Negligence

• Key elements of Negligence


  The duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damage.
• What is the principle that establishes a duty of care?

  Neighbour principle
• In which case was the neighbour principle established?

  Donoghue v Stevenson
• What does the neighbour principle state?

  Duty of care is owed to foreseeable victims
• What are the three parts of the Caparo test?

  Foreseeability, proximity, fair and reasonable
• What does the foreseeability part of the Caparo test assess?

  Whether harm was reasonably foreseeable
• What case illustrates the foreseeability aspect of the Caparo test?

  Kent v Griffiths (2000)
• What does the proximity part of the Caparo test evaluate?

  Closeness of the relationship between C and D
• Which case applied the proximity test?

  Bourhill v Young (1943)
• What does the fair, just, and reasonable part of the Caparo test consider?

  Whether imposing a duty benefits society
• Which case is associated with the fair, just, and reasonable aspect of the Caparo test?

  Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990)
• What must be proven after establishing a duty of care?

  A breach of duty
• What standard is used to determine a breach of duty?

  Reasonable person standard
• Which case defined the reasonable person standard?

  Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
• How are learners judged under the reasonable person standard?

  As a competent, more experienced driver
• Which case illustrates the standard for learners or inexperienced drivers?

  Nettleship v Weston
• How are professionals judged under the reasonable person standard?

  By the standard of their profession
• Which case set the standard for professionals?

  Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital
• How are children judged under the reasonable person standard?

  By the standard of their age
• Which case illustrates the standard for children?

  Mullin v Richards
• What risk factors are considered when determining reasonableness of actions?

  Special characteristics, size of risk, precautions
• What does the case Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) illustrate?

  Increased standard of care for vulnerable individuals
• What does the size of risk factor indicate?

  Higher risk increases standard of care
• Which case illustrates the size of risk factor?

  Bolton v Stone (1951)
• What does the case Haley v London Electricity Board (1965) demonstrate?

  Higher risk requires greater precautions
• What does the precautions taken factor consider?

  Balance of risk and cost of precautions
• Which case illustrates the precautions taken factor?

  Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)
• What does the unknown risks factor imply?

  No breach if risk is unknown
• Which case illustrates the unknown risks factor?

  Roe v Minister of Health (1954)
• What does the public benefit or emergency situations factor allow?

  Lower standard of care in emergencies
• Which case illustrates the public benefit or emergency situations factor?

  Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)
• What must be proven for loss or damages after a breach of duty?

  Breach must cause loss or damages
• What test is used for factual causation?

  But for test
• Which case established the 'but for' test?

  Barnett (1969)
• What test is used for legal causation?

  Remoteness of damage test
• Which case established the remoteness of damage test?

  The Wagon Mound (1961)
• What must be foreseeable in terms of injury?

  Type of injury must be foreseeable
• Which case illustrates the foreseeability of injury?

  Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)
• What must not break the chain of causation?

  No intervening acts
• What does the thin-skull rule state?

  Take claimant as you find them