Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

LAW > Negligence > Flashcards

Negligence Flashcards

1
Q

What case created the neighbour principle

A

Donoghue V Stevenson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is negligence

A

An act, or failure to act, due to the fault of the defendant which causes injury or damage to another person or his property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

NEGLIGENCE Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

A

Failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something which the reasonable person would not do

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the neighbour principle

A

The person who is owed a duty of care by the defendant. It includes anyone you ought to have in mind who might potentially be injured by your act or omission.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

A

May Donoghue went into a café and her friend bought her a ginger beer, in an opaque glass. After taking a drink, she found a snail in the bottle. She suffered shock and an upset stomach, she could not bring action against the café under contract law as she did not buy the drink. Instead she sued the manufacturer for negligence. Donoghue asked the judges to decide that the manufacturer, Stevenson, should pay her damages because his product had made her ill. This established the modern law of negligence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What case created the Caparo Tests

A

Caparo v Dickman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are the Caparo Tests

A

Was the damage reasonably foreseeable?
Was there a proximity of relationship?
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

CASE EXAMPLE: Was the damage reasonably foreseeable

A

Kent V Griffiths (it must be foreseeable that actions of the defendant could lead or harm)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

CASE EXAMPLE: Was there a proximity of relationship

A

Bourhill V Young (there must a close relationship between the actions of the defendant and the claimant)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

CASE EXAMPLE: Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

A

Hill V Chief Constable of West Yorks Police (it cannot lead to unfair duties, however it can be fair to impose a general duty on professionals such as police when it comes to preventing known crime)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What established the Robinson Test

A

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the Robinson Test

A

Is there existing precedent or statutory authority that creates a duty of care? If so, this must be followed or developed. If not, Caparo can be applied.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is a breach of duty

A

The failure to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man, taking into account various risk factors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the reasonable man

A

An objective test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What case explains the objective test

A

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

FACTS Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)

A

Defendants installed water mains with hydrants located at various points on a street. One of the hydrants across from the claimant’s house developed a leak due to cold temperatures and caused damage to the house.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

FACTS Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957)

A

Claimant given ECT, signed consent form but not given drug relaxant and broke pelvis. One opinion in medical profession supported the decision to not use relaxants. It was held that as the hospital followed this course it hadn’t breached its duty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

PRINCIPLE Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957)

A

Does the defendant’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?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

FACTS Nettleship v Weston (1971)

A

Learner driver injured passenger

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

PRINCIPLE Nettleship v Weston (1971)

A

Learners should be judged at the standard of the competent driver as they have as much responsibility for those on the roads as the competent driver

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

FACTS Mullin v Richards (1998)

A

Two 15 year-olds play-fighting with ruler, one lost sight in eye

22
Q

PRINCIPLE Mullin v Richards (1998)

A

Court decided the defendant had met the standard of a 15 year-old, therefore not breaching her duty of care

23
Q

Paris v Stepney BC (1951)

A

The claimant was known by their employers to be blind in one eye, therefore they should have taken greater care because of this and provided him with goggles. In this case, they did not and he ended up injured in his other eye, rendering him totally blind. The cost and effort of providing these is small compared with the consequences of the risk.

24
Q

Risk Factor: Special Characteristic

A

Paris v Stepney BC (1951)

25
Q

Risk Factor: The size of the risk

A

Bolton v Stone (1951)

26
Q

Bolton v Stone (1951)

A

The risk of cricket balls leaving the ground was very small, and so the defendants were not liable.

27
Q

Risk Factor: Appropriate precautions

A

Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)

28
Q

Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)

A

Whereby a factory had attempted to mitigate the risk of a slippery floor. However, one worker was injured. As the factory had taken adequate steps to reduce the risk, they were not liable. However, minimum standards of health and safety must be adhered to. The defendant should take practical - though not excessive - precautions.

29
Q

Unknown risks: If the risk of harm is not known, there can be no breach

A

Roe V Minister of Health (1954)

30
Q

Roe V Minister of Health (1954)

A

It was unknown that small, invisible cracks can appear in glass tubes use to store anaesthetic. Because the risk of contamination was unknown, there was no liability.

31
Q

Policy on emergency: In an emergency, greater risks can be taken in order to respond quickly

A

Watt V Hertfordshire County Council (1954)

32
Q

Watt V Hertfordshire County Council (1954)

A

A firefighter used an unofficial vehicle to try to free a woman trapped under a lorry. The jack used slipped and caused injury. As it was an emergency, there was no liability

33
Q

What do you need to prove for damage caused

A

The damage suffered was caused by the breach of duty (causation) and
That the loss or damage was not too remote (remoteness of damage).

34
Q

Causation in Torts

A

Factual Cause (But For Test)
Remoteness of Damage
No Intervening Act
Eggshell Skull Rule

35
Q

Causation Case

A

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)

36
Q

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)

A

Mr Barnett went to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains and vomiting. Via phone the duty doctor told the nurse to send him home and contact his GP in the morning. Mr Barnett died five hours later from arsenic poisoning. It was held that the hospital was not liable as the doctor’s failure to examine the patient did not cause his death. Introduced the ‘but for’ test into tort law ie would the result have occurred but for the act or omission of the defendant? If yes, the defendant is not liable.

37
Q

Remoteness of Damage Case

A

The Wagon Mound (1961)

38
Q

Causation

A

Factual causation has to be proved to consider legal causation. It is decided using the ‘but for’ test. Intervening acts can break the chain of causation, just as in criminal law.

39
Q

Remoteness of Damage

A

Where factual causation is proved it must be shown that the damage is not too remote from the negligence of the defendant. The injury or damage must be reasonably foreseeable, even though the precise way in which it happened is not.

40
Q

The Wagon Mound (1961)

A

The defendant’s vessel, leaked oil in a harbour. Sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The defendant’s were not liable as although damage caused by the oil was foreseeable, the fire damage was too remote from the original negligent act of spilling oil.

41
Q

Take your victim as you find him

A

If the claimant has a pre-existing condition, the defendant is liable for all the consequences. Whilst in criminal law this is known as the ‘thin skull rule’, in negligence this is known as ‘the eggshell skull rule’

42
Q

Take Your Victim As You Find Him Case

A

Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962)

43
Q

Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962)

A

Due to the defendant’s negligence, a man was burnt on the lip by molten metal in a factory. The man had a pre-existing cancerous condition. The burn eventually made this worse and the man died. His widow claimed against the defendants. It was held that the defendant was liable for the man’s death.

44
Q

Defences

A

contributory negligence and consent

45
Q

Contributory Negligence

A

an allegation that the claimant has partly caused or contributed to his injuries

46
Q

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

A

Provides that any damages awarded to the claimant can be reduced according to the extent or level to which the claimant had contributed to his own harm

47
Q

Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958)

A

C trapped in a public toilet when the door lock jammed. She tried to escape by climbing over the door, with one foot on the toilet seat and one on the toilet roll holder. The holder gave way and she was injured. The court decided that the council was liable for its negligent maintenance but her damages were reduced by 25% because of the way she tried to escape.

48
Q

Contributory Negligence Case

A

Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958)

49
Q

Consent

A

An allegation that the claimant has consented or agreed to accept a risk of harm and voluntarily taken it. Consent is a full defence. It means no injury is done to one who consents to the risk.

50
Q

Consent Case

A

ICI Ltd v Shatwell (1965)

51
Q

ICI Ltd v Shatwell (1965)

A

The claimant and his brother worked at a quarry. The claimant , following his brother’s instructions and ignoring the employer’s instructions, was injured when a detonator exploded. He claimed in negligence against his employer. The court decided that by ignoring his employer’s instructions, he had assumed the risk of injury and the defence of consent succeeded.

52
Q

What needs to be proven for consent

A

Knowledge of the precise risk involved
Exercise of free choice by the claimant
A voluntary acceptance of the risk

LAW (15 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions