Negligence

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: iqsha
  • Created on: 26-03-17 16:43

Duty of care

Donoghue v Stevenson- the case that started it all 

  • claiment (D) went with friend to cafe
  • friend bought a bottle of ginger beer
  • pouring again into a class and a snail dropped out
  • shes developed gastroenteritis and nervous shock
  • got compensation from ginger beer manafacture 

Capro industries-plc v Dickman

  • incremental approach- ask 3 questions
  • IS HARM REASONABLY FORESEEABLE?
  • IS THERE SUFFICIENT PROXIMITY BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT AND THE DEFENDANT, IN TIME, SPACE OR RELATIONSHIP?
  • IS IT FAIR JUST AND REASONABLE TO IMPOSE A DUTY OF CARE?

Answers all yes- duty of care is established.Lost was due to the breach of duty and that such a loss was reasonably foreseable (not too remote) 

1 of 8

Duty of care- case 1

Is harm reasonably foreseable?

Kent v Griffiths

  • doctor called for ambulance 
  • patient suffering serve asthma attack ( need take to hospital immediatley)
  • ambulance fail to arrive on time (no good reason for delay)
  • patient suffered an heart attack- wouldn't of occured if amubulance arrived on time
  • reasonably foreseable that the claiment would suffer some harm from delay.
2 of 8

Duty of care- case 2

Is there sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant,in time,space or relationship?

Bourhill v Young

  • claiment was moving from a tram
  • heard motor accident
  • saw blood later on road but didn't witness the accident
  • suffered nervous shock and had a miscarriage 
  • reasonably foreseable that some people would suffer harm as a result of the defendants negligent driving 
  • she was not part of the accident (only heard and not see)
  • her actions failed
3 of 8

Duty of care- case 3

Is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

Hill v Chief constable of W. Yorks

  • claiment was the mother of the last murder
  • victim of the Yorkshire Ripper (killed prostitutes)
  • claim against the chief constable 
  • police have been negligent in thier detection 
  • no duty of care was owned by the police in the detection of crime
4 of 8

Breach of Duty-cases 1

Blyth v Birmingham waterworks

  • defendant installed water mains
  • leak in a house, rsult of exceeding cold temperature 
  • caused water damage to the house
  • negligence did not occur due to not being reasonably foreseable.

Nettleship v Weston

  • learner driver
  • failed to turn wheel and caused Mr Nettleship fracture to his knee
  • defendant argued that the standard of care should be low for learners
  • he got in car knowing she was a learner- aware of the risk 
5 of 8

Breach of Duty-cases 2

Bolam v Friern Hospital

  • mental illness guy who went to threapy treatment
  • doctor did not give relaxant drugs 
  • claiment suffered a serious fracture 
  • claiment argued that the doctor was in breach of duty by nor using the drug
  • doctor was not in breach of duty
  • doctor followed instructions therefore was not in the wrong 

Bolton v Stone 

  • During a cricket match a ball hit a person (standing outside her house)
  • Probability of this happening was really small
  • Cricket club did not brake the duty of care as it had reached the appropriate standard of care 
  • club had clearly thought about the risk and provided reasonable solution 
6 of 8

Breach of Duty-cases 3

Paris v Stephy BC

  • a guy was sighted from one eye
  • emplyer did not provide the employer with goggles
  • even though he was blind from one eye
  • breach of duty as emplyer didn't provide the goggles
  • due to the injury he was completed blind (both eyes)
  • the duty was owned

Latimer V AEC Ltd 

  • factory flooded after rainstorm
  • water mixed with oil which meant that the floors were slippy
  • warning signs around 
  • claiment slipped and injuried 
  • defendant owed a duty of care to employers
  • did not break duty as all reasonable practical precautions had been taken 
7 of 8

Breach of Duty-cases 4

Watt V Herefordshire CC

  • claiment was a fireman
  • a women was involved in a accident 
  • needed to carry gear however there was not an appropriate transport for it to carry it
  • chief firemen ordered to use a truck to carry the heavy gear
  • the gear was not secure
  • when the truck braked the gear fell and caused server injury to claiment
  • firefighters took risk to save a life
  • no breach of duty
  • due to emergancy the gear did not need to be secure
8 of 8

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »