(Caparo test) reasonable foresight of harm to the particular claimant
1 of 19
Palmer v Tees HA
Sufficient proximity of relationship between the claimant and defendant
2 of 19
Stovin v Wise
No liability for omission
3 of 19
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
Exception where there is a duty to act positively, a person has spme sort of power or control over another
4 of 19
Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis
No omission care, Duty to act postively can arise where the defendant is in position of power or control over another
5 of 19
Bolam v Friern
The skilled defendant, not in breach if acting in accordance with such a practice, merely because there is a body of opinion which takes a contrary view
6 of 19
Wilsher v Essex
The under-skilled defendant, No allowance for D's lack of qualification, skill or experience
7 of 19
Mullin v Richards
D must meet standard of ordinary reasonable child of D's age
8 of 19
Barnett v Chelsea
Causation in fact, but for test
9 of 19
Bonnington Casting Ltd v Wardlaw
In some circumstances a modified test is applied so that causation has been satisfied by showing that the D's breach materially contributed to the claimant's damage
10 of 19
Holtby v Brigham and Cowan
If the injury which the claimant suffers is divisible, the court will apportion damages accordingly
11 of 19
Performance Cars v Abraham
If the claimant injured more than once
12 of 19
Mckew v Holland
Actions of the claimant themselves may break the chain of causation if entirely unreasonable in all the circumstances
13 of 19
The Wagon Mound NO1
The harm must be foreseeable
14 of 19
Hughes v Lord Advocate
The similar in type rule, provided the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable, the D is liable, even if the precise way in which it occurred was not
15 of 19
Smith v Leech Brain
The egg skull rule, provided the type of harm was reasonably foreseeable, the D is liable for the full extent of the harm, even if the precise extent of the damage was not foreseeable
16 of 19
Freeman v Butcher
Contributory negligence
17 of 19
Morris v Murray
Volenti, voluntarily assuming risk, where C consented to the full extent and nature of the risk.
18 of 19
Gray v Thomas Train
Illegallity, defeats the claim where actions arise out of an illegal activity
19 of 19
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Sufficient proximity of relationship between the claimant and defendant
Back
Palmer v Tees HA
Card 3
Front
No liability for omission
Back
Card 4
Front
Exception where there is a duty to act positively, a person has spme sort of power or control over another
Back
Card 5
Front
No omission care, Duty to act postively can arise where the defendant is in position of power or control over another
Comments
No comments have yet been made