Negligence

• Negligence (outline of the 7 paragraphs)

  Duty of care

  Reasonably foreseeable harm may occur

  Proximity

  Fair, just and reasonable to impose

  Breach of duty

  Damage caused by the breach

  Remoteness of damage
• Negligence - DoC, Donoghue v Stevenson


  The neighbour principle was established

  A duty is owed to anyone you are close to
• Negligence - DoC, Caparo v Dickman

  Better defined DoC

  A duty is owed if it is reasonably foreseeable that harm may occur, there is proximity, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
• Negligence - reasonably foreseeable…

  It was RF someone may come to harm from a failure of an ambulance to arrive quickly (Kent v Griffiths) and where children were playing with an old abandoned boat (Jolley v Sutton BC)

  It was not RF a motorbike accident would cause a pedestrian to suffer a miscarriage (Bourhill v Young)
• Negligence - there must be proximity…


  May be through time and space (HO v Dorset Yacht)

  or

  Legal (Osman v Ferguson/Hill v CC S. Yorkshire)
• Negligence - fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty…


  It is not f, j & r to impose a duty on police with regards to their duty of solving and preventing crime (Hill v CC S. Yorkshire)

  HWVR, Hill doesn’t give blanket immunity (Robinson v CC S. Yorkshire).

  It may be f, j & r to impose a duty onto the fire brigade where they make a situation worse (Capital Counties v Hampshire CC)
• Negligence - breach of duty

  People are held to the standard of the reasonable man (Blyth v Birmingham Water Works).

  Children are held to the standard of children of the same age (Mullins v Richards)

  Learners are held to the standard of competent, experienced drivers (Nettleship v Weston)

  Experts are held to the standard of other experts (Bolam v Friern)
• Negligence - low risk

  If the situation is low risk the D may not need to take as many precautions, and it is unlikely there will be a breach (Bolton v Stone)
• Negligence - high risk

  If there is a high risk, it is more likely D has breached his duty (Haley v LEB)
• Negligence - precautions


  If the magnitude of ham is high (a vulnerable C) then they should take more precautions (Paris v Stepney BC)

  If all reasonable steps have been taken to reduce the risk, there is less chance of a breach (Latimer v AEC)

  Emergency situations outweigh the need to take precautions (Watt v Hertfordshire CC)
• Negligence - damage caused by the breach


  Factual causation must be proven using the ‘but for’ test (Barnett v Chelsea)

  If there are multiple choices, causation cannot be proven (Wilsher v Essex AHA)

  -> unless the D’s have all materially contributed to the risk (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services)

  There must be a 50% or higher chance that the treatment by doctors has worsened the condition of a C for them to be liable (Hobson v East Berkshire AHA)

  There must be no novus actus interveniens which breaks the chain of causation (Smith v Littlewoods)
• Negligence - remoteness of damage


  The damage must to be too remote (The Wagon Mound)

  If injured on the way to the danger, this is too remote (Crossley v Rawlinson)

  Extreme forms of the type of harm expected are recoverable (Bradford v Robinson Rentals)

  If the harm caused is of the type expected, it doesn’t matter if it was caused in an extreme way (Hughes v Lord Advocate)

  Thin skull rule applies (Smith v Leech Brain)