Negligence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Negligence

def:

A

The failure to exercise reasonable care resulting in physical damage

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

Physical damage means
1.
2.
3.

A
  1. Death
  2. Personal injury
  3. Damage to property.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

3 elements

A
  1. Duty of care
  2. Breach of duty.
  3. Resulting damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Original case:

A

Donoghue vs Stevenson

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

What is the first element of duty of care?

A

Claimant must prove that the defendant owes her a duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

If the situation is a novel one, how is duty of care established

A

The Caparo test/ Incremental approach.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Caparo Industries v Dickman

A

Created the Incremental approach

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

What are the 3 elements of the 3 stage approach?

A
  1. Is the damage reasonably foreseeable?
  2. Sufficient proximity
  3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Which case created the incremental approach

A

Caparo Industries v Dickman

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

Bourhill v Young

A

D couldn’t reasonably foresee that C would be affected by his actions

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

Kent V Griffiths

A

It was reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer as a result of a late ambulance

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

Proximity can be in
1.
2.
3.

A
  1. Time
  2. Space
  3. Proximity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Hill v Chief Constable of Yorkshire

A

No relationship between police and potential victims as police would have no idea who potential victims will be

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

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire county council

A

It will be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on public authorities if they increase/create danger

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

Factual causation CIVIL CASE:

A

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital management committee.

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

Multiple causes case

A

Fairchild v Glenhaven funeral services

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

If there are multiple causes of the claimant’s suffering, what happens. (Materially increase risk test)
1.
2.

A
  1. They can claim total compensation from the D.

2. The D can then, in turn, claim joint responsibility with other Ds.

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

Jobling v Associated Dairies

A

Intervening Acts break the chain of causation

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

What is intervening act in latin?

A

Novus Actus Interveniens

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

Smith vs Littlewoods

A

Example of NOVUS ACTUS

INTERvenIENS

21
Q

The Wagon Mound

A

Type of damage was not reasonably foreseeable

22
Q

Tremain v Pike

A

The disease was rare so the type of damage wasn’t reasonably foreseeable.

23
Q

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

A

Type of damage wasn’t too remote at it was reasonable foreseeable that C might suffer some harm.

24
Q

Smith v Leech Brain & Co

A

Thin Skull principle.

25
Q

Donoghue vs Stevenson

A

Manufacturers owe customers a duty of care

26
Q

Type of damage wasn’t too remote at it was reasonable foreseeable that C might suffer some harm.
Case?

A

Bradford v Robinson Rentals.

27
Q

Thin Skull principle. Case?

A

Smith v Leech Brain & Co

28
Q

The disease was rare so the type of damage wasn’t reasonably foreseeable. Case?

A

Tremain v Pike

29
Q

Legal causation. Case?

A

The Wagon Mound

30
Q

Fairchild v Glenhaven funeral services

A

Multiple causes case.

31
Q

Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea hospital management committee

A

but for test

32
Q

It was reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer as a result of a late ambulance. Case?

A

Kent v Griffiths

33
Q

It will be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on public authorities if they increase/create danger. Case?

A

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire county council

34
Q

No relationship between police and potential victims as police would have no idea who potential victims will be. Case?

A

Hill v Chief Constable of Yorkshire

35
Q

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks co defines breach of duty as……

A

“Doing something that a reasonable man would not do or not doing something that a reasonable man would do.”

36
Q

To satisfy breach of duty 2 things must be certain. What?
1.
2.

A
  1. Standard of care expected.

2. 4 risk factors.

37
Q

Wells v Cooper

A

The normal standard of care expected is that of the reasonable person.

38
Q

Roe v Minister Health

A

Professionals will be judged by the standard of their professional peers. Judges will reply on experts in that field.

39
Q

Mullins v Richards

A

Children are judged against children of the same age as the D

40
Q
4 risk factors.
Cases?
1.
2.
3.
4.
A
  1. Bolton v Stone
  2. Paris v Stepney
  3. Latimer v AEC
  4. Marshall v Osmond.
41
Q

Claimant must prove that D was negligent on a ___ __ ___

A

balance of probabilities.

42
Q

Likelihood of harm case

A

Bolton v Stone

43
Q

Seriousness of harm case

A

Paris v Stepney

44
Q

Cost of avoiding risk case

A

Latimer v AEC

45
Q

Social benefit case

A

Marshall v Osmond

46
Q

Bolton v Stone

A

Likelihood of harm case

47
Q

Paris v Stepney

A

Seriousness of harm case

48
Q

Latimer v AEC

A

Cost of avoiding risk case

49
Q

Marshall v Osmond

A

Social benefit case