Paper 2: negligence Flashcards
Tort definition
A wrong which entitles the injured party to claim compensation from the person who committed it.
Main types of tort
Negligence, defamation, trespasser, occupier’s liability, deceit, breach of statutory duty, nuisance etc
What is the definition of negligence?
A civil wrong which entitles the injured party to claim for compensation from the defendant who caused the loss
What are the 3 thins to prove or a successful claim?
1) A duty of care was owed
2) There was a breach of the duty
3) The breach caused the damage
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks co. (1856)
“… something which a reasonable man.. would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do…”
Donoghue v Stevenson
It was held that Donoghue was owed a duty of care, Lord Atkin decided that she was owed a remedy in law
Neighbour principle
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which are reasonably foreseeable to injure your neighbour”
Caparo v Dickman: modern day three stage test
1) Was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
2) Is there sufficient proximity between the parties?
3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the D?
Kent v Griffiths (2000)
It was held that a duty was owed as it was reasonably foreseeable that a person in C’s position would be further injured is an ambulance did not arrive on time
What does proximity mean and what can it be in?
It is defined as closeness, this can be in time, space and relationship
Bourhill v Young (1943)
No duty was owed by the defendant as the claimant was not there at the time the incident ocured
McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983)
The HL said a duty was owed to the C. Even though there was no proximity in space and time, there was proximity through a relationship to those who came within the immediate aftermath of the event
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire (1988)
The police owed no duty of care towards the daughter to protect her from the Ripper as it was not fair, just and reasonable. This could lead to police work being carried out with the aim of preventing claims and therefore lead to poor police work
How do you breach your duty?
By falling below the standard of care that is required of you
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)
“something which a reasonable man.. would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
Roe v Minister of Health (1954)
It must be measured against the state of knowledge at the time of the event and not with the benefit of hindsight. There must be a known risk as this risk was not known here, there was no breach of duty
Who is the reasonable person?
..an ordinary person performing the particular task. The ordinary person is expected to perform this task in a reasonably competent manner
5 factors affecting the standard of the reasonable man
1) Are there any special characteristics of the defendant
2) Are there any special characteristics of the claimant
3) What is the size of the risk
4) Have all precautions been taken
5) What are the benefits of taking the risk
Bolam v Friern Hospital Professionals
A professional must reach the standard of care of another reasonably competent professional, not only that of an ordinary man
Mullins v Richards (1998)
D must meet the standard of care of a reasonably competent child.
Nettleship v Weston
D was expected to drive at the standard of a reasonably competent driver, even though it was her first lesson
Paris v Stepney Bc (1951)
D owed a higher standard of care compared to that of an ordinary man (with two boring eyes) because they knew of the claimants condition
What is the general principle of the size of the risk?
The greater the risk, the higher the standard of care that is owed by D.
Bolton v Stone (1951)
D met the standard of care required. The ball clearing the fence and injuring someone is something the reasonable man would not have protected against
Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)
HL said the D’s had done all that was reasonably expected without closing the factor to reduce the risk of injury, and therefore met the standard of care required
Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954)
The benefit of saving a life outweighed the risk of injury to the firefighter. D met their duty of care
What is the definition of damage?
The loss that someone has suffered
What is the definition of damages?
Refers to the amount of compensation
‘But for’ test
But for the defendant’s act or omission, the claimant would not have suffered any harm
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1968)
But for the medical consultant not examining the deceased, he still would have died- so test not satisfied
The Wagon Mound (1961)
The court held that damage by the oil was foreseeable, but the damage by the fire was not and therefore was too remote
Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)
It was foreseeable that the C would suffer some cold-related injury, so the D’s were liable for frostbite even thought it was very unusual. Frostbite was seen as an extreme form of injury from being cold
Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)
The risk of injury by burning was foreseeable, even though the explosion itself was not foreseeable
Doughty v Turner Asbestos (1964)
It could be foreseen that things would fall into the molten metal and cause a splash, but the chemical reaction was knot known, and was therefore unforeseeable. The claim therefore failed because the damage was too remote
What is the thin skull rule?
Take your victim as you find them
Smith v Leech Brain (!962)
Some minor injury was at least foreseeable and his extreme reaction was a result of his pre-existing condition, on the principle of taking your victim as you find them, the D was liable and the claim succeeded.
