Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Negligence > Negligence LAW > Flashcards

Negligence LAW Flashcards

1
Q

Where was duty of care established

A

Donoghue v Stevenson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson

A

Snail in ginger beer
Where duty of care was established
Neighbour principle
Reasonable foresight

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What did lord atkin say and which case

A

Donoghue v Stevenson
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Who is your neighbour

A

Anyone who would be so directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Neighbour test cases

A

Haseldine v Daw
Buckland v Guildford Gas Light and Coke Co
Ogwu v Taylor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Haseldine v Daw

A

Negligent repair of a lift

Neighbour test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Buckland v Guildford Gas Light and Coke Co

A

Electricity company should have foreseen the possibility that someone would be electrocuted if they climbed the tree and touched a hidden wire. They owed a duty of care
Neighbour test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Ogwu v Taylor

A

Fireman was injured and was owed a duty of care by defendant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Neighbour principle was redefined in which case?

A

Caparo v Dickman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are the rules in Caparo v Dickman

A
  1. Was the damage foreseeable
  2. Is there proximity between parties
  3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Caparo v Dickman

A

Company negligently showed that they were making a profit when they had actually made a loss. Insufficient proximity between parties
Proximity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Reasonable foresight

A

Donoghue v Stevenson

Kent v Griffiths

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Kent v Griffiths

A

Ambulance to take a patient to hospital arrived late and patient suffered a heart attack
Reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer some harm from this delay
Reasonable foresight

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Proximity

A

Caparo v Dickman

Bourhill v Young

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Bourhill v Young

A

Heard a motorcycle crash and went to look, shock caused her to miscarry
Didn’t owe a duty of care as she was in a safe place and hadn’t seen the accident only the aftermath voluntarily
Proximity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

A

Hill v CCWY
Mulcahy v Ministry or Defence
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Hill v CCWY

A

Police released Yorkshire ripper without charge and he kill claimants daughter.
Reasonably foreseeable that he would kill again but it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the police. To do so would open the floodgates and drain them of resources leading to a reduction in their overall ability to catch criminals
Fair just and reasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Which case demonstrates the floodgates problem

A

Hill v CCWY

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Mulcahy v Ministry of Defense

A

Soldier in the Gulf War suffered damage to his hearing

Although both foreseeability and proximity were present the facts required it to consider this a policy issue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

A

Old lady knocked over in attempt to arrest a drug dealer
Appealed decision twice and won in the Supreme Court
Caparo part three would be satisfied where a public body’s action risks causing harm which would not otherwise have existed
Fair, just and reasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Which case holds the test for duty of care

A

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What did baron Alderson say in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

A

A breach of duty occurs when the defendant “fails to do something which a reasonable man would do or does something which a reasonable man would not do”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

A

Wooden plug in water main came loose and flooded claimants house

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Rule from Bolan v Friern Hospital Management Committee

A

If the defendant is in a certain profession the reasonable person will take on the skills/experience/characteristics of a person competent in that profession

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

A

While undergoing treatment the patient was restrained and sustained injuries. The consultant had acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of professional opinion at the time
Breach of duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Roe v Ministry of Health

A

Paralysed after given a spinal injection
Doctor had no way of detecting contamination at the time
Breach of duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Rule from Nettleship v Weston

A

The general standard of care in negligence is an objective test, judged against the standards of the reasonable person. No allowance is made for inexperience or lack of skill of the defendant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Nettleship v Weston

A

The standard of care required of all motorists is the same, that of a reasonably competent driver
Junior doctors are expected to reach the standard of the reasonable and competent doctor of the same rank

29
Q

Breach of duty rule about children and what case it relates to

A

Mullin v Richards
Where the defendant is a child, the standard of care is that of an ordinarily careful and reasonable child of the same age

30
Q

Mullin v Richards

A

Two 15 year olds fighting with plastic rulers, defendant not negligent
Breach of duty of care

31
Q

Risk factors of breach of duty of care

A

The degree of probability that harm would be done
The magnitude of likely harm
The potential benefits of the risk
The cost and practicality of preventing risk

32
Q

The degree of probability that harm would be done

A

The reasonable man does not take care against minute risks but does against big risks. Likelihood of injury must be considered

33
Q

Cases for degree of probability that harm would be done

A

Bolton v Stone

34
Q

Bolton v Stone

A

Batsman hit ball exceptionally hard and it went over the wall and hit someone, the likelihood of such injury occurring was very remote

35
Q

Magnitude of likely harm

A

Courts have to consider the risk of harm and how serious the injury could foreseeably be, standard of care might be higher in certain circumstances

36
Q

Cases for magnitude of likely harm

A

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

37
Q

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

A

Chip of metal flew into one eyed employees eye, higher duty of care owed
Magnitude of likely harm

38
Q

Potential benefits of taking the risk

A

The risk of injury must be balanced against the end to be achieved

39
Q

Potential benefits of taking the risk

A

The risk of injury must be balanced against the end to be achieved

40
Q

Cases for the potential benefits of taking the risk

A

Daborn v Bath Tramways
Armsden v Kent Police
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

41
Q

Daborn v Bath Tramways

A

Lower standard of care for the left hand drive ambulance as it was acting in the public good
Potential benefits of taking the risk

42
Q

Armsden v Kent Police

A

Police car driving too fast and not using siren crashed into another car killing driver
Breached duty by not using siren
Potential benefits of taking the risk

43
Q

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

A

Fireman injured by jack falling from a lorry when going to the scene of an accident. The importance of the activity and the fact that it was an emergency was found to justify the risk involved
Potential benefits of taking the risk

44
Q

The cost and practicality of preventing the risk

A

The foreseeable risk has to be balanced against the measures necessary to eliminate it. If the cost of these measures fast outweighs the risk, the defendant will probably not be in breach of duty for failing to carry out these measures

45
Q

Cases for the cost and practicality of preventing the risk

A

Latimer v AEC Ltd

Haley v London Electricity Board

46
Q

Latimer v AEC Ltd

A

Factory became flooded and put down sawdust and employee slipped on a part of the floor that wasn’t covered. Not in breach of duty, taken all reasonable precautions and had eliminated the risk as far as it practicably could without closing the factory

47
Q

Haley v London Electricity Board

A

The provision of two foot high barriers around excavations in the pavement was practicable and would have eliminated the risk to blind people

48
Q

Two parts to resulting damage?

A

Causation and remoteness of damage

49
Q

Factual causation parts

A

But for test

New and intervening acts

50
Q

The but for test

A

But for the defendants breach of duty would damage or injury have occurred?

51
Q

Causes for the but for test

A

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd

52
Q

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC

A

Died of arsenic poisoning in hospital, hospital negligence didn’t kill the man the arsenic did
But for test

53
Q

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd

A

Employee exposed to asbestos when working for several different employees. Each of the employees that exposed him to asbestos were liable. Each defendant had materially increased the risk of harm towards the claimant

54
Q

New and intervening acts

A

Breaking the chain or causation - the link between the defendants act or omission and the injury or loss suffered is often referred to as the chain of causation

55
Q

Cases for new and intervening acts

A

Knightley v Johns

Robinson v Post Office

56
Q

Kinghtley v Johns

A

Police officer instructed a Constable to drive through the wrong side of a tunnel and got hit by a car. Going through the tunnel on the wrong side and the collision with the oncoming car were a novus actus interveniens that broke the chain of causation

57
Q

Robinson v Post Office

A

Suffered a cut on the leg at work and got tetanus and suffered an allergic reaction. Employers still liable since the receipt of medical treatment was a foreseeable consequence of their act

58
Q

Legal causation or remoteness

A

It must be shown that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant was not too remote

59
Q

Two key tests for establishing remoteness

A

Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd

The Wagon Mound

60
Q

Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd

A

Ships cargo full of petrol which gave off vapour and ignited when a plank was negligently dropped into the hold. Liability was owed for all direct consequences that could be directly tracted to the negligent act or omission

61
Q

The Wagon Mound

A

A company spilled some oil into Sydney harbour and asked another boat if it was safe to keep welding. Oil caught fire when a spark light a piece of cotton rag floating in the oil. The type of loss that occurred was not of a type which was reasonably foreseeable. Damage was too remote from the defendants act

62
Q

Which test for remoteness do courts use today

A

Wagon Mound - the claimant must show that the type of damage caused by the defendants act or omission was reasonably foreseeable

63
Q

Do the decisions in Re Polemis and Wagon Mound conflict

A

Yes. The judicial committee of the privy council in Wagon Mound made it clear they regarded the decision in Re Polemis as bad law

64
Q

Crossley v Rawlinson

A

AA patrolman was running towards a burning lorry with a fire extinguisher and tripped and fell. As the claimant was only on the way to the danger created by the defendants negligence the injury was too remote and the defendant was not liable

65
Q

Hughes v Lord Advocate

A

Little boy lowered a lamp down a manhole and an explosion occurred causing him to fall in and be severely burned. “This accident was caused by a known source of danger but caused in a way which could not have been foreseeable and in my judgement that affords no defence

66
Q

Parts to legal causation

A

Foreseeability of loss

Thin skull test

67
Q

The thin skull test cases

A

Smith v Leach Braine and Co

68
Q

Smith v Leach Braine and Co

A

Burned at work but unknown to all parties the claimant had a cancerous condition which cause the burns to turn cancerous which caused his death. D was liable since the weakness, albiet unforeseeable, for which he was not to penalise

Negligence (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions