Negligence Flashcards
(35 cards)
Introduction?
First established by the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, negligence is defined by the case of Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks which sets out that negligence is failing to do something that a reasonable person would have done or doing something a reasonable person would not have done.
What is the three part test in negligence?
1) The D owes the claimant a duty of care.
2) The D breaches this duty.
3) The breach causes reasonably foreseeable injury or damage.
The Owes the Claimant a duty of care: Definition?
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police - No single definitive test to assess the existence of a duty of care.
Therefore, similar case law must be drawn upon.
The Owes the Claimant a duty of care: Traffic?
Road Traffic Act 1988 - For traffic related negligence.
The Owes the Claimant a duty of care: Stomach?
Donoghue v StevensonFor upset stomachs after consuming a poor quality drink.
The Owes the Claimant a duty of care: Receptionists?
Darley v Croydon Health Services NHS - Duty of care from receptionists towards patients.
The Owes the Claimant a duty of care: Landowners?
Sumner v Colborne - No duty of care for landowners who obstruct motorists with their land.
The Owes the Claimant a duty of care: Caparo v Dickman?
If there isn’t a previously established duty of care, the C takes the D through the three part test.
The Owes the Claimant a duty of care: Caparo v Dickman - 1) Was the damage or harm foreseeable from the act?
Kent v Griffiths - Whether the damage or harm caused by the D was foreseeable.
The Owes the Claimant a duty of care: Caparo v Dickman - 2) Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between the C + D?
Must be a close relationship.
Bourhill v Young - Bystander who witnessed the incident is not sufficiently close.
McLoughlin v O’Brien - Family member who witnessed the incident is sufficiently close.
The Owes the Claimant a duty of care: Caparo v Dickman - 3) Is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police - In cases of police the court held no it would not be fair to impose a duty of care.
The D breaches this duty: Standard is objective?
Vaughan v Menlove - The standard is objective and referred to as the reasonable person.
The D breaches this duty, Variations of reasonable person: Professionals?
Bolam v Frient Barnet - Professionals are judged by the standard of their profession as a whole.
The D breaches this duty, Variations of reasonable person: Leaners?
Nettleship v Weston -Learners are judged at the standard of a competent more experienced person.
The D breaches this duty, Variations of reasonable person: Children?
Mullin v Richards - Children and Young people are judged by their age at the time.
The D breaches this duty, Risk factors: Special Characteristics
Paris v Stepney Borough Council - Does the C before the injury have any special characteristics that should be taken into account of.
The D breaches this duty, Risk factors: Small risk?
Bolton v Stone - The size of the risk - When the risk is small the D won’t have to take great precaution.
The D breaches this duty, Risk factors: Larger Risk?
Haley v London Electricity Board - Where the risk is higher the D must take greater precautions.
The D breaches this duty, Risk factors: Precautions?
Latimer v AEC LTD - Have all appropriate precautions been taken, the courts will consider the balancing of the risk and the cost and effort of precautions.
The D breaches this duty, Risk factors: public benefit?
Watt v Hertfordshire Council - If there a public benefit to taking the risk - if there is an emergency greater risks can be taken.
3) The Breach caused reasonably foreseeable injury or damage: Introduction?
Damage suffered was caused by the breach, there are two parts to damage.
3) The Breach caused reasonably foreseeable injury or damage, Factual Causation: Barnett v Chelsea Hospital?
Factual causation is the idea that the breach of duty has caused the injury or damage.
Factual Causation is decided by the But For test, but for the D’s act or omission the injury or damage would not have occurred.
3) The Breach caused reasonably foreseeable injury or damage, Legal Causation?
More than a minimal Cause.
3) The Breach caused reasonably foreseeable injury or damage, Intervening Acts: Act by Claimant?
McKnew v Holland - An act by the claimant can break the chain of causation.
