Karteikarten
Ohne Titel
Karten in diesem Stapel (9)
- 1I. DUTY OF CARE: Neighbour Test : - establishment of the existence of the duty of care - comes from Donoghue v Stevenson - Lord Atkin held: 'You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour' - Donoghue's claim against manufacturer of the ginger beer was successful as he was obliged to take reasonable care to avoid the reasonably foreseeable situationEstablishment of a duty of care by analogy & incrementation:
- existing precedent that determines whether duty of care is owned?
YES: precedent is followed & duty is owned / NO: go Caparo
- analogous precedent similar to our case
YES: duty is owned / NO: go Caparo - 2Caparo test: 1. test of reasonableness, what's a reasonable behaviour? what a reasonable man would have done in the position and circumstances of our 'D' emoloyers? 2. relationship of proximity: is there any connection between C & D?; if so, a duty of care exists Anns v Merton: local council owns a duty to inspect a building for its occupiers as the flat's suffered from defects (enough to state proximity)3. it's fair, just and reasonable that law should recognise duty on Ds to take reasonable care of C
Marc Rich v Bishop: unfair, unjust & unreasonable to place a duty of care on a classification society as against ship owner, it being ship owner who would ordinarily be required to recover in such circumstances - 3II. BREACH OF DUTY: - where Ds fails to meet standard of care required by law - after establishing duty of care, then is objective test: how Ds ought to behave in this circumstances? + how did he behave? Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks: person can avoid liability in negligence if he takes precautions that conform to standards followed by reasonable person Vaughan v Menlove: D's haystack caught fire due to poor ventilation. D had been warned about it but he argued not to foresee a risk of fire D: his best judgment was not enough, he should be judged by the standard of reasonable man* the more likely harm will be suffered, the more precautions law will expect reasonable person to take
Bolton v Stone: low likelihood & D took all reasonable precautions
Nettleship v Weston: driver who is convicted of injuring another by his careless driving will be found negligent coz of the higher likelihood
Perry v Harris: parent of child playing on castle not liable as it was not foreseeable that harm would be so serious - 4* the more serious the potential consequences the greater precautions need to be taken Paris v Stepney Borough Council: probability of accident with metal chip fleeing into eye was small but consequences were big; therefore employer should take ex care to provide protective glasses* costs & practicality of precautions
Latimer v AEC Ltd: D put up warning signs, mopped up and placed sawdust to make place safe. In spite of it, C slipped up on floor. However, no breach of duty as employee did enough to minimalise the risk
Haley v London Electricity Board: D hadn't take all precautions so was in breach of duty. HoL said that erecting the fence around hole will be a low cost thing and enough to reduce the risk of injury - 5* Social Utility, when a risk may be justified if it served a higher purpose (but it doesn't apply here!) Wett v Hertfordshire County Council: no beach when fireman has been injured by truck stopped suddenly at right light Armsden v Kent Police: diver in breach of duty of care by failing to use sirens* Balancing Act:
- Court weights up the likelihood + seriousness : costs + social value
Overseas Tankship V Miller: - 6III. CAUSATION (proves that D's breach caused harm) - two parts: factual & legal * factual is established on balance of probabilities - c. in fact: what happen factually? but for the negligence, would the harm have been suffered? if not, have courts created an exception to the rule? Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital: Dr failed to properly examine patient. Even if he acted properly, man would have died anyway as was too late to save him Wilsher v Essex: even where's negligent act that common sense tells us might cause sb's harm. If there're other possible causes we cannot establish 'but for'* material contribution to harm:
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw
- factory employee contracted pneumoconiosis, a lung condition; he sued employer for negligence. D: higher lever of dust in air than should have been due to D's negligence + not adequate ventilating system. D: cumulatively 'innocent' + 'guilt' dust caused harm. D's negligence made a material contribution - 7* Material increase in risk McGhee v National Coal Board: evidence unable to determine the factual cause of C's condition. Question was whether the extra time dust was on C's skin caused his skin condition to develop. Material increase of risk was treated as equivalent to material contribution. C needed to show, on the balance of probabilities, that his negligence materially increased risk - when's more than 2 causes (like in these cases), Court may look at proportions & length of employment* causation in law
1. whether the harm was too remote consequence of D's negligence?
2. whether any subsequent event could be said to have broken chain of cauation?
Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock:
damage caused by oil leaked into water was reasonably forseeable but oil spread thinly on water is difficult to ignite. Damage to C's property caused by fire wouldn't have been foreseeable to reasonable person - 8- intervening act When chain of causation is broken, is leaving D not liable for C's harm. (e.g failure to wear mask) Rouse v Squires: car crash, question was, which driver was liable for death? Chain wasn't broken, both drivers responsibleIV. Defence (D must show that C agreed/ voluntarily took the risk of the harm that materialised)
- to establish contributory negligence, D must rise it & C had filed to take reasonable steps for their own safety. It's a way to reduce the amount of damages that D must pay
- Law Reform Act 1945 S 1(1) states that court can reduce C's damages by whatever amount seems just accordingly to their share in responsibility for the damages - 9- in order for defence to be raised, three questions need to be adressed: 1. Did C failed to exerce reasonable care for their own safety? (e.g yes, coz he didn't wear a mask) 2. Did this failure contribute to C's damage? (e.g yes, he was more prone to the guilty dust) 3. By what extent should C's damages be reduced?* we can have voluntarily assumed risk (volenti) when C consents to the specific harm caused by D and sometimes if they have contested to the risk of that harm
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Ohne Titel, erstellt von Justyna Charkieiwcz am 21/04/2019.
- Erstellt von
- Justyna Charkieiwcz
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung