• 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

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




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;

28 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Where a defendant's actions have created a dangerous situation so that it is reasonably foreseeable that someone might attempt rescue, the defendant owes a duty of care to the rescuer

Baker v Hopkins

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour

Donoghue v Stevenson

Test to determine whether a duty is owed in any novel situation

Caparo test (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman)

1) Reasonable foresight of harm to the claimant

2) Sufficient proximity of relationship

3) Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Three limbs of Caparo test work together

Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine

Police do not owe a duty of care to any individual as their duty is to the public at large

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Police do owe a duty of care when there is a closer proximity of relationship with the claimant, eg someone who has been entrusted into their care

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

General rule is that you do not owe a duty to the world for your omissions

Stovin v Wise

If you do not owe a duty to act but you do decide to intervene, you will not be liable in Negligence even if you do act carelessly, unless you make matters worse

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent and another

The duty on an occupier would be too wide if it was held responsible for damage caused to neighbouring property by third parties entering the occupier's property, when it had no control over those third parties

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man...would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Test is not 'what did this defendant foresee', but 'what would a reasonable person have foreseen in the particular circumstances?'

Glasgow Corp v Muir

A doctor must show a greater degree of skill and care than the reasonable person in the street. A doctor must show the same degree of skill as a reasonable doctor.

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

A junior doctor on his first day must come up to the standard of a hypothetical doctor in that post

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

Even where odd jobs are done around the house, the courts are prepared to demand a certain level of skill from the defendant householder

Wells v Cooper

A child defendant will be expected to show such care as can reasonably be expected of an ordinary child of the same age

Mullin v Richards

Justifiable not to take steps to eliminate a real risk if the risk of injury is small and if the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would think it right to neglect it

Bolton v Stone

If human life is at stake, a defendant may be justified in taking abnormal risks

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

Defendants sued in Negligence may be able to escape liability if they can show that they complied with the accepted practice in their trade or profession

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

Whether the risk of injury is foreseeable must be judged in the light of knowledge available to the defendant at the time of the event

Roe v Ministry of Health

A defendant's duty is to guard against 'reasonable probabilities not fantastic possibilities'

Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington

A rare event is not necessarily a 'fantastic possibility'

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis

3 conditions for the application of the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur'

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co

1) The thing causing the damage must be under the control of the defendant or someone for whom the defendant is responsible

2) Accident must be such that would not normally happen without negligence

3) The cause of the accident is unknown to the claimant - no direct evidence of any failure

A defendant who has been convicted of a criminal offence is presumed, in any subsequent civil proceedings, to have committed that offence

s.11 Civil Evidence Act 1968

There is a duty to act positively in cases where a person has a special relationship of control over another

Home Office v Dorset Yacht

If there is a risk of very serious harm, one must take appropriate steps to mitigate
Paris v Stepney
Negligent acts only break the chain of causation if unforeseeable
Knightley v Johns

Where the risk of injury is high, must take steps to mitigate

Miller v Jackson

If taking precautions would have been inpracticable and incurred great expense, D may be justified in not doing so, provided the risk of injury is small

Latimer v AEC