negligence

• caparo v dickman: test to show a duty of care

  • proximatey
  • just and reasonable to impose a duty
  • reasonably foreseeable
• robinson v west yorkshire: where a relationship has been previously tested, there will be a duty of care
• o’brian v mcloughlin: reasonable foreseeability of damaged
• nettleship v wetson: trainee should act as a reasonably trained individual
• blyth v birmingham waterworks: individual should act as a reasonable person would
• risk factors:

  • magnitude of risk
  • cost of prevention
  • social desirability
• stones v bolton: magnitude of risk must be proportional to the amount of money at stake to prevent it
• watts v hartfordshire: if risk is socially desirable, then it will not be negligent to perform
• factual causation: but for D’s acts/omissions would damages have occured
• barnett v chelsea and kensington health authority: factual causation, C would have died either way
• legal causation: whether the specific type of injury is reasonsobly foreseeable
• bradford v robinson rentals ltd: legal causation, type injury must be reasonably foreseeable
• wagon mound: legal causation
• knightly v johns: where there is an intervening act, D is not negligent
• donoghue v stevenson: origninal case in negligence