Negligence Flashcards
Basic definition
failure to act reasonably that causes harm
3 parts to proving negligence
- D owed C duty of care
- D breached this duty
- D’s breach caused C’s damage which was not too remote
Negligence was originally created in the case…
Donoghue v Stevenson
If a duty has been proven to exist in a similar case/situation before, it should exist in current case too
Robinson v CCOWY
In a new or novel situation, what test is used
Caparo Test
Caparo test part 1
Is harm reasonably foreseeable from what D did?
Jolley v Sutton
Caparo test part 2
Is there proximity between D and C?
Bourhil v Young
Caparo test part 3
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D?
Breach is defined as D doesn’t do something that a reasonable person would do. (fallen below standard of care expected)
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
Inexperience doesn’t matter
Nettleship v Weston
Professionals/experts are compared to other reasonable professionals
Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC
D is compared to a professional if
-has skills/expertise of a pro
-is acting in a way where they would be expected to be a pro
Wells v Cooper
Ages are compared to the reasonable person that age
Mullin v Richards
4 risk factors
size of risk
seriousness of potential harm
practicability of precautions
benefits of risk
Size of risk - the reasonable man will take less precautions against a small risk of harm
Bolton v Stone
Large size of risk
Miller v Jackson
Seriousness of harm - the reasonable man will take more care when the potential harm to C could be serious
Paris v Stepney
Practicability of precautions - how easy/cheap/quick was it to take precautions?
Paris v Stepney
Precaution must be enough to stop harm
Haley v LEB
The reasonable man will take precautions which are proportionate to the size of risk and seriousness of harm
Latimer v AEC
Potential benefits of risk - the reasonable man will take a risk if the potential benefit to be gained outweighs the risk
Watt v HCC
Damage factual causation
Barnett v Chelsea
Act of victim
Reeves v MPC
Act of third party
Wilkin-Shaw v Fuller
Damage is too remote when the TYPE of damage is not reasonably foreseeable
Wagon Mound
How harm is caused can be unforeseeable
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Seriousness of harm can be unforeseeable
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
If C suffers more serious harm due to a weakness or vulnerability the damage will not be too remote
Smith v Leech Brain & Co
What are the 2 defences for negligence
Contributory negligence (partial defence)
Volenti non fit injura (full defence)
LR Contributory Negligence Act - damages awarded to C can be reduced depending on extent to which ac contributes to own injury
Sayers v Harlow UDC
3 elements to Volenti
- C knows precise risk involved
- C was able to exercise free choice
- C voluntarily accepted risk
C knows precise risk means must know nature of actual risk (what would actually happen) not just there is a general risk
Stermer v Lawson
When C is forced into accepting risk he has not exercised free choice
Smith v Baker
Where C has duty to act they are forced to act and cannot exercise free choice
Ogwo v Taylor
Voluntarily accepted risk
ICI v Shatwell
