Negligence
- Created by: __Jess
- Created on: 15-11-22 18:52
View mindmap
- Negligence
- The defendant owed them a duty of care
- Neighbour principle.
- Anyone in the defendant's contemplation
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- Anyone in the defendant's contemplation
- Caparo v Dickman
- Was the damage reasonably foreseeable?
- Kent v Griffiths
- Jolley v Sutton
- Topp v London County Bus
- Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship?
- Bourhill v Young
- McLouglin v O'Brien
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
- Hill v CC of West Yorkshire
- Capital and Counties v Hampshire County Council
- Was the damage reasonably foreseeable?
- Only use DvS test in new and novel situations
- Robinson
- Neighbour principle.
- The defendant breached the duty of care
- Objective standard of care (reasonable person)
- Professionals
- Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital
- Learners
- Nettleship v Weston
- Children
- Mullin v Richards
- Professionals
- Would the reasonable person take more or less risks?
- Special characteristics of the claimant
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council
- Size of risk
- Small risk
- Bolton v Stone
- Large risk
- Haley v London Electricity Board
- Have they taken appropriate precautions?
- Latimer v AEC
- Public benefit
- Watt v Hertfordshire CC
- Were the risks known?
- Roe v Minister of Health
- Small risk
- Special characteristics of the claimant
- Objective standard of care (reasonable person)
- The breach causes damage
- Causation
- Factual
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
- Legal
- Factual
- Remoteness of damage
- Must be reasonably foreseeable
- Wagon Mound
- Type of injury
- Hughes v Lord Advocate
- Egg shell skull
- Smith v Leech Brain
- Must be reasonably foreseeable
- Causation
- Defences
- Contributory negligence
- O'Connell v Jackson
- Froom v Butcher
- Stinton v Stinton
- Consent
- D has to show:
- Knowledge of the precise risk involved
- Stermer v Lawson
- Exercise of free choice by the claimant
- Smith v Baker
- A voluntary acceptance of the risk
- Smith v Baker
- Knowledge of the precise risk involved
- D has to show:
- Contributory negligence
- The defendant owed them a duty of care
Comments
No comments have yet been made