Slides in this set
Duty of care
· Negligence was defined by Baron Alderson in Blyth v
Birmingham Water Co he said `negligence is doing something
which a prudent and reasonable man would not do'
· Duty of care = too look out for other people.
· Donoghue v Stevenson set out the neighbour principle
· Lord Aitken "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or
omissions which could foreseeably injure your neighbour!"
· Caparo 3 part test = Caparo v Dickman sets out 3 elements
1) Reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would be injured?
Kent v Griffiths
1) Was there sufficient proximity?
Bourhill v Young
1) Is it fair just and reasonable to impose liability of the
MPC v Reeves…read more
Breach of duty
· Once it has been proved that a duty of care exists
the claimant must satisfy the court that the D broke
this by failing to reach the reasonable standard of
· Reasonable man test = objective
· Special characteristics of the D Wells v Cooper
· Special characteristic of C Paris v Stepney BCC
· Size of the risk? Hayley v LEB
· Have all practical precautions been taken? Bolton
· Benefits of taking the risk? Watt v HCC…read more
· Causation: the D must have caused the loss
· Remoteness: is the loss reasonably foreseeable
· Causation in fact but for test Barnett v Chelsea
and Kensington HMC no causation in fact
· Multiple causes Barker v Corus/Fairchild v
Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.
· Intervening act smith v littlewoods…read more
Remoteness of damage
· The breach of duty may have significant results
but the D won't be liable for everything that can
be traced back to the original act. Wagon
· The kind of damage must be reasonably
forseeable Bradford v Robinson Rentals
· Take your victim as you find him Smith v Leech
· How the judge should apply the principle of
reasonable foreseeability Gabriel v Kirklees
Metropolitan Council…read more