Negligence

Donoghue v Stephenson

House of Lords developed the ‘Neighbour Principle’

Principle says you have a DOC to your neighbour, neighbour is anyone closely affected by your actions/omissions.

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

The Supreme Court said:

Where a precedent establishes that a DOC exists in a particular type of case, the court should follow that precedent.

Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks

Defendant will be judged by the standard of a ‘reasonably competent person in that situation’

Smith v Leech Brain

The THIN SKULL RULE - you take the claimant as you find them. As long as the type of injury was foreseeable, then the defendant is liable for all consequences

What is Contributory Negligence

The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act - where a person suffers damage partly as a result of their own fault, their damages will be reduced to reflect their fault

Froom v Butcher

Any actions by the claimant that are reasonable in the moment are not Contributory Negligence

Paris v Stepney Council

If the claimant is more vulnerable, the SOC should be raised

Watt v Hertfordshire Council

If the benefit to society outweighs the risk then a lower SOC can be expected

What is the ‘But for Test’

‘But for’ the defendants actions/omissions, would the damage have taken place in FACT.

Wagon Mound (Legal Causation/Remoteness of Damage)

If the damage to claimant was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant then it is too remote and the defendant was not the cause in LAW. (and vice versa)

Hughes v Lord Advocate

The defendant does not need to predict the precise way in which the injury/ damage to the claimant was caused, as long as damage of the same kind was foreseeable.

Wilsher v Essex Health Authority

No account is taken of the Defendants actual experience, they could be a professional lacking experience it doesn’t matter

Nettleship v Weston

All drivers, including those learning to drive, are held to the same stabdard

Mullins v Richards

Children are judged by the standards of a reasonable child of a similar age

Roe v Minister of Health

The defendant is under no obligation to guard against the risks other than those within their reasonable contemplation

Bolton v Stone