Negligence Flashcards
What are the 4 main features for a defence?
D showed a duty of care
D breached that duty
C suffered damage as a result of that break
The damage suffered was not too remote
Kent v Griffiths
Facts - Claimant having asthma attack. Ambulance was late and claimant suffered a respiratory arrest
Ratio - There was damage and the proximity was reasonable
Bourhill v Young
Facts - Gives birth to stillborn after seeing an accident. Sues victims family
Ratio - Insufficient proximity
McLoughlin v O’Brien
Husband and children in car accident. 1 child died. Didn’t know they were dead
Ratio - Was sufficient proximity
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Facts - Last victim of the Yorkshire ripper
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Facts - Hydrant near claimants house developed a leak. Exceedingly cold temperatures and water damage caused to the house
Ratio - No evidence was entered showing any acts or failures to act on the part of D’s such as could comprise negligence
Bolam
Facts - Doctors failed to provide any muscle relaxants. The claimant suffered dislocation of both hip joints
Ratio - Other doctors would have acted in the same way
Montgomery v Lanarkshire
Facts - Delivers son vaginally when warned there could be complications. Son suffers from cerebral palsy. She sued for negligence
The Montgomery case firmly rejected the application of Bolam to consent, establishing a duty of care to warn of material risks
Nettleship v Weston
Facts - Learner driver hit lamppost injuring the instructor
Ratio - Standard of care expected would not be lowered for learners
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
Facts - Premature baby given too much oxygen by a junior doctor
Ratio - A junior doctor owes the same standard of care as a qualified doctor
Mullins v Richards
Facts - Two 15 year old girls play fighting with plastic rulers. One ruler snapped and went into the eye causing blindness
Ratio - Girl was only expected to meet the standard of a reasonable 15 year old school girl. Found not in breach of duty
Vowles v Evans
Facts - Claimant suffered a dislocation of the neck while in the middle of a scrum
Ratio - It was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the Referee of an Adult Amateur Rugby match
Paris v Stepney
Facts - Claimant only had sight in one eye. Not given protective eye wear for his working eye. Splinter went in eye causing complete blindness
Ratio - Employer should have provided goggles as he was at more risk
Bolton v Stone
Facts - Struck by cricket ball outside home. There was 17 foot of fencing. Members said the hit was exceptional to anything else previously seen
Ratio - The likelihood of harm was low the defendant had taken all practical precautions in the circumstances
Haley v London Electricity Board
Facts - Blind person falls in trench. There was nothing blocking out the trench
Ratio - It was foreseeable that a blind person might walk down the street and they should be given appropriate protection
Latimer v AEC ltd
Facts - Factory was flooded. Warning signs put up
Ratio - There was no duty to close the factory
Roe v Minister of Health
Facts - Claimants given anaesthetic. Anaesthetic had been contaminated with a sterilising fluid
Ratio - The risk was not foreseeable as it was an unknown risk at the time
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Facts - Woman had been involved in a traffic accident. Fire services were called. Jack fell onto claimants leg
Ratio - The emergency of the situation and utility of D’s conduct in saving a life
Day v High Performance
Facts - Claimant fell whilst on an indoor climbing wall. Falls 30ft from ground
Ratio - Risk would’ve been greater had she been left on climbing wall
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
Facts - Severe stomach pains and vomiting. Nurse phoned doctor on duty. Doctor sent them home. They died from arsenic poisoning
Ratio - Hospital was not liable as the doctors failure to examine the patient did not cause his death
The Wagon Mound
Facts - Leaked furnace oil, sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Fire spread rapidly causing destruction
Ratio - It is too remote to foresee from the original negligent act
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Facts - Kids explored hole. Knocked over lamp causing a fire which then injured one of the kids
Ratio - The courts stated that a duty was owed and it was foreseeable a child may be injured and explored the hole
Bradford V Robinson Rentals
Facts - Van driven without heating
Ratio - The employers were responsible for the frostbite to the C as some injury from the cold was RF
Doughty v Turner Asbestos
Facts - Asbestos lid falls into molten metal which led to a chemical reaction. Subsequently caused C to be splashed and burnt
Ratio - It was not RF that the reaction and therefore they weren’t liable
Smith v Leech Brain
Facts - D caused C’s pre-cancerous condition to become cancerous
Ratio - Liable for death as the burn was RF
