Negligence Master Document

Comprehensive vocabulary flashcards covering the key doctrines, tests, defenses, remedies, and case law in tort law (negligence) from the Negligence Master Document.

Negligence (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856))

Defined as 'doing something which a reasonable person would not do' or 'an omission to do something which a reasonable person would do.'

Neighbour Principle

Principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) stating that a defendant/respondent must have the claimant in mind when committing an act or omission.

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2016)

Authority establishing that a duty of care is determined by existing precedent, meaning the Caparo test is not used unless dealing with a novel scenario.

Caparo v Dickman Three-Part Test

Test used exclusively for novel scenarios to determine if a duty of care exists: reasonable foreseeability of harm, proximity between the parties, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Case illustrating foreseeability of harm; an unjustified delay in dispatching an ambulance led to the worsening of a claimant's asthma attack, establishing that a duty of care was owed.

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Case illustrating lack of proximity; a bystander heard an accident and suffered nervous shock upon seeing blood, but no duty of care was owed because she was not proximate.

McLoughlin v O’Brien (1982)

Case establishing proximity through relationship and time; a lorry driver owed a duty of care to an immediate family member who arrived at the hospital up to 2 hours after a serious accident and suffered severe shock.

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1990)

Case establishing that police owe no general duty of care to unidentified potential victims of a serial killer, as there is insufficient proximity and it is not fair, just, or reasonable.

Secondary Victim Psychiatric Injury Test (Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (2024))

The modern test amending Alcock; it removes the requirements for a sudden shock or a 'horrifying' event, focusing instead on whether the plaintiff has suffered a recognised psychiatric illness.

Alcock Criteria (Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992))

Requirements for secondary victims: close ties of love and affection (in proximity and fact), witnessing the event or its immediate aftermath, and experiencing the shock through unaided senses (not through television).

Negligent Misstatement

A cause of action available when a statement is made negligently and a special relationship exists between the parties.

Reasonable Person Standard (Wells v Cooper (1954))

The objective standard of care against which normal individuals are measured, defined by the conduct of a reasonable, average person.

Bolam Test (Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957))

Standard for professionals with specialist skill; asks whether the defendant's conduct fell below that of an ordinary competent professional and whether a substantial body of opinion supports the action taken.

Bolitho Qualification

Principle in clinical negligence requiring that the professional practice relied upon by the defendant must also be capable of withstanding logical analysis and be reasonable.

Standard of Care for Learners (Nettleship v Weston (1971))

Principle that learners (e.g., learner drivers) are held to the standard of a competent and more experienced person.

Standard of Care for Children (Mullin v Richards (1998))

Principle that children and young people are judged against the standard of care of a reasonable person of the defendant's age at the time of the incident.

Special Characteristics (Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951))

Breach risk factor establishing that employers must take greater care when aware of an employee's known physical vulnerability (such as having sight in only one eye).

Size of Risk (Bolton v Stone / Hale v London Electricity Board)

Principle that the lower the risk, the fewer precautions need to be taken (Bolton), whereas a higher risk of injury demands a higher standard of care (Hale).

Unknown Risks (Roe v Minister of Health)

Principle that if the risk of harm is unforeseeable and unknown to standard scientific knowledge at the time, there is no breach of duty.

Public Benefit (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council)

Principle establishing that during emergencies or activities of public utility, greater risks can be undertaken, lowering the required standard of care.

Factual Causation ('But For' Test)

Established in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969); requires proof that the damage would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's negligent act or omission.

Remoteness of Damage (The Wagon Mound (1961))

Principle that liability extends only to injury or damage that was reasonably foreseeable, requiring a clear link between cause and consequence.

Foreseeability of Injury Type (Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963))

Principle that a defendant is liable if the general type of injury was foreseeable, even if the precise sequence or manner of events was unexpected.

Thin Skull Rule (Smith v Leech Brain and Co (1962))

Also known as the 'eggshell skull' rule; requires the defendant to take the victim as they find them, remaining fully liable if a preexisting condition makes injuries worse.

Doughty v Turner Asbestos (1964)

Case establishing that damage is too remote if the specific mechanism causing the harm (an unforeseen chemical explosion caused by an asbestos cover in molten metal) was not foreseeable.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Doctrine meaning 'the thing speaks for itself'; applies when the defendant was in sole control, the accident would not occur without negligence, and there is no other explanation for the injury.

Contributory Negligence

Partial defence governed by s1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945; reduces damages when the claimant failed to take proper care for their own safety and that failure contributed to the harm.

Consent (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)

Full defence meaning no wrong is done to a willing person; completely defeats a claim if the defendant proves the claimant had knowledge of the risk, exercised free choice, and voluntarily accepted that risk.

Restitutio in Integrum

The primary objective of compensatory damages, aiming to put the claimant back into the position they would have occupied had the tort not occurred (Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Company (1880)).

General Damages

Non-pecuniary or future losses that cannot be precisely calculated before trial, including pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and future pecuniary losses.

Special Damages

Pecuniary losses capable of precise calculation up to the date of trial, including pre-trial medical expenses, travel costs, and actual loss of earnings.

Nominal Damages

A token award (generally £1) granted when an actionable legal wrong has occurred but no actual physical or financial damage has resulted.

Contemptuous Damages

Derisory damages awarded when the court determines an action should never have been brought, typically reflecting disapproval of the claimant's reprehensible conduct.

Aggravated Damages

An increased sum awarded when the claimant's distress or injury has been made worse by the defendant's bad faith, malicious, or improper conduct.

Pure Economic Loss (Spartan Steel v Martin (1973))

Financial loss without accompanying damage to property or person; non-recoverable in negligence as a matter of policy, with negligent misstatement being the sole exception.

Mitigation of Loss

Legal duty requiring a claimant to take all reasonable steps to minimise their loss; damages resulting from an unreasonable failure to mitigate are non-recoverable.