Negligence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is the first element of negligence

A

Duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the second element of negligence

A

Breach of duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Third element of negligence

A

Loss/damage caused

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)- Quote?

A

“The omission to do something that the reasonable person would do, or doing something that the reasonable person would not do”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the four reasonable people?

A

Children and young people compared to other children and young people (Mullins v Richards)
Professionals are compared to other professionals (Balam)
Learner’s are compared to the qualified drivers (Nettleship v Weston
The ordinary man

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What case highlights the use of the incremental approach?

A

Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire Police (2018)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What must courts consider with the incremental approach

A

1) Where there is an existing precedent the courts must assume a duty exists
2) Whether the courts can draw an analogous duty from a case with similar facts
3) Whether the case is novel and the Caparo 3 stage test is to be applied

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the 3 parts of the Caparo test?

A

1) Was the loss or injury reasonably foreseeable?
2) Was there sufficient proximity between C and D?
3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the D?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Risk factors for negligence

A

-Foresight of harm
-The likelihood of harm
-The cost and burden of eliminating the risk
-The severity of harm
-The social utility of D’s activity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Foresight of harm?

A

-The standard of care is based on what the reasonable man would have foreseen

-Case example= (Roe v Minister of Health) (1954)- Doctors couldn’t see cracks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Likelihood of harm?

A

-The courts also consider how likely it was that the harm/injury was going to occur
-If the harm was likely to occur D is expected to take reasonable precautions to minimise the harm

-cases (Miller v Jackson) ~~~>Harm much higher, than cricket club expected
Compare against case = (Bolton v Stone) (1915)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Reasonable Precautions

A

If the harm is likely to occur then D is expected to take reasonable precautions and minimise risk. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances.

Case example = (Latimer v AEC (1952)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Severity of harm

A

-If there is a risk of serious injury, either because of C’s vulnerability of the nature of D’s activity, then D is expected to take greater care. If they don’t they will be in breach

Case= (Paris v Stepney BC) (1951)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Social Utility

A

-The courts will consider the importance of D’s activity from a social utility perspective. The more important the activity the less likely D will be in breach

Cases: - Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954)
- Tomlinson v Congleton BC (2004)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What 2 issues are looked at for negligence?

A

1) Factual Causation
2) Remoteness (Legal Causation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What test would be used to determine whether C would have suffered harm anyway in spite of D’s lack of care

A

The ‘But For’ Test.

17
Q

Which case highlights the ‘But for’ Test in negligence?

A

McWilliams v Arrol (1962) - steel erector fell to his death with safety belts removed from site although c didn’t wear them anyway. His widow sued for damages.
NOT LIABLE!
C wouldn’t of worn a safety belt regardless.

18
Q

Remoteness

A
  • C can only recover damages if the loss or damage isn’t too remote
  • Only losses that are reasonably foreseeable can be recovered
19
Q

What does Lord Denning tell us in - The Wagon Mound (1961)

A

‘If the consequence was one which was in the general range which any reasonable person might foresee… then it is within the rule that a person who has been guilty of negligence is liable for the consequences’

20
Q

In which case do we see an exception to remoteness?

A

(Bradford v Robinson Rentals) - C had to drive 400 miles with windows down in freezing conditions

21
Q

What is (Page v Smith) (1996) an example of?

A

That some types of injury must be foreseeable

22
Q

What is a full defence to negligence?

A

Volenti Non-injuria (CONSENT)

23
Q

What is a partial defence to negligence?

A

Contributory Negligence

24
Q

What must D show for Volenti Non-injuria?

A

-Knowledge of the precise risk involved
-Exercise of free choice by C
-Voluntary

25
Q

Case for Volenti Non-injuria

A

-Morris v Murray (1991)- C voluntarily accepted the risk knowing they had been drinking all day

26
Q

Cases for contributory Negligence

A

-Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958)-Toilet lock stuck
-Froom v Butcher (1976)- No seat belt passanger