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;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Pippin v Shephard |
Doctors owe a duty of care to their patients. |
|
|
Donoghue v Stevenson |
Lord Atkins: 'you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. |
|
|
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks |
If a person does something which the reasonable man would not have done, or omisses to do something which the reasonable man would have done, then they will be in breach of their duty. |
|
|
Nettleship v Weston |
All drivers, including those learning to drive, are held to the same standard. This shows the mostly objective nature of the standard of care. |
|
|
Birch v Paulson. |
The objective standard of care is not a standard of perfection. For example, if a drunken person walks out onto the road, and the driver is not able to swerve out of the way in time, this does not mean the driver will be liable. This depends on how much care they took. |
|
|
Roberts v Ramsbottom |
The defendant was liable, due to driving, despite feeling increasingly unwell. In this case, the defendant unknowlingly suffered a stroke before starting to drive into town, and crashed into the claimant's car. |
|
|
Mansfield v Weetabix |
Defendant was not liable, as he was unaware of his condition. In this case, unknown to the defendant, he had a medical condition, which starved his brain of glucose so that it was unable to function properly. This can be contrasted with the Roberts v Ramsbottom case, as the defendant in this case did not feel unwell when he began driving. |
|
|
Orchard v Lee |
The test will be adjusted for children. 'The question is whether a reasonable 13 year old boy... would have anticipated that some significant personal injury would result from his actions'. |
|
|
Phillips v William Whiteley |
The claimant could expect only that her ears were pierced to the standard of a reasonably competent jeweller. |
|
|
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. |
The defendant doctor was not liable, by not giving the relaxant drug to the claimant before treatment, as at the time, other reasonable doctors would have acted in the same way. This Bolam test applies to all professionals exercising a professional skill or competence. |
|
|
Moy v Pettman Smith |
The Bolam test applies to barristers. |
|
|
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority |
A Junior doctor was held to the same standard of they more senior post they were holding at the time. |
|
|
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority. |
Added a second stage to the Bolam test. If the doctor acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a respectable body of medical opinion, then the second stage is: (2) is the practice in itself 'reasonable' and 'logical'? |
|
|
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. |
The Bolam test does not apply to the disclosure of risks. |
|
|
In setting the standard of care, what are the 4 factors the courts may take into account? |
1. Probability of the injury. 2. Seriousness of the injury. 3. The cost of taking precautions. 4. The social value of the activity. |
|
|
Probability Bolton v Stone |
6 cricket balls hit out over 30 years. Lower standard of care. |
|
|
Probability. Richards v London Borough of Bromley. |
The defendant school was not liable, despite the fact that an accident had occured on be swing door just 4 months earlier, as the injury was held to be unlikely, and the previous injury was only slightly similar to the injury in thise case. |
|
|
Probability Roe v Ministry of Health. |
It is a test of foresight, not hindsight. |
|
|
Seriousness. Paris v Stepney Borough Council. |
The loss of an eye to a one-eyed man is likely to be more serious than to a person will full sight. Therefore, more care must be taken to ensure his safety. |
|
|
Cost of taking precautions. Knight v Home Office. |
There was a lack of funds, and therefore, the required standard of care was lower. |
|
|
Social Value of the activity. Watt v Hertfordshire County Council. |
In the case of a fire service rushing an emergency, the public benefit justified taking the risks associated with failing to adequately secure the heavy lifting-gear in the back of the lorry. |
|
|
Social value Blake v Galloway. |
Lower standard of care required for forms of consensual activities (e.g. in this case, horseplay). |
|
|
Social value. Scout Association v Barnes. |
Social value was present, but this was not enough to justify the risk taken from playing games in the dark. |
|
|
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council. |
These factors have to be balanced against each other. |
|
|
Section 1, Compensation Act 2006. |
Required the courts to 'have regard to' the wider impact of their assessment of the appropriate standard of care in a particular case. |
|
|
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism (SARAH) Act 2015. |
Court must take into regards: social action, responsibility and heroism. Works alongside the Compensation Act 2006. |
|
|
Section 11, Civil Evidence Act 1968. |
In road traffic accidents, the burden in on the defendant to show he was not negligent. |
|
|
Brown v Paterson. |
Criminal conviction or breach of the highway code is strong prima facie evidence of negligence. In this case, it was a breach of the highway code. |
|
|
J v North Lincolnshire County Council. |
Where the defendant is unable to explain how the accident occurred, but is able to show they exercised all reasonable care in the circumstances, they will not be found liable, following the doctrine 'res ipsa loquitur'. |
|
|
Dunnage v Randall |
The law does not excuse from liability a defendant who fails to meet the normal standard of care because he is merely impaired by a medical problem. Only defendants whose mental incapacity that has the effect of entirely eliminating any fault or responsibility for the injury can be excused. |
