Negligence

View mindmap
  • Negligence
    • Duty
      • Neighbour Principle
        • Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
        • Lord Aitkin; 'anyone so closely affected by your acts or omissions, you owe them a duty of care'
      • three stage test
        • Caparo v DIckman 1990
        • 1) was the damage/harm reasonably forseeable?
          • Kent v Griffiths 2000
        • 2) is their a proximate relationship between c and d?
          • Bourhill v Young 1943
        • 3) is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
          • Hill v CC of West Yorkshire Police 1988
    • Breach
      • objective test; reasonable man test
        • Blyth v Birmingham waterworks 1865
          • 'd will be judged by the standards of a reasonably competant person in that situation'
          • doing something a reasonable man wouldn't do or not doing something a reasonable man would do
      • factors relevant to the breach
        • forseeability of risk
          • Roe v Minister of healthy 1954
        • magnitude of risk
          • Bolton v Stone 1951
        • extent of harm
          • Peris v Stepney council 1951
        • cost and practicality
          • Latimer v AEC 1953
        • social utility
          • Watt v Herefordshire Coincul 1954
        • common practice
          • Brown v Rolls Royce 1960
      • if d is inexperienced/ learner, they are compared to the reasonable experienced person
        • Nettleship v Weston 1971
      • if d is a child/disabled they are compared to the reasonable similarly aged/disabled person
        • Mullins v Richards
    • Damage
      • Factual causation
        • 'but for' test
          • Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969)
          • 'but for' d's actions, would the consequence have happend? No; factual causation established
      • Legal causation
        • remoteness of damage
          • if the damage is unforseeable it may be too remote
            • Wagon mound No 1 1951
          • the precise injury doesn't need to be forseeable, just some form
            • Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963
          • the thin skull rule applies
            • Smith v Leech Brain Co 1962
        • Novus Actus Interveniens
          • act of claimant
            • Mckew v Holland 1968
          • acts of nature
            • Carslogie Steamship Co 1952
          • acts of third party
            • Knightly v Johns 1982
        • Multiple causes
          • Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority 1988
          • McGhee v National Coal Board 1973
          • may be hard to pinpoint the exact cause of the damage
    • Medical negligence
      • no allowances for an inexperienced or trainee doctor
        • Wilsher v Essec Area health authority 1988
      • Bolam 1957
        • a medical practitioner will not be negligent if you act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical practitioners
        • meant a doctor could escape liability for negligence by presenting other medical experst who claimed to represent a reasonable body of opinion
      • Bolitho 1997
        • if it can be demonstrated the professional opinion is not logical the judge can hold the body of opinion no reasonable so d is still negligent

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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