View mindmap
  • Negligence
    • Duty of care
      • Neighbour principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson
        • Developed in Caparo v Dickman
          • Led to the development of the 3 stage test
            • Sufficient Proximity
              • Bourhill v Young
              • McLoughlin v O'Brien
            • Is fair, just and reasonable to establish
              • Hill v Chief constable of west yorkshire
            • Reasonably foreseeable
              • Kent v Griffiths
    • Breach
      • Behaviour compared to that of the reasonable man
        • Learner drivers compared to professionals- Nettleship v Weston
        • Children compared to others of that age- Mullins v Richards
        • Average skill, self-control and intelligence
      • Bolam Test
        • To assess medical negligence
          • Practice accepted as proper
            • Body of opinion to support view
      • Montgomery
        • Patients should be treated as adults who understand all risks
      • Degree of risk assessed- Bolton v Stone
      • If risk not known about, there isn't a breach- Roe v Minister of Health
      • Have reasonable precautions been taken?- Latimer v AEC
      • Vulnerable characteristics should be consiered- Hayley V London electricity Board
      • Standard expected is lower in emargencies
        • Watt v Hertfordshire County council
    • Damage
      • Caused by Defendent
        • Thin Skull -Smith v Leech Brain
        • Factual/ But for-  Barnett v CKHMC
        • Legal- Lamb v Camden LBC
      • Isn't too remote
        • The Wagon Mound- damage was too remote
        • Hughes v Lord Advocate- Damage wasn't remote


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »