Negligence Flashcards
What is the structure of a negligence question?
- Was there a duty owed?
- Was there a reasonable possibility of intermediate inspection?
- Was the duty breached?
- Did the breach cause harm?
What is the key principle for whether a duty is owed?
The neighbour principle. First outlined in Donoghue as “so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably have them in my contemplation”
What are the cases relevant to negligence?
Donoghue v Stevenson
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
Herschtal v Stewart & Ardern Ltd
Bolton v Stone
Miller v Jackson
Russel v McCabe
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club
What does Dorset Yacht Club establish under ‘is a duty owed’?
Vicarious liability: when an employer is held legally responsible for the actions of an employee
Who owes a duty of care?
Manufacturers (Donoghue)
Manufacturer of clothes (Grant)
Renters/repairers (Herschtal)
Anyone likely to be injured by the conduct (Bolton/Miller)
Strangers (that acted reasonably)(McCabe)
What do the cases of Grant and Herschtal say about reasonable possibility of immediate inspection?
Grant: Was is possible to see the defect with the naked eye
Herschtal: Is there a reasonable expectation for someone to inspect (in this case no)
How does Donoghue outline if the duty was breached?
if the manufacturer “can reasonably foresee it would be likely to injure your neighbour”
What does Bolton say about whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the negligent act was likely to cause injury, harm or loss
“the mere fact that a risk could happen, doesn’t mean it is negligent to not prevent it”
The risk can’t just be possible
What does Bolton say about the timorous?
“It is not the law that precautions must be taken against every peril that can be foreseen by the timorous”
What does Miller say about whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the negligent act was likely to cause injury, harm or loss?
That numerous past events made it foreseeable. The harm, injury, or loss needs to be probable.
What are the relevant elements of ‘did the breach cause harm’?
Was there novus actus, volenti, contributory negligence, or the eggshell skull rule
What is novus actus and what does Dorset say about it
A new act that broke the chain of causation. If it is likely, then the defendant should have anticipated it and it doesn’t breach chain of causation
What is volenti and what does Russel and Sylvester say about it.
No harm is done to one who consents. In Russel, fire man acted reasonably so no volenti. In Sylvester, there was volenti as it was unjustified meddling
What is contributory negligence and what does Grant say about it?
Did the plaintiff worsen the effects of the negligence act through their own actions. If so, this only lessens the amount of compensation.
What is the eggshell skull rule and what does Grant say about it?
Even if plaintiff has a particular susceptibility, if harm still could’ve been caused, still liable.
