Negligence

D owes C a DOC

Donoghue v Stevenson

Policy Test

Robinson v CCWY, duty may be based on previous precedent

Three part Caparo test

Caparo v Dickman, Foreseeability, Proximity and FJR

Foreseeability

Kent v Griffiths, was some damage or harm reasonably foreseeable as a result of D’s actions

Proximity

Bourhill v Young, is there proximity in time space or relationship between between D and C

FJR test

Robinson/Hill v CCWY, is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D, will it open the floodgates of litigation

Public authorities may owe a duty where they made the situation worse

Capital and Counties v HCC

Breach of DOC

Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks, did D reach the standard of care expected of a reasonable person doing the same thing

Learners

Nettleship v Weston

Children

Mullins v Richards

Professionals

Bolam v Friern Hospital

Risk Factors: Potential likelihood of harm

Hayley v LEB

Risk Factors: Potential seriousness of harm

Paris v SBC

Risk Factors: Cost and Practicality

Bolton v Stone

Risk Factors: Social Benefit

Watt v Herts CC

Factual Causation

Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital, but for test

Legal Causation

Wagon Mound, remoteness test, was the type of harm foreseeable

Hughes v Lord Advocate

It does not matter if damage occurred in an unusual way or to a greater extent than expected

Scott v Shephard

Are there any unforeseeable intervening acts

Smith v Leech Brain

Thin skull rule

Defences: Contributory negligence

S.1(1) Law Reform Contributory Negligence Act, Sayer v Harlow

Defences: Consent

Smith v Baker, C knew the risk of injury and voluntarily took it

Special Damages

Cunningham v Harrison

General Damages

Ruxley Electronic v Forsyth