Civil Law Content Summary

View mindmap
  • Civil Law Content Summary
    • Negligence
      • Negligence is the omission to do something the ordinary reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. To prove negligence the claimant must prove that there was a duty of care owed to them, that care was breached and that there are damages.
        • Blythe v Birmingham Water Works
      • Breach of Duty
        • Blythe v Birmingham Water Works
        • A breach of duty is when the standard of care from the defendant falls below the standard which the reasonably competent person would expect them to show. The defendant is judged objectively, meaning that they are compared against another competent person carrying out the same task. They are not compared to how D thinks D should be doing the work.
        • Examples
          • Children
            • Children will be compared to other reasonably competent children of their age.
              • Mullins v Richards
          • Learners
            • A learner will be compared to a reasonably competent qualified person.
              • Nettleship v Weston
          • Professionals
            • Professionals will be compared to the actions other reasonably competent professionals would have taken. 'Bolam Test'
              • Bolam v Friern
        • Risk Factors
          • Magnitude of Risk
            • How serious is the injury likely to be? The more serious it is, the more care we should expect the defendant to take.
              • Paris v Stepney BC
          • Public Benefit
            • Do the public benefit from the defendant's actions? If not, then we can expect the defendant to avoid it, not doing so is evidence of breach of duty.
              • Watt v Hertfordshire CC
          • Probability of Harm
            • How likely is it that harm will occur as a result of the defendant's actions? The more probable it is, the more care D must take. Failing to do so is evidence of a breach of duty.
              • Bolton v Stone
          • Cost and Practicality
            • How expensive and practical would it be for D to avoid the injury? If it is cheap we would expect D to pay for it to be avoided, not doing so is evidence of a breach of duty.
              • Latimer v AEC Ltd
        • Res Ipsa Loquitor
          • The idea that the accident speaks for itself.
          • 3 things must be proven to prove RIL
            • The consequence was under the control of the defendant/employees of the defendant and there is no direct evidence of negligence.
            • Without negligence the consequence would not have happened.
            • The causation is unknown.
          • The claimant can use this when they have been injured and there is no other possible explanation for the injury other than the defendant's negligence.
          • Scott v St Katherine's Docks
          • Mahon v Osbourne
          • Easson v LNER (RIL Not Available)
      • Damages
      • Duty of Care
        • The idea that you have a duty of care for all of your neighbors E.g a manufacturer for all of it's consumers, they must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which would likely injure the neighbor.
          • Donoghue v Stevenson
          • Caparo Industries v Dickman
            • The D v S ruling gave people the ability to sue for compensation when they would not have had chance before. Opportunities grew and grew however the courts wanted to discourage people from suing others and they used the Caparo 3 Part Test to do so.
              • Caparo 3 Part Test
                • Foreseeability
                  • Means a reasonably competent person would have foreseen some damage or harm to the claimant at the time of the alleged negligence.
                  • Langley v Dray
                • Proximity
                  • Means closeness in terms of time, space and relationship.
                  • Bourhill v Young
                • Fair Just and Reasonable Test
                  • The main reason for this test was that without it, there would be a lot of claims of liability based purely on reference to foreseeability
                  • Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence
                  • Is it within the public's interest to allow people to sue, to impose a duty of care. If it would lead to a growth in litigation and a burden on the budget then it is not within the public's interest to impose a duty of care. (In M v MOD a duty of care was not imposed.)

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar resources:

See all resources »