Home > Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
What is negligence?
Negligence is an accidental act or omission that causes forseeable harm.
In negligence, who is the burden of proof on to prove duty of care?
In which case was duty of care established?
Donoghue v Stevenson
Name the three things which the claimant must prove in order to establish a duty of care.
- 1. Forseeability
- 2. Proximity
- 3. Is it just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant.
Name the forseeability case.
Bourhill v Young
Name the five things needed to prove special relationship under proximity.
- 1. Does the defendant have specialist skill or knowledge?
- 2. Does the claimant rely on the defendant?
- 3. Does the defendant know of the reliance?
- 4. Does the defendant assume responsibility towards the claimant?
- 5. Is it reasonable for the claimant to rely on the defendant?
Does the duty of care extend to rescuers?
Yes - Videan
Under breach, what standard must the defendant reach?
That of the "Reasonable Man"
Name the "reasonable professional" case
Bolam v Friern HMC
Name the "reasonable driver" case
Nettleship v Weston
Children under breach take...
Less care - Mullin v Richards
Name the four most common risk factors
- 1. Degree of risk
- 2. Cost and practicality of precautions
- 3. Potential seriousness of harm
- 4. Social utility
Name the degree of risk case
Bolton v Stone
Name the cost and practicality of precautions case
Latimer v AEC
Name the potential seriousness of harm case
Paris v Stepney BC
Name the social utility case
Watt v Hert CC
What must the claimant prove in relation to causation?
The chain of causation
Name the two types of causation
- 1. Causation in FACT
- 2. Causation in LAW
Explain causation in fact with the case
- The "But for" test
- Barnett v Chelsea HMC
Explain causation in law with the case
- The "Remoteness Rule"
- The damage must not be too remote a consequence of the defendant's negligent act
- Wagon Mound No1
- Jolley v Sutton
Name the exceptions which break the chain of causation
- 1. Egg shell skull rule
- 2. Novus Actus Interveniens
Explain the egg shell skull rule with the case
- "Take your victim as you find him"
- Vulnerable claimant + unforseeable damage = LIABLE
- Smith v Leech Brain
- Page v Smith
Explain Novus Actus Interveniens with the case
- Intervening acts can break the chain of causation
- Knightly v Johns
Why is Res Ipsa Loquiter used?
- When the claimant cannot say what happened but it is obvious that damage has occured, the burden of proof switches to the defendant.
- Byrne v Boadle
What would you like to do?
Home > Flashcards > Print Preview