Tort Of Negligence
- Created by: Shazz17
- Created on: 01-04-17 15:56
View mindmap
- TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
- DUTY OF CARE
- Donoghue V Stevenson: Must take reasonable care to not cause harm to your neighbour
- Caparo V Dickman
- Reasonably foreseeable / Proximity / Fair, Just, Reasonable to impose duty
- Reasonably foreseeable: D act direct link of cause to negligence/ obvious consequence
- Kent V Griffiths: ambulance took too long claimant suffered heart attack as result
- Jolley V SLBC: damaged boat left by council paralysed child
- Not Reasonably Foreseeable: not obvious D conduct or omission would result in harm to claimant
- Bourhill V young: pregnant woman heard motorcycle accident, saw blood had miscarriage from shock/stress - not reasonably foreseeable
- Topp V LCB Ltd: key left in bus ignition- bus stolen driven dangerously injuring claimant- not foreseeable to injure anyone
- Proximity: must be a sufficient and primate relationship for a duty of care.
- Hill V Chief Constable Yorkshire: murder victim unknown no proximate relationship/ not fair just or reasonable to impose a duty of care
- Osman V Ferguson : police knew risk of harm to specific victim- was sufficient proximate relationship between boy/ boys family and police - case failed not fair just or reasonable to impose duty of care on police.
- Fair, Just, Reasonable to impose duty of care:
- Capital & Counties plc V Hampshire County Council: fire officer ordered sprinkler system turned off- caused more damage- fair just and reasonable to impose duty of care against fire brigade.
- Hill V Chief Constable Yorkshire: Imposing duty on police divert their attention and recourses from suppressing crime- lead to lower standards of policing.
- Osman V Ferguson : police knew risk of harm to specific victim- was sufficient proximate relationship between boy/ boys family and police - case failed not fair just or reasonable to impose duty of care on police.
- BREACH OF DUTY
- Standard for experts:
- Bolam V Friern Hospital Management:standard is that of ordinary skill, competent man exercising that particular art.
- Standard of Care:
- Paris V Stepney Borough: greater risk= higher standard of care- duty of care breached
- (consequences of harm greater to one person that others= greater standard of care owed to that person)
- OBJECTIVE TEST -
- standard is objective reasonable man- Blythe V Birmingham waterworks: Negligence- the omission to do what is expected of a reasonable man or act a prudent & reasonable man wouldn't do
- reasonable man- NOT take any disabilities/ personal issues into account.
- standard is objective reasonable man- Blythe V Birmingham waterworks: Negligence- the omission to do what is expected of a reasonable man or act a prudent & reasonable man wouldn't do
- Paris V Stepney Borough: greater risk= higher standard of care- duty of care breached
- Degree Of Risk:
- Bolton V Stone: small risk - no duty + had take necessary precaution to prevent harm previously.
- Hayley V London Electricity Board: risk was known - brach of duty of care- blind man no barriers only signs around construction holes.
- Roe V Minister of Health: If risk not known - no breach - invisible holes= contaminated anaesthetic- risk not foreseeable
- Standard for experts:
- DAMAGE
- Causation: (BUT FOR) proof D breach caused damage
- Barnett V Chelsea & Kensington Hospitals: must be caused by D act or omission to act - doctor not at fault man would've died from arsenic anyway.
- Remoteness Of Damage: (damage can't be too remote from D negligence)
- The Wagon Mound: damage must be reasonable foreseeable as consequence- can't be too remote from original act of negligence.- fuel leak = pollution not foreseeable of fire/injury
- Crossley V Rawlinson: not liable- injury too remote- claimant running to danger put out fire caused by D negligence
- Thin Skull Rule: Smith V Leechbrain - Liable if damage foreseeable even if it occurs in unexpected way.
- Hughes V Lord Advocate
- D must take V as found/ can be applied to damage to property/ belonging also
- Causation: (BUT FOR) proof D breach caused damage
- DUTY OF CARE
Comments
No comments have yet been made