Negligence Flashcards
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.
