Negligence Flashcards
(19 cards)
Blyth V Birmingham waterworks
Leading case for negligence. Failing to do something that the reasonable person would do or doing something that the reasonable person wouldn’t do
Donoghue V Stevenson
Introduced neighbour principle. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omission that are reasonable foreseeable that would likely injure your neighbour
Caparo V dickman
Introduced 3 part test 1) foreseeable 2)proximity 3)fair just and reasonable
Robinson v chief constable of West Yorkshire
Do not use caparo on cases which include exsisting precedent. Only when there’s new law
Nettleship V Weston
Learner is judged against the standard of a reasonable competent person
Mullins v Richard’s
A child is judged against the standard of another child the same age
Bolam V Friern Barnet hospital
You have to meet the standard of the reasonable professional
Montgomery v Lankashire health board
Introduced risk factors
Paris V Stepney council
If V has any special characteristics there is a bigger risk
Bolton v stone
Size of the risk is compared to the possibility of risk
Latimer V AEC LTD
If the defendant tried to avoid the risk then there’s no breach in duty of care
Roe v minister of health
If risk is unknown defendant isn’t expected to prevent it
Day v high performance sports
In emergency situations a lower standard of care may be expected
Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington hospital
But for test
Mckew v Hollands
Cannot be liable for futher injuries
Carslogie steamship company
New intervening event was act of nature
Knightly v johns
New intervening act was an act of a third party
Smith v leech brain and co
Eggshell skull rule you must take the victim as you find them. Some injury must be a foreseeable consequence
The wagon mound
If damage is too remote it means injury wasn’t reasonable foreseeable
