Negligence Flashcards
(43 cards)
Define Negligence
An act or failure to act which causes injury or damage to another person or their property.
3 elements to prove negligence
- owed a duty of care
- breach of that duty
- breach causes reasonably foreseeable injury or damage
The neighbour principle
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- Lord atkin created the neighbour principle
- ‘anyone affected by a defendant’s actions would be classed as a neighbour and owed a DOC’
What case modified the neighbour principle resulting in the three-part test?
Caparo v Dickman 1990
What was the three-part test?
- Was damage or harm reasonable foreseeable?
- Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between the c and d?
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
Kent v Griffiths 2000
Case for reasonable foreseeability of C test
- Woman asthma attack, ambulance took 40 mins to arrive without good reason delay caused condition to worsen.
- Ambulance owed care of duty and harm was reasonable foreseeable.
Bourhill v Young
Case for proximity of C test
- Motorcyclist crashed and died to own recklessness, Mrs B heard crash and later saw blood and claimed shocked caused miscarriage
- Court ruled wasn’t reasonably foreseeable she would’ve been harmed as to the lack of proximity.
McLoughlin v O’Brien
Case for proximity of C test
- Mrs M hubby and kids in car accident, she wasn’t at scene but later saw them in hospital injured bloody, emotional distress.
- Reasonably foreseeable due to close proximity.
Hill v Chief constable of West Yorkshire 1990
Fair just and reasonable to impose duty of C test
- Mom sued police after daughter murdered by Yorkshire ripper, claiming investigation was negligent.
- Police didn’t owe duty to daughter as individuals not reasonably foreseeable she’d be victim.
MPC v Reeves 2001
Fair just and reasonable to impose duty of C test
- R prisoner detained in cell he was suicidal but despite police knowing this he managed to hang himself.
- Police owed duty to prevent suicide, however his suicide contributory factor and police liability reduced by 50%.
What does Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire prove?
- Three-part test isn’t needed if there is a clear past precedent which links to the case being dealt with
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Breach of duty for negligence
- Underwent therapy electronclusive for mental illness, not given muscle relaxants and suffered injuries.
- Hospital not negligent as followed standard practise accepted by responsible body of professionals at the time : Bolam test.
Bolam - To show breach of duty of care.
- Does the D’s conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary competent member of that profession?
- Is there a substantial body of opinion within profession that would support the action?
No and yes = not broken breach
Nettleship v Weston 1971
- Weston took lessons from Nettle (friends), she lost control and crashed which injured N.
- Weston found liable for negligence regardless of experience she had to be held to the same standard (learner).
Mullin v Richards 1998
- 2 15yr old girls play fighting w plastic rulers, one snapped and injured M eye, partial blindness.
- R not negligent as children not held to the same standard of care as adults.
Factors affecting standard of care
- Special charcs
- Risk
- Precautions
- Policy
Paris v Stepney borough Council
Special charcs
- Mechanic blind in one eye, employer didn’t provide safety goggles, piece of metal injured good eye leaving completely blind.
- Employer negligent as greater risk=greater duty of care.
Bolton v Stone
Size of the risk
woman hit by cricket ball outside house near cricket grounds, balls rarely escaped and high fence around pitch. Not negligent as risk small and reasonable precautions taken.
Hayley v London Electricity Board
Size of risk
dug trench in public pavement but only used hammer to warn people, no barriers or proper warning, blind man fell and injured. Held negligent as reasonably foreseeable blind pedestrians might use pavement and risk big.
Latimer v AEC Ltd 1963
Cost and practicability of precautions
factory floor slippy after flood, employer spread sawdust to reduce risk of slipping but one worker still slipped and got injured. Employer not negligent as took reasonable precautions and was not practical or necessary to close whole factory for small risk.
Roe v Minister of Health 1954
Forseeability of the risk
- R injected w local anaesthetic during surgery, syringe contaminated and he became paralysed, contamination via invisible cracks not detectable.
- Not liable, depends on knowledge available at the time.
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Public benefit of taking risk / policy
fireman injured when equipment slipped in back of a lorry during emergency call, correct vehicle for cary wasn’t available but time critical to save life. Not negligent as risk justified to save a life in emergency, public service.
Factual causation + test
- Whether the defendant is the factual reason for the claimants damage or injury
- But for test : R v Paggett
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital 1969
- B went hospital after drinking poison, doc failed to diagnose him and gave no treatment, he later died.
- Not liable, docs negligence doesn’t cause death.
