negligence Flashcards
donoghue v stevenson
created negligence
robinson v CCOWY
duty proved in past case, it will be in this one
caparo
if it says “novel case”
1) reasonable person foresee damage?
2) proximity?
3) fair, just, reasonable to impose duty?
jolley v sutton
caparo test worked
blyth
defines breach as doing something a reasonable person wouldnt or vise versa
nettleship v weston
inexperience does not change standard of care
bolom
professionalism increases standard of care
wells v cooper
not acting as a professional (low SOC)
mullin v richards
age decreases standard of care
miller v jackson
size of risk
paris
-seriousness of potential harm
-practicability of precautions
watt v HCC
benefit of risk
barnett
but for
reeves v MCC
acts of victim
wilkin-shaw v fuller
third party
wagon mound
(remoteness) can only sue for foreseeable damage
hughes v LA
HOW damage happened, doesnt have to be foreseeable
bradford v robinsons rentals
EXTENT of damage doesnt have to be foreseeable
egg shell skull rule
C’s vulnerability does not make damage too remote
contributory negligence
-partial defence
- law reform act, reduces damages
-sayers v harlow, contributory worked, she took a risk
volenti order of proof
1) c knows precise risk
2) able to excercise free choice
3)voluntarily accepted risk
stermer v lawson
c must know precise risk, not general
smith v baker
forced into accepting risk (free choice)
ICI v shatwell
chose to ignore instructions (accepted risk)
