Negligence Flashcards
Caparo test for duty of care
- Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
- Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between claimant and defendant
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
What case demonstrated the need for negligence
Donoghue v Stevenson
Case for damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
Kent v Griffiths
C died despite being repeatedly assured the ambulance was close
Cases for proximity of relationship
Bourhill v Young - fish wife. Bystander was not sufficiently proximate
McLoughlin v O’Brien - family members, saw before treatment, within 2 hours
Cases for fair just and reasonable to impose a duty
Hill v CCWY - not fair just and reasonable as they didn’t know who the next victim would be
Osmond - knew who victim would be
Neighbour test
Someone who D ought to have in mind who might be injured by your acts / omissions - Lord Atkin
Robinson
Duty of care doesn’t have to be proved in existing situations
What is the standard of care
“Reasonable person” - objective
Bolam - Professionals judged to the standard of profession as a whole
Nettleship v Weston - learners judged as professionals
Mullin v Richards - children judged at the standard of a child of their age
Questions for professionals who have breached
Does D’s conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary, competent 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?
Bolam
Risk factors which can raise of lower standard
Special characteristics (Paris v Stepney Borough Council)
Size of the risk (Bolton v Stone and Haley v London Electricity board)
Appropriate precautions (Latimer v AEC Ltd)
Unknown risks (Roe v Minister of Health)
Public benefit (Day v High Performance Sports and Watt v Hertfordshire County Council)
Cases for causation (breach)
Barnett - “but for” test
Wagon mound - remoteness of damage
Smith v Leech Brain - eggshell skull rule
Hughes v Lord Advocate - liable if type of injury foreseeable even if way it occurred isn’t
Bradford v Robinson rentals - liable if consequence foreseeable, even if severity isn’t
Doughty v Turner asbestos - not liable if injury entirely unpredictable
What must D prove for res ipsa loquitur
D was in control of situation that caused injury
The accident would not have happened unless someone was negligent
There was no other explanation for the injury
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks
Contributory negligence statute
The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
What is the effect of contributory negligence defence
Damages reduced to the extent that C contributed to their own harm (Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council)
Can be up to 100% (Jayes v IMI)
Contributory negligence cases
O’Connell v Jackson - 15% reduction as moped rider didn’t wear crash helmet
Froom v Butcher - 20% reduction for no seatbelt
Stinton v Stinton - 1/3 reduction for accepting lift from KNOWN drunk driver
Badger v Ministry of Defence - 20% reduction from asbestos dust as D knew the risks of smoking since 1971 and continued
