Duty of Care

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

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Pre 1932: Previous narrowness of negligence

Back

Road accidents, bailment carefully performed, chattels regarded dangerous per se

Card 3

Front

Principle Established by Donoghue v Stevenson

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Anns two stage test

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Case (and year: Easiest to establish negligence liability

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort resources »