tort : negligence Flashcards
what is negligence?
a breach of duty of care which results in damage or personal injury
donoghue v stevenson (1932)
- A bought 2 bottles of sealed, dark-coloured ginger beer
- B pours drink & sees decomposing snail coming out of bottle (this was her 2nd glass of gb, already consumed 1 glass)
- B couldnt easily claim negligence since she didnt make contract as wasnt the one who purchased, A did
what principle did the donoghue v stevenson (1932) case introduce?
neighbour principle
what is the neighbour principle in the case of negligence?
compensation can be claimed for an injured person where that person can prove :
1. duty of care was owed to him by defendant
2. duty of care was then broken by defendant
3. damage was suffered by claimant as a result
MUST MEET ALL 3 CRITERIA TO CLAIM NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE
what does it mean by “duty of care”?
owe a duty of care to our neighbour (anyone you can reasonably foresee that will affected / injured by your actions / lack of actions)
what extra controls have been put in place since the 80s regarding negligence & duty of care?
- if case is type which has already been decided, use case law to determine judgement (eg. faulty products, faulty surgeries)
- if case is new situation, then subject to extra checks on public policy grounds (caparo test)
outline the steps of the caparo test for negligence.
- type of harm / loss, was it reasonably foreseeable?
- sufficient relationship of proximity between claimant & defendant to claim that there should’ve been a duty of care?
- in all circumstances, is it fair & reasonable to impose duty?
WBAFC v El-Safty
- WBA tried to claim negligence against el-safty
- ES was health professional for players
- WBA couldnt claim negligence as decided that ES’s role was too far detached from the football club for them to claim negligence
what does the compensation act 2006 outline about negligence cases?
in order to claim compensation from potential negligence :
- must prevent / limit a certain activity
- discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity
what does it mean when “duty is broken”?
if you fail to act as a reasonable man in the circumstances. “reasonable man” weighs up :
- likelihood of harm
- seriousness of harm
- reasonableness of taking precautions
- value to society
extra care is required of a professional
less care is expected of children
nettleship v watson
- learner driver crashed into car
- what is reasonable expectations of driver?
- was crash negligent?
- determined that duty of care WAS broken
latimer v aec
- factory flooded, so latimer mopped and placed warning signs & sawdust on floor
- was determined that latimer took reasonable steps to minimise risks of slippery floo
- worker slipped, fell & got crushed by heavy barrel while working, tried to sue for negligence
- determined that duty of care WAS NOT broken as took “reasonable” steps to reduce risk of slippage
what is res ipsa loquitor in relation to negligence?
relates to when duty of care is broken :
- no one knows what happened
- negligence is the only possible explanation
- object is under the exclusive control of defendant
- defendant must then prove it was not negligence
what are the specific categories surrounding “duty of care” in negligence?
- nervous shock (pure psychiatric damage)
- negligent misstatement (pure economic loss, NO relation to personal injury or property damage)
what is nervous shock in relation to negligence?
claimant must show :
- recognised psychiatric illness due to negligence
- felt self / family were in danger
- proximate in time and distance
