NEGLIGENCE

• Fardon v Harcourt-rivington: cannot forsee “fantastic possibilities“
• Bourhill v young: Explains both Foreseeability and Proximity
• Mcloughlin v O’Brien: Familial proximity
• Donoghue v stevenson: legal proximity
• Hill v CC o West Yorkshire: no proximity relationship between police and killer
• Mulcahy v MOD: Fair, just, and reasonableness, no duty owned to servicemen in battle conditions, public policy
• Hall v brooklands - defines the reasonable man as “the man on the clapham omnibus“
• Blyth v Birmingham waterworks: there is no breach if the defendant does what a reasonable man would do
• Bolam: more subjective test for breach from skilled professionals, “would the reasonable doctor have given muscle relaxers?”

  Doctors have a higher standard of care
• Bolitho v City: would a “reasonable body of professional opinion“ agree to have the boy not intubated, leading him to have cardiac arrest. 3/8 agreed with the doctor.
• Mulin v richards: Children “ordinary reasonable 15 year old girl”
• Nettleship v Weston: Unskilled professional, Lord Denning “incompetent best is not good enough“
• Caparo test developed in Caparo v dickman: foreseeability, proximity, fair just and reasonablness
• Donoughue v Stevenson developed the neighbour principle by Lord atkin “who then in law is my neighbour?…person closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to reasonably have them in my contemplation“
• this is after “standard of care” since Doctors have an established duty of care, it is said that there is no breach when the injury is reasonably foreseeable.
• Roe v minister of health: Lord denning “courts must not look at the 1947 accident with 1954 spectacles” phenol was not known to cause paralysis when it seeped through syringe the cracks.
• what are the 4 comparative factors after establishing duty of care?

  1. likelihood of harm
  2. potential seriousness of the injury
  3. cost of making sure there was no harm
  4. societal value
• 1. Likelihood of harm V 3 .cost of avoiding harm: Bolton v stone- 6 balls have been hit beyond the ground in the last 30 years, the cost of making sure the ball would never hit out of ground again is too high, no breach.
• 2. Potential seriousness of injury v 3. Cost of avoiding harm- Paris v Stepney- claimant had one good eye and lost it, he had a “higher standard of care” because of his characteristics. cost of goggles is low.
• 1: likelihood of harm + 2: potential seriousness of injury v 4: societal value- Watt v hertfordshire cc, a fireman injured because his gear was not secured when he rushed to save a woman’s life, his societal value outweighed the risk of injury.
• Factual causation: Barnett v Chelsea hospital- but for the doctor refusing to see the man, would he have died from arsenic poisoning? no, cause he would have died regardless.
• McGhee v national coal board- multiple causes increasing material risk- was it the dusty conditions causing dermatitis or the lack of washing facilities to wash the dust off?
• Wilsher v Essex health authority- court of appeal says that despite the baby having 5 other potential reasons for blindness, the junior doctor was held liable for supplying too much oxygen, however House of Lords say. he did not “materially contribute“ as there was not enough evidence.
• novus actus interveniens- Baker v willloughby: the shot in the leg was not a new and intervening act that affected the loss of earnings from his prior injury where his leg was dead from a negligent driver.
• Claimants own acts: Mckew v Holland ltd- through the negligence of the defendant, the claimant had a weakened leg yet decided to decend the stairs without assistance causing further injury which was a new and intervening act.
• Claimants own act- Carr v IBC vehicle- claimant sustained head injury from a breach of duty- he developed depression and committed suicide. Thin skull rule- suffering from depression and committing suicide is reasonably foreseeable from his injury.
• • Remoteness- The wagon mound- oil spilt in the water near claiments whalf > welding was happening and was questioned if it should continue > it was deemed not dangerous enough > a piece of hot metal ignited a cotton cloth doused in oil > whalf bunt down. A reasonable man would not have foreseen the whalf being caught on fire.
• Hughes v Lord advocate- remoteness- workmen left a manhole but covered it with a tent and lamps all around it as a warning, 2 young boys picked up the lamp and accidentally pushed it down the hole, the paraffin in the lamp caused an explosion. harm was foreseeable.