Tort (civil) Law - Negligence
- Created by: eleanorhall18
- Created on: 17-03-19 20:29
View mindmap
- Tort (civil) Law - Negligence
- Did D owe C a duty of care?
- Original test to determine who owes a duty of care to who?
- Neighbour Test/ Principle
- Only refers to anyone currently physically around you in that space and time who could be injured by your act or omission
- Case for neighbour test?
- Donough V Stevenson
- Snail in drink that she could not see inside of. Could not sue cafe as even though she was in the same physical space, they could not see into the bottle either, and so were not liable for negligently giving her a faulty drink.
- Manufacturorresponsible as they made the product, so this incident shows why neighbour test needed altering as C was not in the same space and time as the manufacturor at this point.
- Snail in drink that she could not see inside of. Could not sue cafe as even though she was in the same physical space, they could not see into the bottle either, and so were not liable for negligently giving her a faulty drink.
- Donough V Stevenson
- What was this replaced by?
- Three-part test
- asks 3 questions to determine whether D owes a duty of care to C
- was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
- A reasonable person would be able to predict the harmful result of D's actions
- Is Reasonably Foreseeable
- Kent V Griffiths
- ambulance did not arrive in a reasonable time when C was having an asthma attack, so it would be R.F. that C's condition would get worse if not medically treated quickly.
- Jolley V Sutton
- R.F. that injury may occur if a dangerousboat was left on council land where children frequently played
- Kent V Griffiths
- Isn't Reasonably Foreseeable
- Top V London Country Bus
- Is not R.F. that someone would steal a bus (after the driver left the keys in the ignition) and drive it negligently and have an accident
- Top V London Country Bus
- Is Reasonably Foreseeable
- A reasonable person would be able to predict the harmful result of D's actions
- is there a proximate relationship between C and D?
- Can be close in 2 ways:
- in the same space and time
- relationship (personal) e.g. family, employed,doctor, teacher
- Bourhill V Young
- motorcyclist's negligent driving was not determined to be in the same space and time as the still birth pregnant lady as she only heard the accident, she did not see it.
- McloughinV O'Brien
- C saw her family after they had been in a car accident. She suffered psychological injuries as even though she wasn't in the same space and time as them at the time, she did have a close personal relationship to them
- Can be close in 2 ways:
- is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D?
- Considers what is best for society as a whole. Also have to consider by allowing a claim, courts may be 'opening the floodgates' to more claims.
- Hill V chief Constable Of W.Y.
- In this case, police had enough evidence to prosecute a serial killler but failed to do so and then the serial killer killed c's daughter. Courts decided it would not be F,J & R to impose a d.o.c over every member of the public when they are not in the close proximity of the (could not predict the next victim, so impossibleowe d.o.c
- case proves that imposing a duty on the police is not F, J & R as could lead to lower standards of policing if police worried they could be sued if they did something wrong (not wanting to act)
- In this case, police had enough evidence to prosecute a serial killler but failed to do so and then the serial killer killed c's daughter. Courts decided it would not be F,J & R to impose a d.o.c over every member of the public when they are not in the close proximity of the (could not predict the next victim, so impossibleowe d.o.c
- was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
- asks 3 questions to determine whether D owes a duty of care to C
- What case replaced Donough V Stevenson?
- Caparo V Dickman
- C's company took over another company, looked at current figures and decided to buy it. Looked at figures again after purchasing and they had gone down. C sued D for their loss.
- duty of care not needed, as it was not D's fault that the figures had gone down (not r.f.)
- C's company took over another company, looked at current figures and decided to buy it. Looked at figures again after purchasing and they had gone down. C sued D for their loss.
- Three-part test
- asks 3 questions to determine whether D owes a duty of care to C
- was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
- A reasonable person would be able to predict the harmful result of D's actions
- Is Reasonably Foreseeable
- Kent V Griffiths
- ambulance did not arrive in a reasonable time when C was having an asthma attack, so it would be R.F. that C's condition would get worse if not medically treated quickly.
- Jolley V Sutton
- R.F. that injury may occur if a dangerousboat was left on council land where children frequently played
- Kent V Griffiths
- Isn't Reasonably Foreseeable
- Top V London Country Bus
- Is not R.F. that someone would steal a bus (after the driver left the keys in the ignition) and drive it negligently and have an accident
- Top V London Country Bus
- Is Reasonably Foreseeable
- A reasonable person would be able to predict the harmful result of D's actions
- is there a proximate relationship between C and D?
- Can be close in 2 ways:
- in the same space and time
- relationship (personal) e.g. family, employed,doctor, teacher
- Bourhill V Young
- motorcyclist's negligent driving was not determined to be in the same space and time as the still birth pregnant lady as she only heard the accident, she did not see it.
- McloughinV O'Brien
- C saw her family after they had been in a car accident. She suffered psychological injuries as even though she wasn't in the same space and time as them at the time, she did have a close personal relationship to them
- Can be close in 2 ways:
- is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D?
- Considers what is best for society as a whole. Also have to consider by allowing a claim, courts may be 'opening the floodgates' to more claims.
- Hill V chief Constable Of W.Y.
- In this case, police had enough evidence to prosecute a serial killler but failed to do so and then the serial killer killed c's daughter. Courts decided it would not be F,J & R to impose a d.o.c over every member of the public when they are not in the close proximity of the (could not predict the next victim, so impossibleowe d.o.c
- case proves that imposing a duty on the police is not F, J & R as could lead to lower standards of policing if police worried they could be sued if they did something wrong (not wanting to act)
- In this case, police had enough evidence to prosecute a serial killler but failed to do so and then the serial killer killed c's daughter. Courts decided it would not be F,J & R to impose a d.o.c over every member of the public when they are not in the close proximity of the (could not predict the next victim, so impossibleowe d.o.c
- was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
- asks 3 questions to determine whether D owes a duty of care to C
- Caparo V Dickman
- Three-part test
- Neighbour Test/ Principle
- Original test to determine who owes a duty of care to who?
- Case originally defining negligence?
- Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks
- not doing something that a 'reasonable man' would or wouldn't do
- Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks
- Did D owe C a duty of care?
- Case for neighbour test?
- Donough V Stevenson
- Snail in drink that she could not see inside of. Could not sue cafe as even though she was in the same physical space, they could not see into the bottle either, and so were not liable for negligently giving her a faulty drink.
- Manufacturorresponsible as they made the product, so this incident shows why neighbour test needed altering as C was not in the same space and time as the manufacturor at this point.
- Snail in drink that she could not see inside of. Could not sue cafe as even though she was in the same physical space, they could not see into the bottle either, and so were not liable for negligently giving her a faulty drink.
- Donough V Stevenson
Comments
No comments have yet been made