Evaluation of Negligence

• Robinson v CCoWY

  P: duty of care based on past precedents, unless novel

  KT: certainty, fairness

  CA: rigidity, uncertainty

  C: Should be followed because certainty is key.
• Nettleship v Weston

  P: inexperience doesn’t lower the standard of care

  KT: certainty, public safety

  CA: unfairness

  C: Should be followed because it keeps the roads safe.
• Smith v Leech Brain

  P: The thin skull rule doesn’t affect remoteness

  KT: certainty, fairness

  CA: unfairness

  C: Should be followed because it protects C
• Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC

  P: profession raises the standard of care

  KT: fairness

  CA: unfairness, rigidity

  C: Should be followed because it protects C
• Mullin v Richards

  P: age lowers the standard of care

  KT: certainty, fairness

  CA: rigidity

  C: Should be followed because it‘s fair for young Ds
• Negligence is fault based.

  P: C must prove D fell below the standard required of him

  KT: fairness

  CA: unfairness (Bourhil v Young)

  C: Should be upheld because D not liable for accidents