Negligence Cases Flashcards
Defined in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)
‘failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something which the reasonable person would not do’
Robinson v CC West Yorkshire (2018)
Judges should look to apply existing categories of duty and develop new duty situations by analogy with existing precedent
-incremental approach
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Lord Atkins created neighbour principle in duty of care.
-‘neighbour is a person so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when you directed your mind to the actions or omissions’
-duty of care owed by manufacturer to consumer
Caparo v Dickman (1990)
3-part test used in novel situations only:
-Was the harm reasonably forseeable?
-Was there sufficient proximity between the C and the D?
-Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
Kent v Griffiths (2000)
Forseeable C’s condition might worsen
-Dr called ambulance, reassured on way, delayed, C died, Dr would’ve driven if knew of delay
-assumption of responsibility arose from assurance not simply call
Topp v London Country Bus (1993)
Not forseeable that the bus would be stolen and run someone over.
-C was knocked over by a stolen minibus
Bourhill v Young (1943)
Insufficient proximity to establish a duty of care.
-pregnant woman (C) heard an accident around the corner and went to look, so shocked she miscarried
McLoughlin v O’Brien (1983)
Sufficient Proximity due to relationship with victims - so was owed a duty of care.
-Mother arrived after an accident involving family members, had not seen the accident itself
Hill v CC West Yorkshire (1989)
Not FJR to impose a duty of care on police if it restricted their ability to investigate crime or opened floodgates to other claims.
-failure to stop the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’
Capital & Counties v Hampshire CC (1997)
Actions made fire worse, was FJR to impose a duty.
-£16m of damage caused after firefighters switched off sprinklers during a fire
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)
Failing to do something the reasonable person would do or doing something the reasonable person would not do
(Objective standard)
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1943)
The reasonable person would not have foreseen the risk of this accident occurring
-children scalded when a tea urn was dropped
(Objective Standard)
Nettleship v Weston (1971)
Learners must have the same standard of care as a fully qualified driver because to do otherwise would put the public at risk
-learner driver crashed during a lesson, injuring instructor
(Objective Standard)
Mullins v Richards (1997)
D’s conduct did not fall below the standard of care expected from another young person her age so she was not liable
-15 year old ‘sword fight’ C injured
(Children)
Wells v Cooper (1958)
D must be judged against the standards of other amateurs doing DIY
-D fitted new door handle (DIY), C used it, broken, causing injury
(Amateurs)
Bolam v Barnet Hospital (1957)
Dr’s conduct must be consistent with a substantial body of professional opinion
-C injured during electric shock treatment, Dr forgot to give a muscle relaxant
(Experts)
Montgomery v Lanarkshire (2015)
Modifying the approach in Bolam, Drs must ensure patients are fully informed of all risks before undertaking a procedure
-Dr forgot to disclose to the mother of all risks if the mother had a natural birth rather than a caesarean
(Experts)
Bolton v Stone (1951)
Likelihood of the event happening was so small, club had already taken reasonable precautions, so no breach of duty
-passer by hit by cricket ball over fence
(Probability of Harm)
Hayley v LEB (1965)
It was known the road was used by blind people, greater precaution should have been taken, so no breach of duty
-blind man fell in a hole dug in pavement
(Probability of Harm)
Paris v Stepney BC (1951)
Special characteristics of C meant the standard of care expected from the employer was higher
-welder, blind in one eye, not given safety goggles, suffered injury
(Seriousness of Harm)
Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)
Factory owners had taken reasonable steps to reduce risk of injury
-factory floor became flooded, sawdust scattered to prevent slips, L slipped and was injured
(Appropriate precautions)
Day v High Performance Sports (2003)
Benefits outweighed any potential risk so the standard of the care was lowered
-C froze during climbing event, needed to be rescued, fallen and injured
(Potential Benefits)
Roe v Minister of Health (1954)
The risk of harm was unknown so a reasonable person would not have been able to guard against it
-C was left paralysed after doctors failed to notice his anaesthetic had been contaminated
