negligence Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson
created negligence
Robinson v CCoWY
use for cases where there could be an analogy
Caparo v Dickman
use for novel cases:
1.Would the reasonable person foresee a risk of damage from what D has done?
2.Is there proximity between D and C?
- Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on D?
Jolley v Sutton
There is a duty of care
Bourhill v Young
No duty of care
Blyth v BWC
Defines breach as:
Falling below the standard of care expected from a reasonable person
Nettleship v Weston
inexperience is deemed irrelevant so standard of care expected from D was a reasonable competent and qualified ————
Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC
D would be compared to a reasonably competent professional doing the same thing
Wells v Cooper
compared to a reasonably competent amateur
Mullin v Richards
age can lower the standard of care expected of the defendant
Bolton v Stone
no breach of duty:
-small risk
-takes less precautions
Miller v Jackson
breach of duty:
-risk more likely to occur
-should take more precautions
Paris v SBC
The reasonable man will take more care when the potential harm to C could be serious
Latimer v AEC
The reasonable man will take precautions which are cheap and easy
Watt v HCC
The reasonable man will take a risk if the potential benefit to be gained outweighs the risk
Barnett v Chelsea & KHMC
sets out factual causation, ‘but for’ test.
Reeves v MPC
Legal causation proved
Wilkin-Shaw v Fuller
legal causation not proved
The Wagon Mound
Type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable
Hughes v Lord Advocate
how the damage occurs does not have to be foreseeable
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
How bad the damage gets does not have to be foreseeable
Smith v Leech Brain
egg shell skull rule does not affect causation
The Law Reform (contributory negligence) act 1945 shows that contributory negligence:
damages awarded to the claimant can be reduced depending on the extent to which the claimant contributed to his own injury
Sayers v Harlow UDC
damages can be reduced when C plays a part in the damage
Stermer v Lawson
C must not know there is a general risk, he must know that there is a risk of what happened actually happening
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 cannot exercise free choice
ICl v Shatwell
voluntary acceptance of risk
