GoConqr hat ein neues Design! Sag uns, wie es dir gefällt.

Mindmap

Negligence

philip_res Tort Englisch

Inhalt der Mindmap

Negligence

  1. Duty of Care

    • Langley v Dray
      • police car chase
        • D knew or ought to have known
    • haley v london electric board
      • blind man in trench
        • reasonably foreseeable that a blind person
          • doesn't have to be a specific person, just a category
    • Bhamra v dubb
      • caterer serves eggs at a wedding
        • because of the nature of the wedding and also the fact the the c should not have needed to have checked
          • type of harm suffered reasonably foreseeable
  2. Breach of Duty

    • Matter of Law
      • Blyth v Birmingham waterworks
        • Reasonable person
          • Hall v Brooklands Auto-racing club
            • Man on the clapham bus
    • Wagon mound no 2
      • Question of fact
        • Risk of harm
          • Bolton v Stone
            • Cricket ball in the head risk was low
        • conditions at the time
          • Roe v Minister of Health
            • anaesthetic mixed
              • didn't know so was not foreseeable
        • seriousness of the injury
          • Paris v Stepney
            • already blind in one eye so increased the risk
              • cost of avoiding risk was low
      • likelihood of harm low, serious of harm high, cost of avoiding minimal
        • breach of duty
    • Proffesionals
      • Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
        • Have to use the same standard as what is acceptable practice by a responsible body of skilled professionals
        • Bolitho
          • has to be based on logic
  3. Causation

    • But For
      • Barnett v Chelsea
        • man would've died anyway from taking poison
      • multiple causes
        • Bonnington castings v wardlaw
          • impossible to find which dust did damage
            • had to materially contributed, doesn't matter it wasn't for the full
        • wilsher v wessex HA
          • Has to be substantial cause not only
      • lost chance
        • Hotson v Eastberkshire
          • courts reluctant to impose liability
      • consecutive causes of damage
        • Performance cars v abraham
          • first D will still be liable
    • Remoteness of damage
      • Wagon Mound (no 2)
        • damage has to be reasonably foreseeable
  4. First principles

    • Donaghue v Stevenson
      • Neighbour principle, persons who are so directly affected by my act that i ought to have reasonably foreseen them
    • Caparo v Dickman
      • Damage to the victim reasonably foreseeable?
      • Proximity between d & c
      • Fair just and reasonable
  5. Who can be held liable

    • economic loss
      • pure
        • spartan steels & alloys v Martin & co
          • Denning
            • pure loss not recoverable because should have generators an insurance
        • Hedley Byrne V Heller
          • relied on statement to whether a good investment or not
            • would have been held accountable if there hadn't have been a disclaimer because it was reasonable to see that they would rely on the statement
        • murphy v Brentwood
          • was our economic loss so couldn't be recovered
            • house sold for less because of defects
        • White v Jones
          • Daughter kept negligently out of will solicitors responsible
        • esso petroleum V Marden
          • estimates of profit could be held liable for relied upon
      • consequential
        • as a result of physical or psychiatric harm
        • Conarken group v national rail
          • economic loss as a result of damage to rails
    • omissions
      • no duty to act
        • East suffolk rivers catchment board v kent and another
          • if intervene and make matters worse you are liable
      • Exceptions
        • Police custody
          • reeves v MPC
        • assumption of responsibility
          • Barrett v MoD
            • drunken soldier put to bed by officer
        • adoption of a risk
          • capital counties plc v hampshire cc
            • turned off sprinklers was an adoption of the risk
    • Third Parties
      • stansbie v troman
        • could be held liable for third party because he had a contractual obligation to close the door
          • decorator left door open
      • swinney v CC of northumbria
        • gave police confidential info which then got into culprits hands
          • implied promise
      • Hill v CC of West Yorkshire
        • must be specific relationship between C & D
          • Palmer v Tees health authority
            • Mentally ill patient
          • mitchell v glasgow CC
            • Evicted from house
      • Special Relationship Between TP & D
        • home office v Dorset yacht co
          • children damaging boats
        • Topp v London Bus Co
          • not liable no greater risk caused
      • Failing to abate danger by TP
        • Fires being started in properties
          • clark fixing ltd v dudley Metropolitan BC
            • Did know so liable
          • Smith v Littlewoods
            • didn't know so not liable
    • Public Authorities
      • Fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
        • Hill v CC of west yorkshire
          • opening the floodgates
        • capital counties plc v hampshire cc
          • increased the risk

Informationen

Beschreibung
Tort Mindmap am Negligence, erstellt von philip_res am 06/05/2014.
Erstellt von
philip_res
Aufrufe
47
Bewertung

Feedback

Worum geht es?

Wie gefällt dir das neue Design?

Dein Eindruck