Negligence Flashcards
What is negligence?
Failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something that the reasonable person would not do.
In order to bring a successful negligence claim, we must show that the defendant was at fault for the injuries or damage. This fault must be shown to the civil standard of proof which is…
he owes a duty of care, this has ben breached and it was reasonably foreseeable that a breach would cause injuries or damage.
What sort of evidence might the claimant use to show a fault?
Oral, witnesses or from experts
The neighbour principle
Donoghue v Stevenson: “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you c an reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”
The Caparo test
- Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
- Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant?
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
Caparo v Dickman
C wanted to take over D’s company. They showed accounts prepared which showed a profit and after seeing the final purchase, they looked again and it showed a loss. D didn’t owe C a duty of care as the accounts prepared weren’t for C to see.
The damage or harm must have been reasonably foreseeable
Kent v Griffiths
Kent v Griffiths
A duty of care was owed by the ambulance when they initially accepted the call as the failed the duty and were liable for compensation to C.
Must be a proximity of relationship
Bourhill v Young
Bourhill v Young
The biker (D) couldn’t have anticipated that if he was involved in an accident. it would cause a mental injury to a bystander so owed no duty of care.
Must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Relationship wasn’t proximate enough for the police to owe a duty of care as they had no idea over who the next victim would be.
Breach of Duty
Claimant has to prove that the duty of care has been breached. The court look at the standards of the reasonable person.
Reasonable person
The ordinary person doing the same task.
What are the situations where courts argue a different standard of care from that of the reasonable person?
- Professionals
- D has a lack of skill
- Children
Professionals
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Hospital followed one of the courses of action given by professionals so it has not breached a duty of care.
Bolam Test for professionals
- Does the Defendants conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary competent member of that profession?
- Is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course of action taken by the defendant?
Learners
Nettleship v Weston
Nettleship v Weston
Weston (D) should be judged at the same standard of a competent driver, not at the standard of an inexperienced driver
Children and young people
Mullin v Richards
Mullins v Richards
Richards should have to meet the standard of someone her age and in the same situation, so a 15 year old school girl.
What are the risk factors we must consider?
- Special characteristics of C
- Size of the risk
- Cost and practicability
- Foreseeability of the risk
- Public benefit of taking the risk
Special characteristics of the Claimant
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Blind man not provided with goggles on a dangerous job so employer was held to have broken a duty of care to him.
Size of the risk
Bolton v Stone
Bolton v Stone
Cricket club had everything they needed to do in view of the low risk and it had not been breached
Cost and practicality of precautions
Latimer v AEC
Latimer v AEC
No breach of duty of care as the owners had taken reasonable steps to reduce risk of injury
Foreseeability of the risk
Roe v Minister of Health
Roe v Minister of Health
Risk of contamination wasn’t known so no breach and claimant couldn’t claim compensation
Public benefit of taking the risk
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Fire service had not breached it’s duty of care because emergency situation
