Negligence Law And Cases Flashcards
Reasonable foreseeability law
Defendant owed duty of care to anyone ‘so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation’ - lord Atkin’s ‘neighbour principle’
Is it reasonably foreseeable that a person in the claimants position would suffer damage as a result of the defendants acts/omissions?
Reasonable foreseeability cases
Donoghue v Stevenson
Kent v Griffiths
Proximate law
In space, time or relationship
Only need to prove one
Proximate cases
Bourhill v Young
McLoughlin v O’Brian
Caparo v Dickman
Fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care law
Public policy argument to avoid opening floodgates to multiple claims.
No duty of care owed to servicemen in battlefield situations.
Police not always immune from liability in negligence. Part 3 of Caparo would be satisfied where a public body’s harm which would not otherwise have existed.
Fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care cases
Hill v CCWYP
Mulcahy v MOD
Robinson v CCWYP
Ordinary person law
Baron Alderson defined negligence as ‘failing to do something which reasonable person would do or doing something which reasonable person would not do’
Ordinary person cases
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Ordinary person performing a task is expected to perform it ‘reasonably competently’
Professional law
Two stage test for professionals
- Does the conduct fall below the standard of a reasonable, competent professional
- Is there a substantial body of opinion within the professional that would support the actions taken by the defendant
Professional cases
Bolam v Friern Barnett HMC
Roe v Minister of Health
Learner law
Held to the standard of a competent person
Learner cases
Nettleship v Weston
Young person law
Held to standard of a reasonable person of that age
Young person cases
Mullins v Richards
Risk factors law
The degree of probability that harm will be done - the reasonable does not take care against minute risks but does against big risks. The likelihood of injury determines if the reasonable man failed to act
The magnitude of likely harm - courts consider not only the risk but how serious the injury could foreseeably be. The standards of a reasonable person will in certain circumstances be higher. Higher standards of care expected when the defendant knows the claimant is vulnerable
Potential benefits of taking the risk - risk of injury balanced against end to be achieved. Emergencies or public utilities
Practical precautions - where practical precautions can be taken to lower the risk of harm the defendant should take them. If he has taken them this is evidence he is not in breach.
Size of risk - where there is a very high risk the defendant takes more care
Risk factors cases
Bolton v Stone - degree and probability that harm will be done
Paris v Stepney Borough Council- magnitude of likely harm
Daborn v Bath Tramways - potential benefits of taking the risk
Armsden v Kent police - potential benefits of taking the risk
Watt v Herts County Council - potential benefits of taking the risk
Latimer v AEC - practical precautions
Haley v London Board of Electric - didn’t take enough care or practical precaution
Factual causation law
‘But for’ the defendants breach of duty would the claimant have suffered the harm?
Factual causation cases
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMT
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services
New and intervening acts law
Novus actus interveniens - intervening act may break the chain of causation
New and intervening acts cases
Knightly v Johns
Robinson v PO
Remoteness law
Only damage that is reasonably foreseeable can be claimed for
Thin skull rule - you take your claimant as you find them including anything that makes them more vulnerable and suffer more harm
Remoteness cases
The Wagon Mound
Crossley v Rawlinson
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Smith v Leech Braine (thin skull)
