Negligence
- Created by: alexstrapps
- Created on: 03-05-19 10:58
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
- Neighbour Principle
- 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
- Blyth v Birmingham waterworks 1865
- 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
- forseeability of risk
- 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
- objective test; reasonable man test
- 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
- 'but for' test
- 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
- if the damage is unforseeable it may be too remote
- 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
- act of claimant
- 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
- remoteness of damage
- Factual causation
- 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
- no allowances for an inexperienced or trainee doctor
- Duty
Comments
No comments have yet been made