HideShow resource information
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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
      • 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.


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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