Negligence Flashcards
Negligence explanation
First created in Donoghue v Stevenson
What does Donoghue v Stevenson teach
D owes a duty of care to c
Owes a duty of care to anyone closely or directly affected by your actions
What 3 things prove negligence
- defendant owed the claimant a duty of care
- defendant breached that duty of care
- and this causes the claimant to suffer foreseeble damage which was not too remote
Examples of negligence
- faulty product
- slip and fall
- food poisoning
Medical and practice
What test was used to decide if d owes a Duty of Care
Caparo test
What is the ‘Caparo test’ used for?
To decide if D owes a duty of care
In Robinson v CCoWY what did the Supreme Court decide
- if a duty has been proven to exist in a similar situation the court should follow that existing precedent
- only in a new/novel situation should the Caparo test be used to help decide if a duty of care should be owed
If the scenario is novel what test do we use and from what case
Caparo test
Caparo v Dickman
3 things applied to caparo test
1) would the reasonable person foresee a risk of damage
2) is there proximity (a connection between D and C ) wither can be through physical closeness (being in the same place at the same time) or through a relationship (either a relationship where c was dependant on D, or D had knowledge of Cks situation)
3) is it fair,just and reasonable to impose a duty to D
( this is presumed to be true unless there are good reasons d shouldn’t be liable)
1st thing that should be applied in Caparo test
would the reasonable person foresee a risk of damage
2nd thing that should be considered in the caparo test
is there proximity (a connection between D and C ) wither can be through physical closeness (being in the same place at the same time) or through a relationship (either a relationship where c was dependant on D, or D had knowledge of Cks situation)
3rd thing that should be considered in the caparo test
3) is it fair,just and reasonable to impose a duty to D
( this is presumed to be true unless there are good reasons d shouldn’t be liable)
What happens after the claimant has established that the defendant owed a duty of care
It must be proved that D has breached that duty
According to Blythe v Birmingham waterworks do (1957)
D does not do something a reasonable man would do or does something a reasonable would not do
What is an alternative definition for breach
D has fallen below the standard of care expected of a reasonable man person performing an activity concerned
Factors affecting “the reasonable man” and standard of care expected
Inexperience
Age
Profession
Nettleship v Weston
The court held that standard of care to be expected from d was that of a reasonable driver
Inexperience - does not lower the standard of care, D will be compared to a reasonable competent man
