Negligence Flashcards
What is negligence?
Negligence is where a person owes another a duty of care, breaches that duty and as a result of his or her breach causes damage to the other; To which the other may claim damages in personal injury and property damage.
What is duty of care?
Duty of care establishes a legal relationship between C and D where in D will be liable for any damage sustained to C as a result of D’s breach of this duty.
What are the three elements of negligence?
- Duty of care
- Breach of duty
- Damage caused by breach
What does the case of DvS tell us?
It gives us the neighbour principle: ‘anyone you ought to have in mind who might potentially be injured by your act or omission’
What does the case of Caparo tell us?
Establishes a duty of care owed by D to C in novel cases, through the Caparo test:
1. Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
2. Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between C and D?
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
What does the case of Kent and Griffiths tell us?
A duty of care will only exist where a reasonable person could foresee that damage or injury could be caused to another person by their actions or omissions.
What does the case of Bourhill and Young tell us?
A duty of care will only exist where the relationship between C and D is sufficiently close and proximate; They must be close in time and space.
What does the case of McLoughlin tell us?
A duty of care extends to those who come within the immediate aftermath of the event, where C is related to V.
What does the case of Hill tell us?
A duty of care will only exist where it is fair, just and reasonable to impose this duty.
What does the case of Robinson tell us?
Where a duty of care is owed in an analogous case, a duty will be owed in this case.
What constitutes a breach of duty of care?
Where D fails to reach the required standard of care.
What is the ordinary standard of care?
The standard of an untrained, ordinary person performing the task competently.
What does the case of Bolam tell us?
Professionals are judged by the standard of the profession as a whole.
Two questions will be asked:
1) Does D’s conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary, competent, member of that profession.
2) Is there a substantial body of opinion within that profession that would support the course of action taken by D?
What does the case of Nettleship tell us?
Learners are judged at the standard of the competent, more experienced person.
What does the case of Mullin tell us?
For children and young people, the standard is that of a reasonable person of D’s age at the time of the accident.
What does the case of Paris tell us?
Where C has special characteristics that D is aware of, the standard of care may be increased.
What does the case of Bolton tell us?
Where the size of risk is small, it is unlikely that there is a breach of duty.
What does the case of Haley tell us?
Where there is a higher risk of injury, the standard of care may be increased.
What does the case of Latimer tell us?
The courts will consider the balance of the risk involved against the cost and effort of taking adequate precautions to eliminate the risk.
What does the case of Roe tell us?
If the risk of harm is unknown, there can be no breach.
What does the case of Watt tell us?
If there is an emergency then greater risks can be taken and a lower standard of care can be accepted.
What does the case of Barnett tell us?
Demonstrates the ‘but for’ test:
But for D’s act or omission, the injury or damage would not have occurred.
What does the case of The Wagon Mound tell us?
For D to have breached his or her duty of care, the damage must not be too remote from the acts or omissions of D.
What does the case of Hughes tell us?
For D to have breached his duty of care, the type of injury must be foreseeable, the precise way it happens need not be foreseeable.
What does the case of Leech Brain tell us?
Illustrates the eggshell skill rule:
D must take C as he or she finds them.
What is res ipsa loquitur?
Where C does not know
