Negligence Flashcards
the elements of a claim- duty,breach,causation,remoteness case law
‘neighbour test’ for duty of care
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]- foreseeability test
‘proximity and neighbourhood’ test for duty of care
Anns v Merton LBC [1978]
current test for novel situations for duty of care
Caparo [1990]- a response to the previously expansionist approach to liability, critisised as being unjust to defendants in the 70s/80s
examples of policy considerations + relevant case law
defensive practices- Marc Rich [1995]
floodgates and fraudulent claims- Alcock [1992]
police are not immune to liability for negligence
Robinson [2018]
the last element of the Caparo Test- fairness is capable of being manipulated to produce desired outcomes- case law; think-police case
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire
no duty for omissions- the general rule
Smith v Littlewoods[1987]; Stovin v Wise [1996]
why is there no liability for omissions- justification
it would be an invasion of a person’s freedom- Stovin v Wise [1996]
control imports responsibility for the acts of a 3rd Party
Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970]; Lewis [1955]
Liability may arise when negligently creating a source of danger
Haynes v Harwood [1935]
Foreseeability of harm alone is insufficient to establish duty of care
Mitchelll v Glasgow City Council [2009]
the ‘reasonable man’ case
Blyth [1856]
high magnitude of mischief
Paris v Stepney BC [1951]
RES IPSA LOQUITER
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks [1865]
a medical professional will not be in breach of their duty of care if they acted in a manner which was in accordance with practices accepted as proper by a responsible body of other medical professionals
Bolam [1957]
failure to disclose risks to a patient is negligent
Montgomery [2015]
road users case
nettleship v weston [1971]
remoteness case
Wagon Mound [1961]
‘but for test’- fatual causation
Barnett [1969];Cork [1952]
cumulative multiple causes of injury
Bonnington; McGhee- substantial increase in risk of injury
independent multiple causes
Wilsher v Essex- no liability!
mesothelioma case law
Fairchild
Fairchild exception is rarely applied, but…
Sienkiewicz- here there was one tortfeasor exposing to asbestos + environmental exposure
what is a somewhat alterative to the but for test?
NESS test
multiple sufficient causes- tort+tort
Baker v Willoughly- extended liability!
multiple sufficient causes- tort+natural
Jobling- no extended liability!
4 potential breaks to the chain of legal causation
-Acts by the Claimant
-Medical negligence, which is palpably wrong
-3rd Party acts- not connected to the defendant
-Natural Events- Humber Oil v Sivand
Acts by the Claimant may be divided into being reasonable and unreasonable- give examples
reasonable- Wieland- C fell down the stairs- no break in chain
unreasonable- McKew- went against doctor’s advice- breaks the chain of causation
thin skull rule
Smith v Leech Brain
Eggshell personality
Corr v IBC Vehicles
thin wallet rule
Lagden v O’Connor
a comparisson of the broad and narrow classification of remoteness
Jolley v Sutton [2000]
what is the broad classification in remoteness + case law
‘precise injury need not be foreseeable’- Bradford
what is the narrow classification in remoteness + case law
Tremain- the type of damage must be foreseen
How do the courts choose, which classification approach to apply? give 2 contrasting cases
Hartwell [2000]- depending on circumstances
Camden [1981]- on an instinctive feeling
give an example of policy concerns- for and against
for- loss allocation, justice, maintaining high standards
against- opening floodgates, defensive practices
one is likely to be found liable for breach of duty if they deliberately evaded a common practice
Re Herald [1987]
What is the balancing exercise, when assessing whether D has fallen below the standard of care?
likelihood of harm v magnitude of harm
cost and practicality of precautions v utility of D’s actions
no awareness of disability will exclude breach of duty
Mansfield [1998]
creating a dangerous situation may mean liability for omissions, but courts are reluctant to impose
Topp [1993]
sports/competitions injury cases- low success rate for claimants
Hall [1933]; Browning [2014]
unfortunate side effect of medical operation
Thefaut v Johnson [2017]
in emergency situations rescuers are allowed to make errors- reasonable man
Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954]
careless causing of harm when rescuing does fall below the standard of care expected
Ward v London CC [1938]
3 requirements of Res Ipsa Loquiter
-such an act does not occur without negligence- George v Eagle Air Services Ltd
-exclusive control of D
-no other plausible explanation- unlike in the case of Ng Chun Pui [1988]
negligent medical treatment is treated like any NIA - recent case
Jenkinson [2023]
driver’s standard of care is not IDEAL
Stewart v Glaze [2009]
