Simple Negligence

HideShow resource information
  • 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.
        • 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.
        • 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.
    • 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'.
          • 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.
          • EXPERTS
            • BOLAM
              • The defendant must meet the standards of a reasonable expert in that proffesion
      • RISK FACTORS FOR BREACH
        • 1) DEGREE OF RISK
          • HALEY V LEB
            • REASONABLE THAT BLIND MAN MAY WALK DOWN STREET AND FALL IN PIT HOLE.
        • 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.
        • 3) POTENTIAL HARM
          • PARIS V STEPHNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL
            • EMPLOYER DID NOT PROVIDE SAFETY GOGGLES, MAN GOT SPLINT IN EYE, WENT BLIND.
        • 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.
    • CAUSATION / DAMAGE
      • BUT FOR TEST
        • BARNET V CHELSEA AND KENSINGTON HOSPITALS.
          • MAN DIED FROM ARSENIC POISONING WHEN DOCTOR SENT HIM HOME.
      • 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.
  • 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'.
    • 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.
    • EXPERTS
      • BOLAM
        • The defendant must meet the standards of a reasonable expert in that proffesion
  • BLYTHE V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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