Negligence

• duty of care + breach of duty + damage = negligence
• No need to use caparo v dickman if duty of care is a,ready established - robinson v ccwy
• breach of duty:

  • If the defendant falls below the standard of a reasonable man
• Ordinary person doing a task: expected to reach ghe standard of a competent person doing a task - wells V cooper
• Learners: expected to reach the standard of someone more experienced - nettleship v weston
• Professionals: expected to follow accepted practice - bolam

  Doctor must take reasonable care to ensure the patient knows the riske - montgomery
• Children: are expected to act as normal children their age - mullins v richards
• Factors that alter the standard of care:

  • Risk - miller v jackson
  • Special characteristics - paris v stepney
  • Precautions - latimer aec
  • Policy - watt v hertfordshire
• Damage must be causes by d’s breach of duty.

  Factual causation - but for test barnett v chelsea
• Legal causation novus actus by

  • The claimant’s own act -mckew v holland
  • Nature - carslogie steamship
  • A third party - kightley v johns
• Remoteness of damage:

  • Foreseeability of harm: wagon mound
  • Type of harm foreseen not the extent: bradford v robinson
  • Thin skull rule: smith v leech brain
• Defences:

  • Contributory negligence: damages can be reduced if c contributed to negligence
  • Consent: c must have a full understanding of the risk and exercise free choice.