Negligence

• Neighbour principle


  Donoghue v Stevenson was act or omission reasonable foreseeable to cause injury or harm.
• How this is proved and 3 Qs cases

  Caparo v Dickmann - Was damage reasonably foreseeable? Kent v Griffiths

  Was there a sufficient relationship between C and D. Bourhill v Young

  Is it reasonable to impose duty? Hill v Chief constable of West Yorkshire

  
  

  ONLY IF NOVEL as per case of Robinson
• Breech (Negligence)


  Where duty is held to the standard of the reasonable person in that field or characteristic.
• 3 duty criteria in breech and cases

  Is he a professional? Pook v Rossal school (2018)

  Is he experienced? Netttleship v Weston

  Is he a child? Mullen V Richards - Held to reasonable standard of age.
• Risk factors of breech? to decide if standard should be raised or lowered - 5 factors and cases


  Special characteristics - Paris v Stepney borough council

  Size of risk - Bolton V stone

  Precautions - Laitmer v AEC ltd

  Risks known about at the time of the incident - Roe v Minister of health

  Is there public benefit to the risk? Day v high performance sports
• What are the two areas of damage in negligence?

  Causation and remoteness of damage.
• Damage must be x to sustain conviction

  real and not trivial - Johnston v NEI International Combustion
• Causation 'but for' case?

  Cunningham v Rochdale (2021)
• Break in chain of causation (intervening act ) 3 + case

  An event

  Act of claimant

  Act of third party

  
  

  Wilkin-shaw v Fuller
• Legal causation - remoteness of damage


  Checks if damage is not too remote from the negligence of the D. The wagon mound (1961)
• test for remoteness of damage and case

  Consequence of the breech of the duty of care must be reasonably foreseeable.

  
  

  Huges V lord advocate
• Egg shell rule with case?

  Take victim as found - Smith v leech Brain and co
• Defences to negligence

  contributory negligence and consenting to harm
• Contributory Negligence - Act and damage reduction potential


  The Law reform Act (1945) - Damages awarded can be reduced by extent of harm even by 100% James v IMI ltd However not full defence
• Consent defence

  Full defence where V accepts harm
• Consent 3 Qs and case

  Knowledge of risk involved

  Exercise of free choice by C

  Voluntary acceptance of risk Smith V Baker

  
  

  Haynes v Haywood