THE NATURE, FUNCTIONS AND KEY ELEMENTS OF THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE Flashcards
Donoghue V Stevenson
Lord Atkin: neighbourhood principle
‘if harm is reasonably foreseeable, then a duty of care if owed to prevent that harm. ‘
must take reasonable care to avoid acts/omissions which you can reasonably foreseeable would be likely to injure your neighbour.
Nettleship V Weston
learner drivers are at the same standard of care
‘is measured objectively by the care to be expected of an experienced skilled and careful driver’
means that the victim can be compensated for the risk that society allows e.g. letting learners on the road.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018]
Mrs R sues against police for her injuries after she was involved in an altercation/arrest on a busy high street.
HL held the police owed her a DOC because it was reasonably foreseeable that they could cause harm by chasing a drug dealer down a busy high street.
(D V S used)
Darnley V Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
Darnely suffers head injury, and on arriving to hospital, is told he will have to wait 4/5 hours, when it should have been 30 mins. If waited, he would have been seen swiftly due to his brain bleed. But went home.
On suffering severe paralysis due to leaving hosp. DOC is owed. reasonably foreseeable to receptionist that giving wrong info could lead to further injury from this negligence. Lord Jones: held this was not a new situation.
tort of negligence
‘a breach of duty to take care, which results in damage to the claimant’
elements of tort of negligence
- D owes a DOC to C
- D acted in BREACH of that duty
AS A RESULT:
C suffered damage which is NOT too remote a consequence of D breach.
CAUSE AND FACT
role of a DOC
impose legal obligations on D to ensure C req compensation for wrong committed.
a DOC is a PRIMARY MECHANISM…
who can/cannot be compensated.
The Neighbourhood principle:
- ‘reasonable forseeability’
D could foresee that his failure to take care might injure another. - Test of ‘neighbourhood’ a DOC owed where C was closely & directly affected by D conduct.
BUT not ratio decinti: two J’s refrained from referring to it.
Caparo:
‘threefold test’ for NOVEL cases
considered all at once, not seperately…
e.g. more foreseeable the harm, closer the proximity
gives the courts w/general framework for determining existence of a DOC
factors in caparo:
- reasonable foreseeability
- proximity of relationship
- fair,just and reasonable
SOC for a learner driver:
Nettleship V Weston:
skilled, experienced and careful driver
McHale V Watson
take into account the normal level of development for a child of the age
normal child / exceptions ?
Gough V Thorne
girl who was 13 and a half
‘ordinary child’: Salmon LJ
Mullin V Richards
Two girls fighting w/rulers leaving one girl blind
reasonable standard of girls : commonly different, different development rates and thus expectations.
