Negligence (Damage) Flashcards
Bolam v Friern Barnet
electric shock treatment
principle: judge professional against competent professionals
Nettleship v Weston
driving lessons
principle: judge learners against competent more experienced people
Mullin v Richards
school girls, rulers
principle: judge children or young adults against reasonable people of the same age
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
injury to eyes, claimant already blind in one eye
principle: D should take greater care when they know of special characteristics
negligence requirements
1) a duty of care must be owed by the defendant to the claimant
2) the duty must have been broken through a failure to reach the required standard of care
3) the duty broken must have caused the damage or injury
two parts of damage test
the breach of duty must have caused harm or damage.
1) factual causation- did D cause the damage?
2) legal causation- remoteness of damage: remoteness of damage: the damage must not be too remote from the actions of the defendant
what is causation in negligence?
factual causation uses ‘but for’ test
what is factual causation?
factual causation asks ‘but for’ the actions of D, would C still have been harmed?
if factual causation cannot be proved there is no need to move onto legal causation.
‘but for’ test case study: Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
facts:
what is legal causation?
if factual causation is proven, the courts look at legal causation
an intervening act can break the chain of causation. eg. you fall down a badly repaired step and hurt your leg. on route to the hospital you are in an accident and suffer head injuries.
2) remoteness of damage
once factual causation has been proved, it must be shown that the damage is not too remote from the actions of the defendant.
the Wagon Mound (test for legal causation)
facts: D’s ship spilled fuel oil onto the water in Sydney harbour spreading towards C’s wharf where ships were being repaired. 2 days later the oil caught on fire from welding sparks and caused C’s wharf to burn down.
held: damage to the wharf from an oil spill was reasonably foreseeable, fire damage was not necessarily foreseeable. this type of damage (fire) was too remote from D’s act of negligence.
eggshell skull rule
when harm or injury is reasonably foreseeable, but is much more serious due to C’s pre-existing condition D is liable for the harm regardless of if they knew of the condition
Smith v Leech Brain and Co (eggshell skull rule) is
facts: C was burnt on the lip by molten metal in a factory. he had a precancerous condition, the burn brought on full cancer and he died. his wife brought a claim against the factory.
held: the burn was reasonably foreseeable and due to the eggshell skull rule D was liable.
summary of tests:
factual causation- the ‘but for’ test known as factual causation. apply this test before moving onto remoteness of damage
legal causation- remoteness of damage: is the harm reasonably foreseeable (not too remote), no intervening act. use the eggshell skull rule where appropriate. a
