Negligence Flashcards
Outline for a Negligence Question
Claim:
C has a claim in negligence against D for (injury/damage)
Duty of care:
Does D owe C a duty, for what?
Breach of Duty:
Pt 1: Question of Law: Did D fall below the reasonable objective standard )
Pt 2: Questions of Fac, Proving negligencet: (A, B, C & D)
Causation:
Factual cause - but for test (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital)
Material contributions (risk/injury)
Remoteness
defences
remedies
conclusion
Breach Pt 2: Proving negligence, a question of Fact and Learned Hand Test
A - Probability/likelihood of risk/injury (Bolton V Stone)
B - Seriousness of injury (Paris v Stephney BC)
C - Cost of Prevention (Latimer v AEC LTD.)
D - Social value, is it worth the risk: The Compensation Act s1 2006 (Watt v Hertfordshire CC)
Balancing Act: Learned Hand Test (United States v Carroll Towing Co)
D is negligent if B < (P XL)
B - Cost of precaution
p - Probability of risk/loss
L - Seriousness/magnitude of loss
Remoteness
- The type of injury: Reasonable Foreseeability Test
- Novus actus interveniens
Is the kind of damage suffered by the C reasonably foreseeable at the time the breach occurred? The Wagon Mound (no.1)
Duty of care cases: Consumer to Manufacturer
Donoghue v Stevenson
- Lord Atkin’s Neighbour Principle
- Manufacturers owe a duty to all intended consumers, not just buyers
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
- Lower courts held implied warranty of of fitness for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act
- Privy Court unanimously held duty extends to ultimate consumer of the product and that D was negligent in the manufacturing process
Incremental Approach for duty of care
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
…the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care restrained only by indefinable
When to use Caparo V Dickman
when cases genuinely raise new issues;
cases where the courts were being asked to ‘depart from previous authorities’ or ‘consider an extension to the law of negligence’
Duty of care cases:
Road user -> road user
Employer -> Employee
Doctor -> Patient
Nettleship v Weston
- D held to the standard of a learned driver despite being a learner
- C and D were jointly responsible so damages were reduced by 50%
Billington v Maguire
- Van driver held liable for parking in dual carriageway, hazard lights were on and cyclist crashed into him?
Williams v Univ of Birmingham
- Was asbestos related-injury reasonably foreseeable to the Uni
- Uni owes duty to emplyees
- Case is not settled?
Roe v Minister v Health
- C became paralysed after being injected with anaesthetic which had been contaminated by disinfectant.
Duty of care cases:
Highway Authority -> Road user
Teacher -> Student
Prison officer -> Charges
Gorringe v Calderdale
- D is not liable for C’s negligence, however this contradicts Billington
- Common law duty does not always arise from statutory duty
Carmarthenshire v Lewis
- Schools owe a duty to take care of students
- D negligently let child run onto a road
Reeves v Commissioner of police for the Metropolis
- Police owed a duty to inmate who was effectively to be on suicide watch
- Police negligently left hatch open which was used in the suicide along with the inmates shirt, contributary negligence so damages reduced by 50%
What results in a breach of duty
‘doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do’ – Blyth v Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks
the court of appeal held that the reasonable man could not foresee the extreme weather events and did everything a reasonable man would do in terms of the waterworks, Therefor no breach
Falling below the reasonable objective standard results in a breach.
Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448: an objective, impersonal test
Test for breach is one of Foresight, from D’s perspective
Roe v Ministry of Health [1954]
Test tube had tiny cracks, anaesthetic was contaminated resulting in paralysis. held not liable and checking or tiny cracks had never occurred to anyone before therefore a duty, and breach of that duty cannot be imposed.
The standard for breach is objective
Nettleship v Weston
Lord Denning MR:
The objective standard is applied to both competent and learner drivers alike.
Wilsher v Essex AHA
Jr doctor will be held to the same standard as a fully qualified doctor
Suppressed Standard for breach of duty: Children
McHale v Watson [1966]
Parent sued 12 year old boy for injury he caused parent’s child, the boy was not held liable due to age
Suppressed Standard for breach of duty: Illness
Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd. [1998] 1 WLR 1263.
D was an employee of weetabix, he had a condition that he was unaware of. He was driving and crashed into property. He was not liable as he was unaware of the condition and could not have taken measures to avoid it.
cf Roberts v Ramsbottom
The defendant suffered a stroke whilst driving and knocked into a pedestrian.
The defendant was in breach of duty.
Suppressed standard for breach of duty: Emergencies
Das Intel Ltd. v Manley
‘The same standard of care is not expected of persons faced with emergencies.
Even where the situation allows some time for reflection, but still presents a person with a dilemma, the courts will be prepared to make allowances
Breach pt2: Proving Negligence
A. Probability of Injury
Bolton v Stone
Court found no breach, they thought about likelihood of harm, practical precautions and socially usual services. The cricket ball did not often jump over the fence.
Perry v Harris [2008]
No breach of D does their best in a given scenario
Breach pt2: Proving Negligence
B. Seriousness of Injury
Paris v Stephney BC [1951] AC 367.
C was blind in one eye, during his work metal flew into his good eye and was left fully blind. He sued his employer for not providing safety goggles. Court found there was a breach as he was not an ordinary employee, due to the negligence of his employer he was left blind so the court found there was a breach.
Breach pt2: Proving Negligence
C. Cost of Precautions
Latimer v AEC Ltd.
Cost of closing factory too high
Goldscheider v Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation
Career ending injury, opera house was liable as cost of P was low.
Breach Pt2: Proving Negligence
D. The social value of the activity/conduct
The Compensation Act 2006 s.1
A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in determining whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to whether a requirement to take those steps might—
a. prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way, or
b. discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity.
Watt v Hertfordshire
C, a fireman was injured trying to place equipment on a lorry that was feasible, D, the chief fireman ordered C and others to load the heavy jack onto the van but it fell, injuring C’s leg. He sued D (Fire department)
There was no breach of duty. The emergency of the situation and social value of the defendant’s conduct in saving a life outweighed the need to take precautions.
