Rules of negligence - property damage and physical injury Flashcards
What 3 things must be proved in a negligence case?
- D owed C a duty of care
- D breached that duty of care
- D’s breach caused the damage to C which was not too remote
When do you need to use Caparo v Dickman?
If a scenario is a novel or new situation
First part of the duty of care test
- Existing statutes or precedents that already exist, establish a duty
Robinson v Chief constable of west Yorkshire police - Police owed a duty of care to C due to creating the danger themselves
2nd part of the test for duty of care
- Reason by analogy - looking at existing precedents and establishing if there are similar duties of care that could be similar to the case
Donoghue v Stevenson; manufacturers owe a duty of care to their consumers
What is the Caparo test?
- Was harm reasonably foreseeable?
- Proximity between C and D (time and space/relationship)
- Was it fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty?
- Bourhill v Young; no duty of care was owed by D to the C, no sufficient proximity between D and C when incident occurred
What is meant by a breach of duty?
- The expected standard of care has not been met
D is judged objectively by the standards of the reasonable man
Blythe v Birmingham water works and co. - Not liable, “negligence is failing to do something that the RM would do or something she wouldn’t do”
When judging objectively, what characteristics are relevant? (Breach of duty)
- Professional; increased standard of care, compared to RM within that profession
- Learner; increased standard of care, based on professional
Child; lower standard of care
Case for learners (breach of duty)
Nettleship v Weston
Liable - standard of care expected of the RM would not be lowered because D was a learner, civil law permits no such excuse
What risk factors increase the standard of care? (breach of duty)
- Size/likelihood of risk
Paris v SBC (Liable, employers knew of his existing visual impairment standard of care was increased) - Seriousness of risk
- Special characteristics of C - Paris v SBC
- Practical precautions (if not taken) Ward v Tesco - Liable, D’s had failed to take sufficient practical precautions and owed a higher standard of care
What is meant by damage?
3) D must cause the damage that occurs
Loss incurred by C as a result of D’s actions eg; property damage, personal injury, physical pain and suffering
First part of the test to establish if D caused damage
Factual causation - ‘but for’ D’s breach C would not have suffered the loss/harm
Barnett v K&C hospital - not liable, “but for” the doctor not seeing him, he would have died regardless as the poisoning had already taken effect
2nd part of the test of caused damage
Remoteness of damage - the harm was reasonably foreseeable
Wagon Mound - not liable for the fire damage as it was unforeseeable and the welders intervened (too remote) but liable for oil damage - foreseeable
How do intervening acts impact caused damage?
They can minimise liability where they are unforeseeable
Thin skull - D must take C as they find them - Paris v SBC
