Case Law Flashcards
(44 cards)
The neighbour principle
Donoghue v Stevenson
Three part formulation for establishing duty in a novel situation (foreseeability, proximity, fair just and reasonable)
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
Existing duty of care
Nettleship v Weston
(Caparo) Would a reasonable person have foreseen a risk of harm to the claimant as a result of defendant’s acts or omissions?
Smith v Littlewoods Organisations Ltd
(Caparo) Was there sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant?
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control
(Caparo) Is it fair just and reasonable on public policy grounds to impose a duty of care?
L and Another v Reading Borough Council and Others
Courts are reluctant to impose a duty on statutory authorities (1) but not blanket immunity, generally duty will not be imposed for an omission (2)
(1) Hill v CC of West Yorkshire
(2) Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire
Sorrow and grief cannot be compensated
Hinz v Berry
Primary victim is someone in zone of danger to whom physical harm was reasonably foreseeable
Page v Smith
Established requirements of secondary victim as being; psych harm reasonably foreseeable, close relationship of love and affection, physically close, witness accident/aftermath with own unaided senses, sudden shock.
Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire
Standard of care is objective - did the person act as a reasonable person would have done?
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
When deciding standard of care, no allowance is made for an individual’s lack of knowledge or experience
Nettleship v Weston
When deciding standard of care, it is accepted that children do not have the same awareness of risk
Orchard v Lee
The standard of care is not normally adjusted to reflect the personal characteristics of the defendant
Dunnage v Randall and Another
Professionals must achieve the standard of an ordinary skilled person exercising their special skill
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Medical professionals must act in accordance with the standard of reasonably competent professionals at the time provided the standard is reasonably supported
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority
Harm must be reasonably foreseeable - a person is not required to possess expertise beyond that of others in their own profession at the time of the event
Roe v Minister of Health
Has a breach occurred? Magnitude of risk - more likely the risk, the more foreseeable it is deemed to be and the more care should have been taken to avoid
Bolton v Stone
Has a breach occurred? Vulnerability of claimant - the higher the risk of serious injury, the more caution is required
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Has a breach occurred? Importance of D’s objective - if engaged in a socially desirable activity at the time of the breach, it may be justifiable to take an abnormal risk
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Has a breach occurred? Cost of avoiding harm - it is not necessary for D to go to extreme lengths to protect against a risk
Latimer v AEC
Causation in fact - the but for test
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
Causation in fact - but for becomes more likely than not
Page v Smith (No 2)
Causation in fact - where an injury is indivisible, the but for test applies and it must be proved that it was more probable than not that D’s act caused the harm (over 50%)
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
