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;
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 |
