Negligence Flashcards
What 3 things must be proven for D to be found liable for negligence?
- D owed C a duty of care
- D breached that duty of care
- D’s breach caused D’s damage, which was not too remote
What is negligence?
Where a property or person is damaged as a result of an accident.
What case was negligence originally created?
Donoghue v Stevenson
What did Robinson v CCoWY say?
The Supreme Court said that if there is an existing ruling, then the court should follow that decision, if not, in ‘novel’ situations, that the court must consider if D owed a duty of care to C.
I.e. if a duty of care has already been proven in a previous case, follow that decision, if not, the court must consider if D owes a duty of care.
What are the 3 parts to the Caparo test
- Would the reasonable person foresee a risk of damage from what D has done? - could the harm that the claimant suffered be anticipated or expected.
- Is there proximity (a connection) between D and C?
This can either be through physical closeness (being in the same place at the same time), or through a relationship (either where C was in a relationship of dependency with D, or D had knowledge of C’s situation). - Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty on D?
This is presumed to be the case unless there are good reasons D shouldn’t be liable
What case was the Caparo test made in?
Caparo v Dickman
What are the two case examples of the Caparo test being used?
Jolley v Sutton - Caparo test was made out
Bourhill v Young - Caparo test wasn’t made out
What case defined what a breach was?
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. defined a breach as something where D does not do something the average person would, or D does something the average person wouldn’t.
Alternatively, breach means that the defendant has fallen below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person performing the activity concerned.
What factor was deemed irrelevant when determining the standard of care?
Inexperience - Nettleship v Weston
What 2 factors can affect the standard of care expected?
- Professionalism - Professionals will be held to a higher standard of care due to their extra training and expertise.
- Age - Age can lead to the standard of care being lowered due to their lack of knowledge.
What case is relevant to professionalism raising the standard of care expected?
Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC said:
There are 2 situations where D will be compared to a professional:
1. D actually has the skills/expertise of a professional
2. D is acting in a way in which they would be expected to be a professional (even if they don’t actually have the expertise).
What case is relevant to age lowering the standard of care expected?
Mullin v Richards
What are the 4 risk factors?
- Size of risk
- Seriousness of potential harm
- Practicability of precautions
- Benefits of taking a risk
What is Size of RIsk?
How likely it is that harm to the C will happen.
Bolton v Stone gave the legal principle of the reasonable man will take less precautions against a small risk of harm.
Miller v Jackson gave the principle of if the risk of harm happening is high, then the reasonable man would take more care/precautions.
What is Seriousness of (potential) Harm?
How bad could harm be to the C
Paris v SBC gave the principle of the reasonable man will take more care when the potential harm to C could be serious.
