Negligence Flashcards
Negligence Steps To success
intro - define neg, C has burden of proof on balance of probabilities, 3 steps
1 - Duty - Robinson 3 ways, statute/ precedent and analogy/ novel situations
2 - Breach - ORP, Special characteristics of D pro/ child/ amateur, Risk factors
3 - Damage - Factual and Legal (remoteness), intervening if relevant
4 - Defences - Contributory negligence, Violenti/consent
Negligence - What is the neighbour principle, what case and judge set it out
Donahue and Stevenson set out Lord Atkins neighbour principle = reasonable care to avoid acts/ omissions that are likely to injure your neighbour
Negligence - Definitions of Foresight, and proximity + case
foresight = can you reasonably foresee someone being affected by act/ omission
proximity = if they have a legal relationship, or if they are close in time and space, - Bourhill = C witnessed aftermath of accident, therefore NO relationship as wasn’t there at the time
Negligence - what is a statutory duty and an example
when an act of parliament creates a duty of care - e.g the road traffic act 1988 makes drivers owe a duty to report accidents
Negligence - what is precedent and analogy and examples
precedent - when a previous case sets out the judgement, Wells V Cooper
analogy - when a similar but not the same previous case sets out judgement
e.g Darnley V NHS
Negligence - What are the steps for novel situations and a case example
1 - foresight
2 - proximity
3 - is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty?
e.g Hill V CCWY - not reasonable as will cause too many cases
Negligence - What is the objective standard used for breach and a case example
if ORP in same situation would do the same thing as D, no breach
Blyth - water hydrant burst, orp would do same so no breach
Negligence - 3 types of special characteristics of D for breach, and cases
professional - Bolam
amateur - Wells V Cooper
child - Orchard V Lee
Negligence - what is the rule and case for a professional D special characteristics?
d Ds conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary competent member of that profession?
Bolam - doctor gave electric shock, no breach as normal procedure
Negligence - what is the rule and case for a learner/ amateur D special characteristics?
held to same standard as reasonably qualified competent person doing same task
Wells V Cooper - fixed own doorknob, C used it and was injured, Breach
Negligence - what is the rule and case for a child D - special characteristics?
expected to reach the standard of a reasonable person of Ds age
Orchard V Lee - children playing injured lunch supervisor, no breach as playing normally for age
Negligence - what are the 4 types of risk factors relating to breach, and their cases
Special characteristics of C - Paris
Size of risk - Haley
Adequate precautions - Latimer
Policy - Watt V Hertfordshire CC
Negligence - what is the rule and case for the special characteristics of C risk factor
a higher standard of care is owed to a more vulnerable C
Paris - blind in one eye, wouldn’t give goggles, blind in both, Breach
Negligence - what is the rule and case for the size of risk - risk factors
a higher risk of injury means a higher standard of care
Haley - only a warning sign for a hole, blind man fell in, breach
Negligence - what is the rule and case for adequate precautions - risk factors
no need to incure expense to eliminate every possible risk, just reasonable safe
Latimer - Spill, multiple signs that C ignored and was injured, no breach.
Negligence - what is the rule and case for policy - risk factors
if there is a public interest, there is a lower standard of care
Watt - firemen had to use old equipment in emergency and injured C, no breach
Negligence - what is the rule and case for factual causation
but for test
Barnett - but for doctors breach of duty, C still would have died
Negligence - what is the rule and case for legal causation
remoteness of damage - only reasonably foreseeable damage can be claimed for
Wagon Mound - oil spill lead to fire, No breach as damage from fire unforseeable
Negligence - what are the 4 intervening acts and 2 cases
Cs own acts - McKew
3rd party
thin skull - Paris
natural
Negligence - what is the rule and case for Cs own acts - NAI
will only break chain if act was unreasonable
McKew - injured leg in work accident, then injured it again when jumping, no claim as C was unreasonable
Negligence - what is the rule for 3rd party and natural events - NAI
only breaks chain if not foreseeable
Negligence - what is the rule and case for thin skull- NAI
take your C as you find them, never breaks chain
Paris - already blind in one eye, then blind in both due to employer.
What are the two possible defences for negligence
Contributory negligence
Consent
What is the rule and case for the defence of contributory negligence
1 - C failed to take care for own safety
2 - failure to take care contributed to damage suffered
Nettleship V Western - C took out learner driver in car and was injured
What is the rule for consent/violenti defences
1 - was c aware of the risk
2 - did c accept the risk freely
