Negligence Flashcards
IDEA method for negligence scenario
I- identify possible claims that could be made
D- Definition of relevant tort
E- explain relevant rules
A- apply it to facts
INCLUDE AT LEAST 4 RELEVANT CASES
what is negligence
the failure to do something which the reasonable person would do
what elements are needed for negligence
DUTY OF CARE
BREACH OF DUTY
CAUSATION
Donoghue V stevenson
Snail in bottle of ginger beer dead and decomposing customer was neighbour and forseeable harm could of been caused
three part Caparo test
was damage foreseeable
proximity
fair just and reasonable
Damage reasonably foreseeable
Kent v Griffiths- athsma attack and ambulance didn’t arrive in time- forseeabke
proximity of relationship
bourhill v young- pregnant woman heard crash saw dead person had a still born baby wasn’t within close proximity
is it fair just and reasonable
Hill v Chief constable of west yorkshire- isn’t fair just and reasonable to put a duty on someone with no previous dealings
professionals in negligence
bolam test
does D fall below standard of ordinary member of profession
would a body of opinion agree with action taken
Learners held at same risk as professionals
Nettleship v weston
learned driver struck land post liable
children lower lower standard of care
Mullin v richard’s ruler snapped in eye while sword fight
Risk factors- special characteristics
Paris v Stepney Borough council
had one due not provided goggles made other blind
risk factor- size of risk
Bolton v stone- hit with a cricket ball 100m away not breached duty
risk factor- cost of precautions
Latimer factory slippy slipped over, wasn’t liBle
risk factors- foreseeability of the risk
roe v minister of health, anaesthetic from C to glass became paralysed, did not breach durt
public benefit of taking risk- risk factor
watt v hertfordshire stuck under fire truck broke leg, no breach
factual causation
“but for” test Barnett 3 night watchmen drank tea with arsenic in it, doctors told them to go home and see own doctor, died, was not liable
Remoteness of damage
Wagon mound, wagon leaked oil and set fire to cotton not liable fire damage wasn’t reasonably foreseeable
eggshell skull rule
Smith v Leech brain and co, burnt on lip cancerous condition and died
Defences to negligence
Contributory- claim can be reduced as partial defence
consent- full defence: knew precise risk, exercised free choice and accepted risk
Sayers V harlow
while waiting for bus went to toilet tried to escape locked door stood on toilet roll holder suffered injuries- contributory negligence
Remedies for negligence
Pecuniary loss(special damages) clothes and money,
Non pecuniary loss(general damages) physical
