Liability in Negligence Cases

HideShow resource information
Blyth v Birmimngham Water Works Co.
this case defined the meaning of the term 'negligence' in the famous statement by Baron Alderson
1 of 26
Donoghue v Stevenson
this is the famous case set out the neighbour principle in the law of negligence, this principle is the foundation of the modern law
2 of 26
Caparo v Dickman
this case sets out the modern 3 part test to decide whether a duty of care exists in situations where there is no precedent for duty
3 of 26
Kent v Griffiths
this case is an example of forseeablity in that it is forseeable that an injured person waiting for an ambulance may have more severe injuries if there is delay
4 of 26
Bourhill v Young
here there was no physical proxmity as the claimant was in a safe place away from the accident, and whilst she could hear it she could not see it, she later went to see the aftermath and then suffered her miscarriage
5 of 26
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
the police were found not to owe a duty of care to potential victims of crime and their families on policy grounds. this is an example of the reasonableness part of the caparo 3 part test
6 of 26
Wells v Cooper
the standard of care required is of the reasonably competent person doing the job in question. Here a man doing DIY was expected to reach the standard of a reasonably competent proffesional doing the job
7 of 26
Nettleship v Weston
the standard of care expected of a learner driver is the same of any driver. this is logical from the point of view of those injured and because there is compulsory insurance
8 of 26
Bolam v Friern Barnett Hospital Management Committee
the standard of a proffessional is judged by the standard of the profession. in this case, following either of two accepted medical methods was said to be acceptable in reaching the standard of care expected
9 of 26
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
where a defendant knows of an increased risk to the claimant, more care must be taken. the council knew he only had one good eye so needed to do more than usual to protect the other
10 of 26
Bolton v Stone
The reasonable man takes precuations against reasonable risks not fantastic possibilities. the likelihood of a cricket ball clearing the protective fence at the ground and injuring a passer by was not a risk a reasonable man would protect against
11 of 26
Latimer v AEC
one factor in deciding whether the defendant has acted as a reasonable man is taking all the pratical precautions. after a flood this was doing the best to mop up and warning the employees in the factory
12 of 26
Marshall v Osmond
the more reasonable your risk the more likely it is to be acceptable
13 of 26
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
this is an example of where there was no causation in fact as the hospital could not have done anything to save Barnetts life. the cause of death was the original poisoning not the hospitals failure to examine him properly
14 of 26
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.
the normal rule on causation in fact can be modified on policy grounds where there are 'special circumstances'. Here this was because it is impossible to prove when asbestos actually entered the system to cause illness
15 of 26
Smith v Littlewoods
vandals breaking into an unoccupied, but secured building and setting fire to it was a new act intervening when vandals were not common in the area
16 of 26
The wagon mound
damage by the spilt oil was forseeable; damage by fire was not forseeable and was therefore too remote
17 of 26
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
as long as the type of damage is forseeable, it does not matter that the form it takes is unusual. in this case, frostbite was an extreme form of injury from the cold
18 of 26
Hughes v Lord Advocate
another example of a claimant succeeding for injury caused by an extreme type of harm
19 of 26
Smith v Leech Brain
the claimant had a pre - cancerous condition. He was splashed on the lip by some molten metal. the burn turned into a cancer as a result of his condition. his claim succeeded
20 of 26
Scott v London and St Katherine's Docks
the claimant was walking along the dock when he was hit on the head by a sack of sugar 'res ipsa loquitur' applied to the situation
21 of 26
Mahon v Osborne
this is an example of res ipsa loquitur, where a surgeon left a swab inside the patients body during an operation
22 of 26
Pearson v North Western Gas Board
in this case the defendant was able to show there was no negligence despite a claim using res ipsa loquitur
23 of 26
Cunningham v Harrison
any special award must be reasonable, here the claimantr went over the top
24 of 26
Povey v Rydell School
any special award must be reasoble, here the claimants claims were reasonable
25 of 26
West v Shephard
Claim for something that you enjoyed for every day life (Loss of Amenities) here the claimants loss of amenity was the ability to speak
26 of 26

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

this is the famous case set out the neighbour principle in the law of negligence, this principle is the foundation of the modern law

Back

Donoghue v Stevenson

Card 3

Front

this case sets out the modern 3 part test to decide whether a duty of care exists in situations where there is no precedent for duty

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

this case is an example of forseeablity in that it is forseeable that an injured person waiting for an ambulance may have more severe injuries if there is delay

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

here there was no physical proxmity as the claimant was in a safe place away from the accident, and whilst she could hear it she could not see it, she later went to see the aftermath and then suffered her miscarriage

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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