Negligence Evaluation Flashcards
Duty of Care Fair to Claimant,POINT: Caparo test ensures legit claims are recognised
EXPLAIN: Kent v Griffiths- "
Duty of Care Fair to Claimant,POINT: Proximity test recognises claims where C not physically affected
EXPLAIN: Bourhill v Young- Close proximate relationship EVALUATION: Prevents C'
Duty of Care Unfair to Claimant,POINT: Public policy decisions may shield negligent parties
EXPLAIN: Hill v C.C West Yorkshire- may prioritise public interest over C'
Duty of Care Unfair to Claimant,POINT: Incremental approach can cause inconsistency
EXPLAIN: Negligence is common law- made by judges + changes over time EVALUATION: Harder to anticipate outcomes, makes it unpredictable + seem unapproachable LINK: Puts C at a disadvantage, makes law seem unfit for purpose
Duty of Care Fair to Defendant,POINT: Foreseeability prevents excessive liability
EXPLAIN: Donoghue v Stevenson- "
Duty of Care Fair to Defendant,POINT: Proximity prevents unfair claims
EXPLAIN: Bourhill v Young- only those with close proximate relationship EVALUATION: D can avoid being overwhelmed with indirect liabilities LINK: More fair to D, only responsible for direct claimants
Duty of Care Unfair to Defendant,POINT: Incremented development may extend liability unfairly
EXPLAIN: Common law, always changing due to judicial creativity EVALUATION: New developments that can make D liable despite not being aware LINK: Unfair to D, unpredictable and if D is a normal lay person, they may be unaware of new changes/precedent
Duty of Care Unfair to Defendant,POINT: Judicial freedom in interpreting causes uncertainty
EXPLAIN: "
Breach of duty Fair to Claimant,POINT: Vulnerable claimants receive special consideration
EXPLAIN: Paris v Stepney- Standard of care increased if any special characteristics EVALUATION: Greater protection for those at greater risk LINK: Law more inclusive + more fit for purpose
Breach of duty Fair to Claimant,POINT: Trainees + Professionals held to higher standards
EXPLAIN: Nettleship v Weston- Judged as competent ___ + Bolam- Judged by standard of competent ___ EVALUATION: Prevents C from suffering due to substandard practices LINK: Fairer to C + ensures accountability
Breach of duty Unfair to Claimant,POINT: Standard of care for children reduces success
EXPLAIN: Mullin v Richards- children judged by standard of care expected from child of that age EVALUATION: Disadvantaged when harm caused by a child- courts are more lenient LINK: Unfair to C- child caused harm but leniency due to their age causes case to fail- law unfit for purpose
Breach of duty Unfair to Claimant,POINT: C may still be harmed despite adequate precautions
EXPLAIN: Latimer v AEC- no breach if reasonable precautions taken EVALUATION: Despite precautions, C can still be harmed LINK: Leaves C without compensation, unfair and unfit for purpose
Breach of duty Fair to Defendant,POINT: "
Reasonable person test"
Breach of duty Fair to Defendant,POINT: Risk factors balance with precautions
EXPLAIN: Latimer v AEC- Courts see whether precautions taken justify the risk EVALUATION: D not liable if sufficient precautions taken LINK: Fairer to D- reduces burden + unrealistic safety expectations
Breach of duty Unfair to Defendant,POINT: Vulnerability can bring excessive burden on D
EXPLAIN: Paris v Stepney- D expected to prevent harm to vulnerable claimants even if vulnerability is unforeseeable EVALUATION: Unreasonable + can be unpredictable LINK: Unfair obligations forced on D
Breach of duty Unfair to Defendant,POINT: Judicial discretion creates uncertainty
EXPLAIN: Wide discretion in determining breach + risk factors EVALUATION: Inconsistent + unpredictable outcome- up to the judge LINK: Unfair + makes law less fit for purpose
Cause / damage Fair to Claimant,POINT: "
but for"
Cause / damage Fair to Claimant,POINT: Egg shell skull rule protects vulnerable claimants
EXPLAIN: Smith v Leech Brain- take C as they find them despite pre-existing conditions EVALUATION: Ensures full compensation even If harm greater than expected LINK: Safeguarding vulnerable makes law fit for purpose
Cause / damage Unfair to Claimant,POINT: Remoteness rule can exclude deserving claims
EXPLAIN: Wagon mound- can only claim for damage that isn'
Cause / damage Unfair to Claimant,POINT: "
but for"
Cause / damage Fair to Defendant,POINT: Remoteness rule prevents liability for unforeseeable harm
EXPLAIN: Wagon Mound- D not responsible for unpredictable loss/harm EVALUATION: Recognises limits over D'
Cause / damage Fair to Defendant,POINT: "
but for"
Cause / damage Unfair to Defendant,POINT: Egg shell skull rule gives excessive liability
EXPLAIN: Smith v Leech Brain- liable for harm even if greater than foreseeable due to C'
Cause / damage Unfair to Defendant,POINT: Remoteness rule can be stretched- up to the judge
EXPLAIN: Hughes v Lord Advocate- damage more than expected EVALUATION: Since judges are free to interpret- can be allowed despite unforeseeability of damage LINK: D liable for more damage than he could predict- unfair + makes law unfit for justice
