Duty of Care 0.0 / 5 ? LawTortUniversityAll boards Created by: CallummortonCreated on: 24-01-18 20:41 What you need to establish a claim in negligence D owed C a duty, D breached that duty, that breach caused damage to C, and the damage is not too remote 1 of 24 Pre 1932: Previous narrowness of negligence Road accidents, bailment carefully performed, chattels regarded dangerous per se 2 of 24 Principle Established by Donoghue v Stevenson Reasonable foreseeability/neighbour principle 3 of 24 Anns two stage test Proximity (reasonable foreseeability part of Donoghue v Stevenson), the actions of the defendant could cause harm to the claimant 4 of 24 Case (and year: Easiest to establish negligence liability 1983: Junior Books v Veitchi 5 of 24 Case: Overruled Anns two stage test without applying new one Murphy 6 of 24 Caparo 3 stage test Reasonable foreseeability of defendants action/omission, proximity between parties, fair just and reasonable to impose a duty 7 of 24 Case: Reasonable foreseeability Australian Knitting MIlls- Childs underwear 8 of 24 Case: Proximity Watson v BBBC 9 of 24 4 principles to establish if it wasn't fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty Claimant was author of his own misfortune, would lead to defensive practices, if defendant was public authority, alternative remedy available 10 of 24 Case:Claimant was the author of his own misfortune Calvert v William Hill - betting list 11 of 24 Two principles to establish breach of D.O.C What was the required standard of care? reasonable person test, Did Ds conduct fall below the required standard? 12 of 24 Case: Search for the required standard of care is objective Nettleship v Weston - learner driver 13 of 24 Case: Search for required standard of care in medical practice Mansfield - If you know of medical condition, will be held to objective standard, if not then you won't be 14 of 24 Case: There is not an unqualified duty to prevent harm to others, it is just a reasonable standard of care Simmonds v Isle of Wight - mother and boy having lunch 15 of 24 Cases: If likelihood of harm is high, then there will be liability Bolton v Stone, Miller v Jackson, cricket cases 16 of 24 Case: The more serious the harm , the higher the precautions must be Paris v Stepney Borough - blind in one eye, blind in both eyes 17 of 24 Case: Practicality of precautions, look at the cost of precautions and how high the risk is Latimer 18 of 24 Case: Social utility of defendants conduct, courts do not want to discourage good activities Watt v Hertfordshire county council - firefighter 19 of 24 Case: Exceptions to reasonable person test: Children Mullins v Richards - girls playing with rulers 20 of 24 Bolam Test Doctor is not liable in negligence if he could find a reasonable body of opinion that justified his actions 21 of 24 Case: Went against Bolam Bolitho 22 of 24 Case: New test against Bolam where you focus on degree of respect to patient, how significant the patient would consider the information Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board 23 of 24 Cases: Common practice lets you escape from liability in negligence, everyone in that specific trade does the same Wilson - Schools supervision, Thomson v Smith Ship Repaierers - can't judge yourself by worst examples in the industry 24 of 24
Comments
No comments have yet been made