Unit 4 - Basic Negligence 0.0 / 5 ? LawLaw of TortA2/A-levelAQA Created by: nataliefrancis1Created on: 22-02-16 20:18 What are the three elements need to be proven in order to claim for a tort of negligence? 1.) Duty was owed 2.) Breach of Duty 3.) Damage (causation & Remoteness) 1 of 18 What case established the neighbour principle? Donoghue v Stevenson 2 of 18 Ratio Decidendi of Donoghue v Stevenson "Manufacturer owes a duty of care to the consumer" 3 of 18 What did the case of Caparo v Dickman establish? Three part test to see if a duty of care was owed 4 of 18 What are the elements of this test? Use case law Reasonably foreseeable - Hayley v London Electricity Board, Proximity - Watson v BBBC, Fair and just? - Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 5 of 18 What case established the Reasonable Man test? Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 6 of 18 What are the groups of the objective test? Use case law Learner - Nettleship v Weston, Specialist - Bolam v Friern, Children - Mullins v Richards 7 of 18 Name two risk factors and cases that the courts consider? Size of risk - Bolton v Stone, Potential seriousness of injury - Paris v Stepney 8 of 18 What test is used in causation? The "But for" test 9 of 18 What case is used for this test? Barnett v Kensington Chelsea Hospital Hospital 10 of 18 What case supports the idea that thre can be more than one single cause of harm? Wilsher v Essex 11 of 18 What is the leading case for remoteness of damage? The Wagon Mound 12 of 18 Ratio Decidendi of Hughes v Lord Advocate? "Type of injury must be foreseeabe but the manner in which it occurs does not have to be" 13 of 18 What case supports that the precise extent of injury does not have to be foreseeable? Bradford v Robinson Rentals 14 of 18 Thin Skull rule case? Smith v Leech Brain 15 of 18 Ratio of Carslogie Steamship co v Royal Norwegian Government Natural causes can be classified as an intervening act 16 of 18 Cases for 3rd party intervention (Gross negligence ) Lamb v Camden, Knightley v Johns 17 of 18 Ratio decidendi of Scott v Sheperd Innocent or instinctive acts of 3rd parties are not usually considered an intervening act 18 of 18
Comments
No comments have yet been made