Negligence Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson
D owes a duty, breaches that duty, and the breach causes damage
Robinson v CCoWY
If a duty has been owed in a similar situation before, a duty should also be applied in this case
Caparo v Dickman
In novel cases we can look at the test:
Was damage reasonably foreseeable?
Was there proximity between C and D?
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose this duty?
Jolley v Sutton
All three stages of Caparo v Dickman were passed
Bourhil v Young
All three stages of Caparo v Dickman were not passed
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
Breach of duty is defined as falling below the standard of a reasonable man
Nettleship v Weston
Shows inexperience does not lower the standard of care
Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC
Shows people acting as professionals will be compared to other professionals
Wells v Cooper
Shows an amateur will be compared to other amateurs
Mullin v Richards
Shows D will be compared to someone of the same age
Bolton v Stone
Shows if the risk is small, D should take less care
Miller v Jackson
Shows if the risk is large, D should take more care
Paris v SBC
The more serious the harm could have been, the more a reasonable person needs to do to prevent this
Paris v Stepney BC
The easier it is to take precautions, the more likely it is D has breached their duty if they fault to take them
Latimer v AEC
Shows that you only have to take practical precautions and nothing unreasonable
Watt v HCC
Shows if the risk is outweighed by a benefit, the reasonable person may take the risk
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
Factual causation is proven through the but for test
Reeves v MPC
Intervening acts of the victim can break the chain of causation if they are unreasonable and unforeseeable
Wilkin-Shaw v Fuller
Intervening acts of a third party can break the chain of causation if they are unreasonable and unforeseeable
The Wagon Mound
Damage will not be remote if the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable
Hughes v Lord Advocate
How the damage happens does not need to be foreseen
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
The extent of the harm does not need to be foreseen
Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd
D must take C as they find them (egg shell skull rule)
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Damages can be reduced if C contributes to the injury
Sayers v Harlow
C’s actions were foolish and reduced the damages awarded
Stermer v Lawson
D must know the precise nature of the risk involved, not just that a risk in general existed
Smith v Baker
Where C is forced into accepting the risk, he has not exercised free choice
Ogwo v Taylor
Where C has a duty to act, they are forced to act and can’t exercise free choice
ICI v Shatwell
D has to voluntarily accept the risk
