negligence cases

• Duty of Care in negligence:

  • Principle: You must take reasonable care not to injure your neighbour
  • Case: Donoghue v Stevenson
• Three-Stage Test to Prove Duty of Care (Caparo Test):

  • Injury or damage must be reasonably foreseeable
  • There must be proximity of relationship
  • It must be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care
  • Case: Caparo v Dickman
• Current test for showing a duty of care:

  • Case: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
  • No single definitive test of when a duty is imposed; an existing precedent should be followed or there should be an incremental development of the law
• Reasonable foreseeability (Caparo Test):

  • Case: Kent v Griffiths
  • It was reasonably foreseeable that if the ambulance took an unreasonable time to reach the patient, greater injury would be caused
• Proximity of Relationship:

  • Case: McCollin v O’Brien contrasting Bourhill v Young
  • Claimant proximate to the victim vs not
• Fair, Just and Reasonable:

  • Case: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
  • It was not fair, just, and reasonable for the police to owe a duty of care to a member of the public not known to them
• Person or Risk Factor in negligence:

  • Professionals are judged according to the standards of the profession they operate in
  • Case: Bolan v Frien Barnet Hospital Management
• Medical Treatment in negligence:

  • Case: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health
  • Patients should be treated as adults and made aware of the risks of medical treatment
• Learners in negligence:

  • Case: Nettleship v Weston
  • Judged according to the competent and experienced
• Children in negligence:

  • Case: Mullin v Richards
  • Judged according to a child of the same age
• Vulnerable victim in negligence:

  • Case: Paris v Stepney Borough Council
  • Special characteristics of the victim should be taken into account (e.g., being blind in one eye)
• Size of the Risk in negligence:

  • Case: Bolton v Stone
  • Greater care should be taken if there is a higher chance of injury (e.g., golf balls being hit over the fence)
• Cost of Taking Precautions in negligence:

  • Case: Latimer v AEC
  • The risk involved should be balanced against the cost and effort of taking precautions (e.g., sawdust on the factory floor)
• Knowledge of the Risk in negligence:

  • Case: Roe v Minister of Health
  • Was the risk known about at the time? (e.g., cracks in the test tube)
• Public Benefit in negligence:

  • Cases: Watt v Herefordshire, Day v High Performance Sports
  • Greater risks can be taken in emergencies (e.g., the way the climber was rescued was fine due to the risk)
• Factual Causation in negligence:

  • Case: Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
  • "But for" test - but for the defendant’s act or omission, the injury would not have happened
• Novus Actus Interveniens in negligence:

  • Cases: McKew v Hollands, Knightly v Johns
  • An intervening event - of the claimant, a natural event, or action of a third party will break the chain of causation
• Legal Causation in negligence:

  • Is the loss or damage too remote or reasonably foreseeable?
• Remoteness of Damage in negligence:

  • Case: The Wagon Mound
  • Injury or damage can be claimed if reasonably foreseeable
• Foreseeability in negligence:

  • Case: Hughes v Lord Advocate
  • Consequence foreseeable, even if the exact cause of injury is not foreseeable or is more severe
• Thin Skull Rule in negligence:

  • Case: Smith v Leech Brain
  • Defendant liable for all consequences of negligence. You take your victim as you find them