Duty of care owed by a driver to passenger. The standard of care owed is that of the reasonable competent driver. Irrelevant that they are a learner.
1 of 20
Mullin v Richards
For children their age will be taken into account, but no other subjective factors will. Two 15 years olds playing with a ruler.
2 of 20
Wilsher v Essex
For professionals, it will also be the standard of that experienced person in the profession.
3 of 20
Bolam v Frien Hospital
Standard of care was that of the reasonably competent doctor
4 of 20
Wells v Cooper
Standard of care was that of the reasonable person, not a professional carpenter because the works were carried out in his own home. Focus on the act not the actor.
5 of 20
Phillips v Williams
Act not the actor. Ear piercing was held to be the standard of the reasonable jeweller not a surgeon.
6 of 20
Bolam
Test for breach of duty. If D can point to a reasonable body of opinion within the profession, not necessarily the majority opinion, that would have acted in the same manner then there is no breach.
7 of 20
Maynard v West Midlands
Applies the Bolam test.
8 of 20
Watt v Hertfordshire
Equipment badly secured to a fire engine so it fell off. Balancing exercise by the Courts, the risk of injury was low compared to the benefits of saving a woman.
9 of 20
Ward
Fire engine hit a car in a bid to get to the scene of the fire as quickly as possible. Held that the benefits of arriving quickly outweighed the risk of harm
10 of 20
Civil Evidence Act 1968 s11
Criminal convictions can be used to help prove a breach
11 of 20
Donoghue v Stevenson
Established the test for the duty of care
12 of 20
Caparo
3 stage test for the duty of care. 1. Was the harm caused reasonably foreseeable? 2. Was there a relationship of proximity between the parties? 3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability? Apply this test if there is no available precedent
13 of 20
Arthur V Simons
Duty of care owed by solicitors
14 of 20
Capital & Counties v Hampshire County Council
Fire brigade doesn't owe a positive duty until they have responded. Only they when they have done something to make it worse.
15 of 20
Kent v Griffits
Duty is owed by ambulance drivers if they answer the 999 call and then take an unreasonable amount of time to arrive.
16 of 20
Smith & Others v Littlewood
Generally no positive duty to act/no liability for omissions. Except when the defendant has created a dangerous situation.
17 of 20
Stansbie v Troman
A decorator left a house open and a thief broke in and stole. Held liable for his omission.
18 of 20
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Company
Liability for the actions of third parties if there is a special relationship between the defendant and a third party.
19 of 20
Haynes v Harwood
Horse injured a police man. Creation of a source of danger in a public place.
20 of 20
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Mullin v Richards
Back
For children their age will be taken into account, but no other subjective factors will. Two 15 years olds playing with a ruler.
Comments
No comments have yet been made