Negligence 2 Flashcards
Which case established the neighbour principle?
Donoghue v Stevenson
What is the neighbour principle?
The principles that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen as likely to injure one’s neighbour.The principle is used to assess whether a duty is owed in a new situation where the claimant has suffered injury or loss.
What must a Claimant prove to establish a claim in negligence?
-that they were owed a duty of care by the defendant
-that the Defendant had breached their duty of care
-that the Claimant suffered damage caused by the Defendant
What is the Robinson approach?
Defined in Robinson v CC West Yorkshire, this is the idea that you can look at existing precedent when deciding whether a duty of care exists and is owed.
What is the first stage of the Caparo Test?
Was the harm reasonably foreseeable?
What is the second stage of the Caparo Test?
Was there sufficient proximity?
What is the third stage of the Caparo Test?
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
Explain what happened in Kent V Griffiths.
C suffered a severe asthma attack and the ambulance did not arrive promptly with no good reason, it was reasonably foreseeable that the Claimant’s condition would worsen if the ambulance failed to arrive on time.
How do the courts decide if there is a breach of duty?
They must (1) compare D’s conduct with the standard of care expected from a reasonable person and (2) consider the risk factors which may raise or lower that standard of care.
What happened in the case of Paris v Stepney?
A welder, who was already blind in one eye, was not given safety goggles and suffered an injury, which left him completely blind. The fact he was already blind in one eye means the standard of care expected from the employer was higher.
Why was the standard of care higher in Paris v Stepney?
Because the risk of him becoming fully blind was greater than the other employees, because he was already blind in one eye.
What is the test for factual causation?
The “but for” test, but for D’s act or omission would the claimant have suffered damage.
What is the test for legal causation?
The idea that the Claimant must be claiming for types of loss that are a reasonably foreseeable result of the Defendants breach.
Key case for Factual causation
Seen in, Chester v Afshar, where a doctor failed to warn patients about risks involved in back surgery. But for, the doctors failure to warn, C would not have had surgery and suffered injury. Factual causation was established.
Key case for legal causation
Seen in the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate, where D left an unguarded manhole surrounded by lamps, a young boy knocked them over and ended up being burned in an explosion. His claim succeeded because burn injuries caused by an unattended lamp are reasonably foreseeable.
What are the 2 defences to a claim in negligence?
Contributory negligence, consent
What is the consent defence?
this defence is based on the idea that if the Claimant has voluntarily agreed to a risk of harm with full knowledge of the risk, then he or she cannot complain when they do suffer injury. (complete defence - if successful Claimant will receive no damages)
What is the defence on contributory negligence?
this defence is where the Defendant alleges that the Claimant has partially caused or contributed to the damage.
What is the remedy sought in a negligence action and what are the 2 types?
Damages, the two types being special damages and general damages.
What is a special damages remedy?
This includes pre-trial expenses, like medical or travel expenses, and loss of property.
What is a general damages remedy?
This includes post-trial losses, which includes financial and non-financial losses, although the court can only compensate for them in a financial way. Includes : future losses (future medical care, future loss of earnings), pain and suffering, loss of amenity(things Claimant used to enjoy like a sport), specific injuries.
