Negligence^ Flashcards
Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks
Introduction to negligence
failing to do something that the reasonable person would do or doing something the reasonable person would not do
In Court
they have to prove fault on a balance of probablilities
burden of proof is on the claimant
its civil so a judge decides
Elements
Duty of Care
Breach of Duty
Damaged Caused
Donoghue V Stevenson
the neighbour principle
you must take care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour
Neighbour Definition
someone that is so closely and directly affected by your act that you reasonably ought to have them in contemplation
Caparo V Dickman
reasonably foreseable
proximity
fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
Kent V Griffiths
reasonably foreseable
Bourhill V Young
proximity
Hill V West Yorkshire Police
was it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
Robinson V West Yorkshire Police
caparo test is not meant to be rigid
only used in new situations
otherwise follow previous precedent
Breach of Duty
objective test
Nettleship V Weston
learners compared to the standard of care of the reasonable experienced person
Mullin V Richards
child is judged against the standard of a child of the same age
Orchard V Lee
supports Mullin V Richards
more recent case
Bolan V Frier Barnet Hospital
you have to meet the standard of the competent professional
Montgomery V Lanarshire Heath Board
have to take account of risk factors to decide if there has been a breach
higher the risk = higher the care required
Risk Factors
sometimes risks have to be taken
tell us if the standard of care should be higher or lower
Paris V Stepney Council
special characteristics
magnitude of risk
Bolton V Stone
likelihood of risk
compare the size of risk to how easy it is to prevent it
Latimer V AEC Ltd
D tried to avoid it / make adequete precations so not negligent
Roe V Minister of Health
unknown risks
D are not expected to prevent it if they didn’t know about the risk
Day V High Performance Sport
in an emergency, a lower standard of care can be accepted if acted quickly
Causation For Damaged Caused
damaged was caused because of the breach
Barnet V Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
not the factual cause, even if D breached their duty of care
but for D’s breaching his duty of care, the V would still have died
Intervening Events
was the injury a foreseeable consequence of the original negligent act or omission
McKew V Hollands
new intervening act can be an act of a claimant
Carslogie Steamship Co
new intervening act can be an act of nature
Knightly V Johns
new intervening act can be an act of a third party
The Eggshell Skull Rule
take your victims as you find them
injury has to be foreseeable, but the weakness makes it worst
- still liable
The Wagon Mound
remoteness of damage
damage is too remote, so can’t claim for damage that was not reasonable foreseeable
