Introduction To Tort And Negligence Flashcards
What is the case that links to negligence
Donoghue v Stevenson
Duty of care- Robinson test case
Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire.
What is the three tests of DOC in Caparo
- Damage was reasonably foreseeable.
- Legal proximity.
- Just, fair and reasonable.
Damage was reasonably foreseeable + Case
- Is it reasonably foreseeable that if the defendant is careless, the claimant could be injured or suffer harm.
- Kent v Griffiths.
Legal proximity + Case
- Legal proximity means the claimant and the defendant are sufficiently close to each other in at least one of: Time, Space and Relationship.
- King v Phillips.
Just, fair and reasonable + Case
- It must be just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty on the Defendant.
- Hill v CC of West Yorkshire Police.
BOD- Reasonable person test
- The reasonable person is the ordinary person performing the task competently.
BOD- The Standard Expected of Professionals + Case
- When deciding whether a professional person has fallen below the standard of care we ask:: Does the defendant’s conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary, competent professional, Is there a substantial body of professional opinion which supports the defendant’s actions.
- Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital.
BOD- The Standard Expected of Children- Case
- Mullins v Richards.
BOD- The Standard of Trainees/Learners- Case
- Nettleship v Weston.
BOD- Risk factors- Size of risk + Case
- Where there is only a small risk of harm occurring, yet harm occurs anyway, it is unlikely that there is a breach of duty. However, if there is a high risk of harm occurring, the standard of care is higher.
- Bolton v Stone.
BOD- Risk factors- Seriousness of potential harm + Case
- This factor concerns if the defendant knew the worst possible consequences of their potential actions.
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council.
BOD- Risk factors- The Practicality/Costs of taking Precautions + Case
- The reasonable man will do all he reasonably can to prevent harm coming to others. The courts will consider the balance of the risk involved against the cost and effort of taking precautions to eliminate risk.
- Latimer v AEC.
BOD- Risk factors- Public Benefit + Case
- If the activity being undertaken by the defendant benefitted the public then the courts will be more lenient and a lower standard of care can be expected.
- Watt v Hertfordshire County Council.
What are the 4 BOD risk factors
- Size of risk.
- Seriousness of potential harm.
- Practicality of taking precautions.
- Public benefit.
Res Ipsa Loquitur + Case
The claimant must show:
- Accident must be one of a type which doesn’t usually happen without negligence being present.
- The cause of the accident must have been under the defendant’s exclusive control.
- There must be no obvious explanation for the cause of the accident.
If the claimant can show these things, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that they were not negligent.
- Scott v London and St Katherine Docks
Factual Causation
- Here we apply the but for test.
- The purpose of factual causation and the ‘but for’ test s to establish whether the defendant’s breach of duty caused the claimant injury or loss.
- Barnett v Chelsea Hospital.
Legal Causation (Remoteness of damage) + Case
- If the defendant has been the cause of the claimant’s injury, the next thing we need to look at is whether the claimant’s injury or loss was foreseeable.
- The Wagon Mound.
The Thin Skull Rule + Case
- When the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable, but has been made worse by a weakness of the claimant’s health.
- Smith v Leech Brain.
