Negligence Cases Flashcards
Neighbour test - someone so closely and directly affected by your act that you should have them in contemplation as being affected
Donoghue v Stevenson
The modern test to determine a duty of care
Caparo v Dickman
The Caparo test does not need to be applied to every scenario
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
Caparo test - foreseeability
Bourhill v young
Caparo test - proximity
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
Caparo test - fair, just and reasonable
Summer v Colborn
Breach of duty - the ordinary man
Wells v Cooper
Breach of duty - the learner
Nettleship v Weston
Breach of duty - the professional
Roe v Minister of Health
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Breach of duty - children
Orchard v Lee
Mullin v Richards
Risk factors - likelihood of harm
Barnes v Scout Association
Risk factors - special characteristics of C
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Risk factors - practicality of taking precautions
Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd
Latimer v AEC Ltd
Risk factors - social utility of the act
Day v High Performance Sports
Watt v HCC
Factual causation
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
Remoteness of damage
Wagon Mound No.1
Remoteness - only the type of damage, not the extent needs to be foreseeable
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
Remoteness - only the harm needs to be foreseeable, it can occur in an unforeseeable way
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Remoteness - think skull rule
Bhamra v Dubb
Smith v Leech Brain
Intervening acts
Reeves v Commissioner of Police
Scott v Sheperd
Original definition of negligence
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
It is reasonably foreseeable that the act would injure C
Kent v Griffiths
Being a junior is an individual characteristic and will not be considered
Wilsher v Essex Health Authority
C must prove that D caused the damage or materially contributed to it
Wilsher v Essex Health Auhtority
