Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Tort Law - Neg
Negligence
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Caparo v Dickman | test applies in 'novel' situations where there are no established duties of care: foreseeability, proximity, FJR |
| Haley v LEB | Foreseeability: duty is owed to the blind in the area |
| Bourhill v Young | Foreseeability, and proximity: not foreseeable that someone in the tram would be affected, and no proximity so no duty owed |
| Mcloughlin v O'brien | Proximity: a duty is owed due to relationship (family died) |
| Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire | FJR: not fair just and reasonable to impose a duty to all woman in the area |
| Griffiths v Lindsay | FJR: not fair just and reasonable to extend taxi driver's duty to outside the car |
| Bolam v Friern | doctors/experts have a higher standard of care |
| Mullins v Richards | Lower standard of care for children/kids (ruler) |
| Roe v Minister of Health | can't use the benefit of hindsight |
| Nettleship v Weston | Learner drivers must uphold the same standard as qualified drivers |
| FB v Princess Alexandra Hospital | Being newly qualified doesn't change standard of care |
| Bolton v Stone | no breach because the likelihood of harm is so low |
| Paris v Stepney BC | breach because the potential seriousness of harm is higher (one eye) |
| Latimer v AEC | no breach because the cost of avoiding harm is high/unreasonable (shutting down factory for the day) |
| Watt v Herts CC | no breach because there is a high cost of avoiding harm and high utility to using the incorrect truck (firemen case) |
| Scout Association v Barnes | breach due to low utility and high likelihood of harm ('objects in the dark') |
| Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks | negligence = "failing to do something which the reasonable person would or would not do" |
| Donoghue v Stevenson | established the general principle of the duty of care concept in law: "neighbour principle" |
| Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire Police | Caparo test only needed in 'novel' situations |
| Hall v Simons | Lawyers owe a duty to their clients |
| Wilsher v Essex AHA | 5 possible causes for child's blindness |
| Smith v Leech Brain | Thin Skull Rule |
| Hughes v Lord Advocate | Extent of damage needn't be foreseeable |
| The Wagon Mound | Damage may not be too remote |
| Bolitho v CHHA | Adapts the Bolam test |
| Ward v Tesco | Yoghurt - Res Ipsa Loquitur |
| The Oropesa | Leaving boat not a novus actus interveniens - caused by collision |
| Wilkin-shaw v Fuller | Stranger broke chain of causation? |
| Barnett v Chelsea | no factual causation? |
| What are the defences to Negligence claims? | Contributory Negligence, Volenti |
| Froom v Butcher | Thrown out of car but Contrib Neg (not wearing seatbelt) |
| Clay v Tui | Actions break chain of causation (climbing across balcony) so no contrib neg |
| Sayers v Harlow | locked in toilet - contributory negligence |
| Morris v Murray | Agreed to the risk (pilot DUI) - volenti |
Created by:
Oscar.G
Popular Law sets