Mindmap
Liability in Negligence
Inhalt der Mindmap
Liability in Negligence
Duty of Care
- Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
- Neighbour Principle
- Employer to Employees
- Doctor to Patient
- Car driver to pedestrian
- Householder to Neighbour
- Neighbour Principle
- Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)
- Is harm reasonably foreseeable?
- Haley v London Electricity Board (1965)
- Bourhill v Young (1943)
- Is the relationship proximate?
- Watson v British Board of Control (2000)
- Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)
- Is it fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
- Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1998)
- Kent v Griffiths (2000)
- Is harm reasonably foreseeable?
- Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Breach of Duty
- Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)
- 'Reasonable man' test
- learner
- Nettleship v Weston
- Specialist
- Bolam v Friern
- Child
- Mullins v Richards
- learner
- 'Reasonable man' test
- Factors considered relevant by the court
- Degree of Foreseeablility
- Roe v Minister of Health (1954)
- Size of the risk
- Bolton v Stone (1951)
- Importance of the Activity
- Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)
- Practicality of Precautions
- Latimer v AEC (1952)
- Potential seriousness of the injury
- Paris v Stepney BC (1951)
- Degree of Foreseeablility
- Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)
Damage
- Causation
- 'but for' test
- Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital (1969)
- Remoteness of Damage
- Only losses considered reasonably foreseeable can be recovered
- Wagon Mound (1961)
- Type of injury must be reasonably foreseeable not the manner
- Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)
- Precise extent doesn't have to foreseeable
- Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962)
- Only losses considered reasonably foreseeable can be recovered
- Causation
The Courts
- Civil Courts
- County Courts
- Most towns and cities
- District judges
- Hears contract, tort, divorce, land disputes etc.
- All small and fast and some multi track cases
- High Court
- Based in London but also in 26 cities and towns
- Any civil case
- Single judge hears most cases but sometimes jury used
- County Courts
- How to Pursue a Civil Claim
- Claimant fills a claim form and pays a court fee
- Sent to defendant
- Can accept and pay
- Can ignore it and an 'order in default' will be made against him
- Can choose to contest it
- Sent to defendant
- Allocated to one of the 3 tracks
- Time limit set for collecting evidence and preparing witness statements
- Opportunity for pre-trial settlement using ADR
- Claimant fills a claim form and pays a court fee
- Three Tracks
- Small Claims
- Personal Injury under £1,000 and other under £15,000
- Heard by district judges in county court
- Informal and Inquisitive style
- Fast track
- £5,000 to £15,000
- Open county court under Judge
- Multi-track
- Over £15,000
- Under £25,000 in county
- Between £25,000 and £50,000 in court they started
- Over £50,000 in High Court
- Small Claims
- Burden and Standard Proof
- Res Ipsa Loquitur
- Enter text here
- Civil Courts
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- A Levels Law Mindmap am Liability in Negligence, erstellt von GemmaCoton am 31/01/2014.
- Erstellt von
- GemmaCoton
- Aufrufe
- 24
- Tags
- Bewertung