negligence test facts Flashcards
What is the definition of a tort
A civil wrong that allows someone to claim compensation if they have been injured or had property damages by someone else.
Which case established the three elements of of negligence.
Donoghue V Stevenson
(snail in a bottle)
What are the three elements of Donoghue V Stevenson
- There must be a duty of care
- This duty of care must be breached
- This broken duty must have caused damage or injury.
Which case establishes duty of care
Robinson V CC of West Yorkshire Police
(granny knocked over by police)
What does Robinson V CC West Yorkshire Police set out
That is there is a previous Act Of Parliament set in place for that duty of care precedent must be followed
If there is no previous Act of Parliament set in place which test/case must be followed
Caparo V Dickman
What is a breach of duty?
When the defendant does not reach the standard of care of a reasonable person in that situation or doing something the reasonable man wouldn’t do.
Who is the reasonable man
The reasonable man is someone who is sensible when doing something that carries risk. They are who defendants are compared to when being assessed for breaching duty.
Risk Factors considered when determining breach of duty
- Special characteristics
- The risk of harm
- Social usefulness
- Taking precautions
The case related to special characteristics is
Paris V Stepney Borough Council
(partially blind mechanic not given goggle though the council knew, then turned fully blind- successful)
The case related to risk of Harm
Bolton v Stone / Miller V Jackson
(1. cricket ball hits lady in garden cricket club did what they could putting up the fence)
(2. cricket balls went over 15 times in two years, was too many and should’ve done more)
The case related to social usefulness
Watt V Hertfordshire County Council
(fireman hurt in emergency- unsuccessful)
The case related to taking precautions
Latimer V AEC
(factory spillage so floor is wet, do all they can, guy slips doesn’t win his case)
What are the three categories with different tests
- Professionals
- Leaners
- Children
The case related to Professionals
Bolam V Friern Hospital Management Committee
(electric shock guy)
The case related to Leaners
Nettleship V Weston
(friend sued friend cause of car crash- success)
The case related to Children
Mullins V Richards
(15 year old girls ruler fight)
What is causation
Causation is the link between the breach of duty and the damage caused (what they did caused the action)
What are the two types of causation
- Factual causation
- Legal causation
What is Factual causation
The ‘but for’ test.
“But for the defendants act or omission, would the injury or loss have occurred?”
if the answer is no then the defendant isn’t liable, if it yes they are liable.
Which test established factual causation
Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
(doctor didn’t examine, they died, but would’ve died anyway)
What is the chain of causation
The link between the actions then the damages, this can be broken by both the claimant or someone else’s actions.
Which case shows the breaking of the chain of causation
Knightly V Johns
(J caused crash, leading officer didn’t shut road, other officer heads back and crashes, J is not at fault)
What is legal causation
After factual causation is proved, they have to show that the injury etc was reasonably foreseeable.
Which test is related to legal causation
The test of remoteness of damage
Established exactly what the defendant was liable for.
Which case established Legal causation
The Wagon Mound No1
(oil spillage, spillage court on fire from welding, destroys claimants Warf, defendant not liable as the the fire damage was too remote)
Which case was successful that shows Legal Causation
Bradford V Robinson rentals
(Went to pick up new van in the cold, neither van had heating, got frostbite, frostbite was foreseeable from cold conditions)
What is the thin skull rule
The rule allows the court to take into ay existing sensitivity the claimant may have
Which case established Thin Skull Rule
Smith V Leech Brain
(has pre-existing cancerous condition, burnt lip, led to full cancer and death, defendant had to pay compensation)
