Negligence Flashcards
Donoghue V Stevenson (3)
-duty of care owed
-breach of said duty
-damage suffered by defendant
D V S Lord Atkin quote
‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’
Robinson V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
‘Established legal principle’
Caparo V Dickman (3 stage test)
-foreseeability
-proximity
-fair, just and reasonable
Kent V Griffiths
Foreseeability of damage
Doughty V Turner Manuafacturing
Foreseeability of damage
Bourhill V Young
Proximity of acts in relation to damage suffered
Munroe V London Fire Brigade
Fair, just and reasonable to expect defendant to offer protection from damage
Blyth V Birmingham
‘Reasonable person test’
Nettleship V Weston (2)
-objective standard
-Lord Denning - “the learner driver maybe doing his best, but his incompetent best is not good enough”
Reasonable person test exceptions (Mullins V Richards, Orchard V Lee) (2)
-disability
-age - “careless to a very high degree”
Bolam V Friern County Hospital Management Committee
Higher standard expected of proffessionals in relation to the reasonable person test
Wells V Cooper
Reasonable person test, no recquirement to be perfect
Bolton V Stone
Degree of risk/ likelihood of injury
Latimer V AEC
Cost of precautions
Paris V Stepney
Potential seriousness of injury
Watt V Hertfordshire
Importance of activity
Wagon mound
Type of loss must be foreseeable
Smith V Leech brain
Thin Skull rule
Hughes V Lord Advocate
Type of damage was foreseeable
Doughty V Turner Manuafacturing
Type of damage not foreseeable
Barnett V Chelsea Hospital Management Committee
Was owed duty of care, clearly in breach, however would have died anyway
Scott V Shepherd
No break in chain of causation
Wilsher V Essex Area Health Authority
No allowance made in respect of an inexperienced or trainee doctor
Bolitho V City and Hackney Health Authority
Doctors following an old technique where an improved one exists can still be held liable
Bailey V MOD and Portsmouth NHS Trust
If the claimant receives poor medical care that increases the risk of damage being caused by a following medical carer, the first carer is held liable
Contributory negligence act
The Law Reform act 1945
Sayers V Harlow DC
However much of the blame falls onto the defendant is however much damages will be reduced by
Revill V Newberry
Burglary contributes to injury caused
Yachuk V Oliver
The age of the claimant will be considered when deciding if the defence can be used
Sylvester V Chapman
No immediate danger, conduct can show consent
Wooldridge V Summer
Spectators voluntarily assume a risk of injury, provided players are not reckless or intentional with their behaviour
Smoldon V Whitworth
Where rules are not kept to volenti cannot be used
Haynes V Harwood
Moral duty means that a rescuer has no choice but to take the risk, so does not voluntarily consent
Cutler V United Dairies.
Horse chased down by rescuer in field, no immediate danger so rescuer could not sue
Nichols V Marsland
Act of god cannot be held liable for
Cope V Sharp
If damage is inflicted that prevents further damage the action is seen as reasonable therefore not liable (necessity)
Stanley V Powell
Inevitable accident, all precautions taken, nothing more could be done so not liable
