reversed Flashcards
Definition of negligence
Failing to do somthing which the reasonable person would do or somthing which the reasonable person would not do
Blyth v Birmingham waterworks
Created robinson tests
Robinson v chief constible of west yorkshire
If loss/ harm was forseeable to the D - caparo test
Kid plays in abandoned boat
Jolley v London borough of sutton
Proximity between Cl and D - caparo test
mangled son and dad left mum traumatised
Mcloughlin v O’brien
If it is fair to impose duty of care - Caparo test
soldier with no headphones
Mulcahy v MOD
The reasonable Learner - Resonable person test
Crashes driving instructorscar found liable
Nettleship v Weston
The reasonable child - Resonable person test
15 year old girl injured in ruler fight
Mullins v Richards
Professionals - Resonable person test
falls down in electroshock therapy - other doctors opions gathered
Bolam v Frier Barnet Hospital
Special Characteristics - Risk factor guidelines
one eyed miner
Paris v Stepney BC
Size of risk - Risk factor guidelines
17 ft high fence cricket grandma
Bolton v stone
Cost of precaution - Risk factor guidelines
flooded factory
Latimer v AEC
Unkown risks - Risk factor guidelines
cracks in tubes of antispetic causing paralyasis
Roe v Minister of health
Emergency sitautions - Risk factor guidelines
was crushed in th eback fo a firetruck
Watts v herts CC
But for test - factual cuasation
arsenic in tea- hospital sent him home
Barnett-v-Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
Reasonably forseeable - legal causation
sydney harbour
Wagon mound
Interveining acts - Legal cuasation
advised agiast vaccine - other doctors advised for - vacciene ended bad
Thompson v Blake-James
Thin skull rule - L
Smith v Leech Brain
defintion of an occupier - control of the premisis
Wheat v lacon
any fixed or moveable structure including a vessel, vehicle and aircraft’.
Case law has expanded the definition to include houses, buildings, land, lifts and even scaffolding.
define premisis
implied permission - definiton of legal visitor
Lowery v walker
resonably safe - duty of care for OL
Dean of Rochester catherderal v debell
higher standard of care for chilren
Jolley v Sutton BC
The arguement parents have a responsibiity to supervise thier children that overrides the increaased duty of care
Phipps v Rochester coorperation
if a contractor is harmed they are expected to ‘appriciate and guard and special risks’
Roles v Nathan