Negligence

• negligence is defined by Blyth V Birmingham
• negligence def - doing something that a reasonable man would not do or failing do do something a reasonable man would do
• 3 elements - duty breach damage
• duty of care is set out by donoghue v stevenson
• three part test set out by caparo v dickman
• 3 parts of test - forseeability proximity and is it fair just and reasonable
• forseeability - kent v griffiths
• proximity with a relationship - bourhill v young
• fair just and reasonable - hill
• caparo test is only applied in novel situations - robinson
• objective standard of care - blyth
• obj standard - expected to complete a task reasonably competently
• learners are judged against the standard of a more experienced person - nettleship v weston
• a substantial body of opinion must support a proffessionals opinion - bolam
• breach for young people must be of a reasonable person of that age - mullins v richards
• doctors breach without informed consent - montgomery
• risk factors may affect the neccessary standard of care
• vulnerability of c - paris
• size of risk - bolton
• if risk was known - roe
• if there were benefits to the risk - watt
• precautions must not outweigh risk - latimer
• 2 elements for damage - causation and remoteness
• but for - barnett
• not too remote, must be reasonably forseeable - wagon mound
• no intervening acts - smith v leech
• contributory neg - sayers
• consent - smith