negligence (physical injury to people and damage to property)

donaghue v stevenson 1932

established the ‘neighbour principle’

caparo v dickman 1990

the caparo 3 part test

1. reasonably forseeable harm

2. proximite relationship (time, space and relationship)

3. fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

robinson 2018

a duty of care can be established by

1 Existing statutes/precedents

2 Reason by analogy – look at similar cases

3 In novel cases – consider the Caparo criteria

breach of duty

1. the reasonable man

2. special characteristics of the defendant

3. risk factors

damage

1. factual causation

2. legal causation

3. remoteness of damage

4. type of damage

stage 1 - reasonably forseeable damage or harm

Kent v Griffiths 2000

consequence of defendants act?

stage 2 - sufficient proximity

physical space, time or relationship

Bourhill v Young 1943

stage 3 - fair, just and reasonable

aka floodgates argument (prevents risk of opening potential claim to a huge number)

consider public services and distinction between negligent acts and omissions

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire Police 2018

factual causation

1. ‘but for’ test (Barnett v Chelsea Hospital 1969)

2. novus actus interveniens (chain of causation, consequence of original act?)

legal causation

1. damage not too remote (Wagon Mound)

2. scale of injury need not be forseeable (Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963)

3. thin skull principle (Smith v Leech and Brain and Co)

Blyth v Birmingham Water Works

accepted standard is that of a reasonable person

objective test

special categories of people

• skilled defendants (standard professional)

• inexperienced learners (competent person)

• children (reasonable person of D’s age)

Nettleship v Weston

established standards for inexperienced learners and children

risk factors

1. special characteristics of C

2. size of the risk

3. precautions

4. known risks

5. public benefit to taking risk

Paris v Stepney Borough Council 1951

greater precautions if C has special characteristics

Bolton v Stone 1951

if there is a small risk, fewer precautions are expected

Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953

if all appropriate precautions taken, no breach

Roe v Minister of Health 1954

D will only be expected to take precautions against risks which are known

Day v High Performance Sports 2003

greater risks can be taken in an emergency situation

contributory negligence

has the claimant done anything to contribute to his own injuries?

damages may be reduced by a percentage