negligence

• Negligence

  The biggest area of tort law
• Successful claim in negligence

  1. Claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that:

  2. Defendant owed a duty of care

  3. Defendant breached that duty of care

  4. Breach caused damage or injury to the claimant (also known as causation)
• Duty of care

  Established in the case of Robinson V West Yorkshire Police
• If the duty situation has been established before, there is no need to go through the three part test in Caparo V Dickman</b>
• Three part test in Caparo V Dickman

  • Damage is reasonably foreseeable
  • There was a relationship of proximity
  • Imposing liability is just, fair and reasonable
• Duty situations

  Nettleship V Weston - The duty situation in this case is road user to road user but it can be applied to sailors, train drivers etc. In this case, the claimant was giving the defendant a driving lesson. During this lesson, she crashed into a lamp post which injured the defendant. It was decided the defendant was in breach of duty as she had been wrongly compared to an experienced driver in the reasonable man test even though she should've been compared to a learner driver
• Duty situations

  Bolam V Friern Hospital management - The duty situation in this scenario is doctor to patient but can be applied to professional to client. In this case, the claimant was a voluntary patient at a mental hospital and had electric shock therapy. He was not given muscle relaxant and was not restrained and was injured by violent movements of the body. The doctor was found not to be in breach  of his duty as he was found to have been following standard procedures which was supported by a reasonable body of the medical profession.
• Duty situations

  Mullins v Richards - The duty situation in this case is child to child. In this case, two 15 year olds were playing with plastic rulers, one of which broke and left one of the girls blinded. The court decided that a reasonable 15 year old couldn't foresee the risk of harm so she was not in breach of her duty.
• Duty situations

  Jolley V Sutton - The duty situation in this case was council to individual. In this case, it was determined that it was foreseeable that the boys would try to fix the boat on council owned land and be injured. As the council made no attempts to secure the site, they will remain liable.
• Duty situations

  Paris V Stepney - The duty situation in this case is employer to employee. In this case, Paris was blind in one eye and was blinded by a piece of molten metal whilst working without goggles. A greater care should've been taken ( due to special characteristics of the claimant) to ensure that he used protective goggles at work as he was already blind in one eye.
• Duty situations

  Wells V cooper - The duty situation in this case was inviter to invitee. In this case, the defendant was a DIY enthusiast who fixed a new handle to his neighbours back door. His duty was to fit the handle to the standard of a reasonably competent amateur. Therefore, there wasn't a breach of duty as the defendant could only be compared to an amateur DIY person.
• Breach of duty

  To determine whether someone has breached a duty of care, the standard of care must be considered
• Standard of care

  Defined in Blyth V Birmingham waterworks case
• Reasonable man test

  If the defendant falls below the standard of the reasonable man then they are in breach of that duty
• Reasonable man test

  The defendant will be compared to someone of a similar standing
• Factors to consider when deciding if there has been a breach

  • Risk of harm
  • Cost of taking precautions
  • Special characteristics of claimants if they are vulnerable
• Risk of harm

  Bolton v Stone where risk of harm was low as the cricket ball was hit out of the ground over a 17 foot fence only 6 times in 30 years and no one had ever been injured. In this case there was no breach of duty as the reasonable man would assume that the risk of harm was low. 
• Cost of taking precautions

  Latimer v AEC where a factory became flooded and sawdust was put on the floor to stop workers from slipping, however one of the workers slipped. There was no breach as it was unreasonable to expect the owners to close the factory to eliminate all risks. 
• Special characteristics of the claimant

  Paris V Stepney where Mr Paris was blind in one eye and was blinded by a piece of molten metal whilst at work without goggles. A greater care should've been taken to ensure that he used protective goggles at work as he was already blind in one eye. 
• Causation

  The link between the act and the result
• Types of causation

  • Factual
  • Legal
• Factual causation

  Based on whether the defendant is the factual reason for the claimants damage or injury
• But for test

  Used to test if something is factual causation
• Barnett v Chelsea- but for test


  • A man went to hospital with arsenic poisoning but was turned away. He would not have lived even if the doctor had treated him. The hospital was held not liable due to the 'but for' test being applied and the failure of the hospital wasn't the cause of his death so it wasn't factual causation
• Novus actus interveniens

  A new intervening act which can break the chain of causation
• Novus actus interveniens case

  Mckew v Holland - In this case, the claimant suffered a leg injury as a result of his employer's negligence which left his leg weakened. He later fell when he tried to come down a steep flight of stairs with no handrail. The court held that the defendant’s were not liable as his decision to go down a flight of stairs without a handrail was a novus actus interveniens which had broken the chain of causation. 
• Wagon Mound


  The leading case for legal causation
• Legal causation

  Legal causation is whether the reasonable person could foresee the damage or injury. The injury or damage cannot be too remote.
• Thin skull rule

  
  

   If the type of injury is foreseeable but because of some preexisting condition on the part of the claimant the injury is worse than what would have been expected, the defendant will still be held liable. This is known as the thin skull rule
• Thin skull rule case

  Smith V leech brain - where due to his employers negligence, the claimant was splashed with molten metal on the lip. This burn caused cancer and he died. The claimant had a predisposition to the cancer in his skin tissue. It was held that the employer was liable for his death as although the death may not have been foreseeable, an injury was.