Karteikarten
Negligence
Karten in diesem Stapel (26)
- 1Three hurdles of negligence are...Duty of care +breach of duty + causation =tortious liability
- 2The question of law isThe standard of care owed in law ;how the defendant ought to have acted.
- 3What is the standard of Care ?Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co 1856 defines the standard of care is that of the 'reasonable man'
- 4Who is the reasonable man?McFarlane v Tayside Health Board 2000 , Lord Steyn , the traveller on the London Underground
- 5McFarlane v Tayside Health Board 2000Lord Steyn Defines the reasonable man as the traveller on the London Underground
- 6Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks co 1856Defines standard of care as that standard of the reasonable man
- 7Not what the defendant ought to have done but..What the reasonable man ought to have done in the circumstances, Glasgow corp v muir. 1943
- 8The special circumstances which may lead to a lower or higher standard of careUnder-skilled D's Caselaw
Nettleship v Weston 1971 held ; same duty as experienced drivers . Special skills-professionals; Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) small group of doctors proved acted in the same way c win and Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority 1998 court can now overrule if they feel the standard not high enough. Children as D's lower standard. - 9If no special circumstances the standard of care in any given scenario....factors degree of harm and risk weigh against social and cost of precautions1. Likelihood of injury, (miller v Jackson 1977) sufficient 1.1-(Bolton v stone 1951) small risk so no breach. 2. Degree of harm (Paris v Stepney 1951) high 3. Cost and ease of taking precautions, (Latimer v AEC ltd 1953) 4. Social purpose of action (Watt v Hertfordshire 1954)
- 10Factors to consider (4)1. Likelihood of injury,2. Degree of harm, 3. Cost and ease of taking precautions,4. Social purpose of action
- 11Bolton v stone 1951Facts six balls were hit out of a cricket ground in 28 years . No injuries were caused. Outcome risk of injury very small . No breach of duty
- 12Miller v Jackson 19778 or9 balls were hit out cricket ground per season . C property damaged number of times outcome, risk of injury sufficient d ought to have taken precautions to guard against it breach of duty
- 13Paris v Stepney borough council 1951Garage worker blind in one eye chip metal. Blinded other eye no goggles , employer was aware..outcome breach was found although risk small degree of harm was high
- 14Latimer v AEC ltd 1953Flood at D's factory floor partially covered with sawdust to soak it up c slipped injured on a section where no sawdust outcome no breach precaution taken sufficient
- 15Watt v Hertfordshire county council 1954C fireman injured by a jack loose in truck when riding to emergency truck had no jack securing device outcome no breach social purpose and use of activity was such that greater risks could be taken
- 16Other relevant considerationsCommon practice , were the actions of d reasonable
Current state of knowledge roe v ministry of health 1954
Limits of reasonable d could not possibly be expected to guard against garden v harcourt Irvington 1932 can be contrasted with Carmarthenshire Cc - 17Roe v ministry of health 1954Claim dismissed anaesthetic had been negligently stored resulting in paralysis after use
- 18Proving a breach of duty1. Standard of Care explain ref to case law Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856
2. Any special circumstances of d e.g. Inexperience, Nettleship v Weston . Med professional , bolam and refined in Bolitho or is d a child so ref to case law
3. Factors to take into account if no special circumstances of d (a) likelihood of injury miller v Jackson (b) degree of harm Paris v Stepney (c) cost and ease of of precautions sawdust case (d) social purpose of action benefit to public. Watt v Hertfordshire
3 . other relevant considerations to determine whether the actions of the d were reasonable in the circumstances ,1. Common practice , 2. current state of knowledge of d at time of event refer to Roe v Ministry of Health 1954 and 3. limitations of reasonable;Outcome could not reasonable be predicted . - 194 factors )a) likelihood of injury (b)degree of harm (c)cost and ease of taking precautions (d)social purpose of action what cases go with these factors(A) miller v Jackson 77 risk (/ Bolton v Stone 1951) no risk b) Paris v Stepney borough council degree high 51 (c) sawdust Latimer v AEC ltd 1953 precaution (d) watt v Hertfordshire county council 54 social
- 20Question of fact (proof) what did the defendant actually do?Did the defendant fall below the required standard of care required
- 21Q of proof look at the Standard of proof civil casesBalance of probabilities
- 222 key points to remember when considering proof1 a legal maxim
2. A statutory provision - 23A legal maxim. Res Ipsa loquiturThe facts speak for themselves case Scott v London and st Katherine docks claim 1865
- 24Scott v London &St Katherine Docks Co (1865)Bag of sugar hoist d by d employees from a warehouse to a boat fell injuring plaintiff. No witnesses no evidence that d employees failed to take reasonable care 3 conditions
1. Res Ipsa Loquitur ,the d needs to be in control of the thing that caused injury + the accident would not normally happen without negligence + the cause of the accident must be unknown .
Proving breach on facts without need for producing evidence - 25Section 11 civil evidence Act 1968Normal rule , claimant proves breach by defendant but if d is also prosecuted for the actions which forms the negligence claim proves they were in breach. The CEA 1968 shifts burden of proof to d
- 26Duty of care and breach first two elementsTrue
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Negligence , erstellt von tsarina skerrett am 17/05/2017.
- Erstellt von
- tsarina skerrett
- Aufrufe
- 6
- Bewertung