Negligence

Cards (7)

  • duty of care cases
    Robinson v CC west yorkshire police
    Caparo V Dickman
    Kent V Griffith
    X Bourhill V Young
    Griffiths V Lindsey
  • breach of duty cases
    Blyth V Birmingham
    Nettleship V Weston
    Wells V Cooper
    Mullins V Richard
    Bolam V Friern hospital
    Paris V Stepney
    Bolton V Stone
    Latimer V AEC ltd
    Watt V Hertfordshire
  • Defences Cases
    Jayes IMI Ltd
    Froom V Butcher
    Bowater V Rowley Regis Corporation
  • Evaluation Of Breach Of Duty
    Fair, having a fault element. Makes sure defendant is at fault before paying out. Inconsistent with most other torts which are strict liability.
  • Evaluation Of Breach Of Duty
    Inconsistent, law in Nettleship. Inconsistent with the ruling of Bolam, unfair outcomes. Holding people at different standards is unfair. It creates an unjust system.
  • Evaluation Of Breach Of Duty
    Useful through the removal of the fault element. Makes claims easier & no fault element had to prove this. However, insurance premiums become more expensive.
  • Evaluation Of Breach Of Duty
    Unfair, difficult to prove medical claims. Protects defendants as close ranks, doesn’t put people off being a doctor. Makes it harder for claimant to claim.