Negligence Cases Flashcards
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”
Caparo Industries v Dickman
3 part test but only in a “novel situation”
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
-now following, courts apply CRs
Darnley v Croydon NHS Trust
Lord Reed X Caparo, hospital -> patient
Sumner v Colborne and Others
X Caparo, motorist -> other RUs
Kent v Griffiths
1 CR: some damage reasonably foreseeable
Bourhill v Young
2 CR: reasonably proximate (time & space)
Watson v British Board of Boxing Control
2001, 2 CR: reasonably proximate (relationship of responsibility
Mitchell v Glasgow CC
2009, 3 CR: fair, just & reasonable
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
1988, 3CR: fair, just & reasonable
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police 2
2018, emergency services exception in doubt
Vaughan v Menlove
Breach of duty definition
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
1856, breach of duty defined by Baron Alderson
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital
1957, professional characteristic exception
Bolitho v Hackney HA
1997, bolam test amended - “logical basis”
Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB
2015, all material risks and informed consent “test of materiality”
Nettleship v Weston
1971, characteristic exception: learner/trainee
Mullins v Richards
1998, characteristic exception: child
Bolton v Stone
1951, 1 RF, size of risk of harm
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
1951, 2 RF, special characteristics (vulnerability/ serious potential injury)
Latimer v AEC LTD
1953, 3 RF, adequate precautions in proportion to cost and practicality
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
1954, 4 RF, social utility (public policy)
Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital
1969, factual causation “but for”
McKew v Holland
1969, legal causation 1 NAI by claimant
Carslogie v Royal Norwegian Government
1952, legal causation 2 NAI by nature
The Wagon Mound (No1)
1961, remoteness - type of damage reasonably foreseeable
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
1967, remoteness - liable for full extent (general damage rf)
Smith v Leech Brain
1962, remoteness - thin skull rule “take his victim as he finds them”
Sayers v Harlow
1958, The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 defence (% reduction)
Nettleship v Weston 2
1971, volenti non fit injuria (consent) full defence except road traffic cases
Negligence
on the balance of probabilities- d owed him a DoC, d breached that DoC, and c’s damage was caused by d’s breach of duty and was not too remote from it
