Negligence

Neighbour Principle

Donoghue v Stevenson - Lord Aitkin ‘you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injury your neighbour’ your neighbour is ‘persons who are so closely and directly affected’ that D ‘ought reasonably to have them in contemplation’

Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire

There is no single definitive test for establishing a duty of care, first look to existing statutory authority and common law, then reason by analogy using similar cases. In new or novel situations, use Caparo Dickman 3 stage test

Caparo v Dickman

Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable - Kent v Griffiths

Is there a significantly proximate relationship between C and D - Bourhill v Young

Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty - Hill v CC of West Yorkshire, Mitchell v Glasgow City Council

‘Reasonable man’ test

Vaughan v Menlove - objective test, the reasonable person is the ordinary person performing the task competently.

Reasonable learner

Learner drivers held to standard of experienced drivers - Nettleship v Weston

Reasonable child

Held to standard of the reasonable person of same age - Mullins v Richard, Orchard v Lee

Reasonable professional

Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital - does D’s conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary, competent member of that profession and is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course of action taken by D?

Montgomery v Lanarkshire - D must give informed consent

Risk factors

Special characteristics - Paris v Stepney

Size of risk - Bolton v Stone

Adequate precautions - Latimer v AEC

unknown risks - Roe v Minister of Health

Policy matter/greater good - Watt v Hertfordshire

Factual causation

Barnett v Chelsea - ‘but for’ test

Legal causation - intervening acts

Act of C - McKew v Hollands

Act of nature - Carslogie Steamship case

Act of a third party - Knightley v Johns

Remoteness of damage

Wagon Mound - the damage must not be too remote from the breach of duty - the injury or damage must be reasonably foreseeable

Type of injury

The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, but the nature of how the damage happens doesn’t have to be - Bradford v Robinson Rentals, Doughty v Turner

Thin skull principle

Called ‘eggshell skull’ in tort, must leave C as D found them - Smith v Leech Brain