negligence Flashcards
What case defines negligence
Blyth v Birmingham waterworks
‘ failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something which the reasonable person would not do’
- ACT OR OMISSION
What is the neighbour principle
As establishes through the case of Donoghue v Stevenson
everyone is expected to act reasonably to keep their neighbours (those around them) reasonably safe
What are the 3 parts of the caparo test and for what claims is it applied
Used in Novel situations where the rules outline from the case of Robinson cannot be applied.
- was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
- is their sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant
- is it fair just and reasonable to impose liability
What did the case of Robinson establish
Where a duty of care is automatically owed if previously outlined within statute or case precedent
- nettleship v Weston = automatic duty to other drivers
- Condon v basi = duty automatically owed in sports
Reasonable foresight case
Kent v Griffiths - ambulance driver was late for no good reason leading to C suffering brain damage
Proximity of relationship
Bourhill v Young - C suffered a still born after witnessing a car crash. Courts rule although proximate in distance it wasn't reasonably foreseeable Mcloughlin v Obrien- proximate in time, C witnessed family in bad state after the car incident the lorry driver owed a DOC to class of people considered to be proximate to the event
Fair, just and reasonable to impose duty
Hill v West Yorkshire police- C was the mother of the last vicimd of the Yorkshire ripper wanting to sue the police for not doing their job. However courts ruled that the police are not expected to owe a duty of care for everyone in the general public and as they didn’t know who the ripper would kill next there was no duty
Breach of duty standard of care
That of the reasonable person in most cases
Standard of care professionals
Bolam - professionals are expected to offer a duty of care that is reasonable within the profession
Standard of care learner drivers
Nettleship v Weston - learner drivers are held to the same standard of the competent more experienced driver
Standard of care Young people
Mullins v Richards- take into consideration the characteristics of the defence and determine what is reasonable for them
15 year old girls
Risk factors - special characteristics of the claimant
Paris v Stepney = Paris was blind in one eye and went blind after doing work which injured his good eye, employer held liable for not supplying protective gear and breaching their DOC
Risk factors- size of risk
Bolton v Stone = cricket ball his woman walking by however this had only happened 6 times in the past 30 years = cricket club had done everything reasonable to reduce risk and hadn’t breached DOC
Risk factors - size of risk
Haley v London elec board- Electricians dug a trench for work however didn’t put out any barriers only signs. The street was known to have many blind people walking by and therefore they should’ve out out barriers =. breach of duty
Risk factors- reasonable precautions
Latimer v AEC= factory flooded, defence laid sawdust on the ground and instructed everyone to continue working. C slipped however D was not fond to have breached their duty due to them taking reasonable steps to avoid injury.
