Negligence Flashcards
Negligence definition
Negligence is failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or something a reasonable person wouldn’t do
- Duty of care
Neighbour principle: donoghue v Stevenson:
D found a decomposing snail in her drink which her friend payed for in a case, she therefore ended up suing the manufacturers
Claim succeeded manufactures sued for negligence
Wide ratio: doc owed to neighbours, neighbours are ppl who can can be effected by our acts
Narrow ratio:
Manufactures owe a doc to their end consumer
Caparo test
Decides Wetter a doc exists in situtationd ehrrr there is no precedent for doc
Caparo v dickman:
Caparo industries purchased shares in fedility
No doc owed as not sufficient proximity between caparo and the auditors since auditors were
- Damage or harm must have been reasonably foreseeable
Would a reasonable person in d position have foreseen that someone in the claimants position might be injured
Kent v Griffiths:
C had asthma’s and and called for an ambulnace, ambulnace took longer than anticipated arriving causing v to suffer a respiratory arrest
Sued ambulnace for negligence, doc owed as soon as call was picked up and informed of abuknace coming,
Was reasonably foreseeable that a pregn asthmatic women would suffer further injury’s due to delays
- Must be proximity of relationship
Doc only exists is the relationship between c and d is sufficiently close or proximate, proximity just means closeness, proximity can be space, time and relationship
e.g bourhill v young: preg women got off tram, heard acciddnt approached the scenec , saw blood, shocked and gave birth to a still born, tried to sue family of dead relatives,
she had to prove proximity to show doc was owed, hol decided motprcylict could not have anticpated thsi result, it could cause mental harm to a bystander, he was not proximate so no doc owed
- fair, just and reasonable to impose doc
to prove doc it must be fair just and reasoable to impose doc on d
hill v cheif constable: yorkshire ripper attacked wmen, cs daughter was alst victim , police had enough info to amke arrest but failed to do so, so c alleged police owed doc to daughter d: rs of ploice and v was not close to form doc, not fair to owe doc to general public , police had no way of knowinh who the next v was going to be
mitceh v glasgow city coincil: man murdered by neighbour who had threatned and others, killig took place after council meeting to discuss the behaviour
d: no doc owed to decased by council as it wasnt fair just or reasoable for council to warn decased of the steps they were taking to deal with the offending behaviour
esatblished duty situation
robinson v west yorkshire police: sc stated that there are a number of sitautions in which the doc already exists
eg drivers and passengers( road tarffic act 1988) or nettleship v weston
manufators and consumers
dr to pateint
empoyers to employees
reasaobale person
once doc has been proved, breach must be proved, court judges ds conduct by the standard of the reasaobale person
blyth v birmighma waterworks: rrasaobale person test, ordinary person on the street or someone doinh the same task as the d
breach of duty
breach of duty if fallen below standard of a reasobale persom
professionals:
bolam: does d conduct fall below standard of the ordinary comptent member of the profession
does a sunstantial body of opinion within the profession support the cause of actiom taken by d
no breach of d if dr followed one course of gtreatment drugs not necessary so no breach
momtogemery: c gave birth to baby with cerebral palsy due to complications . dr failed to disclose risks and obtain informed cxnsent
d; dr under doc , breach due to falure of disclosure.
learners and less experimved:no allowance is amde for lack of experince
nettleship v weston:
driving lessons wityh neighbour, on 3rd test failed to starighten out car and thereofre carshed,
d:weston shpuld be judged by standard of the comptent driver so held liable
children; based of reasbaoble conduct of person of that age
mullins v richard: two 15 yera olds play fighting with rulers, snapped into eye causing loss of sighyt
d:no breach, met tequired standards of a 15 year old
risk factors
court takes into account whther doc should be lowered or hivghered when assesing breach
special charactseristics:
paris v stepney:c known to be blind in one ye, given work by empoyer which required safety vgoggles as invoved small risk of in jury to the eyes, wasnt given protetion, left fully blind
d:held to have broken doc
size of risk:
bolton v stone: ball hit c ourtside staduim, 17 ft high fence, only hit 6 times in 30 years out ofvground
d:club doen everytthimg needed to lower risk so no breach
hayley v london : workers dug a trench, onlu put a sign , c was blind fell and injured, road is sued by blind ppl often
d: greater precautions should have been taken, so breach od doc
cost of preacurtins:
factory flooded, workers evacuted sawdust spread to minimkse accidnegts ,workers required to get back to work, one worker slipped
d: no breach of doc , reasoable care taken to reduce injurys
foreseeability of risks:
roe: anasthetic kepy in glass, steralised wity solution , unkown that invisble cracks could occur, caused anasthetic to become conatminmated, cauised c to bceome paralsyed
d: risk of conta,iation unknown at the time so no breach
public benfit of risk taking: if emergncy situation court willing to allow greater risks and lower standrard of care
watt v hertforsdhire: no breach as saving life outweighed the need to take precautions
day v high: no breach as emergency to save her despte causing the fall
damage/ causation:
caustaion: link between ds act and inujury/ damage caused
factual: acting the way they did caused the harm
but for test;
barnet v chelsea: 3 men drank tea, went to ae duty dr recommnded go hoem rather than examinattion, one man died, widow sued,
however, by the time husband called hsopital, too late to save his life
d: but for drinkimg tea d would have died anyways
intervening acts breaks chain of causation
legal causation, remoteness of damage:
damage must not be too remote from negligence of the d#
wagon mound:
fuel oil is negligently spilled from ds ship intosydney harbour flew towards wharf,
damage reasoablly foreseebale from lil spill on wharfc and not dfire damage
d: fire damage too remote for orifinal negligent axt of oil spill
type of injury foreseeable:
hughes v lord advocate:
two bosy explore man hole unattended , parrafin lamps to warn road users, lanp dropped, unforeseeable explosion occured resultuing in extensive bjurns
d: consqumces foreseeable ven if exact cause of injury not foreseeable,
, foreseeable burn from lamp
bradford: consqumces fom harsh weather was foreseeabl even if its more severe than expevted, employers laible
doughty; consquence not know so i jurty noy foreseabke , scientfic kmwolefge cudnt predicted the explosion.
egg shell skull rule:
smith v leech: must atke your v as u find them, if type of i jury is foreseeable b uy severity is not due to pre existing condiyioms d still liable.
burn reasobaly foreesable, vcaused cancer to progress
defences
contributory neglignce:
sayers v harlow: counvcil laible but damages reduced by 25% as she didnt habe to jump out
consent/ volenti; willigness does not amke injury
1. knew risk
2, excersized free choice
3,voulntartily accepted risks
remedies
non pecuniary loss: cant be calculated in money eg emotional damage or ongoing injurys
pecunairy losses; an be calculated in money, job income , propery fdamage, mediacl tteatments
