Negligence

• Automatic duty of care between doctor and patient

  Bolam
• Automatic duty of care bwteen road users and drivers

  Nettleship
• Caparo test, damage was reasonably foreseeable

  Kent
• Caparo test, sufficient proximity between D and C

  Bourhill
• Caparo test, fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

  Hill, Robinson
• D compared to reasonable man

  Hall
• Professionals compared to other professionals

  Bolam
• Learners compared to competant person

  Nettleship
• Children compared to a child of their age

  Mullin
• Risk factors are considered - known and unknown characteristics

  Paris, Hayley
• Size of risk dictates precautions needed to fulfil the duty

  Bolton
• If all precautions are taken, there will be no breach

  Latimer
• No breach if the risk was not known

  Roe
• No breach if there is public benefit

  Watt, Day
• Factual causation - 'But for' test

  Barnett
• Legal causation

  McKew
• Damage must not be too remote

  Wagon Mound
• Damage must be foreseeable

  Hughes, Bradley
• C's actions dont need to be foreseeable

  Jolley
• Damage from unkown risks are not foreseeable

  Doughty
• The thin skull rule apllies to causation

  Smith
• Volenti is available as a defence

  Haynes
• Contributory negligence is available as a defence

  Sayers