Tort Rules + Theory + Negligence Cases

avatar
Created by
olivia stockwin

Cards (20)

  • Walter v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)

    • Fault as a requirement in negligence and OLA
  • Liebeck v Mcdonald's

    • Compensation culture (Hot coffee case)
  • Dryden v Johnson Matthey plc (2018)

    • Defined actionable personal injury
  • Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

    • Established neighbour principle
  • Caparo v Dickman (1990)

    • Established three part test
  • Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)

    • Three part test is only used in novel situations, no blanket immunity for police
  • Elements of the three part test

    • Reasonably foreseeable
    • Proximity
    • Fair, just and reasonable
  • Kent v Griffiths (2000), Jolley v Sutton LBC (2000)

    • Reasonably foreseeable
  • Bourhill v Young (1943)

    • Not reasonably foreseeable, No proximity
  • Mcloughlin v O'brian (1983)

    • Originally no proximity but appealed, creating new precedent 'Aftermath Doctrine'
  • Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)

    • Reasonably foreseeable, No proximity, Not fair just and reasonable to owe a duty of care
  • Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)

    • Negligence definition - reasonable person
  • Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)

    • A professional will be judged by a standard of a reasonable person of that profession (The Bolam test for experts and professionals)
  • Nettleship v Weston (1971)

    • Learners are judged at the standard of a competent person
  • Mullin V Richards (1998)

    • A child is judged by the standard of a reasonable child
  • Risk factors

    • Degree of risk
    • Cost of precautions
    • Potential seriousness of injury
    • Importance of the activity
  • Bolton v Stone (1951)

    • Degree of risk -The greater the risk, the more precautions a defendant will have to take in order for their conduct to be judged at the standard of a reasonable person
  • Latimer v AEC (1952)

    • Cost of precautions - should not outweigh the risk involved
  • Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

    • Potential seriousness of injury - The more serious the potential injury, the greater level of care required
  • Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)

    • Importance of the activity - Risk may be acceptable if its socially important