Negligence Flashcards
Negligence- governed by
Common law
DUTY OF CARE- if a novel area of the law the …………. will be used
Caparo test (CT)
DUTY OF CARE - if not a novel area of the law then existing precedent will be used
Robinson (R)
DUTY OF CARE (CT)- the injury/harm was foreseeable
Kent v Griffiths
DUTY OF CARE (CT)- NO proximity based on relationship, distance or time
Bourhill v Young
DUTY OF CARE (CT)- it would be unfair, unjust and unreasonable to place a duty of care onto a public sector organisation as it would take resources away from areas of great need
Hill
DUTY OF CARE (CT)- fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on a public sector organisation if they are aware that injury/harm may be caused
Reeves
DUTY OF CARE (R)- driver have to drive with due care and consideration for others
S3 road traffic act 1988
DUTY OF CARE (R)- diagnose and treat a medical condition
Bolam
DUTY OF CARE (R)- take reasonable precautions to stop harm from occurring
Bolton v stone
BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE (DOC)- fall below the reasonable person; performing the same task as the D, in the same situation and to a competent standard
Blyth v Birmingham waterworks
BREACH OF DOC- if the D is a professional then the standard of care expected is higher
Bolam
BREACH OF DOC- if the D is an amateur then they will be held accountable to the reasonable persons standard for an amateur (following instruction, proper health and safety, etc)
Wells v cooper
BREACH OF DOC- a learner is held to the same standard as a competent/qualified person
Nettleship v Weston
BREACH OF DOC- if the D is a child then the reasonable person will be the age of that child
Mullins v Richards
BREACH OF DOC- if the C has special characteristics which would result in them suffering greater harm than someone without them, the D is expected to apply a higher standard of care
Paris
BREACH OF DOC- if there is a low risk associated with the D conduct then a higher standard of care is not required
Bolton v stone
BREACH OF DOC- if the D has taken all reasonable precautions to minimise risk then a higher standard of care is not expected
Latimer
BREACH OF DOC- public policy allows a lower standard of care when there is a high risk situation which requires immediate action (life saving)
Watt
Causation (factual cause)- but for test
Barnett
Causation (legal test)- intervening acts that broke the chain of causation: an act of nature (1), and act of the claimant (2), a third party (3).
1- Carslogie
2- Mckew v Hollands
3- Knightley v Johns
Causation (remoteness of damages)- the damages must be reasonably foreseeable ( not reasonably foreseeable)
Wagon mound
Causation (remoteness of damages)- thin skull rule: the D must take the C as he find them, if the damage to the C is reasonably foreseeable but is much more serious due to a condition, the D is liable for the harm
Smith v leech brain and co
Conclusion- view defences and remedies as well as past paragraphs found in books
^^^^^^
