Tort of Negligence

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

DUTY OF CARE: Established 3 part test for establishing duty of care:
1. Was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
2. Was there sufficient proximity between the parties?
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Neighbour principle

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

The ambulance service could be found liable as once an emergency call providing the personal details had been accepted the ambulance service had a duty and were liable for damages.
More akin to the duty of a hospital to individual patients rather than a public body

McLoughlin v O'Brian

Proximity of relationship

Bourhill v Young (1943)

proximity of relationship - time and space - too far removed even tough in the aftermath..

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Standard of care is that of a 'reasonable man'

Mullin v Richards

A child is not expected to meet the standard of a reasonable adult, but will be judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the same age.

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

A learner driver is expected to meet the same standard as a reasonable qualified competent driver.

Wells v Cooper [1958]

DIY - changing the door knob.

Not held to a higher professional standard but to a reasonably competent amateur carpenter.

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

Bolam principle: a professional is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with a practice accepted by a reasonable body within that profession (even if their is a contrary body of opinion)

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority

The courts will consider compliance with common practice in the relevant profession as strong evidence that the defendant is not negligent, however the final decision as to whether behaviour is reasonable is the court's
Bolam test: D's practice must be supported by a responsible, reasonable body, not simply a number of other professionals.

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Relevant factors for breach of duty of care: seriousness of consequences, degree of harm. The c was a mechanic who was always blind in one eye, at work he had an accident which caused him to go blind in the other eye because he wasn't given goggles, they were liable, there was a greater duty towards him

AEC v Latimer

reasonable man takes reasonable precautions, but does not necessarily eliminate risk

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Likelihood of Harm
(General rule - the defendant does not have to guard against very minor risks of injury)

Claimant injured by a cricket ball hit out the cricket ground. The chances of that happening were so slight that there was no breach of duty.
The reasonable man would not have secured himself again such a small risk

Roe v Minister of Health (1954)

RISK FACTORS: Were the risks known about at the time of the accident? - cannot guard against unknown risks

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

Factual causation - but for the breach of duty the incident would not have happened. Arsenic poisoning - nothing could be done.

The Wagon Mound

defendant is liable only for reasonably foreseeable harms; defendant's liability is limited to natural and probable harms and those are the foreseeable harms

Smith v Leechbrain (1962)

thin skull rule

Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967)

An extreme form of the type of harm expected, is recoverable.

Hughes v Lord Advocate

It is not necessary to foresee the precise way in which the harm is caused, provided the type of harm is reasonably foreseeable

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks

Res Ipsa Loquitur - Case Example.
The defendant may be liable even if there is no conclusive proof of blame in limited situations. Accident must be the type that does not occur without negligence; D must be in control of situation and there must be no other explanation for the harm. This will then reverse burden of proof.