Negligence Flashcards
1
Q
3 elements to prove negligence
A
- owed a duty of care
- breach of that duty
- damage or injury caused by that breach
2
Q
The neighbour principle
A
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- Lord atkin created the neighbour principle
- ‘anyone affected by a defendant’s actions would be classed as a neighbour and owed a DOC’
3
Q
What case modified the neighbour principle resulting in the three-part test?
A
Caparo v Dickman 1990
4
Q
What was the three-part test?
A
- Was damage or harm reasonable foreseeable?
- Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between the c and d?
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
5
Q
Kent v Griffiths 2000
Case for foreseeability
A
- Woman asthma attack, ambulance took 40 mins to arrive without good reason delay caused condition to worsen.
- Ambulance owed care of duty and harm was reasonable foreseeable.
6
Q
Bourhill v Young
Case for proximity
A
- Motorcyclist crashed and died to own recklessness, Mrs B heard crash and later saw blood and claimed shocked caused miscarriage
- Court ruled wasn’t reasonably foreseeable she would’ve been harmed as to the lack of proximity.
7
Q
McLoughlin v O’Brien
Case for proximity
A
- Mrs M hubby and kids in car accident, she wasn’t at scene but later saw them in hospital injured bloody, emotional distress.
- Reasonably foreseeable due to close proximity.
8
Q
Hill v Chief constable of West Yorkshire 1990
Duty
A
- Mom sued police after daughter murdered by Yorkshire ripper, claiming investigation was negligent.
- Police didn’t owe duty to daughter as individuals not reasonably foreseeable she’d be victim.
9
Q
MPC v Reeves 2001
Duty
A
- R prisoner detained in cell he was suicidal but despite police knowing this he managed to hang himself.
- Police owed duty to prevent suicide, however his suicide contributory factor and police liability reduced by 50%.
10
Q
What does Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire prove?
A
- Three-part test isn’t needed if there is a clear past precedent which links to the case being dealt with
11
Q
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
A
- Underwent therapy electronclusive for mental illness, not given muscle relaxants and suffered injuries.
- Hospital not negligent as followed standard practise accepted by responsible body of professionals at the time : Bolam test.
12
Q
Nettleship v Weston 1971
A
- Weston took lessons from Nettle (friends), she lost control and crashed which injured N.
- Weston found liable for negligence regardless of experience she had to be held to the same standard (learner).
13
Q
Mullin v Richards 1998
A
- 2 15yr old girls play fighting w plastic rulers, one snapped and injured M eye, partial blindness.
- R not negligent as children not held to the same standard of care as adults.
14
Q
Factors affecting standard of care
A
- Special charcs
- Risk
- Precautions
- Policy
15
Q
Paris v Stepney borough Council
A
- Mechanic blind in one eye, employer didn’t provide safety goggles, piece of metal injured good eye leaving completely blind.
- Employer negligent as greater risk=greater duty of care.
16
Q
Roe v Minister of Health 1954
A
- R injected w local anaesthetic during surgery, syringe contaminated and he became paralysed, contamination via invisible cracks not detectable.
- Not liable, depends on knowledge available at the time.
17
Q
Factual causation + test
A
- Whether the defendant is the factual reason for the claimants damage or injury
- But for test
18
Q
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital 1969
A
- B went hospital after drinking poison, doc failed to diagnose him and gave no treatment, he later died.
- Not liable, docs negligence doesn’t cause death.
19
Q
The Wagon Mound - legal causation
A
- Ship leaked oil in harbour while docked, it spread to hard caught in fire after workers welding, fire damaged nearby ships including claimants vessel
- not liable, fire not foreseeable as a result of the spill.
20
Q
Eggshell skull rule
A
- Take the victim as you find them
21
Q
Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd 1962
A
- Smith employed by Leech and suffered burn on lip due to molten metal, burn minor but due to previous cancer condition it triggered cancer spread.
- Liable as employer mist take responsibility of the extent of the injury.
