Negligence Flashcards
(6 cards)
Define negligence
Negligence has a 3 stage test: did the D owe the C a duty of care / was the duty of care breached / did the breach cause damage?
Stage 1 - DOC
Donoghue v Stevens established neighbour principle
Updated by the case of Robinson v CCWY which states that there must be an obvious duty of care between the D and C.
If the relationship is clear and obvious, then it is fair, just and reasonable that D owes C a common duty of care.
Stage 2 - BOD definition
Alderson B in Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks defined breach as “doing something the reasonable man wouldn’t or not doing something the reasonable man would”
Negligence can occur through a positive act or an omission
BOD - expert / learner / child / reasonable man
Expert/possesses a particular skill - judged by them standard of another reasonably competant professional (Bolam / Bolitho)
Learner/inexperienced - judged by standard of someone experienced and competent (Nettleship v Western)
Child - judged by standard of another competent child of a similar age (Mullins v Richards)
Reasonable man - does not fall into above categories then judged by the standard of the reasonable man performing same task (Vaughn v Menlove)
BOD - risk factors
Probability of harm - more harm = more care needs to be taken (Bolton v Stone)
Magnitude of risk - more serious = more care needs to be taken (Paris v Stepney Council)
Cost and practicality of precautions - if cost too great then precautions don’t need to be taken (Latimer)
Side rule of social utility - if risks benefit society then there is no breach (Watt v Hertfordshire Council)
Stage 3 - breach caused the damage
Issue of causation
Factual causation - ‘but for test’ (Barnett v Chelsea Hospital)
Legal causation - remoteness of damage, reasonably foreseeable or too remote? (Wagon Mound n1)
D need not predict the way the injury was caused as long as injury was foreseeable (Hughes v Lord Advocate)
Side rule - thin skull rule (Smith v Leech Brain)
