Negligence

Front 1

Negligence is...

Back 1

A breach by the defendant of a legal duty of care owed to the claimant that results in actionable damage to the claimant unintended by the defendant

Front 2

Upson

Back 2

One road user to another

Front 3

Hopkins

Back 3

Defendant to rescuer (where Defendant has created a dangerous situation so that it is reasonable that somebody may attempt rescue)

Front 4

Nettleship

Back 4

Driver to pedestrians and passengers

Front 5

Vowles

Back 5

Referee to sport player

Front 6

Simons

Back 6

Advocate to client

Front 7

Griffiths

Back 7

Ambulance service to emergency callers

Front 8

Mulcahy

Back 8

NO ESTABLISHED DUTY OF CARE FOR soldier to collegue

Front 9

Capital & Counties

Back 9

NO ESTABLISHED DUTY OF CARE FOR fire service to emergency caller

Front 10

Hill

Back 10

Police do not owe a duty of care to individuals, but the public at large.

Front 11

Kirkham

Back 11

Police owe a duty of care to those entrusted to their care (suicidal prisoner taken into police custody).

Front 12

Rigby

Back 12

Police owe a duty to...
take action with reasonable care.

Front 13

Swinney

Back 13

Police owe a duty to...
keep the ID of informants safe.

Front 14

Donoghue v Stevenson

Back 14

Novel duty situations - neighbour principle.

Front 15

Caparo

Back 15

3 part test development of D v S.
1. is it REASONABLY FORESEEABLE that the Defendant's actions will affect this particular claimant? (-Bourhill)

2. is there sufficient PROXIMITY OF RELATIONSHIP between the Claimant and the Defendant? (-Caparo)

3. is it FAIR, JUST AND REASONABLE to impose a duty? (-Bishop Rock Marine)

Front 16

Wise

Back 16

General rule = no liability for pure omissions.

Front 17

East Suffolk Rivers

Back 17

If you act when you didn't need to and MAKE MATTERS WORSE you are liable.

Front 18

Dorset Yacht

Back 18

Duty to act where you have a relationship of special control over another.

Front 19

Littlewoods

Back 19

Duty does not extend to cover actions of third parties who are OUTSIDE the Defendant's control

Front 20

Blyth

Back 20

General standard of care of a REASONABLE person

Front 21

Wilsher

Back 21

Inexperienced person may discharge duty by referring to a more experienced person

Front 22

Bolam

Back 22

Standard of the Defendant's profession

Front 23

Bolitho

Back 23

Courts make final decision on whether a skilled Defendant's behaviour is reasonable

Front 24

Re Herald of Free Enterprise

Back 24

Common practice does not necessarily justify taking risks. Courts can condemn commonly accepted practice as negligent and reject "expert advice."

Front 25

Nettleship

Back 25

There is no allowance for inexperience - must meet the standard of a reasonably competent person.

Front 26

Weetabix

Back 26

Exception to Nettleship rule on incompetence to give allowance for those with unexpected disabilities.

Front 27

Bolton

Back 27

If there is a LOW RISK of harm, then it is justifiable not to take steps to mitigate risk.

Front 28

Miller

Back 28

If there is a HIGH RISK you must take steps to mitigate.

Front 29

Paris

Back 29

If there is any risk of VERY SERIOUS HARM then you must take steps to mitigate

Front 30

Latimer

Back 30

Consider COST AND PRACTICABILITY of solutions - can be an excuse for not taking steps to mitigate.

Front 31

Watt

Back 31

If Defendant is acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST this can justify taking GREATER RISK.

Front 32

Fardon

Back 32

No duty on the Defendant to protect against fantastic possibilities.

Front 33

If guilty in criminal proceedings, the defendant is also presumed liable in tort.

Back 33

Civil Evidence Act 1968, s.11

Front 34

Barnett

Back 34

BUT FOR test

Front 35

Hotson

Back 35

ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH

on balance of probabilities, the defendant caused the harm

Front 36

Bonnington Castings

Back 36

Defendant's actions MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTED to harm

Front 37

McGhee

Back 37

Defendant's actions MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTED to RISK of harm

Front 38

Greif

Back 38

Material contribution to risk of harm restriction ONLY to cases of scientific uncertainty

Front 39

Holtby

Back 39

If harm is DIVISIBLE court will apportion damages accordingly

Front 40

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Back 40

Claimant may sue any one Defendant for the whole loss

Front 41

Knightley

Back 41

NEGLIGENT intervening acts - only break the chain if unforeseeable

Front 42

Lamb

Back 42

INTENTIONAL, RECKLESS acts - more likely to break chain (unless unforeseeable - Stansbie)

Front 43

Scott

Back 43

NATURAL RESPONSE ACTS - will not break the chain

Front 44

Arearose

Back 44

NEGLIGENT MEDICAL TREATMENT - will not usually break the chain

Front 45

Cyril Lord Carpets

Back 45

Intervening acts by the Claimant - will only break the chain if ENTIRELY UNREASONABLE

Front 46

Wagon Mound No. 1

Back 46

Defendant only liable for REASONABLY FORESEEABLE damage

Front 47

Hughes

Back 47

Not necessary to see the precise WAY in which the harm is caused, provided the TYPE OF HARM is reasonably foreseeable.

Front 48

Robinson

Back 48

Egg shell skull rule

Front 49

Nettleship

Back 49

Test for voluntary assumption of risk - DEFENCE.

Claimant had FULL KNOWLEDGE and WILLINGLY ACCEPTED .

Front 50

Smith

Back 50

Defence of voluntary assumption of risk rarely works against employees

Front 51

Harwood

Back 51

Defence of voluntary assumption of risk rarely works against rescuers

Front 52

Hunt

Back 52

Illegality defence

Front 53

s.1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Back 53

Reduces damages if contributory negligence is shown.

Front 54

Caswell

Back 54

Where work is dull/repetitive courts typically do not allow defence of contributory negligence for employers/employees.

Front 55

Gough

Back 55

Contributory Negligence for children - judged according to their age.

Front 56

Baker

Back 56

Rescuers rarely found to be contributory negligent unless they have acted in a way that is with a "wholly unreasonable disregard for his/her safety"

Front 57

Froom

Back 57

Contributory negligence - SEATBELTS

Front 58

Capps

Back 58

Contributory negligence - HELMETS

Front 59

Brimmell

Back 59

Contributory negligence - ACCEPTING RIDE FROM DRUNK DRIVER