Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Duty of care |
Legal relationship between parties which is developed in Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) |
|
|
Neighbour Principal |
Neighbour being the person a duty of care is owed to and is anyone you ought to have in mind that could be injured from your actions Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) |
|
|
Caparo Test |
Replaced good nieghbour Was damage foreseeable? Kent V Griffiths (2000) Is there a proximate relationship between claiment and defendant? Bourhill V Young (1934) + McLoughlin V O'Brien (1982) It is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty? Hill V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire All three parts must be satisfied Caparo V Dickerman (1990) |
|
|
Breach of Duty |
Reasonable person Professionals are judged by profession Bolam V Friern Barnet Hospital (1957) + Montgomery V Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) Learners are judged by more experienced people Nettleship V Weston (1971) Children and young people are judged by age Mullins V Richards (1998) |
|
|
Risk factors |
Special charateristics - Paris V Stephney Borough Council (1951) Size of risk - Bolton V Stone (1951) + Haley V LEC (1965) Appropriate Precautions - Latimer V AEC Ltd (1953) Were risks known - Roe V Minister of Health (1954) Public benefit - Watt V Hertfordshire County Council (1954) + Day V High Performance Sports (2003) |
|
|
Damage |
Factual causation - breach of duty caused damage, but for - Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1969) Legal causation - inury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence - novus actus interveniens Remoteness of damage - D is liable for reasonably foreseeable damage - The Wagon Mound (1961) |
|
|
Res Ipsa Loquitor |
Thing speaks for itself and change in burden of proof C must show that d was in control, the accident wouldn't have happened unless there was negligence and no other explanation for injury Burden of Proof moves to D who must prove they arent negligent Scott V London and St Katherine Docks (1865) |
