negligence

blythe v birmingham waterworks

failing to do something that the reasonable person would do or doing something that the reasonable person would not do

caparo test

establish DOC for novel cases, proven with 3 points

1) reasonably forseeable harm

2) proximity

3) is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty?

(kent v grifthis) reasonably forseeable harm

reasonable person being able to forsee that damadge can occur by defendents act or omission

(bourhill v young) proximity

duty of care can only be established if the claimaint and defendent have a proximately close relationship, in this case they did not

(mcloughlin v obrien) proximity

proximity based on time space and relationship

robinsion

obvious duty of care no need to prove it

bolam v frein (professionals)

professionals judged against others in the same field

mullin v richards (children)

children held to the same standard as a reasonable person in their age group

wells v cooper

an amateur undertaking a task will be compared to a reasonably competent amateur, not a professional employed in the field

nettleship v weston

learners held to the same standards as those who are qualified

risk factors

1) special characteristics

2) size of risk

3) cost of precautions

4) knowledge of risk

5) public benefit

paris v stepheney (special characteristics)

defendant breached his duty of care as he didnt protect against the claimaints potential injury

bolton v stone (size of risk)

where there is a small risk there is a unlikey breach of duty

latimer v AEC (cost of precautions)

defendant protected against possible risks so he wasnt liable

roe v minister of health (knowledge of risk)

if there is no known risk defendant cannot protect against it so there will be no breach

watt v hereford cc (public benefit)

saving a life outweighed the injury caused by the car jack meaning there was no breach

breach of duty

proven with: risk factors and standard of care

damadge

proven by causation (factual and legal)

barnett v chelsea (factual causation)

‘but for’ test in tort law, if not proven there is no need to prove legal causation. claimaints husband would have died with or without medical intervention

novus actus intrevines (legal causation)

something that breaks the chain of causation

smith v leech brain (legal causation)

thin skull rule

wagon mound (legal causation)

damadge must not be too remote from the defendants negligence. this cases type of damdge was too remote from the negligent act

bradford v robinson (legal causation)

defendant will be liable if injury forseeable even though the precise way it happened was not. even though the injury was unusual the damdage was forseeable