BTEC Law Unit 1: Civil Law Master Case Guide

Comprehensive vocabulary flashcards detailing key case precedents, legal standards, and principles for BTEC Law Unit 1 on Negligence, Duty of Care, Breach, Causation, Remoteness, and Defences.

Neighbour Principle

The foundational legal principle from Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] establishing that a duty of care is owed to anyone closely and directly affected by your act.

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

Foundational precedent establishing the Neighbour Principle and baseline duty of care after a claimant fell ill from a decomposed snail found in an opaque ginger beer bottle.

Caparo 3-Stage Test

A three-stage framework from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] used to establish a duty of care: 1) Foreseeability of Harm, 2) Proximity, and 3) Fair, Just & Reasonable.

Bourhill v Young [1943]

A case under foreseeability of harm where no duty was owed because suffering psychiatric shock from hearing a road collision off-sight was held not to be foreseeable.

Haley v London EB [1965]

A case under foreseeability of harm where a duty of care was owed because it is reasonably foreseeable that blind pedestrians walk on sidewalks.

McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983]

A case under the proximity element where a duty was owed for psychiatric harm suffered by a claimant after witnessing the immediate aftermath of an accident.

Alcock v CC South Yorks [1992]

A case under the proximity element where no duty was owed because secondary victims failed proximity tests (in space, time, and relation) following the Hillsborough disaster.

Hill v CC West Yorks [1989]

A case under the fair, just, and reasonable element where no duty was owed, granting police immunity against liability for general failure to apprehend criminals.

Robinson v CC West Yorks [2018]

A case under the fair, just, and reasonable element establishing that police owe a duty of care and are liable for direct physical harm caused by positive acts.

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856]

The case defining the baseline objective standard of care: doing something a reasonable person would not do, or failing to do what a reasonable person would do.

Bolam v Friern Hospital [1957]

A key precedent holding that professionals and experts are judged against the accepted practice of a responsible body of peers.

Nettleship v Weston [1971]

A key precedent establishing that learners and trainees are held to the standard of a competent, qualified driver, ruling that inexperience is no defence.

Mullin v Richards [1998]

A key precedent establishing that children are judged against the standard of an ordinarily prudent child of the exact same age.

Bolton v Stone [1951]

A case illustrating magnitude of risk where a low risk lowers the required standard of precautions (a cricket ball was hit out of the ground only $6$ times in $30$ yrs).

Paris v Stepney BC [1951]

A case illustrating gravity of harm where a higher duty of care is owed when the potential harm to a specific individual is severe (involving a one-eyed worker).

Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953]

A case illustrating the cost of precautions factor, establishing that precautions must be proportionate and there is no need to close an entire factory for a minor floor slip risk.

Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954]

A case establishing that emergency context and public utility can justify taking higher risks when assessing whether a breach of duty occurred.

"But For" Test

The test for factual causation determining whether the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach of duty.

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969]

A key case for factual causation where a doctor negligently sent a poisoned patient home, but the breach was not the factual cause because the patient would have died regardless.

The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961]

The leading precedent on legal causation and remoteness, establishing that damage must be of a foreseeable type to be recoverable.

Thin Skull Rule

The principle of legal causation illustrated in Smith v Leech Brain [1962] requiring a defendant to take their victim as they find them regarding pre-existing conditions.

Smith v Leech Brain [1962]

The precedent applying the Thin Skull Rule, establishing that tortfeasors are liable for the full extent of injury where pre-existing conditions exacerbate the harm.

Morris v Murray [1991]

A key case for the defence of volenti non fit injuria (consent), holding that knowingly flying with a drunk pilot constitutes full consent to the risk.

Froom v Butcher [1976]

A leading precedent for contributory negligence, establishing that a claimant's failure to wear a seatbelt led to a $25\%$ reduction in damages.