Negligence Flashcards
What are the 3 things that must be proved to show that someone has been negligent?
- D owed a duty of care
- D breached that duty of care
- D’s breach caused the damage, which was not too remote
Which case first established a duty of care?
Donoghue v Stevenson
What is the 3 part test for duty of care and which case created this?
Caparo v Dickman
- damage must be reasonably foreseeable
- there must be proximity between C and D
- it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care onto D
Describe what is meant by reasonably foreseeable and give 2 cases/their outcomes
Whether the harm to C could be anticipated by the reasonable person
Jolley v Sutton - was reasonably foreseeable
Bourhill v Young - Wasn’t reasonably foreseeable
Which 2 ways can proximity between C and D be established?
A relationship of dependency or through time and space
What is the case showing a relationship of dependency?
Osman v Ferguson (police and victim/his family had proximity through a relationship of dependency)
What is the case that can be used for proximity through time and space?
Vowles v Evans (rugby game)
What is the general rule regarding whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
It will be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D
When will it not be right to impose a duty on D? (give cases)
- if there is a genuine rescue attempt which made the situation worse
- if the court feels it would be expecting too much of the person (Griffiths v Lindsay - taxi driver case)
What is the old law and case on whether public authorities owe a duty of care?
Hill v CC of South Yorks Police showed that the presumption for public authorities was that they did not owe a duty of care to others
What is the new law and case for public authorities owing a duty of care, and what can they still take into account?
Robinson v CC of West Yorks Police shows that there is now no presumption that public authorities do not owe a duty of care (therefore they owe a duty of care to others), however the court can still take into account the public policy considerations, such as whether it would open the floodgates of claims
In which case did courts decide not to impose a duty on the school due to it expecting too much and potentially opening the floodgates for claims?
Bradford-Smart v West Sussex CC
How does Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks define a breach?
Where D does something which a reasonable person would not do or when D does not do something that a reasonable person would do
What case shows that inexperience does not lower the standard of care expected?
Nettleship v Weston
What does the case of Mullins v Richards show?
Age can lower the standard of care expected - children would be compared to reasonable children of the same age
Which case shows that professionals will be compared to fellow professionals?
Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC
How can courts decide whether the defendant has reached the standard of care expected of him?
By use of risk factors
What are the 4 risk factors used (along with cases)
- size of risk (Bolton v Stone and Miller v Jackson
- seriousness of potential harm (Paris v Stepney BC)
- practicability of precautions (Paris v Stepney BC)
- do the benefits outweigh the risk? (Watt v HCC)
What does res ipsa loquitur mean?
‘the facts speak for themselves’ - the situation was so obviously D’s fault
What are the 3 conditions for res ipsa to apply as set out in Scott v London and St Katherine Docks
- the situation is under D’s control
- the harm would not have happened if D had taken proper care
- D cannot provide an alternate explanation for the harm
Which case did res ipsa apply to?
Ward v Tesco Stores
What case is used for factual causation when deciding whether D’s breach caused the damage to C?
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
Which case is used for intervening acts under the law of negligence?
Reeves v MPC (V’s own actions)
What does Reeves v MPC show about intervening acts
If the intervening act is foreseeable, it will not break the chain of causation
What does it mean by damage being too remote a result of D’s breach?
If the type of damage suffered by C is not reasonably foreseeable
What is the main case for remoteness of damage?
The Wagon Mound case (oil igniting was not reasonably foreseeable)
What part of C’s damage must be foreseeable?
The type of damage
Which case shows that how the harm is caused can be unforeseeable?
Hughes v Lord Advocate
What does the case of Bradford v Robinson Rentals show?
The extent/seriousness of the harm can be unforeseeable
What is the ‘eggshell skull’ rule? Give the case
If C suffers more serious harm due to a vulnerability, this will not be too remote
Smith v Leech Brain
(similar to the thin skull rule in criminal law)
