Simple Negligence
- Created by: Owais360
- Created on: 28-03-14 17:38
View mindmap
- Simple Negligence
- Duty of Care
- Caparo v Dickman
- 1) Was some loss to the claimant reasonably foreseeable due to the defendants conduct. [Kent v Griffiths]
- KENT v GRIFFITHS
- The case concerns an ambulance arriving late. It was 'reasonably foreseeable' the claimant would suffer more harm if the ambulance did not arrive promptly.
- KENT v GRIFFITHS
- 2) Proximity: Closeness concerned with space and time. [Bourhill v Young]
- BOURHILL v YOUNG
- Claimant had a miscarriage after seeing accident. Claim failed because she did not have proximity in space and time.
- BOURHILL v YOUNG
- REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
- JUST, FAIR AND REASONABLE [JFR]
- 3) JFR: Is it just, fair and reasonable to apply a duty of care on the defendant. Did it open the floodgates of litigation?
- HILL V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKS
- The police let a suspect go home, it turned out the suspect was the killer and went on to kill a girl who's mother sued the police for negligently letting him go. NO DUTY WAS OWED AS THE COURTS DON'T WANT TO OPEN THE GATES OF LITIGATION.
- HILL V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKS
- 3) JFR: Is it just, fair and reasonable to apply a duty of care on the defendant. Did it open the floodgates of litigation?
- 1) Was some loss to the claimant reasonably foreseeable due to the defendants conduct. [Kent v Griffiths]
- Caparo v Dickman
- Breach of Duty
- THE STANDARD
- THE DEFENDANT WILL BE JUDGED AGAINST A REASONABLE MAN DOING THE SAME ACTIVITY.
- AGE
- MULLINS V RICHARDS:
- The defendant and claimant were play fighting with rulers when one ruler shattered and pierced the claimants eye. THE CASE FAILED BECAUSE THE COURT FOUND THAT CHILDREN REGULARLY 'HORSE AROUND'.
- MULLINS V RICHARDS:
- LEARNERS
- NETTLESHIP V WESTON
- The defendant was taking a drivers test and crashed, her instructor was badly injured. COURT HELD SHE WAS LIABLE EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS A LEARNER.
- NETTLESHIP V WESTON
- EXPERTS
- BOLAM
- The defendant must meet the standards of a reasonable expert in that proffesion
- BOLAM
- AGE
- THE DEFENDANT WILL BE JUDGED AGAINST A REASONABLE MAN DOING THE SAME ACTIVITY.
- RISK FACTORS FOR BREACH
- 1) DEGREE OF RISK
- HALEY V LEB
- REASONABLE THAT BLIND MAN MAY WALK DOWN STREET AND FALL IN PIT HOLE.
- HALEY V LEB
- 2) COST AND PRACTICALITY
- BOLTON V STONE
- CRICKET BALL HIT CLAIMANT. ONLY TWO CRICKET BALLS HAD EVER LEFT FIELD IN 30 YEARS. WAS NOT PRACTICAL TO BUILD A LARGER FENCE.
- BOLTON V STONE
- 3) POTENTIAL HARM
- PARIS V STEPHNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL
- EMPLOYER DID NOT PROVIDE SAFETY GOGGLES, MAN GOT SPLINT IN EYE, WENT BLIND.
- PARIS V STEPHNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL
- 4) SOCIAL BENEFIT OF TAKING THE RISK
- WATT V HERTS CC
- FIREFIGHTER PUT MACHINE ON WRONG TRUCK TO LIFT CAR TO SAVE WOMANS LIFE. OTHER FIREFIGHTER IN TRUCK BROKE LEG WHEN MACHINE SLIPPED.
- WATT V HERTS CC
- 1) DEGREE OF RISK
- THE STANDARD
- CAUSATION / DAMAGE
- BUT FOR TEST
- BARNET V CHELSEA AND KENSINGTON HOSPITALS.
- MAN DIED FROM ARSENIC POISONING WHEN DOCTOR SENT HIM HOME.
- BARNET V CHELSEA AND KENSINGTON HOSPITALS.
- REMOTENESS TEST
- THE WAGON MOUND
- WELDING WORK INGNITED OIL WHICH LEAKED FROM SHIP AND SET ABLAZE A NEARBY BUILDING. COURT FOUND THE TWO ACTS TWO REMOTE.
- THE WAGON MOUND
- BUT FOR TEST
- Duty of Care
- PROXIMITY
- THE DEFENDANT WILL BE JUDGED AGAINST A REASONABLE MAN DOING THE SAME ACTIVITY.
- AGE
- MULLINS V RICHARDS:
- The defendant and claimant were play fighting with rulers when one ruler shattered and pierced the claimants eye. THE CASE FAILED BECAUSE THE COURT FOUND THAT CHILDREN REGULARLY 'HORSE AROUND'.
- MULLINS V RICHARDS:
- LEARNERS
- NETTLESHIP V WESTON
- The defendant was taking a drivers test and crashed, her instructor was badly injured. COURT HELD SHE WAS LIABLE EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS A LEARNER.
- NETTLESHIP V WESTON
- EXPERTS
- BOLAM
- The defendant must meet the standards of a reasonable expert in that proffesion
- BOLAM
- AGE
- BLYTHE V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS
Similar Law resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made