Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Standard Owed
|
Reasonable person.
|
|
|
4 considerations in deciding what is reasonable.
|
1. Likelihood of the harm being caused.
2. Gravity of the threatened injury. 3. Social utility. 4. Expense of avoiding it. |
|
|
Likelihood of Harm
|
O'Gorman v Ritz Cinema - woman injures her leg on hinge mechanism on cinema chair. This had never occurred in 7 years of the cinema being open. Reasonable care had been taken.
Bolton v Stone - plaintiff struck by cricket ball. Extremely unlikely. |
|
|
Gravity of Injury
|
Paris v Stepney Borough Council - cyclops worker blinded in the course of his ordinary work. Goggles are only supplied for some of the workers. Reasonable care was not taken as his employers were aware of his situation.
|
|
|
Social Utility
|
Mulcare v Southern Health Board - home care worker injures herself on stairs while working. Social utility of the defendant's function.
|
|
|
Cost of Prevention
|
Latimer v AEC - rainy oil mess only partially covered by sawdust. P argues the whole factory should have been shut down. No this is too high a standard.
|
|
|
Difficulties
|
Nettleship v Weston - Learner driver held to same standard as qualified drivers.
Mansfield v Weetabix - Driver who had unknown condition held to standard of reasonable driver who was in the d's position. |
