Tort - Negligence Cases Flashcards
Caparo v Dickman
3 part test
Robinson v CCWY
Not novel case so test not used
Kent v Griffiths
Foreseeability/ambulance staff and patients
Mullin v Richard’s
Children & other children
Bolam v Friem Hospital
Doctors & patients
Nettleship v Weston
Drivers an other road users (including passengers in vehicle)
Watt v Herts CC
Firemen & colleagues
Hall v Simons
Lawyers and clients
Palmer v Cornwall County Council
Teachers and pupils
Sayers v Harlow VDC
Local authorities and public
Donoghhue v Stevenson
Neighbour principle
Manufacturers and customers
Robinson v CCWY
Police officers and public
Wagonmound
Transportation companies and other companies
Haley v London Electricity Board
Workmen and public
Paris v Stepney BC
Employers and Employees
Miller v Jackson
Property owners and their neighbours
Smith v Smith
Hairdresser and clients
Blyth v BWW
Reasonable man test
Bolam v FH
D is a professional
Standard is of reasonable competent professional
Mullins v Richard’s
D is child
Standard of reasonable child of that age
Wells v Cooper
DIY skills
Standard of reasonable amateur (not professional)
Nettleship v Weston
Not taken into account inexperience/trainee
Bolton v Stone
Likelihood of harm
Paris v Stepney
Seriousness of potential harm (vulnerability?)
Latimer v AEC
Reasonable precautions
Watt v Herts CC
Social benefits
Barnett v C+K hospital
Causation “but for” test
Wagonmound
Not too remote/reasonably foreseeable
Bradford
D only needs to foresee general type of damage, not exact damage
Hughs v Lord Advocate
D not need to foresee exactly how damage happened, just it could
Smith v Leach Brain & co
Thin skull rule
D still liable
