Negligence Flashcards
give the 5 potential risk factors
- special characteristics
- risk size
- appropriate precautions taken
- risks known
- publc benefit to taking the risk
what are intervening events
novus actus interveniens- an intervening act breaks the chain of causation
define unknown risks
harm not known-no breach (Roe 1954)
define risk size
if its a high risk then std of care is higher- Haley v London electricity board 1965- C was blind and couldn’t read warning signs about the trench)
lower risk then unlikely breach of duty therefore std of care is lower- Bolotn v stone 1951
what is the legal point from the case
whoever you should reasonably have in your mind in regards to the act or omission taking place- Lord Atkin
what is the legal rule in tort known as take your victim as you find him
the eggshell skull rule- illustrated in Smith v Leech Brain and CO 1962
where does the three part test established
caparo 1990
three parts to caparo test (when proving DOC)
damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
proximate relationship between C and D
fair just and reasonable
fair just and reasonable- define (3)
must consider whether the law ought to set out a DOC on that person. ie Hill v chief constable of West Yorkshire (1990- not fair as doc to every person in the UK?)
Define breach of duty
Objective test- that of the reasonable person. professionals judged by that of a prof (Bolam 1957- two separate clauses does Ds conduct fall below the stnd of an ordinary competent mem of that profession and is there a substantial body of opinion that would support the course of action?) earners are judged to std of a more experienced person (nettleship v Weston 1971) and children judged by children of the same age (Mullins v Richards 1998)
2.) define close relationship
duty or care only exists if the C and D are proximately close (bourhill v young 1943- no claim as motorcyclists couldn’t have anticipated damage to a witness of an accident. Mclouglin v Obrien (1982)- claim as saw family before treatment
define public benefit
if an emergency then grater risks can be taken and std f care lower- Watt 1954
define factual causation
starting point, must be proved to have legal considered. But for test- Barnett 1969
define res ipsa loquitur
when the burden of proof shifts to the D if the C has proved that
- D was in control of the situation which caused injury
-accident would not have happened w/o negligence
-no other explanation of the injury.
as demonstrated in Scott v London and st Katherine docks 1865
define proving that that breach caused that damage
must prove the legal and factual cause of the damage caused.
define special characteristics
something where someone should have taken extra care due to special things about C ie Paris v Stepney 1951- D was blind and should have been given eyewear to protect other eye
in what case was the neighbour principle established
Donaghue v stevenson 1932
what is the legal cause determined by
remoteness of damage- wagon mound 1961. D will be liable if the type of injury is foreseeable even if the way it happens is not (Hughes 1963) and even if the injury is a more severe version of the reasonably foreseeable one (Bradford v Robinson rentals 1967)
define appropriate precautions taken
balance or risk involved against adequate precautions taken- Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953- NL as sufficient steps taken
1.) damage or H RF?- define
where a reasonable person should forsee the damage (Kent v Griffiths 2000)
