Negligence

how can you be negligent?

act or omission

what must there be between the parties?

legal relationship

Donoghue

We owe a duty of care to ‘ anyone closely and directly affected by our acts or omissions.

what was Donoghue replaced by?

Caparo test

Caparo

Three things must be proven to establish a duty of care, firstly was the damage/harm reasonably foreseeable, is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between C and D, and lastly, is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

what replaced the Caparo test

Robinson

Robinson

The Caparo test need only be used where there is no established duty of care.

Watt

________: greater risk can be taken if theres greater public heed, like in emergencies.

Mullin

________: Age is a relevant factor so children are judged against the reasonable child of that age.

Objective breach test

Has D behaved in a way that an ordinary reasonable person in their position would have done, if not D has broken their duty of care.

Bollam

Professionals are judged against the standard of ordinary competent people in that same profession.

Nettleship

Lack of experience is not a relevant characteristic for the reasonable person so learners are compared to reasonably qualified individuals.

Mullin

Age is a relevant factor so children are judged against the reasonable child of that age

what are risk factors?

deciding how risky D's actions were based on whether they should've taken extra precautions

Paris

The more vulnerable C is the more care D shouldve taken

Bolton

The higher the risk, the more care should be taken

Latimer

keep costs proportionate, if there is a low risk then theres no need to spend a lot

Roe

No liability for unknown risk

Watt

greater risk can be taken if theres greater public heed, like in emergencies

what is the final thing C must prove?

D's breach was the factual and legal cause of the harm/damage

Barnett

confirmed that courts must apply the ‘but for test, but for Ds act/omissions would the harm still have occurred

what is legal causation?

proof there is no intervening acts that break the chain

what is remoteness of damage?

the damage mustve been 'reasonably foreseeable'

the wagon mound

was not liable, the fire wasnt foreseeable