Reasonable Foreseeability

This question focuses heavily on ‘reasonable foreseeability’. Reasonable foreseeability is a “mechanism which limits the type of plaintiffs, risks or damages which the defendant is liable for ”. For an event to be foreseeable, the claimant, and the kind of injury that was caused, must be foreseeable. The claimant, Daryl, must be in the area that danger is created by the defendant's, Rick, carelessness and the injury must be a type that is likely to occur in the circumstances. To be able to prove that Daryl’s subdural hematoma was a reasonable foreseeable consequence of negligent driving, we must determine whether the defendant, rick, breached his duty of care by acting below the standard of care. The courts will determine this first by asking whether the risk was …show more content…
Rick did breach the standard of care as he knew that Daryl was sick as he was the one driving rick to an appointment. Therefore, he owed a duty of care to Daryl to drive safely on the road to not worsen the condition of Daryl. In the case of Nettleship v Weston [1971] CA, despite it apply to learner drivers experienced drivers, rick being a taxi driver is an experienced driver, were used to judge the case. It was held that “even learner drivers are to be judged against the standard of the reasonably competent driver. The fact that a driver is inexperienced and incompetent does not excuse his falling short of this standard. It matters not that a learner driver is doing her incompetent best ”. Daryl taking anti-coagulants does not eliminate his condition for being reasonably consequence as him taking the anti-coagulants was advised by a medical professional to help with his blood