negligence - notes

Duty of care

  • Donoghue v Stevenson - neighbour principle - ‘you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’

neighbour - a duty is owed to another if it is reasonably foreseeable that they would be injured by the defendants act or omission

  • Caparo test - Caparo industries v Dickman

  1. Reasonable foreseeability - Bourhill v Young

  2. Proximity (closeness between C & D in time, space, or relationship) - McLoughlin v O’Brian

  3. Fair, just, & reasonable - Hill v CC West Yorkshire - duty can be owed by a public body if positive acts make the situation worse

~ Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire - test should only be used in new & novel cases

  • established principles of a duty

~ Montgomery v Lanarkshire - doctor to patient

~ Nettleship v Weston - driver to passenger/road users

~ Walker v Northumberland CC - employer to employee

Breach of duty

  • special characteristics - standard of care

  1. professional - negligent if their conduct fell bellow the standard of a reasonably competent professional in the same area of expertise

~ Roe v Minister of Health

  1. learner - negligent if their conduct fell bellow the standard of a reasonably competent person with that skill or profession

~ Nettleship v Weston

  1. child - negligent if their conduct fell bellow the standard of a reasonable child of the same age (& not the standard of an adult)

~ Mullins v Richards

  • factors that affect the standard of care required

  1. special characteristics of the claimant

~ Paris v Stepney - if C has a special condition that D was or should have been aware of then they owe a higher duty of care

  1. the risk of harm - the greater the risk the more likely D is to be found in breach of duty

~ Miller v Jackson

  1. taking precautions - if all reasonable precautions are taken there is no breach - there is no duty to eliminate all risks

~ Bolton v Stone

  1. social utility - if D’s conduct is of benefit to society, there may not be a breach if this outweighs the risks

~ Watt v Hertfordshire CC - the saving of life justifies taking considerable risk

Causation

  • factual - But for test - ‘but for the defendants act or omission, would the harm have occurred?’

~ Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital - D’s conduct must be necessary to the outcome

  • intervening acts

~ Smith v Littlewoods

  • remoteness - damage must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of D’s breach of duty

~ Hughes v Lord Advocate

~ Wagon Mound

foreseeability is not affected by factors such as the size of the risk & the cost of precautions

~ Page v Smith - no need to foresee the specific type of harm that resulted

  • thin skull rule - where foreseeable injury is caused to C & this triggers an unforeseeable reaction due to C’s pre-existing vulnerability D is liable for the full extent of the loss

~ Smith v Leech Brain