Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
28 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Where a defendant's actions have created a dangerous situation so that it is reasonably foreseeable that someone might attempt rescue, the defendant owes a duty of care to the rescuer |
Baker v Hopkins |
|
|
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour |
Donoghue v Stevenson |
|
|
Test to determine whether a duty is owed in any novel situation |
Caparo test (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman) 1) Reasonable foresight of harm to the claimant 2) Sufficient proximity of relationship 3) Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty |
|
|
Three limbs of Caparo test work together |
Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine |
|
|
Police do not owe a duty of care to any individual as their duty is to the public at large |
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire |
|
|
Police do owe a duty of care when there is a closer proximity of relationship with the claimant, eg someone who has been entrusted into their care |
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police |
|
|
General rule is that you do not owe a duty to the world for your omissions |
Stovin v Wise |
|
|
If you do not owe a duty to act but you do decide to intervene, you will not be liable in Negligence even if you do act carelessly, unless you make matters worse |
East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent and another |
|
|
The duty on an occupier would be too wide if it was held responsible for damage caused to neighbouring property by third parties entering the occupier's property, when it had no control over those third parties |
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd |
|
|
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man...would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do |
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks |
|
|
Test is not 'what did this defendant foresee', but 'what would a reasonable person have foreseen in the particular circumstances?' |
Glasgow Corp v Muir |
|
|
A doctor must show a greater degree of skill and care than the reasonable person in the street. A doctor must show the same degree of skill as a reasonable doctor. |
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee |
|
|
A junior doctor on his first day must come up to the standard of a hypothetical doctor in that post |
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority |
|
|
Even where odd jobs are done around the house, the courts are prepared to demand a certain level of skill from the defendant householder |
Wells v Cooper |
|
|
A child defendant will be expected to show such care as can reasonably be expected of an ordinary child of the same age |
Mullin v Richards |
|
|
Justifiable not to take steps to eliminate a real risk if the risk of injury is small and if the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would think it right to neglect it |
Bolton v Stone |
|
|
If human life is at stake, a defendant may be justified in taking abnormal risks |
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council |
|
|
Defendants sued in Negligence may be able to escape liability if they can show that they complied with the accepted practice in their trade or profession |
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee |
|
|
Whether the risk of injury is foreseeable must be judged in the light of knowledge available to the defendant at the time of the event |
Roe v Ministry of Health |
|
|
A defendant's duty is to guard against 'reasonable probabilities not fantastic possibilities' |
Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington |
|
|
A rare event is not necessarily a 'fantastic possibility' |
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis |
|
|
3 conditions for the application of the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' |
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co 1) The thing causing the damage must be under the control of the defendant or someone for whom the defendant is responsible 2) Accident must be such that would not normally happen without negligence 3) The cause of the accident is unknown to the claimant - no direct evidence of any failure |
|
|
A defendant who has been convicted of a criminal offence is presumed, in any subsequent civil proceedings, to have committed that offence |
s.11 Civil Evidence Act 1968 |
|
|
There is a duty to act positively in cases where a person has a special relationship of control over another
|
Home Office v Dorset Yacht |
|
|
If there is a risk of very serious harm, one must take appropriate steps to mitigate
|
Paris v Stepney
|
|
|
Negligent acts only break the chain of causation if unforeseeable
|
Knightley v Johns
|
|
|
Where the risk of injury is high, must take steps to mitigate |
Miller v Jackson |
|
|
If taking precautions would have been inpracticable and incurred great expense, D may be justified in not doing so, provided the risk of injury is small |
Latimer v AEC |
