Negligence Tort Flashcards
(10 cards)
Duty of Care…
-Duty is owed where the RP would reasonably foresee that his act/ omission is likely to cause injury
-CASE: ‘Donohugh vs Stevenson’
-Duty is to take sufficient reasonable care to avoid injury to your neighbour
Breach of duty…
-Prove D did not reach the expected standard of care… of a reasonable person (what would they do and not do)
- CASE: ‘Blythe’
Breach- type of defendant
-Professionals are judged by the standard of other professionals in their industry
-CASE: ‘Bolam’
-Amateurs are judged by the standard of average amateur
-CASE: ‘Wells v Cooper’
-Learners are judged at the standard of a more experienced person
-CASE: ‘Nettleship’
Breach- characteristics of C
-Known vulnerability raises SOC
- CASE: ‘Paris v stepney’
Breach- risk factors
-Size of risk= likelihood + severity
-CASE: ‘Bolton v Stone’
-Precautions must be proportionate to the side of the risk (consider cost and simplicity)
-CASE: ‘Latimer’ ‘RISK MUST BE KNOWN (ROE)’
Breach- res ipsa loquitor
-Translates as = the thing speaks for itself
- If… D was in control of the situation which caused the injury, accident wouldnt of have happened unless someone was negligent, there is no other explanation for the injuries.
-CASE: ‘Scott v london’
Damage- starting point
-C must prove that the harm was caused by the breach of duty
Damage- factual causation
Uses the ‘but for’ test
CASE: ‘Barnett’
Damage- Legal causation
Liable for harm and loss as long as it is not too remote and it is reasonably forseeable
CASE: ‘Wagon Mound’
Only the type of injury needs to be forseeable not the full extent on how it occured
CASE: ‘Hughes v lord advocate’
Damage- thin skull rule
D will be liable for any unexpected additional injury resulting from C’s pre-existing vulnerablity
CASE: ‘Smith v Leech’
THEN CAUSATION- CHECK FOR BREAKS IN CHAIN
