Negligence

• Caparo test

  Damage must be foreseeable

  Relationship of proximity

  Fair,just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
• Robinson v chief constable of West Yorkshire

  Caparo test should only be used when established principles dont provide an answer
• Montgomery v Lanarkshire

  Doctor to patient
• Condon v basi

  Sportsman to other participants
• Nettleship v Weston

  Drivers to passengers/road users
• Arthur v Simmons

  Lawyer to client
• Walker v northumberland

  Employer to employee
• Kent v griffins

  Ambulance was late in attending a patient

  Damage was reasonably foreseeable
• Bourhill v young

  C chose to view the scene of an accident

  No proximity
• mcloughlin v obrian

  C saw the aftermath of an accident involving her family and suffered psychiatric injury

  There was proximity
• Breach of duty

  Blyth v Birmingham water works- objective test
• bolam v Barnett hospital

  Proffessionals are judged at the standard of a reasonable person of the profession
• Nettleship v Weston

  Learner will be judged at the standard of a reasonable driver
• mullin v Richard’s

  A child will be judged by the standard of a reasonable child
• Latimer v AEC ltd

  Floor flooded, sawdust reduced the risk

  If reasonable precautions are taken then no breach
• Paris v stepney bourough

  Man with one eye wasn’t given googles

  There was a breach
• Damage

  Factual causation- wouldn’t have happened ‘but for ‘ the breach

  not too remote-foreseeable
• Cases for damage

  Barnett v Chelsea hospital- a doctor failed to examine a man who had been poisoned but even if he had he would have died anyway

  the damage must be caused by the breach
• Wagon mound

  A ship leaked into the Sydney harbour leading to a fire destroying a wharf & boats

  Damage must be forseeable