Negligence AO1, evaluation Flashcards
Negligence
c must prove on the balance of probs: d owed him a DoC, d breached that DoC, and c’s damage was caused by d’s breach of duty and not too remote from it
Donoghue v Stevenson
DoC first def: Lord Atkin’s Neighbour Principle, “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
- following this case, we apply CRs
- 3 CR: usually FJR unless public policy reasons not to e.g protecting emergency services working in fear of being sued
Caparo v Dickman
3 part test applied but only in a “novel situation”
-damage rf, proximate relationship & fjr
Kent v Griffiths
1 CR: court will ask whether some damage was reasonably foreseeable
Bourhill v Young, McLoughlin v O’Brian
2 CR: court ask whether relationship between c and d was sufficiently proximate, either through time/space as in (this case)
Watson v British Board of Boxing Control
2 CR: or through a relationship of responsibility
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
3 CR: court ask whether its FJR to impose a DoC between c and d
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
breach of duty means that d´s SoC falls below the standard expected of the reasonable man doing the same activity, as def by Baron Alderson
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital
obj test: d’s characteristics gen not considered, unless d is a prof they are compared to a r competent prof and there must be a responsible body of prof opinion to support their actions
Bolitho v Hackney
bolam test amended, prof supporting d must show a ‘logical basis’ for their view
Montgomery v Lanarkshire
est all healthcare profs must make patients aware of all material risks so patient can give informed consent to treatment
Nettleship v Weston
if d is a learner/trainee they are comp to a qualified person
Mullin v Richards
if d is a child they are comp to a child of the same age
Risk Factors
court will cons “RF’s” which may raise or lower the SoC`
-1) size of risk of harm, 2) special c’s, 3) public benefit, 4) cost & practicality
Bolton v Stone
1 RF: if size of risk of harm is high, SoC will be high
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
2 RF: specials c’s of c eg being vulnerable or having a serious potential injury will raise SoC
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
3 RF: public benefit of the actvity may lower SoC
Latimer v AEC Ltd
4 RF: low level of cost & practicality of reducing the risk will lower SoC
Damage
2 parts: causation & remoteness
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC
FC: court apply “but for test” and ask whether damage would not have occurred but for d’s breach of duty
Jones v Boyce
LC: court cons whether a not rf NAI (IA) breaks chain of causation between d’s breach of duty and damage
