Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort > Negligence > Flashcards

Negligence Flashcards

1
Q

Where a defendants actions have created a dangerous situation where it is reasonably foreseeable that someone may attempt a rescue, the defendant owes a duty of care to the rescuer.

A

Baker v Hopkins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson

A

1st test for novel duty of care.
Categories of Negligence are never closed.
Manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of goods.
Neighbour principle: Lord Atkins ‘ you must take reasonable care to avoid omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’.
Neighbour: person closely and directly affected by the act so might reasonably contemplate being affected.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Caparo industries Plc v Dickman

A
  1. Reasonable foresight of harm - Bourhill
  2. Sufficient proximity of relationship
  3. Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty - Bishop Rock Marine Co
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Negligence

A

A breach of a legal duty of care owed to a claimant that results in harm to the claimant, undesired by the defendant.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Stages in Negligence

A
  1. Duty of care? - established or novel, omissions to act, duty to act positively
  2. Breach of duty? - standard of care: reasonable person test, special standards, magnitude of risk, cost and practicality, current state of knowledge.
    Proof in res ipsa loquitur, Civil Evidence Act
  3. Causation - factual causation: “but-for”, all or nothing, material contribution, divisible injury, material increase in risk, multiple injuries
    Intervening Acts: breaking the chain of causation, action of claimant
    Remoteness of Damage: The Wagon Mound (No1), Similar in type, egg shell skull.
  4. Defences - voluntary assumption of risk, illegality, excluding liability, contributory negligence.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Established duties

A
  • Road users
  • Doctor to patient
  • Employer to employee
  • Manufacturer to consumer
  • Tutor to tutee/ teacher to pupil
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bourhill v Young

A

Not foreseeable victim of motorcyclist’s negligence - miscarriage on sight of blood

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine Co. Ltd.

A

Not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty as the society is not for profit. Can deny duty on policy grounds.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Duty of care owed by the police.

A

Hill: do not owe duty to individual as duty is to public at large.
Kirkham: when in custody, police take responsibility for the person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Stovin v Wise

A

No duty for omission to act in general.

Council didn’t repair road junction - > accident - council no duty to alleviate danger

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent and another

A

If do not owe a duty but decide to intervene, it is not a ‘positive negative act’ unless you make matters worse.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Company

A

Duty to act positively

Officers had control of young offenders who escaped and damaged a yacht

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation

A

Owners had no control over vandals who broke in and started a fire. Duty doesn’t extend to keeping so securely locked that vandals can’t get in - idea of reasonableness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Glasgow Coup v Muir

A

BR
The ‘reasonable person’ test.
What a reasonable person would have foreseen, not what the person did foresee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Bolam v Frien Hospital Management Committee

A

BR
Must meet standard of their profession
If D actions supported by a reasonable body of professional opinion then not negligent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

A

BR
Inexperience not relevant consideration.
The junior doctor case
ALSO causation in fact proof: couldn’t show D’s negligence was the cause of blindness as it was one of several possible causes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Wells v Cooper

A

BR
If D does not profess to have a professional skill may not be required to meet professional standard
But must still meet minimum standard required by the task.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Mullin v Richards

A

BR

Child D expected to show care reasonably expected of a child of the same age

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

A

BR
C blind in one eye and D knew this=> injury to other eye far greater consequences than to another person.
If had not been aware it would have been different standard
- magnitude of risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Latimer v AEC Ltd

A

BR Cost vs practicality of precaution

Decision not to close large part of factory reasonable as small risk of injury but large cost of closure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

A

BR
Firemen carrying a heavy jack to rescue a woman.
If human life is at stake D may be justified in taking abnormal risks
BUT not authority for taking any risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Fardon v Harcourt Rivington

A

BR
Dog broke care window and blinded someone
Reasonable, not fantastic possibilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co

A

BR - proof
3 conditions for res ipsa loquitur:
1. Thing causing damage under control of D or someone whom D is responsible for
2. Accident wouldn’t happen without negligence
3. Cause of accident unknown by C
D then must provide a reasonable explanation of how accident can have occurred without negligence. Evidence for: - how accident actually happened OR show at all times used reasonable care.

24
Q

Civil Evidence Act 1968

A

BR - proof
s11 a D who has been convicted of a criminal offence is presumed, in subsequent civil proceedings to have committed that offence e.g. driving without due care and attention

25
Q

“But - for”

A

Causation in fact

But for the D’s breach of duty, would the harm to the C have occurred?

26
Q

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

A

Arsenic poisoning

Even if doctor had treated him he would have died.

27
Q

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw

A

Causation proof in fact material contribution approach

Where multiple causes all contribute to harm. Must show material contribution to harm, not main cause.

28
Q

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

A

Court power to apportion damage between Ds where multiple Ds present.
But where one or more liable for same damage, each D is liable to C in full.
e.g. in Holtby - asbestos case. Apportioned damages to be paid according to length of time C had worked there.

29
Q

Material increase in risk - factual causation

A

Exception to rules of causation - confined to cases of scientific uncertainty (Seinkeiwicz) - mesothelioma
Fairchild - each employer liable to whole then Barker - risk is divisible.
Compensation Act 2006 - for this issue each D liable for whole of C’s harm

30
Q

Performance Cars v Abraham

A

Factual causation
Second person to crash into same part of car.
Where C has already suffered damage, a later D who causes subsequent injury can only be liable to the extent that he makes C’s damage worse.

31
Q

Scott v Shephard

A

NAI
Threw firework away from him in a crowd
Instinctive intervention doesn’t break the chain

32
Q

Stansbie v Troman

Lamb v Camden LBC

A

NAI - reckless/intentional act
D (decorator) left house unlocked => burglary
Relationship between parties important as had impliedly taken responsibility.
No break in chain
Opposite for Lamb - left empty whilst being repaired =>squatters. D not liable for their damage

33
Q

Knightly v Johns

A

NAI - neg action of 3rd party

Did break chain as D cannot have foreseen the action of a police inspector.

34
Q

Rahman v Arearose

A

Negligence of hospital in making injury worse didn’t break the chain of causation between employer and psychiatric injury. Foreseeable that will need hospital treatment and all the risks involved.
Damages apportioned between employer and hospital.

35
Q

McKew
vs
Wieland

A

NAI act of Claimant
C weakened leg and descended stairs with no handrail and fell.
Had acted unreasonably and so had broken chain
Wieland had to wear neck brace and fe\ll down stairs but had acted reasonably.

36
Q

Is damage of a kind that a reasonable person would have foreseen?

A

The Wagon Mound (No1) - is the damage of such a kind that a reasonable person would have foreseen it?
Similar in type
Egg-Shell Skull

37
Q

Hughes v L-A

A

Similar in type rule
Post Office
Provided type of injury reasonably foreseeable, it is not necessary to foresee the way in which injury is caused

38
Q

Robinson v Post Office

A

Egg-shell skull
Adverse reaction to medical treatment - could reasonably foresee medical treatment so D liable for full damage.
Must take C as you find him

39
Q

Voluntary assumption of risk

A

Defense
Nettleship - had full knowledge of nature and extent of risk. Willingly consented to accept the risk
ALSO BR no allowance for inexperience of driver
CN: instructor had partial control of the car

40
Q

Road Traffic Act 1988

A

Any acceptance of risk by passenger in motor vehicle is invalid - volenti cannot be relied on

41
Q

Dann v Hamilton
vs
Morris v Murray

A

Voluntary AR Defense
Knowledge not sufficient to imply consent to risk.
Morris: pilot so obviously drunk, did assume risk voluntarily

42
Q

Haynes v Harwood

A

Rescuers voluntary assumption of risk unlikely. -policeman acted under compulsion.

43
Q

Pitts v Hunt

A

Defense of illegality.
Reckless driving inherent part of joint criminal enterprise.
Where character of enterprise as such impossible to determine standard of care.

44
Q

Froom v Butcher

A

Seatbelt example of CN
Injuries would have been avoided: decrease 25%
Would have been less severe: 15%
Would have made no difference: 0%
Must have causal link
Has been applied to other safety precautions e.g. crash helmets.

45
Q

Gough v Thorne

A

CN:

Would an ordinary child of his or her age have taken more care?

46
Q

Baker

A

CN:
Standard of reasonable rescuer
Only if shown wholly unreasonable disregard for own safety.

47
Q

Jones v Boyce

A

CN:
C injured when trying to save themselves.
Must be reasonable response to the danger.

48
Q

St George v Home Office

A

Prisoner drug addiction and placed in top bunk -> severe injury.
Whilst C had been at fault for becoming addicted to drugs which he would reasonably see could damage his health, the fault was too far removed from the accident - the cause was prison staff negligence.
Also would not have been just and equitable to reduce damages for CN in this case.

49
Q

Gray v Thames Trains

A

Injured in rail crash -> PTSD and personality change -> stabbed someone to death and manslaughter conviction.
D accepted liability for before the stabbing.
Illegality defense.

50
Q

Lewis v Carmarthenshire

A

Established duty of care owed by adults in loco parentis

51
Q

Jolley v Sutton

A

Children can be expected to mimic adult behaviour in play.

52
Q

Mansfield v Weetabix

A

BR
D had an illness that he wasn’t aware of which caused him to drive into C’s shop.
Judge held cannot be expected to take extra care when he didn’t know about the illness - held to standard of reasonable drive unaware of condition.
IF he had known he should take extra care.

53
Q

Hotson v E Berkshire Health Authority

A

Causation in fact proof
must show “more likely than not”
75% of injury from fall from tree - would have been the same irrespective of diagnosis and treatment => no negligence

54
Q

Rouse v Squires

A

NAI - negligent intervention of 3rd party?
Lorry jacknifed
Even though other lorry not noticing act was negligent didn’t break the chain
Foreseeable other drivers may come along and not look properly/too fast

55
Q

Roe v Ministry of Health

A

Judged by standard of information available at time of event.

Tort (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions