Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • 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

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/19

Click to flip

19 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

3 part test

Caparo industries PLC v dickman

Caparo test parts

Was the damage or loss foreseeable?


Is there sufficient proximity between the wrong doer and the victim?


Is it fair, reasonable and just to impose a duty of care ?

Foreseeability

Langley v dray

Proximity

Bourhill v young

Fair just and reasonable

Hill v west yorkshire police

Reasonable man

Blyth v Birmingham waterworks objective


Types of reasonable Man

Ordinary people


The learner


The professional


Young people

Ordinary person

Wells v cooper

The learner

Nettleship v Weston

Conditions for the professional

Conduct fall below standard


Support for course taken

The professional

Roe v minister of health

Young people

Mullin v Richards

4 factors effecting the standard of care

Special characteristics of the claimant



Size of the risk



All practical precautions taken



Benefits of taking the risk

Special characteristics

Paris v Stepney borough council

Size of the risk

Bolton v stone

Have so practical precautions been taken

Latimer v AEC

What are the benefits of taking the risk

Watt v Hertfordshire county council

Factual causation

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital management

Res IPSA loquitur 3 part

The thing wholly under defendant control


Accident that caused damage required negligence


No other explanation


Scott v London docks


Burden of proof on defense