Other slides in this set

Slide 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

11 Things Duty of Care
1. Duty isn't owed to all. Duty of care is to be careful + to avoid damage.
2. Donoghue v Stevenson- Lord Atkin sets out neighbour principle.
3. Neighbour principle: those who are closely + directly affected by D's
acts/omissions + one can reasonably foresee they will be hurt.
4. Caparo test ­ 3 parts- Foreseeable. Proximate. FJR.
5. Test 1- damage suffered- reasonably foreseeable consequence of D's
acts/omissions.
6. In Jolley v Sutton LBC ­ abandoned boat case ­ it was foreseeable
that children would be injured playing on old boat. Fell on V's.
7. Test 2- must be proximity in time or space OR proximate relationship
between Claimant + D.
8. Bourhill v Young ­lady wasn't related to the claimant + some distance
away on a bus- woman couldn't make a successful claim.
9. Test 3- Is it fair, just + reasonable for the court to impose a duty of
care on the D? The courts may consider policy issues.
10. Hill v CC West Yorkshire Constabulary- mother of a V of Yorkshire
ripper couldn't claim. If duty is imposed on police- they wont do their
job properly in the future.
11. Floodgates argument. Let one claim through- sets precedent. Lots of
unreasonable claims will then come through + overflow the courts.…read more

Slide 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

10 Things Breach of Duty of care
1. Is there fault by the Defendant?
2. Risk of damage must be foreseeable.
3. Mention risk factors as part of breach.
4. Standard of care expected by the reasonable man is- avoid harm.
5. If risk low, so is duty to take care. If risk of serious injury high- greater duty to
take care.- greater duty to provide goggles in Paris v Stepney BC
6. Courts look at standard of care expected by the reasonable man (objective
test)- Reasonable man= ordinary man on street. Reasonable man- not over
confident or over cautious. Not a learner driver/expert.
7. E.g learner driver case= Nettleship v Weston- standard expected was that of
an ordinary competent driver. Bolam v Friern Hospital= medical expert.
8. Balance= Chance/risk of damage v cost of precaution/practicality of
precaution.
9. Practical to avoid damage + take precautions? E.g Latimer v AEC Ltd, factory
flooded. Sawdust put down. C slips, D held not to have breached duty of care
as only way to avoid risk was to close whole factory, which court held was out
of proportion to risk involved.
10. Cost of avoiding damage? e.g Latimer v AEC Ltd
11. Bolton v Stone (cricket ball)= 6 times in 30 years. Degree of probability harm
will be done? Very unlikely-D owner not negligent.…read more

Slide 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Risk Factors 9 Things/examples
1. Risk factors can affect the standard of care expected by
the reasonable man. E.g:
2. Special characteristics of claimant. ­ if known to the
Defendant to be more vulnerable then higher standard
expected by the reasonable man. E.g Paris v Stepney-
one eye- need goggles to protect other eye.
3. Children ­ less careful than adults.
4. Special characteristics of Defendant.
5. The position of professionals + learners.
6. The size of the risk ­ the reasonable man doesn't take
care against minute risks, but does against big risks.
7. Practical precautions: taking reasonable but not
excessive precautions.
8. The benefits of taking the risk, emergencies and public
utility. Watts v Hertfordshire County Council.
9. What is the standard expected by the reasonable man
or expert?…read more

Slide 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

10 things Damage
1. There must be damage to person + or property.
2. Hunter v Canary wharf- this was where dust was held not to
be damage.
3. The damage must be caused by the breach.
4. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital- the hospital had a
duty+ were in breach but this didn't cause the death- arsenic
poisoning did- doctor couldn't help man any way.
5. Causation test is = but for test.
6. Causation test is there can be a break in the chain if very
serious event (very poor hospital treatment for example)
7. Thin skull rule = take your victim as you find them.
8. Damage must be foreseeable + not too remote. For D to be
liable in negligence.
9. Wagon Mound case. Oil catching fire after spilt in harbour
and sparks lit it: was not foreseeable + was too remote. No
claim.
10. Providing damage is of type and kind you would expect they
can claim- Hughes v Lord Advocate.…read more

Slide 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

11 Things Compensation
1. Payment of money.
2. Compensation isn't punishment.
3. Compensation for: Personal injury, loss of earnings, property damages
(damage to car)- these are heads of damage.
4. Aim of compensation; put claimant back in to the position they would have
been in if the accident hadn't happened.
5. Special damages- losses that can be calculated arithmetically and cover period
from accident to settlement/ trial.
6. General damages- pain, suffering loss of amenity.
7. General damages- future losses: from time of trial for rest of claimants life.
8. Pecuniary= loss of actual money/ property.
9. Non-Pecuniary= personal injury.
10. Can be paid by lump sum or structured settlement.
11. Lump sum- all in one payment.
12. Structured settlement- money paid periodically in instalments: pay at certain
times.
13. Mitigation of loss- Claimant required to take reasonable steps to reduce his or
her loss.…read more

Slide 7

Preview of page 7
Preview of page 7

Slide 8

Preview of page 8
Preview of page 8

Comments

Priv


brilliant

 

Smith E

A very good, no-nonsense summary of the fundamental aspects of duty, breach and causation. It balances an explanation of the key cases with a summary of the key principles well. It is an unusual resource and for that reason, highly memorable.

chand97

I was so lost trying to do revision, but this has helped to outlined and build my notes! Thank you! 

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »