Negligence Workbook Flashcards
can some torts be strict liability ?
yes - this is where the tort does not require a fault for example in the case of Rylands v Fletcher
what is the first case that established a test neibourhood principles?
DOUNOGHUE V STEVENSONS - this is the ginger beer case
how did the case of donoguhe v Stevenson establish the neighbourhood principles
because of Lord Atkin who stated ho in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation
what principles were established from Donoghue v Stevenson
- defendent must owe a duty of care
- the defendant must breach that duty
- the claimant must suffer damage caused by a breach of that duty which was not too remote
what is meant by duty of care
- ## the idea of duty of care principles is to establish the legal relationship between the claimant and the defendant this was seen in Donoughe v Stevenson where doc was owed
why was the neighbourhood principle not sufficient, what test was it replaced with?
although the neigbourhood principle was used by judges for a number of years it was not sufficient because it became outdated and could not handle new situations that arose before the courts. this approach was replaced with the three part test eslished in caparo industries plc v dickman
what was donoughe v stevenson repalced with
caparo test established in caparo industries plc v dickman
what was the three part test established in caparo?
- the damage was forseeable
- there is a sufficiently proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant
- its fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
what is meant by reasonably forseeble?
this is where a resonable person could forsee the damage or injury could be caused to another person by his actions or omissions for example KENT V GRIFFITHS - ambulance case
what are the cases that illustrate the principle reasonably foreseeable?
- Kent v Griffins -an ambulance failed to come to an injured claimant within a reasonable time leading to further illness- this case illustrates that the injury was reasonably foreseeable
- topp v london country bus - no forseeble harm so no duty of care
explain what is meant by relationship of proximity?
if the harm was reasonably foreseeable a duty of care will only exist if the relationship between the claimant is sufficiently close or proximate eg McCloughlin v Obrien
what are some cases that illustrate the principle of a close or proximate relationship?
- McCloughlin v O brien - claimant’s husband and children were involved in a serious road accident - this sufficiently shows a close and proximate relationship within a time of 2 hours
- Bourhill v Young - no duty of care owed because there was not a sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant
what are some cases that illustrate the principle of a close or proximate relationship?
- McCloughlin v O brien - claimant’s husband and children were involved in a serious road accident - this sufficiently shows a close and proximate relationship within a time of 2 hours
- Bourhill v Young - no duty of care owed because there was not a sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant
explain what is meant by fair , just and reasonable to impose duty of care?
when using this part of the test there are considerations of what is best for society as a whole, equalyy considering if by allowing claim it would open the floodgates for more claims eg in ALCOCK V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE
What are some case that illustrate the element of is it fair just and reasonable to impose the duty
- capital & countries plc v Hampshire county council - owed a duty of care
- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority ( owed a duty of care)
What are some case that illustrate the element of is it fair just and reasonable to impose the duty
- capital & countries plc v Hampshire county council
when are courts hesitant about imposing a duty of care?
the courts are not quick to impose a DOC when public bodies are involved these are known as policy decisions that means that policy’s are not made simply to achieve individual justice but to create precedent that is fair just and reasonable eg in HILL v Chief constable of west Yorkshire , as it was held that it would not be fair just or reasonable to impose a DOC for the general public
what case widens the duty of care police force owe members of the public?
Robbinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire - although this case shows the courts attempts in widening the duty of cared owed regarding injuries of the general public the decisions confirmed in hill were still upheld.
what did lord reed state in hill?
….
what is a breach of duty?
A breach of duty refers to a defendant not fulfilling their duty of care. this has to be established and uses a objective test of the reasonable man
what is a breach of duty?
A breach of duty refers to a defendant not fulfilling their duty of care. this has to be established and uses a objective test of the reasonable man
What case has established the reasonable man test ?
This comes from the test of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks company which defined it as the omissions to do something which a reasonable man would do.
What other cases use the reasonable man test to establish a breach of duty?
- Roberts v Ramsbottom
What are the other variations of the reasonable man test?
the courts may have to take into consideration certain special characteristics such as
- professionals
- children
- learners
What is meant by Professional People?
- where professionals are concerned the courts will expect the defendant to show the degree of competence of a typical skilled member of that profession.
