negligence

• three requirements

  d owed c a duty of care

  d breached their duty

  the breached caused damage
• duty of care

  (robinson v cc West Yorkshire) - a duty of care can be established through:

  a statutory obligation - (road traffic act 1988)

  an existing precedent

  if a novel situation is presented - caparo test
• caparo test

  the harm to c must be reasonably foreseeable - (kent v Griffiths)

  there must be proximity between c and d in time, space or legal relationship - (bourhill v young)

  it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on d - (hill v cc West Yorkshire)
• breach of duty

  (Blyth v Birmingham waterworks) - d has breached their duty if they fall below the standards of a reasonable man
• categories of a reasonable man

  professionals meet the standard of care of a reasonably competent expert in the same field (Bolam)

  children - meet the standard of care of a reasonable child of the same age - (mullin v Richards)

  leaners - meet the standard of care of a reasonable competent person with experience - (nettleship v Weston)

  an ordinary man doing a test - meet standard of care of a reasonably competent person doing the task - (wells v Cooper)
• breach risk factors

  raise or lower standard of care that the reasonable man would take
• risk factors examples

  size - for a large risk, d is expected to take more care, if the risk is small d is allowed to take less care (bolton v stone)

  special characteristics of c - if c is more vulnerable the harm is more serious (Paris v Stepney)

  if d takes all reasonable precautions - there is no risk (Latimer)

  potential benefits of any risk - (Watt v Herts CC)
• causation of damage

  it must be established that it was the breach that caused the damage
• factual causation

  but for test

  (Barnett v Chelsea hospital)
• legal causation

  the damage must be foreseeable to someone in D's position at the time of the breach - (the wagon mound)

  only the type of harm needs to be foreseeable, not the extent - (hughes v lord advocate)
• chain of causation

  third party - (smith v littlewoods)

  nature - (Norwegian government)

  c's own actions - (McKew v holland)
• thin skull rule

  D must take claimant as he finds them - (Smith v Leech brain)