Tort of Negligence: Liability for Physical Injury and Damage to Property Flashcards
What is negligence?
The defendant failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something which the reasonable person would not do
What case defines negligence?
BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS
What needs to be proved for D to be liable in negligence?
Duty of care, breach of duty of care and damage caused
What is the definition of a duty of care?
A duty of care is owed to persons who are so closely and directly affected by D’s act that he ought reasonably to have them in contemplation
In which case was the neighbour principle established?
DONOGHUE V STEVENSON
What happened in DONOGHUE V STEVENSON?
A decomposing snail was found in a bottle of ginger beer after drinking it which caused personal injury
What has replaced the neighbour principle?
The CAPARO test
What is the CAPARO test used for?
To establish a duty of care
What is the first part of the CAPARO test?
There will be a duty of care if it was reasonably foreseeable that there was a risk that C and/or their property would be affected
What is the second part of the CAPARO test?
There will be a duty of care if the relationship between C and D was sufficiently proximate in time and space
What is the third part of the CAPARO test?
There will be a duty of care if it was fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances for a duty of care to be imposed on D
What case corresponds with the first part of the CAPARO test for physical injury?
HALEY V LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD
What does the case HALEY V LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD say?
A reasonable person must foresee the possibility that, if care is not taken by D, physical injury might be caused
What happened in HALEY V LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD?
A trench was dug and left unattended with just a shovel as a warning to pedestrians. C was blind so didn’t see the warning and fell, the court held that this was reasonably foreseeable
What case corresponds with the first part of the CAPARO test for damage to property?
HUNTER V CANARY WHARF
What does the case HUNTER V CANARY WHARF say?
It must be that a reasonable person would foresee the possibility that, if care is not taken by D, damage to property might be caused. The damage to property must be more than merely trivial
What case corresponds with the second part of the CAPAPO test?
BOURHILL V YOUNG
What does the case BOURHILL V YOUNG say?
It must be reasonably foreseeable that D’s conduct might cause harm to C due to the closeness and directness of the relationship between them
What happened in BOURHILL V YOUNG?
C got off a tram when a motorcyclist collided with a car 50 feet away and died. C heard the crash but didn’t see it then walked past where the incident occurred and saw the blood. C went into shock and her baby was born stillborn so she brought a negligence case against D’s estate but it failed as there wasn’t sufficient proximity when the incident occurred
What does the case BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS say about the breach of duty of care?
D will have breached his duty of care if he failed to reach the standard of care required of the reasonable person in the same circumstances
What does the case NETTLESHIP V WESTON say about the breach of duty of care?
Where a person holds himself out to the public as possessing a special skill, he is required to reach the standard normally expected of persons doing that activity
What happened in NETTLESHIP V WESTON?
A learner driver was expected to reach the standard of a qualified driver
What does the case BOLAM V FRIERN say about the breach of duty of care?
D will not be liable if some responsible member of the same trade or profession would agree with D’s course of action
What does the case CALDWELL V MAGUIRE say about the breach of duty of care?
Where D is playing a sport with C, D will fail to reach the standard of care of a reasonable person playing that sport at D’s level if D’s disregard for C’s safety is deliberate or reckless
What does the case MULLIN V RICHARDS say about the breach of duty of care?
If D is a child, D must reach the standard of care expected of a reasonable child of D’s age
What happened in MULLIN V RICHARDS?
15 year old girls were fencing with plastic rulers and one shattered and blinded one of the girls
What can risk factors do to the standard of care that D is required to reach?
Raise it or lower it
What does the case BOLTON V STONE say about risk factors?
The more likely that a risk of harm will occur, the higher the standard of care expected and the more precautions that D needs to take
What happened in BOLTON V STONE?
C was hit by a cricket ball from a ground with a high fence. The batsman was 80 yards away and the ball was the sixth in 30 years to be hit out of the ground so enough precautions had been taken given the small risk
What does the case PARIS V STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL say about risk factors?
The seriousness of the potential risk factor will also affect the standard of care that D is expected to reach. Where there is a risk of serious harm, the more precautions D needs to take
What happened In PARIS V STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL?
D only had sight in one eye, and when working a splinter of metal went into his eye leaving him completely blind but D should have been provided safety goggles
What does the case DABORN V BATH TRAMWAYS say about the standard of care?
In setting the standard of care, the court will take into account any relevant social utility of D’s act. It may be that a desirable community activity justifies D taking a particular risk
What happened in DABORN V TRAMWAYS?
It was said that if all trains were restricted to 5mph there would be fewer accidents but national life would be slowed down
What does the case WATT V HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL say about risk factors?
If there is an emergency, with little time to make decisions, greater risks can be taken by D and a lower standard of care is required
What does the case LATIMER V AEC say about precautions?
The courts will balance the risk of harm involved against the cost and effort of taking adequate precautions to prevent the risk
What happened in LATIMER V AEC?
D’s factory became flooded and he took measures to create safety but someone still slipped
What does the case BARNETT V CHELSEA AND KENSINGTON HOSPITAL say about the cause of the damage?
D’s breach of duty must be the factual cause of the damage. If the harm would have happened anyway then D will not be liable
What happened in BARNETT V CHELSEA AND KENSINGTON HOSPITAL?
V was sent home from the hospital to be examined by his own doctor but he died a few hours later but the court held that he would’ve died anyway
What are the three types of intervening acts which will prevent D from being the legal cause of the damage?
An act of God/nature, C’s own conduct and an act of a third party
What must an act of nature be to break the chain of causation?
Overwhelming or unpredictable
What case corresponds with C’s own conduct as an intervening act?
MCKEW V HOLLAND LTD
What does MCKEW V HOLLAND LTD say about C’s own conduct as an intervening act?
C’s own conduct will break the chain of causation where C’s conduct is unreasonable where C has made a voluntary and informed decision to act and it was not reasonably foreseeable that C would act in this way
What happened in MCKEW V HOLLAND LTD?
C strained his back and hips and his legs were prone to giving way. He went down a staircase with no handrail unaided and decided to jump the last 10 steps
What case corresponds with an act of a third part as an intervening act?
KNIGHTLY V JOHNS
What does the case KNIGHTLY V JOHNS say?
An act of a third party will break the chain of causation if the act is not reasonably foreseeable
What does THE WAGON MOUND CASE say?
It is considered to be unjust to make D liable for events too far removed from his original breach of duty. D will be able to avoid liability for damage that is too remote from his wrongdoing if he can prove that the harm was not reasonably foreseeable
What happened in THE WAGON MOUND?
A ship leaked oil into a harbour. The oil drifted to below C’s wharf where welding was going on. A fire was caused due to the oil and significant damage was caused. The court held that the damage was too remote from D’s negligent act of spilling the oil
What does the case BRADFORD V ROBINSON RENTALS say?
The harm suffered must be of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable as a result of D’s negligence
What does the case HUGHES V LORD ADVOCATE say?
If harm of a reasonably foreseeable kind occurs, normally D will still be liable even though the precise manner in which the negligent act causes the harm could not be foreseen
What happened in HUGHES V LORD ADVOCATE?
Two boys explored an unattended manhole which was surrounded by a tent and paraffin lamps to warn of the danger. A lamp was knocked into the hole and exploded causing extensive burns.
What case explains the egg shell skull rule?
SMITH V LEECH BRAIN
What is the egg shell skull rule?
D must takes C as he finds them
What happened in SMITH V LEECH BRAIN?
V was burned by zinc on his lip. His lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the burn
