Negligence Flashcards
Where was DOC first established?
In the case Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
This case established the modern law of negligence.
The modern 3 part test comes from which case?
Caparo v Dickman
What case is for established duty of care?
Robinson v CC South Yorkshire
What is the first part of the Caparo test? Which relevant case
Reasonably foreseeable
Relevant case: Kent v Griffiths
What is the second part of the Caparo test? With relevant case
Legal proximity
Relevant case: King v Phillips
What is the third part of the Caparo test? With relevant case
Fair, just, reasonable
Relevant case: Hill v CC West Yorkshire
What is the first factor of the Caparo test?
Reasonably foreseeable
This examines whether the defendant’s actions were careless and if the injury was a consequence of those actions.
What does the second factor of the Caparo test refer to?
Legal proximity
This involves the space-time relationship between the defendant and the claimant.
Did the d have the c in contemplation when acting.
Neighbour principle (Lord Atkinson)
What is the third factor of the Caparo test known as?
Fair, Just and reasonable
Is the d in the public sector?
If not most likely is fair just and reasonable
What are the four risk factors? and what are the case studies?
-special characteristics of claimant
Paris v Stepney borough council
-Magnitude of risk
Bolton v Stone (precautions)
Miller v Jackson (not enough precautions)
-Cost and practicality of taking precautions
Latimer v AEC ltd
-Social value of the activity
Watt v Hertfordshire county council
What is described as the reasonable man, what is the case to show this?
The reasonable man ‘doesn’t take excessive risks but neither is excessively cautious’
Wells v cooper
What are the three circumstances where the standard of Care owed may be different?
Professionals, children and learners
What are the three cases to prove the standard of care in children, professionals and learners?
Learners: Nettleship v Weston
Professionals: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management committee
Children: Mullin v Richards
What are the three cases to prove the standard of care in children, professionals and learners?
Learners: Nettleship v Weston
Professionals: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management committee
Children: Mullin v Richards
What is the Bolam test?
A test used to determine if a professional has breached their duty of care
The Bolam test assesses whether the actions of a professional fall below the standard of an ordinary competent person in that profession and if there is substantial body of support for the actions taken.
What are the two key questions in the Bolam test?
- Does the standard fall below the standard of an ordinary competent person of that profession?
- Is there any substantial body of opinion that supports the actions taken?
Answer no then yes (no breach of duty)
Answer no and no (breach of duty)
What does res ipsa loquitur stand for?
The thing speaks for itself
What does res ipsa loquitur do?
Reverses the burden of proof onto the defendant
When is red ipsa loquitur used? What is the relevant case?
Used:
1. has to be an accident due to negligence
2. Cause of accident is defendants fault
3. No obvious explanation for the cause
Scott v London St Katherine Docks
Which causation is always proved first?
Factual causation
What does factual causation concern itself with?
The but for test
What is the question in the but for test?
But for the actions of the defendant, would the harm still have occurred
What is the case associated with the but for test?
Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington management committee (1969)
What is legal causation?
Causation in law is whether the claimants may still not be able to win the case if the damage suffered is too remote
What is the case for a remoteness of damage?
The wagon mound (1961)
Why may a defendant still be liable even if the extent of the injury wasn’t foreseen?
What is the relevant case?
Because if there was any type of damage that could’ve foreseeably been caused then the defendant is liable
Hughes v lord advocate (1963)
What is the thin skull rule?
What is the relevant case?
You take your victim as you find them in regard to their physical characteristics
(Has the damage been made worse by a weakness of the claimants health)
Smith v Leech Brain
