Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law BTEC > negligence test facts > Flashcards

negligence test facts Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

What is the definition of a tort

A

A civil wrong that allows someone to claim compensation if they have been injured or had property damages by someone else.

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

Which case established the three elements of of negligence.

A

Donoghue V Stevenson
(snail in a bottle)

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

What are the three elements of Donoghue V Stevenson

A
  1. There must be a duty of care
  2. This duty of care must be breached
  3. This broken duty must have caused damage or injury.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Which case establishes duty of care

A

Robinson V CC of West Yorkshire Police
(granny knocked over by police)

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

What does Robinson V CC West Yorkshire Police set out

A

That is there is a previous Act Of Parliament set in place for that duty of care precedent must be followed

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

If there is no previous Act of Parliament set in place which test/case must be followed

A

Caparo V Dickman

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

What is a breach of duty?

A

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.

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

Who is the reasonable man

A

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.

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

Risk Factors considered when determining breach of duty

A
  1. Special characteristics
  2. The risk of harm
  3. Social usefulness
  4. Taking precautions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

The case related to special characteristics is

A

Paris V Stepney Borough Council
(partially blind mechanic not given goggle though the council knew, then turned fully blind- successful)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

The case related to risk of Harm

A

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)

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

The case related to social usefulness

A

Watt V Hertfordshire County Council
(fireman hurt in emergency- unsuccessful)

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

The case related to taking precautions

A

Latimer V AEC
(factory spillage so floor is wet, do all they can, guy slips doesn’t win his case)

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

What are the three categories with different tests

A
  1. Professionals
  2. Leaners
  3. Children
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

The case related to Professionals

A

Bolam V Friern Hospital Management Committee
(electric shock guy)

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

The case related to Leaners

A

Nettleship V Weston
(friend sued friend cause of car crash- success)

17
Q

The case related to Children

A

Mullins V Richards
(15 year old girls ruler fight)

18
Q

What is causation

A

Causation is the link between the breach of duty and the damage caused (what they did caused the action)

19
Q

What are the two types of causation

A
  1. Factual causation
  2. Legal causation
20
Q

What is Factual causation

A

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.

21
Q

Which test established factual causation

A

Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
(doctor didn’t examine, they died, but would’ve died anyway)

22
Q

What is the chain of causation

A

The link between the actions then the damages, this can be broken by both the claimant or someone else’s actions.

23
Q

Which case shows the breaking of the chain of causation

A

Knightly V Johns
(J caused crash, leading officer didn’t shut road, other officer heads back and crashes, J is not at fault)

24
Q

What is legal causation

A

After factual causation is proved, they have to show that the injury etc was reasonably foreseeable.

25
Q

Which test is related to legal causation

A

The test of remoteness of damage
Established exactly what the defendant was liable for.

26
Q

Which case established Legal causation

A

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)

27
Q

Which case was successful that shows Legal Causation

A

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)

28
Q

What is the thin skull rule

A

The rule allows the court to take into ay existing sensitivity the claimant may have

29
Q

Which case established Thin Skull Rule

A

Smith V Leech Brain
(has pre-existing cancerous condition, burnt lip, led to full cancer and death, defendant had to pay compensation)

Law BTEC (1 decks)

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