Tort Law: Liability In Negligence Flashcards
DUTY OF CARE
What is the neighbour principle?
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
DUTY OF CARE
What is the criteria for the three-part test established in Coparo V Dickmann, 1990?
- Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
- Is there sufficient proximity by space, time or relationship?
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
DUTY OF CARE
What is ‘damage or harm that is reasonably foreseeable’?
Where a reasonable person could foresee that damage or injury could be caused to another person by their actions.
Kent V Griffiths 2000: The court decided it was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer further illness if the ambulance did not arrive promptly.
DUTY OF CARE
What is ‘proximity of relationship’?
A duty care that will exist if the relationship between the claimant and the defendant is sufficiently close.
Bourhill V Young, 1943. The House of Lords held that the claimant was not owed a duty of care because she was not of close relationship with the motorcyclist if he was in an accident.
DUTY OF CARE
What is ‘fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty’?
It establishes whether it is fair, reasonable and just to impose a duty of care.
Hil V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, 1990. The House of Lords held that the police was not sufficiently close to the victim, so it was not fair, just or reasonable for the police to owe duty of care.
DUTY OF CARE
What was held in Robinson V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire?
A duty of care was owed. Where there is an established ground of liability, such as personal injury, there is no need to apply the third stage of the Caparo test.
BREACH OF DUTY
Once it has been established that a duty of care exists, the claimant must satisfy that the defendant broke that duty of care by…
Failing to reach the standard of care required by a reasonable person.
BREACH OF DUTY
What are the three types of reasonable people?
Professional = Bolam V Friern hospital MC 1957: The standard of the professional is judged by the standard of the profession, so the court held that a duty of care was not breached.
Learner = Nettleship V Weston 1971: Learners are judged at the standard of the more experienced person, so the court held that a duty of care was not breached.
Young people = Mullin V Richards 1998: The standard is a reasonable person of the defendants age, so the court held that the defendant did not breach her duty of care.
BREACH OF DUTY
What questions are asked to determine whether a professional has breached their duty of care?
Does the defendant’s conduct fall below the standard of an ordinary member of that profession?
Is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course of action taken by the defendant?
BREACH OF DUTY
What are the factors affecting the standard of care of the reasonable person?
-Are there any special characteristics of the defendant?
-Are there any special characteristics of the claimant?
-What is the size of the risk?
-Have all practical precautions being taken?
-What are the benefits of taking the risk?
BREACH OF DUTY
What is an example case for ‘special characteristics’?
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951): the employers broke their duty of care to the claimant because they knew he was blind.
Haley V London Electricity Board, 1965: It was held that the defendant breached their duty of care as it was known that blind people used the road.
BREACH OF DUTY
What is an example case of ‘practical precautions’?
Latimer V AEC Limited, 1953: it was held that there was no breach of duty of care because sufficient steps were made at the time to prevent injury.
BREACH OF DUTY
What is an example case for ‘benefit of taking the risk’?
Watt V Hertfordshire County Council 1954: The Court ruled that the life of the person that had to be saved was more important than anything else so the Council was not liable for the injuries of the fireman.
DAMAGE
What is damage?
Whether defendants breach of duty led to the injury or property damage.
DAMAGE
What are the two parts to damage?
Causation in fact: the idea that the defendant must have caused the loss that is being claimed for. E.g. Barnet V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee, 1969: The doctor did not breach his duty of care because the arsenic already took over the victims system, so there was nothing that could be done.
Remoteness of damage: Whether the loss is reasonably foreseeable. E.g. The Wagon Mound 1961: It was held that fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable and it was too remote from the original negligent act.
