Negligence Flashcards
To prove someone has been Negligent what is needed to be proven?
- D owed C a duty of care
- D breached that duty of care
- D’s Breach caused C’s damage which was not too remote
Where is Negligence defined?
Donogoughue v Stevenson
What test is used in new and novel situations of negligence?
Duty of care
The Caparo test
What case is used when a duty of care has been proven in a similar case?
Duty of care
Robinson v CCoWY*
*C cowie
What are the 3 stages of the Caparo test?
Duty of care
- Damage to C must be reasonable and forseeable
- There must be a proximity in: relationship, or in time and space between C and D
- It must be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on D
Case law that completes the caparo test?
Duty of care
Jolley v Sutton
Case law that fails the caparo test?
Duty of care
Bourhil v Young
Where is breach of duty defined, and what is it defined as?
Breach of duty
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks - A breach is where D falls below the standard of care expected
Case law for inexperience
Breach of duty
include LP in ur answer
Nettleship v Weston - Inexperience doesn’t lower the standard of care
Case law for comparison to fellow professionals
Breach of duty
Bolam v Frien Barnet HMC - Being a professional can raise the standard of care. When D actually has the skills or is acting as if D has the skills.
Case law for comparison to reasonable man
Breach of duty
Wells v Cooper - Lowers the standard of care as D is compared to the reasonable man.
As D isn’t acting as a professional
Case law for Age
Breach of duty
Mullin v Richards - Age can lower the standard of care to a reasonable child of the same age.
What are the 4 risk factors?
- Size of risk
- Seriousness of potential harm
- Practicability of precautions
- Benefits of taking risks
Smelly Socks Pong Badly
Case law for small risk of harm
Size of Risk
Bolton v Stone - If the risk of harm happening is low the reasonable man would take less precautions
Case law for large risk of harm
Size of Risk
Miller v Jackson - If the risk of harm happening is high the reasonable man would take more precautions
Case law for Seriousness of potential harm
Paris v SBC - The reasonable man will take more care when the potential harm to C is serious
Case law for Practicability of precautions
Latimer v AEC - the reasonable man will take precautions proportionate to the size and seriousness of potential harm.
Case law for Benefits of taking a risk
Watt v HCC - The reasonable man will take risks if the benefit outhweighs the risk.
What does Damage require the proof of?
- Factual causation
- Remoteness of Damage
Where is Factual causation shown?
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC
What case doesn’t break the CoC?
Chain of Causation
Reeves v MPC
What case breaks the CoC
Wilkin-Shaw v Fuller
What are the 3 elements that need to be proven for D to have not been too remote from the damage?
Type of damage - Needs to be R&F
How the damage happened - doesnt need to be R&F
Extent of the damage - doesnt need to be R&F
R&F = reasonable and forseeable
Case law for type of damage
The Wagon Mound - The type of damage suffered by C must be R&F
