Tort - Negligence (Duty & Breach) Flashcards
One road user to another
London Passenger Transport Board v Upson
Defendant to rescuer where D has created a dangerous situation where it is foreseeable someone may attempt a rescue
Baker v Hopkins
Driver to pedestrians and passengers
Nettleship v Weston
Referee to sports player
Vowles v Evans
Participant in sport to another
Condon v Basi
Advocate to client
Arthur Hall v Simons
No duty of care from fire service to emergency caller
Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC
General Rule: Police owe a duty of care to avoid causing foreseeable personal injury to another person by positive act
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Where the police have assumed a position of responsibility for someone/ someone has been entrusted to their care they owe a duty of care to that person
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Manchester Police
What is the wide ratio in Donoghue v Stevenson?
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour
What are the criteria for a novel duty of care established in Caparo? (Plus other authority)
Harm to this particular defendant as a result of D’s actions was reasonably foreseeable (Bourhill v Young)
Proximity of relationship between D and C
Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (Bishop Rock Marine)
Breach of duty is established objectively
Glasgow Corp v Muir
The general standard is that of a reasonable person
Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks
The defendants conduct is considered in relation to the state of knowledge at the time of the breach
Roe v Ministry of Health
If D is a professional, he will be held to the standard of the reasonably competent person in that profession
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
If conduct is in line with common practice this will be a good indication that D is not in breach
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
There is no allowance for inexperience
Nettleship v Weston
There is no allowance for professional inexperience
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
The general standard for children is that of a reasonable child of the defendant’s age
Mullin v Richards
If the risk of harm is high, D should take steps to mitigate. If the risk of harm is low, there is no such duty
Bolton v Stone
If there is a risk of serious harm, D should take steps to mitigate
Paris v Stepney
The cost and practicality of precautions should be considered
Latimer v AEC
If D’s actions have a public benefit/ offer social utility this may justify the taking of greater risks
Watt v Hertfordshire CC
There is no duty to protect against ‘fantastic’ possibilities
Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington
If there is prima facie evidence of negligence the claimant may not have to prove it. What is the term for this?
Res ipsa loquitur
What conditions need to be met to show res ipsa loquitur?
Thing that caused damage under the control of D
Event would not normally happen without negligence
There is no direct evidence D failed to exercise reasonable care
