Negligence Flashcards
What 3 aspects must be proved to be another person liable.
1) they owe you a duty of care
2) they breach this duty
3) the breach causes damage
What does owing a duty of care mean? (1)
When an individual has a responsibility to avoid acting in a way that may cause damage/ injury.
What case first defined duty of care? (1)
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
What is the neighbouring principle? (1)
“you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”
SIMPLY - you must take reasonable care to not injure your neighbour
If the case study doesn’t include new issues what should you cite?
If it is a new issue, what should be explained? (1)
Robinson 2018
3 stage Caparo test
If the case study isn’t new, a duty of care has previously been proved so the first aspects paragraph ends soon, true or false? (1)
True. If the case isn’t new you simply need to state if the individual owes a duty and move on.
When the case IS NEW and caparo is used, what is the 3 part test? (1)
1) was damage reasonably foreseeable?
2) is there sufficient relationship between the claimant and defendant?
3) is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
Name a case where damage was reasonably foreseeable. (Caparo test)
Kent v Griffiths (2000)
The ambulance not arriving in a reasonable time to an asthma attack which resulted in a heart attack.
Name a case where harm WASN’T reasonably foreseeable. (Caparo test)
Bourhill v Young (1943)
Pregnant woman whose baby became still born after hearing a motorcycle crash but not witnessing it.
What is the standard of care? (2)
considering how the reasonable man would’ve behaved
What happens if the defendants behaviour falls below the standard of care? (2)
They are in breach of their duty
What test developed the standard of care?
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)
What situations don’t require the Blyth test/ standard of care?
Cases involving: children, motorists, experts and professionals
How are professionals judged? (2)
judged against another professional in the same profession
How are learners judged? (2)
learners are judged against a person of average skill
What case showed a learner driver who was judged as a qualified driver? (2)
Nettleship v Weston (1971)
What are risk factors that could affect the standard of the reasonable man? (2)
- special characteristics of the claimant that the defendant knew meaning they should take more care
- cost and practicality of taking precautions
- size of the risk
- benefit of taking the risk
What does the claimant have to prove? (3)
that they suffered damage or injury that the defendant caused
(can’t be too remote)
What is factual causation? (3)
whether the injury/damage would have occurred “but for” the defendants actions
What case shows factual causation/ but for test failing? (3)
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospitals (1969)
3 men went to an emergency room in a hospital complaining of sickness and the doctor told them to go home. All 3 later died due to arsenic poisoning but the doctor wasn’t liable as even if he had helped as the arsenic was already in their systems.
What is legal causation? (3)
damage must be forseeable and not too remote (from Waggon Mound (1961)
Name a case where the injury wasn’t reasonably forseeable. (3)
Doughty v Turner Engineering (1964)
An asbestos lid fell into molten liquid and caused an explosion which burned the claimant. The damage wasn’t reasonably forseeable as at the time it wasn’t known asbestos would react like that.
If factual causation ISN’T proved, do you need to consider legal? (3)
no as the case fails
What does the eggshell skull rule mean? (3)
you must take your victim as you find them.
if the damage caused is forseeable but more serious due to something unusual with the claimant, the defendant is liable as it isn’t seen as too remote.
Name a case using the eggshell skull rule. (3)
Smith v Leech Brain (1962)
Who has the burden of proof?
On the claimant.
