Negligence Flashcards
What are the three points need to be proven to win a case in negligence?
- Duty of care owed
- Breach
- Damage
What did D v S Lord Atkin state?
You must take reasonable care to avoid or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
Case: 2 police officers knocked over and injured 78 year old, whilst arresting a drug dealer
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
Why did the Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police not need to go through the Caparo 3 stage test?
There is an ‘established legal principle’.
What 3 things are needed to establish a Duty of care owed?
- Foreseeability
- Proximity
- Fair, just and reasonable
Case for foreseeable to establish Duty of Care owed
Kent v Griffiths-
Ambulance didn’t respond to 3 calls. Baby lost.
Foreseeable that the delay caused the death
Case for proximity(closeness) to establish Duty of Care owed
Bourhill v Young
Bourhill pregnant- cyclist causes crash and dies- off the bus and walked down the road- lead to a miscarriage
Can’t sue Youngs estate as it was not proximate in time and space.
Case for Fair, Just and Reasonable to establish a Duty of Care owed
Munroe v London Fire Brigade
Emergency services not held liable for their omissions but only their acts
Here they didn’t check neighbouring premises so no DOC owed
What case introduced the ‘reasonable person’ test (Breach)
Blyth v Birmingham
(Expected to be reasonably competent at any task they are performing)
What case for: “his incompetent best is not good enough” ( breach)
Nettleship v Weston
Driving lesson
What two things does the reasonable person test accept lower standards (breach).
- Disability
- Age-
Orchard v Lee
13 year old playing tag and ran into supervisor
‘Careless to a very high degree’
Who does the reasonable person test accept higher standards for?
Professionals.
Wells v Cooper- carpenter
What 4 factors does a judge consider when deciding if the conduct was reasonable
- Degree of risk
- Cost of precautions
- Potential seriousness of injury
- Importance of the activity
The degree of risk involved- when deciding whether the defendants conduct was reasonable
Bolton v Stone
Cricket- unlikely
Cost of precaution- when deciding whether the defendants conduct was reasonable
Latimer v AEC
Ensured safety
Didn’t close factory as cost would be huge
Not liable
Importance of the activity or social utility-when deciding whether the defendants conduct was reasonable
Watt v Hertfordshire
Firemen injured by unsecured weapon
Not liable as emergency service
In order to sue in negligence you need to prove two things
- Legal causation
- Factual causation
Damage/Loss suffered- Legal causation (Remoteness of damage)-case
The Wagon Mound
Oil damage was foreseeable but the fire damage wasn’t.
Thin skull test- could be liable.
Damage/Loss suffered- factual causation- case.
But for test
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Management Committee
Hospital owed him a DOC, so we’re in breach, but he would have died anyway.
Not liable
What does the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 state?
Anyone partly responsible for their own harm may still succeed in a claim, but their damages will be reduced by a percentage for which they are to blame.
This act establishes contributory negligence as a partial defence, meaning liability is not completely negated.
In Sayers v Harlow DC, what percentage of blame was assigned to Mrs. Sayers?
25%
Mrs. Sayers was found partly to blame for her injuries after failing to wait for help when locked in a bus garage toilet.
What was the outcome of Revill v Newberry regarding contributory negligence?
The would-be burglar’s claim failed due to his contribution to the negligence.
The claimant entered the defendant’s land intending to steal, which contributed to the incident.
How does the age of a child affect the use of contributory negligence as a defence?
A child must be reckless to a very high degree for their age for the defence to be successful.
This takes into account the child’s ability to appreciate risks.
In Yachuk v Oliver, why did the defence of contributory negligence fail?
The 9-year-old could not be expected to fully appreciate the dangers of gasoline.
The company was negligent for selling gasoline to a minor.
What does ‘Volenti Non Fit Injuria’ mean?
No injury to he who consents.
This principle states that if a claimant voluntarily consents to a risk, they cannot sue for damages.
What is an example of consent in the context of Volenti Non Fit Injuria?
A boxer getting into a ring consents to being punched.
This illustrates that participation in certain activities may imply acceptance of inherent risks.
What happened in Sylvester v Chapman regarding consent?
The claimant jumped into a leopard’s cage to extinguish a cigarette and was mauled, with his claim failing due to consent.
Since there was no immediate danger, he was found to have consented to the risk.
In Wooldridge v Sumner, what was determined about spectators at sporting events?
Spectators voluntarily assume the risk of harm caused by players, provided the players are not reckless or intentional in their actions.
This establishes a level of acceptance of risk inherent in attending such events.
What was the outcome of Smoldon v Whitworth regarding the use of volenti?
The defence of volenti failed because the rules were not kept to during the match.
An injury occurred when the scrum collapsed, contrary to the established rules.
What is the legal term for the concept that a person cannot claim damages if they voluntarily assumed the risk?
Volenti
This principle is often invoked in cases involving injuries sustained during voluntary activities.
In Haynes v Harwood, what was the reason the defendant’s plea of volenti failed?
Emergency situation and moral duty to rescue
The claimant, an off-duty police officer, acted to prevent harm to others.
What was the outcome of Cutler v United Dairies regarding the application of volenti?
Volenti applied; owner not liable
The claimant was injured while trying to recapture a horse that was not causing immediate risk.
Define ‘Act of God’ in legal terms.
Severe, unanticipated natural event
It usually involves extraordinary weather events for which no human is responsible.
What case is associated with the definition of ‘Act of God’?
Nichols v Marsland
The case involved flooding caused by an extreme thunderstorm, leading to the defendant not being held liable.
What are some less likely general defences in tort law?
Necessity and inevitable accident
These defences are used in specific situations where actions taken can be justified.
What does the necessity defence allow a person to do?
Take action to prevent a greater evil
This allows for reasonable actions taken in emergencies.
In Cope v Sharp, what action did the defendant take during the fire?
Destroyed vegetation to prevent fire spread
The court found this action reasonable and the defendant was not liable.
What is the key characteristic of an ‘inevitable accident’?
Reasonable precautions taken, yet accident occurs
This defence applies when all reasonable measures are in place but an accident still happens.
What was the ruling in Stanley v Powell regarding liability for the ricochet bullet?
Defendant not liable
The court held that reasonable precautions had been taken by the defendant.
