negligence Flashcards
test
duty
breach
causation
damage
remoteness
defences
duty
caparo - rf, prox, j f and r
robinson - novel, develop law incrimentally
overkill argument
– a body would be so worried about getting sued that they focus more on liability than work -personally say this shows the test is working, bodys will be careful.
breach
reasonable person
professing that skill - bolam
Watt – stuck under car and didn’t have right equipment but attempted anyways. Acted reasonably
walker
2 mental breakdowns in work, employers job to encourage mental wellbeing.
Workers are held to standard of the reasonable worker
bolam
professing that skill
Watt
stuck under car and didn’t have right equipment but attempted anyways. Acted reasonably
Montgomery
mother wasn’t debriefed about an issue that was 10% likely for diabetic mothers during childbirth. All risks should be disclosed to patient.
nettleship v weston
learner drivers
Denning justified this decision explaining how it would be unfair to passengers or different road users if different drivers were held to a different standard.
Randall
mental capacity not considered.
Mansfield v Weetabix
driver blacked out at the wheel, defendant simply is not responsible
Mullins v Richards
children held to standard of a child their age
Wooldridge
a person attending a game or a competition as a spectator voluntarily takes the risk of any damage caused to him by a participant.
causation
but for
legal
nai
barnett
sengt back home and died, would have happenedd anyways
but for
Hart and Honroe on but for
argue that but for is too broad. Anything could fit but for. They prefer a ‘common sense’ approach
McWilliams
wasn’t provided with safety belt and fell to his death. The deceased would not have worn a belt even if provided so weren’t cause of death
legal
how far they are responsible
ward
virtually certain
Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
third party conduct must be ‘very likely to happen.’
Lamb v Camden
C moved out and a group of squatters move in and smash place up. D wasn’t responsible. ‘a degree of likelihood amounting almost to inevitability’
ocassoining harm
set the scene for another to do harm
nai
Troman
c had told d to lock house. He didn’t and was a burglary. Reasonably foreseeable harm by leaving door open. Didn’t burgle but set the scene
McGhee
wasn’t provided with adequate shower facilities and contracted dermatitis. Couldn’t 100% be sure this was sole cause. Still succeeded. C must show that D (i) breached the duty owed and (ii) materially increased the risk to which C was exposed. ‘The creator of the risk’ should ‘suffer from the inherent evidential difficulty’
compensation act 3(1)
Sienkiewicz
deceased had worked where exposed to asbestos. In the area low levels of asbestos in general atmosphere. even if there is another source of asbestos fibre in play, whether naturally occurring, non-tortious, or tortious D liable for the full loss
damage
damage caused
usally obvious
Hotson
Were treated so late in the hospital they had a permanent disability. Claimed they were robbed of a proper chance. Had 25% chance of full recovery if treated properly. Had compensation for loss of chance. HoL said disability was harm and as the harm was 75% likely they were not liable
remoteness
extenent of loss
recoverable or non recoverable
egg shell
smith v leech brain co
wagonmound
reasonably forseeable test
Hughes
the precise sequence of events does not have to be foreseeable.
Corr
suffered ptsd from injuries and committed suicide 6 years later. Bingham – suicide is not a voluntary informed decision. D was responsible
defences
illegality - c wrongfuk
consent - c consented
Excluded from learner driver cases – have third party insurance so not accept that legal risk should fall on him
contrib - percentage taken off (contrib neg act)
