Tort Rules + Theory + Negligence Cases

• 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