negligence comes from the case of donoghue v stevenson to prove negligence we must show three things. 1. D owed the C a duty of care. 2. D breached this duty. 3. Ds breach of duty is what has caused Cs damages
1 of 18
duty of care
to show that a DoC exists between C and D the case of Robinson tells us that if a pervious case has established a DoC in an identical/ similar situation to the current case then the DoC exists in the current case as well.
2 of 18
apply duty of care
"as this is not a novel case the court would use a pervious case that already has established a DoC in these circumstances"
*sentence to say if it is likely that a DoC is owed*
3 of 18
caparo
This is a novel case, meaning we have no previous cases to compare and identify Charlie's duty of care and therefore we will use the Caparo test to identify Charlie's duty of care. (Caparo v Dickman).
There are three parts to the Caparo test.
4 of 18
caparo
1. reasonable person foresee risk
2. there is a proximity between C and D
3. it is fair just and reasonable
5 of 18
standard of care
there are three factors that alter the standard of care. always compared to the reasonable person (blythe v birmingham waterworks). inexperience doesn't lower the standard of care (nettleship v weston). being a proffesional can raise your SoC (bolam v fri
6 of 18
risk factors
size of risk
seriousness of potential harm
practicality of precautions
benifits of taking a risk
7 of 18
size of risk
small risk= unlikely breach of duty
reasonable man will take less precautions against a small risk of harm (bolton v stone)
8 of 18
seriousness of potential harm
how bad could be harm be if it happens?
reasonable man will take more care when the potential harm to C could be serious
(paris v SBC)
9 of 18
practicability of precautions
could quick, easy and cheap precautions be taken to reduce the risk of harm.
reasonable man will take precautions which are proportinate to the size of the risk and seriousness of potential harm.
10 of 18
potential benefits of taking risk
is the benefit going to out weigh the risk?
11 of 18
damage
C must prove that the Ds breach:
1. caused the damage to the claimant
2. that the damage caused was not too 'remote' as a result of the breach
12 of 18
causation
factual causation
remoteness of damage
13 of 18
factual causation
but for test - pagett
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington hospital management committee
intervening acts? unreasonable/ unforeseeable?
14 of 18
remoteness of damage
the wagon mound
type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable
15 of 18
general defences
contributory negligence- ( sayers v harlow)
volienti non fit injuria, consent- (stermer v lawson)
16 of 18
contributory negligence
law reform act 1945: the damages awarded to the claimant can be reduced depending on the extent to which the claimant contributes to his own injury
therefore partical defences as it only reduces the damages paid- doesn't stop D being liable
17 of 18
consent
this means that D is not liable at all
volenti is a defence where C has accepted the risk of injury (consented to the harm)
1. C knows the precise risk involved
2. C was able to exercise free choice
3. C voluntarily accepted the risk
18 of 18
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
to show that a DoC exists between C and D the case of Robinson tells us that if a pervious case has established a DoC in an identical/ similar situation to the current case then the DoC exists in the current case as well.
Back
duty of care
Card 3
Front
"as this is not a novel case the court would use a pervious case that already has established a DoC in these circumstances"
*sentence to say if it is likely that a DoC is owed*
Back
Card 4
Front
This is a novel case, meaning we have no previous cases to compare and identify Charlie's duty of care and therefore we will use the Caparo test to identify Charlie's duty of care. (Caparo v Dickman).
There are three parts to the Caparo test.
Back
Card 5
Front
1. reasonable person foresee risk
2. there is a proximity between C and D
3. it is fair just and reasonable
Comments
No comments have yet been made