Negligence
- Created by: JessicaRidley
- Created on: 09-05-16 15:46
View mindmap
- Negligence
- Duty of Care
- Caparo Test - Caparo v Dickman
- 1. Was the damage or harm reasonably forseeable?
- Kent v Griffiths: a woman had an asthma attack, and the ambulance was late which furthered her harm as she had a heart atack
- Bourhill v Young: a woman witnessed a motorcycle crash, and said that the shock was the reason her baby was stillborn.
- 2. Was the relationship between the C and the D sufficiently proximate? (can be space, time or relationship)
- Osman v Ferguson: a teacher had an unhealthy attachment with a schoolboy, the police were informed but did nothing. The dad was killed and there was proximate relationship between c and police.
- 3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on the defendant?
- An extra layer of protection for public authorities.
- Capital Counties v Hampshire CC: the firemen turned off the sprinklers, which made 2/3 of the building burn down. It was fair, just and reasonable as they made the damage worse.
- 1. Was the damage or harm reasonably forseeable?
- Caparo Test - Caparo v Dickman
- Breach of Duty
- Standards of Care
- Reasonable Man: Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks - the ordinary man performing a task reasonably competently.
- Learner - same as for the ordinary man.
- Nettleship v Weston: a learner driver crashed into a lamppost, and was said to breach their study as it wasn't reasonably competent.
- Young - reasonably competent person of the same age.
- Mullins v Richards: two 14 year old girls were play fighting with rulers where 1 broke and went into a girls eye.
- Professional: a higher standard of care.
- Bolam: 1. Would a reasonably competent professional also make this decision? 2. Is there a substantial body that would support the decision of the defendant?
- Risk Factors
- Practical Precautions
- Latimer v AEC: a factory flooded and the employer put down mats and sawdust, but the victim still slipped. Took all practical precautions.
- Special characteristics of the claimant
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council: where the victim was blind in one eye, and the metal went into his other eye and he went completely blind. Employer did have to provide goggles.
- Size of the risk
- Haley v London Electricity Board: where a blind man fell into a trench and became deaf but the workers didn't take any precautions for the blind.
- Benefit of the risk
- Watt v Hertfordshire CC: the victim was told to carry the jack on his knee as the fire brigade were only going a short distance. He injured his leg, but the benefit of saving the person's life outweighed the victim's injury.
- Practical Precautions
- Standards of Care
- Damage
- Factual Causation
- BUT FOR TEST: Barnett - a man went to the hospital because of stomach pains and vomiting, the doctor sent him away and he died of arsenic poisoning that night.
- But for, the doctor sending the victim away, he would still have died.
- Can hold multiple people liable: Fairchild - but for, you all exposing him to asbestos, he wouldn't have died.
- BUT FOR TEST: Barnett - a man went to the hospital because of stomach pains and vomiting, the doctor sent him away and he died of arsenic poisoning that night.
- Remoteness of Damage
- The damage must not be too remote from the defendant's actions - The Wagon Mound.
- The type of injury must be foreseeable, not the extent.
- Hughes v Lord Advocate: a burn was foreseeable, even if the extent was not.
- Novus Actus
- Orange: there was a novus actus because he wasn't a known suicide risk.
- Factual Causation
- Duty of Care
Comments
No comments have yet been made