negligence 0.0 / 5 ? LawLaw of TortA2/A-levelAQA Created by: charlottestevoCreated on: 07-12-16 09:57 duty of care caparo v dickman 3 part test is damage reasonably foreseeable? (donohue v stevenson) (kent v griffiths) is there a sufficient proximate relationship between d and c? space&time (Bourhill v young) relationship (watson v bbbc) fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of D? fair? (Capital& counties pls v hampshire cc). not fair? (hill v chief constable of west yorkshire) 1 of 3 breach of duty reasonable man carrying out same acitivies (blyth v birmingham waterworks) special considerations: children (mullins v richards) experts (the bolam test) learners (nettleship v weston) 4 risk factors degree of risk: likely (bolton v stone) unlikely (roe v minister of health) potential seriousness of harm (paris v stepney) practicality of taking precautions (latimer v aec ltd) social usefulness of activity (watt v hertforshire cc) 2 of 3 damage causation in fact: but for test: (barnett v chelsea and kensington hospitals) remoteness of damage: too remote: (wagon mound) not too remote: (bradford v robinson rentals) type of injury foreseeable, way it happened unforeseeable (hughes v lord advocate) think skull rule: (smith v leech brain & co) 3 of 3
Comments
No comments have yet been made