Negligence Test Revision Flashcards
What case established a duty of care?
Donoghue v Stevenson
Who established the definition of duty of care?
Lord Atkin
“You must take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”
What did lord atkin define your “neighbour” as
Person so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to reasonably have them in contemplation as being affected when directing my mind to act or omissions called into question “
Simplified- anyone who can be effected by your act or omissions
What 4 things must a claimant show on the balance of probability to establish liability in negligence.
1)defendant owed duty of care AND
2) defendant breached that duty AND
3) that breach of duty caused the damage or loss c suffered
What was established in nettleship v Weston
A driver owed a duty of care to his passenger and other road users
What was established in Montgomery v Lanarkshire
A doctor owes a duty of care to his patients
What was established in condon v basi
A sportsman owes a duty of care to another sportsman in the same match
What was established in walker v Northumberland CC
An employer owes a duty of care to employees
What was established in Arthur JS hall &co V simons
A lawyer owes a duty of care to their client
What happens if the facts are similar to one of these cases?
The court will reason by analogy
What are the 4 factors we consider of its a novel situation
1) was the harm reasonably foreseeable
2) is there proximity between claimant and the defendant
3) is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on defendant
4) distinction between acts and omissions
What is breach of duty?
The court will consider what is expected of D and weather he failed to do it or did it to a poor standard
What test do we use for the standard expected? And what case did it come from
Standard of a reasonable man
Blyth v Birmingham waterworks
What is factual causation?
Factual causation is satisfied if the damage suffered by c would not have happened “but for” D breach of duty
What case established factual causation? 🥶
Barnett v Chelsea hospital
Even if the but for test is satisfied, what 3 intervening acts can break it?
Intervening act of claimant- McKew v Holland
Intervening act of nature/god- carslogie steamship Co v royal Norwegian government
Intervening act of 3rd party- knightly v johns
What is legal causation?
D will only be liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable. If the damage is not reasonably foreseeable it’s referred to as “too remote”
What case established legal causation?
The wagon mound no1
What are the 3 situations where legal causation can be satisfied even if it’s not entirely reasonably foreseeable?
Type of damage caused: Bradford v Robinson rentals
Sequence of events: hughes v Lord advocate
The “eggshell skull rule”: Smith v Leech brain
What is contributory negligence?
Where D can show that C own behaviour was below standers of reasonable person AND this behaviour contributed to C loss
What act created contributory negligence?
Law reform act 1945
In what case was the claimant partially to blame for the accident happening?
Brannon V airtours
Led to damages reduced by 50%
In what case did C not cause the accident but their actions made their injuries worse?
Froom v butcher
Lead to a 15-25% reduction in damages
What is consent in law?
Consent is where the claimant knows there is a risk of D acting negligently and freely consents to take that risk.
What are the 3 situations where legal causation can be satisfied even if not entirely reasonably foreseeable
Type of damage caused
Sequence of events
The eggshell skull rule
What is sequence of events and what’s the case?
Sequence of events: if the type of damage that results from C’s breach of duty is reasonably foreseeable, it does not matter if the exact sequence of events leading to the damage is not.
Hughes v lord advocate
What is type of damage caused and what’s the case
Type of damage caused: if the general type of damage caused is reasonably foreseeable then it does not matter if the precise type of damage was not.
Bradford v robison rentals
What is the eggshell skull rule and what’s the case?
The ‘eggshell skull’ rule: as long as some damage is foreseeable, D will be liable for its full extent, even if this could not be foreseen. This also applied to property damage.
Smith v leech brain
