negligence: duty of care
- Created by: emma
- Created on: 29-03-13 15:33
View mindmap
- Negligence: Duty of care
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- requires the existence of a duty of care
- not too remote a consequence of the breach
- Lord Atkin- no contract needed
- not too remote a consequence of the breach
- 3 -part test
- duty owed to the defendant
- falling below the standard appropriate
- 'neigbour principle'
- not too remote
- falling below the standard appropriate
- duty owed to the defendant
- requires the existence of a duty of care
- Anns
- two-part test
- sufficient proximity
- policy reason to prevent it
- two-part test
- Murphy
- Untitled
- Caparo
- new three part test
- is there proximity?
- is the damage foreseeable?
- is it just and reasonable to impose
- Policy consideration
- played a part in whether to impose a duty
- floodgates
- conflict with superior priciple
- Untitled
- conflict with superior priciple
- floodgates
- immunity of the police from fail to prevent crime
- Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
- impose a duty on public authorities for non-feasance
- phelps v Hillington BC
- played a part in whether to impose a duty
- Definition
- do not use skill and care would cause injury
- Person or property
- do not use skill and care would cause injury
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- not too remote a consequence of the breach
- Lord Atkin- no contract needed
- 'neigbour principle'
- policy reason to prevent it
Comments
No comments have yet been made