Negligence Flashcards
3 elements of negligence
- Duty of care (from the D to the C)
- Breach of duty (by the D)
- Damage (proof of damage to the C)
- Donogue v Stevenson - (Duty of Care)
Traditional test to establish Duty of care
Held: established the ‘neighbour principle’ to establish a DOC
- a D owes a duty of care to their neighbours
- a ‘neighbour’ is someone so closely and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being affected when i am directing my mind to acts or omissions in question’
Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks Co
Held: defined negligences as:
- ‘the omission to do something the RM would do, or doing something the RM would not do’
Caparo v Dickman - (Duty of Care)
Replaced the neighbourhood test
Held: a DOC is proved if the elements of:
- Foreseeability
- Proximity
- Fair, just and reasonable are established
Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire (Duty of Care)
Amended our understanding of how to apply the Caparo Test
Held: established that the Caparo test only needs applying in new and novel cases
- and that the courts should generally establish a duty by looking at existing duty situations and ones with clear analogy
Bourhill v Young (Duty of Care)
Proximity
Facts: motorcyclist crashed and was killed
- pregnant women 50yds away approved scene and has a miscarriage
Held: no DoC
- no proximity between the 2 parties by time, space or relationship
- she voluntarily approached
Kent v Griffiths (Duty of care)
Foreseeability
Facts: ambulance failed to arrive in reasonable time to C
Held: duty of care owed
- it was foreseeable the RM in the position of the paramedic that some-one in the C’s position would suffer further injury if they failed to turn up in time
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire (Duty of care)
Fair, Just and Reasonable
Facts: mother of Yorkshire rippers last V claimed police owed her daughter a duty of care as they interviewed and released the Yorkshire ripper before daughter killed
Held: For policy reasons court held police didn’t owe duty of care to potential Vs of crime
- it was not fair just or reasonable as they wanted the police to work affectively as possible
Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire (Duty of care)
Fair, Just and Reasonable
Facts: 76 year old woman injured fell on by police officers during a rest of suspect
- The woman claims negligence for personal injury
Held: Police aren’t immune from owing a duty of care in relation to harm caused by their actions in regard to in the course of executing their duty
Summer v Colborn (DoC)
Facts: Cyclist made claim motorist was negligent after C was hit when emerging from minor road
- Motorist claimed he couldn’t avoid it because vegetation blocked his view - claimed land owners were under a duty to manage vegetation
Held: Under floodgates argument it would be impractical I’m not fair, just or reasonable to impose
- Breach of Duty
- It must be prove that the expected standard of care was not met
1) Establsih the type of RM
- Prove either by doing something the RM would not or not doing something the RM would do
2) Risk Factors
Wells V Cooper (Breach)
Ordinary Person
Facts: D fitted a new door handle in his home
- it came off in a gust of wind caused C. To fall down the stairs
Held: an ordinary person is compared to somebody of ordinarily competent at carrying out that task
- D hadn’t breached his duty
Bolam v Friern Barnett Hospital Management Committee (Breach)
Professional
Facts: C wasn’t given relaxant during ECT and broke bones, wasn’t told risk
- Medical opinion for need of drug at time was divided
Held: established principle ‘ a man need not possess the highest expert skills, it is sufficient if they exercise the ordinary skill of an ordinary component man exercising that particular art.’
Roe v minister of Health (Breach)
Professional
Facts: C suffered paralysis after injected w/ anaesthetic that has been held in saline
- Saline had seeped through invisible cracks in glass ampules
Held: Hospital hasn’t breached DoC
- Since no reasonable anaesthetist would have stored it differently
Nettleship v Weston (Breach)
Learner
Facts: learner driver crashed causing injury to the friend that was conducting the lesson
Held: learner/trainee will be compared to an ordinarily comportment person carrying out the task
Mullins v Richards (Breach)
Children
Facts: during ruler fight between 2 children, plastic snapped caused claimant permanent blindness in one eye
Held: no breach
- Children will be compared to a reasonably competent child of that age
Risk Factors
A circumstance of the case that determines the standard of care expected of the RM
Bolton v Stone (Breach - Risk Factors)
Magnitude of Risk
Facts: a batsman hit ball over protective fence, hit C who was 100m away - ball rarely hit over fence
Held: cricket club hadn’t breached duty
- the size of the risk was so small, the RM wouldn’t have taken any further precautions
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (Breach - Risk Factors)
Special Characteristics
Facts: council worker who only had use of one eye received injury to his other eye in course of employment - caused total blindness
- council is not legally obliged to provide goggles
Held: because of the special characteristics - higher standard of care expected - council breached duty
Latimer v AEC (Breach - Risk Factors)
Practical Precautions
Facts: after a flood, factory owner out up signs, warned workers, used sawdust to prevent slipping
- C slipped
Held: no breach
- Factory owner took all practical precautions
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (Breach - Risk Factors)
Social Utility
Facts: fire-fighter = inquired when using equipment that was designed for not what it was being used for
Held: no breach
- The social utility of the actions far outweighed the risk of harm occurring
- Damage
The harm suffered by the C, established via
- Factual Causation
- Remoteness of damage
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (Damage - Factual Causation)
Facts: a C who was suffering from arsenic poisoning was told by a doctor to return the next day, if he still felt unwell unexamined
- C died
Held: clear breach of duty
- negligence failed even if all the appropriate care had been taken, the deceased would’ve still died
- But for the Ds breach would the C have died? - Yes (not factual cause)
The Wagon Mound (Damage - Remoteness)
REASONABLY FORESEEABILITY
Facts: D spilt large quantity of oil in a harbour
- despite carrying out checks to ensure the safety of continued works
- the Cs welding caused large fire destroying the wharf
Held: leading case for remoteness of damage
- D will only be liable to compensate a C for losses that are REASONABLY FORESEEABLE result of the breach
