Negligence And Causation Flashcards
(15 cards)
Negligence and causation plan
Tests for DoC:
Donoghue v Stevenson (original test - origins)
- Established the neighbour principle:
- Lord Atkin: ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee are likely to injure your neighbour’
- Neighbour = anyone so closely and directly affected by your actions that you ought reasonably to have them in your compensation
Caparo v Dickman (new test - the one you apply)
- Established the Caparo test:
1) Damage/harm must be reasonably foreseeable (objective test) - Kent v Griffiths
2) Relationship of proximity between parties (time, space and relationship) - Bourhill v Young
3) Fair, just and reasonable to impose a DoC (policy test to prevent floodgates opening to claims) - Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
- Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire ruled that the Caparo test shall only be used in novel situations (where established principles do not provide an answer)
Breach of duty of care:
Objective test which comes from Blyth v Birmingham Water Works:
‘Omitting to do something a reasonable man would do, or doing something a reasonable man would not do’
- An appropriate degree of knowledge is added to the reasonable person
- Professional will be judged by the standard of a reasonable person of that profession - Bolam v Frien Hospital Management Committee
- However, trainees in any skill will be judged by the standard of a reasonable person - Nettleship v Weston
- Child will be judged by the standard of a reasonable child - Mullin v Richards
Court will consider 4 things to determine if D acted at the standard of a reasonable person:
1) Degree of risk involved
- The greater the risk factors (eg size, seriousness and likelihood of the risk), the more precautions the D will have to take - Bolton v Stone
2) Cost of precautions
- Court won’t expect the cost of precautions to outweigh the risk involved, so D doesn’t have to take excessive measures to guard against minor risks, just reasonable precautions a reasonable person would take - Latimer v AEC
3) Seriousness of injury
- The more serious the potential magnitude of harm, the greater level of care required - Paris v Stepney Borough Council
4) Importance of the activity
- Some risk may be acceptable if risk undertaken has social benefit/importance - Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Causation/damage:
Factual
- ‘But for’ test: would the ‘harm in fact’ have occurred but for the breach of DoC? - Barnett v Chelsea Hospital
Legal
- Was the harm reasonably foreseeable? - The Wagon Mound (No1)
- The precise chain of events/extent of damage need not be foreseeable - Hughes v Lord Advocate, Smith v Leech Brain
- Intervening acts that break the chain when:
- Medical treatment - unreasonable
- Third-party acts - unforeseeable and independent
- V’s own actions - unreasonable
- Natural events - unforeseeable
Kent v Griffiths
Duty of care
Damage was reasonably foreseeable - ambulance was late attending a patient
Bourhill v Young
Duty of care
There was no proximity as the claimant chose to view the accident
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Duty of care
It was not fair, just or reasonable for the police to owe a duty of care in the detection of crime
Bolam v Frien Hospital Management Committee
Breach of DoC - professional
The doctor did not give claimant any relaxant drugs, leading to serious fracture
Mullin v Richards
Breach of DoC - child
Schoolgirl caused another to become blind during fight
Nettleship v Weston
Breach of DoC - trainee
A learner driver injured her instructor
Bolton v Stone
Breach of DoC - risk and precaution
The cricket club was not negligent as risk of injury was so minimal
Latimer v AEC
Breach of DoC - cost
No negligence as D had taken reasonable steps to reduce a known risk, even if some danger remains
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Breach of DoC - seriousness and care
Higher risk to claimant means greater care is required, which was not taken here
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Breach of DoC - social benefit
D wasn’t negligent as risk was justified by emergency that required urgent action
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital
Causation - but for
No negligence as death would have occurred anyway
The Wagon Mound (No1)
Causation - foreseeability (legal)
Oil spill damage not reasonably foreseeable enough to establish liability - unusual sequence of events was too remote
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Causation - chain of events (legal)
Injury caused by explosion wasn’t foreseeable but the type of harm was, so liability was found
Smith v Leech Brain
Causation - chain of events (legal)
The burn was foreseeable, so D was liable for the full injury, including the cancer triggered by the burn
