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
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Donoghue v Stevenson |
, - neighbour principle (neglects act)Claimant sued the manufacturer in tort for the remains of a snail found in a ginger beer. Lord Atkins noted:“you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are closely and directly affected by my acts that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions called in question.” |
duty of care |
|
|
Caparo v Dickman (1990) |
The House of Lords held, there was no duty of care between an auditor of a company and third party bidder. It introduced a threefold test: -Harm must be reasonably foreseeable -There must be a relationship of proximity between P and D -It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liabilityN.B. only the two first elements are used for the element of duty of care NB. The third element of fair, just and reasonable is used for the final requirement in proofing negligence. |
(general duty of care) – neglect acts |
|
|
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977]:- |
In order to establish that a duty of care arises in a particular situation, the question has to be approached in two stages. First, one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage, there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighborhood such that, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter. Secondly, if the question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negative, or reduce or limit the scope of duty to the class of person to whom it is owed. |
duty of care -2 test |
|
|
Hall v Brooklands, |
A reasonable man is defined on an objective standard, based on an average person. It does not require perfection but taken into account that an average person does not foresee every risk. The average person is not assumed flawless but ordinarily careful and prudent |
breach of care |
|
|
Bolton v Stone [1951] |
The plaintiff was struck and injured by a cricket ball as he was walking along a public road adjacent to a cricket ground. The plaintiff contended that the defendant, who was in charge of the ground, had been negligent in failing to take precautions to ensure that cricket balls did not escape from the ground and injure passers by. Held:Taking into account such factors as the distance of the pitch from the road, the presence of a seven foot high fence, and the infrequency with which balls had escaped previously, the likelihood of harm to passers- by was so slight that the defendant had not been negligent in allowing cricket to be played without having taken further precautions such as raising the height of the fence. |
likelihood of harm |
|
|
Mowser v DeNobriga [1969] High Court, Trinidad and Tobago |
The plaintiff was a spectator at a race meeting. A riderless horse left the race tract at a point where there was no outer rail or fence, and struck and injured the plaintiff. She brought an action in negligence against the defendants, the organizers of the race meeting. Held: The plaintiff was a person to whom a duty of care was owed. There was a real risk of injury to spectators in the event of a horse galloping off the track, and the defendants were negligent in having failed to take sufficient precautions to protect the plaintiff and other spectators. |
likelihood of the harm |
|
|
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] |
The defendants employed the plaintiff as a mechanic in their maintenance department. Although they knew that he had only one good eye, the did not provide him with goggles for his work. While he was attempting to remove a part from underneath a vehicle, a piece of metal flew into his good eye and he was blinded. Held: The defendants had been negligent in not providing the particular workman with goggles, since they must have been aware of the gravity of the consequences if he were to suffer an injury to his one good eye. |
Seriousness of Injury Risked |
|
|
Byfield v Attorney General [1980] Jamaica |
Two constables were chasing an armed man who was wanted for various offences , including robbery and firearms offences. The man ran into the yard of the plaintiff’s house from where he fired a shot at the pursuing constables. The constables returned the fire, but accidentally shot the plaintiff who was also in the yard but unnoticed by the constables. Held: The constables were not liable in negligence since they were acting in the execution of their duty in “hot pursuit” of a gunman. They were entitled to defend themselves and were under no duty to retreat. |
The Importance or Utility of Defendant’s Activity |
