Negligence - AQA Law Alevel
- Created by: eleanorhall18
- Created on: 23-06-19 19:42
how many parts are there to negligence? |
||
what are they? |
||
what was the first test called that established who owed who a duty of care? |
||
what case showed the neighbour test? |
||
what was the neighbour test replaced by? |
||
what case established the caparo test? |
||
how many parts are there to the caparo test? |
||
what are they? |
||
what case shows the harm being reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable person? |
||
what case shows the harm NOT being reasonably foreseeable? |
||
in what ways can c and d have a proximate relationship? |
||
case to show there was a proximate relationship between c and d? |
||
case to show there WASN'T a proximate relationship between c and d? |
||
why is it not fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty on the police? |
||
what case shows it no being fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty on the police? |
||
hw many parts are there to breach of duty? |
||
what are they? |
||
how many different types of standards of care are there? |
||
what are they? what case backs each one up? |
||
what happens if c has some special characteristics about them? |
||
what case shows special characteristics of c? |
||
what does it mean about the size of the risk? |
||
case for showing the size of the risk? |
||
how does d know if precautions are needed to be taken? |
||
case to show precautions were needed? |
||
what does to mean by the 'benefit of taking the risk' |
||
what case shows the benefit of taking the risk? |
||
what examples count as damages? |
||
how many parts are there to damage? |
||
what are they? |
||
what does causation state? |
||
what is this part similar to in criminal law? |
||
what case shows the causation element (but for test) being successful in that the breach did NOT cause the damage? |
||
what does remoteness of damage mean? |
||
what case shows the the damage being too remote from the original negligent act? |
||
what else is considered in damage? |
||
what section do these come under; causation or remoteness of damage? |
||
what case shows the egg-shell rule working? why does it work? |
||
what case shows that if the injury is reasonably foreseeable, then the precise way in which it happened does not matter? why does it show this? |
Comments
No comments have yet been made