The flashcards below were created by user
Posie
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?
The claimant
-
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
|
|