Negligence A01 Flashcards
Define negligence
-fault based tort
-requires the df to owe a duty of care to the cl → breach this duty by act or omission →leading to damage/foreseeable loss or injury
define duty of care
connection between the cl and the df that is a legal obligation to act carefully
Donoghue v Stevenson
neighbour principle = df owed a duty of care if the cl was ‘so closely and directly affected by your acts or omissions’
Robinson v CCWYP
created ‘established’ duty of care categories that if applicable a duty of care would be automatically owed.
Novel duty of care situations
Caparo v Dickman test
1st part of the Caparo test (case)
Damage reasonably foreseeable - Maguire v Harland
2nd part of the Caparo test (case)
Sufficient proximity - McLoughin v O’Brien
3rd part of the Caparo test (case)
Fair and Just - Griffiths v Lindsay
Define breach of duty
Fault based element of negligence
General standard of care (case)
established in Nettleship v Weston to be the standard expected of the ordinary reasonable man
Breach is established using an objective test, which accounts for: (4 things)
-age
-magnitude of the risk
-profession
-precautions
defendants age
Mullins v Richards
magnitude of the risk
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Level of df in profession
Bolam v Friern Hospital
Reasonable Precautions
(not liable if these were taken) → Latimer v AEC
2 part test for damage
- df must have caused the damage (factual)
- the type of damage must be foreseeable (legal)
factual causation
establishing that the breach of duty caused the damage using the ‘but for’ test
‘but for’ test (case)
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington, the ‘but for’ test determines if the claimant would have suffered the damage regardless of the defendants act or omission, if they would have then = not liable
legal causation elements (4 things)
chain of causation
thin skull rule
type of damage
remoteness of damage
chain of causation (case)
if a new intervening act occurs, and it is unforeseeable, this will break the chain of causation - df = not liable → Robinson v Post Office
thin skull rule (case)
‘thin skull rule’ - df must take the victim as they find them → Smith v Leech Brain
type of damage………..
must be reasonably foreseeable
Wagon Mound
established that you need to test for remoteness of damage
