Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

law > negligence > Flashcards

negligence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

donoghue v stevenson

A

neighbour principle, ‘your neighbour is anyone closely affected by your actions or omissions’-Lord Atkin

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

caparo v dickman

A

updated neighbour principle to three stage doc test

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

kent v griffiths

A

was the loss/damage reasonably foreseeable?

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

bourhill v young

A

was there a relationship of close proximity between d and c (space, time or relationship)?

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

hill v cc of west yorkshire police

A

is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a doc?

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

robinson v cc of west yorkshire police

A

caparo test only needed in novel situations

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

nettleship v weston

A

established doc-motorists to other road users

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

donoghue v stevenson

A

established doc-manufacturers to consumers

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

arthur js hall v simmons

A

established doc-solicitors to clients

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

bolam

A

established doc-doctors to patients

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

blyth v birmingham waterworks

A

d will be judged by the standards of a ‘reasonably competent’ person (objective test)

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

well v cooper

A

if d is an ordinary person they aren’t expected to act as a professional

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

bolam

A

if d is a professional, they are judged by the standards of other reasonably competent professionals

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

bolitho

A

if professional opinion is illogical, d is negligent

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

wilsher v essex area health authority

A

no account of d’s experience is taken

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

montgomery

A

patients must be made aware of material risks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

chester v afshar

A

patients must be aware of side effects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

nettleship v weston

A

if d is inexperienced/a learner, they are compared to the standards of someone experienced and competent

19
Q

mullins v richard

A

children are judged by the standards of other reasonably competent children of a similar age

20
Q

roe v minister of health

A

where the risks known at the time of the accident? (there is no obligation on d to guard against risks beyond their reasonable contemplation)

21
Q

bolton v stone

A

size of risk (small)

22
Q

hayley london electricity board

A

size of risk (high)

23
Q

paris v stepney council

A

c has a special characteristic making potential harm suffered more serious

24
Q

latimer

A

have all practical precautions been taken?

25
Q

watt v hertfordshire council

A

is there a public benefit to taking the risk?

26
Q

barnett v chelsea hospital

A

factual causation-‘but for’ test-‘but for d’s actions/omissions would c have suffered the injury/damage?’

27
Q

wagon mound no.1

A

legal causation-was the loss/damage reasonably foreseeable or too remote from the breach?

28
Q

hughes v lord advocate

A

c need not predict the precise way in which the loss/damage was caused, so long as loss/damage of the same type is foreseeable

29
Q

smith v leech brain co

A

thin skill rule (must take c as you find them) as long as injury is foreseeable

30
Q

mckew v holland

A

intervening act of claimant (chain broken and d is not liable)

31
Q

carslogie steamship co

A

intervening act of nature (d not liable if act is unforeseeable and independent)

32
Q

knightley v johns

A

intervening act of 3rd party (needs to be of such magnitude to break chain of causation, 3rd party liable)

33
Q

wilsher v essex area authority

A

multiple causes (causes claim to fail)

34
Q

contributory negligence

A

the law reform (contributory negligence) act 1945

35
Q

jones v boyce

A

in emergency situations, as long as c’s actions are reasonable, contributory negligence will not be a defence

36
Q

morales v eccleston

A

no age to when children can contribute to their own negligence

37
Q

volenti nonfit injuria

A

complete defence if c has complete knowledge and understanding of the nature and extent of the risk (murray)

38
Q

morris v murray

A

claimant’s consent must be freely given, must be in position to choose and must have full knowledge of circumstances

39
Q

smith v baker

A

claimant exercises free choice, knowledge of risk may not amount to consent

40
Q

shatwell

A

if c deliberately ignores the risk, the defence of volenti is acceptable

41
Q

watson v grey

A

claimants consent ordinarily incidental to that sport

42
Q

baker v hopkins

A

volenti is rarely a defence for rescuers as the courts do not want to deter those trying to help

43
Q

miller v jackson

A

prohibitory injuction

law (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions