Negligence Flashcards
3 factors for negligence
1) Duty of Care
2) Breach of duty
3) Damages
Neighbour Principle
Was seen as too broad
(Donoghue v stevenson)
Establishing a duty of care
There is no definitive test for duty of care but (Robinson v CCWY) established that the courts should look at existing statute/precedent
Novel situations
3 stage test / incremental approach (Caparo v dickman)
1) was the damage or loss foreseeable? (Kent v Griffiths)
2) was there sufficient proximity in terms of time, space or relationship between wrongdoer and the claimant? (Bourhill v young)
3) is it just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? (Hill v CCWY)
Standard of care
Objective test
Has the defendants standard of care fallen below that of a reasonable person. (Vaughen v menlove)
Special characteristics
Professionals (Bolam v Friern hostpital)
Learner (Nettleship v weston)
Age (Mullins v richards)
Amateur (Wells v cooper)
5 Risk factors
- Standard of care SERIOUSNESS OF HARM (Paris v SBC)
- Probability of harm DEGREE OF RISK (Bolton v stone)
- Practicality of taking precautions RISK V COST (Latimer v AEC)
- Risks known at the time (Roe v MOH)
- Benefits of the risk (watt v herts CC)
Factual causation
“But for” test (Barnett v chelsea)
Legal causation
Was the injury or damage suffered reasonably foreseeable?
Has there been an intervening act (Break in the chain of causation)
Intervening acts
- Caused by the claimant (mckew v holland)
- Caused by nature (Carslogie steamship co v royal norwegian gov)
- caused by a third party (knightly v johns)
Too remote
Wagon mound case
Thin skull principle
Smith v leech brain
Defences
- Volenti non fit injuria
- Contributory negligence: reduction in damages (law reform ,contributory negligence, act) (sayers v harlow)
Remedies
Compensatory damages
Mitigation of loss
