Negligence tort Flashcards
Donaghue v Stevenson ratio
- neighbour principle
- A duty of care is owed to those so closely and directly affected, where it is reasonably foreseeable that this act may cause those persons injury
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills ratio
was there a reasonable possibility of intermediary inspection?
Dorset Yacht Club v Home Office ratio
- Reasonable foreseeability
- Was it forseeable that if the officers were negligent, that this kind of damage could occur.
Hershal v Stewart and Adern
- inspection must be reasonable not just possible
Stone v Bolton ratio
injury needs to be probable, you must take all reasonable precautions, not ALL precautions
Miller v Jackson
The probability of harm is so small that it is not reasonable???????
- Public interest should be considered in cases of nuisance and weighed in an equitable manner
Russell v McCabe
- justified intervention vs unjustified meddling
- Volenti non fit injuria
Sylvester v GB Chapman
Unjustified Meddling
What are the elements of the ngligence tort?
Is there a duty of care?
a) Proximity + foreseeable
b) intermediate inspection
Has the duty been breached?
a) Was all reaonable care taken?
b) Harm foreseeable?
c) Injury/loss to the plaintiff?
Causation:
- did the breach cause the injury? if not:
a) contributory negligence
b) Novis Actus Interveniens
c) Negligence
d) Volenti
Kubach v Hollands
Explicit warning mitigates liability
Palsgraph
Outcome was too remote
Bourhill v Young
- Must be “reasonably anticipated that they will be affected by the act which constitutes the alleged breach”
- the defendant count not have reasonably foreseen that his actions would harm her
Which cases fall under ‘proximity/forseeability’?
- Donaghue v Stevenson
- Bourhill v Young
- Dorset Yacht Club v Home Office
Which cases fall under ‘inspectability’?
- Herschtal v Stewart and Adern
- Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
Which cases fall under ‘was all reasonable care taken’?
- Bolton v Stone
- Muir v Glasgow Corperation
Which cases fall under ‘was the failure reasonable foreseeable to cause harm’?
- Miller v Jackson
Which cases show contributory negligence?
- Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
Which cases show novus actus interveniens?
- Dorset Yacht Club v Home Office
Which cases show volenti non fit injuria?
- Sylvester v GB Chapman
- Russel v McCabe
Which cases show eggshell skull
- Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
