, the courts said that a learner driver owed the same standard of care as a qualified driver
what is the case for professionals standard of care
bolam, they owe a higher standard
case for junior doctors standard of care
wilsher, owe the same care as a qualified doctor
case for young people standard of care
mullin, owe a lower standard of care
what are the 4 risk factors that the courts will consider when determining a breach
- could the d have taken any practicable precautions
- was there any special characteristics of the c that the d should have taken into consideration
- was there any benefit of the risk
- what was the degree of risk
what is the case for practicable precautions
Latimer, the D’s owned a factory which flooded. The floodwater mixed with oil and became slipper, they removed the floor and added saw dust. C slipped and was injured despite the precautions. D was not liable, they had taken reasonable precautions to prevent injury
what is the case for characteristics of a claimant
Paris, C had eye sight only in one eye. whilst working in a garage a splinter of metal fell into his sighted eye. his employer failed to provide safety goggles. His employer was liable, owed a higher standard of care due to his condition so there was a breach
what is the case for public benefit of risk
Watt, fire brigade transported equipment necessary to stop fire on a separate vehicle because they could not use the normal one. Equipment fell of the vehicle and injured a man, the brigade were not liable because potential benefits outweighed risk.
what are the three cases for degree of risk and what do they each involve
Roe- if the likelihood of harm is unknown then d will not be liable
bolton- if the likelihood of harm is small then d will not be liable
Haley- if they knew likelihood of harm and did nothing then d is liable
what are the rules surrounding damage
the courts will apply the rules of causation and use the but for test
what is a case for damage
Barnett, c went to hospital and was told to go home and see his GP. He died five hours later. Had he been treated in hospital he still would have died. D’s were not liable because the poison caused damage and chain of causation was not broken.
what else do the courts look at when considering damage
whether the damage was too remote from the initial incident
what is the case for remote damage
wagon mound, the d’s were responsible for an oi spill, a few days later a boat set a lite. The D’s clearly caused the damage but it was unforeseeable therefore too remote so they were not liable
what is the case for the eggshell skull rule in negligence
Smith, C incurred a burn to his lip due to D’s negligence. His lip contained pre cancerous cells and 5 years later he died of cancer. D was liable, it did not matter that other people would not have suffered the same in jury.
who is the burden of proof on
the claimant has to prove that the D is negligent
what is the standard of proof
balance of probabilities ( who is most likely to be right)
