Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

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
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
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
26
Roe v Ministry of Health
Paralysed after given a spinal injection Doctor had no way of detecting contamination at the time Breach of duty of care
27
Rule from Nettleship v Weston
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
28
Nettleship v Weston
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
Breach of duty rule about children and what case it relates to
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
Mullin v Richards
Two 15 year olds fighting with plastic rulers, defendant not negligent Breach of duty of care
31
Risk factors of breach of duty of care
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
The degree of probability that harm would be done
The reasonable man does not take care against minute risks but does against big risks. Likelihood of injury must be considered
33
Cases for degree of probability that harm would be done
Bolton v Stone
34
Bolton v Stone
Batsman hit ball exceptionally hard and it went over the wall and hit someone, the likelihood of such injury occurring was very remote
35
Magnitude of likely harm
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
Cases for magnitude of likely harm
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
37
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Chip of metal flew into one eyed employees eye, higher duty of care owed Magnitude of likely harm
38
Potential benefits of taking the risk
The risk of injury must be balanced against the end to be achieved
39
Potential benefits of taking the risk
The risk of injury must be balanced against the end to be achieved
40
Cases for the potential benefits of taking the risk
Daborn v Bath Tramways Armsden v Kent Police Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
41
Daborn v Bath Tramways
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
Armsden v Kent Police
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
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
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
The cost and practicality of preventing the risk
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
Cases for the cost and practicality of preventing the risk
Latimer v AEC Ltd | Haley v London Electricity Board
46
Latimer v AEC Ltd
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
Haley v London Electricity Board
The provision of two foot high barriers around excavations in the pavement was practicable and would have eliminated the risk to blind people
48
Two parts to resulting damage?
Causation and remoteness of damage
49
Factual causation parts
But for test | New and intervening acts
50
The but for test
But for the defendants breach of duty would damage or injury have occurred?
51
Causes for the but for test
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC | Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd
52
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC
Died of arsenic poisoning in hospital, hospital negligence didn't kill the man the arsenic did But for test
53
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd
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
New and intervening acts
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
Cases for new and intervening acts
Knightley v Johns | Robinson v Post Office
56
Kinghtley v Johns
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
Robinson v Post Office
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
Legal causation or remoteness
It must be shown that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant was not too remote
59
Two key tests for establishing remoteness
Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd | The Wagon Mound
60
Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd
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
The Wagon Mound
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
Which test for remoteness do courts use today
Wagon Mound - the claimant must show that the type of damage caused by the defendants act or omission was reasonably foreseeable
63
Do the decisions in Re Polemis and Wagon Mound conflict
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
Crossley v Rawlinson
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
Hughes v Lord Advocate
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
Parts to legal causation
Foreseeability of loss | Thin skull test
67
The thin skull test cases
Smith v Leach Braine and Co
68
Smith v Leach Braine and Co
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.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions