• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/8

Click to flip

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;

8 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Four factors for consideration in determinind breach?

Likelihood of harm, severity of harm, cost to prevent, social utility of action

Roe v Minister of Health

Defendant not expected to guard against risks which cannot be foreseen

Wagon Mound No. 2

Although the foreseeability of harm was low, the damage done was very high and the cost of prevention was low

Bolton v Stone

Not liable for injury by cricket ball as it was not foreseeable

Paris v Stepney BC

Lost remaining eye because of failure to provide protective goggles - failing in duty of care due to severity of injury

Watt v Hertfordshire CC

Fireman injured at work - the duty of care is surpassed by the social utility of the fireman's work

Roberts v Ramsbottom (1980)

stroke at wheel of car – no excuse for failing to live up to standard.

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

A professional is held to the standards of their peers, not the average person