Fichas
NEGLIGENCE CASES
Fichas del conjunto (21)
- 1Blythnegligence is the failure to do something...
- 2Donoghue v Stevensonneighbour principle
- reasonable care so as not to harm your neighbour
- proximity element - 3Anns v Merton BC2 stage test for duty
- reasonable foreseeability thru relationship of proximity
- if above exists and there are no other considerations against duty
then a duty exists - 4Caparo v Dickman3 stage test for duty
- harm r. foreseeable
- proximate relationship
- to impose a duty would be just - 5Vaughan v Menlovebreach of duty is where d does not meet the standard of the reasonable man
- Clapham omnibus - 6Condon v basiobj. test is variable
- amateur football player not held to standard of first division - 7Nettleship v Westonobj. test is variable
- learner driver held to standard of fully qualified driver - 8Wilsher v Essexmed. prof.
- if d meets standard of reasonable person in profession there is no breach
- same for trainees - 9Bolam v Friernwhere divided opinion within medical prof. d will not automatically be found in breach for following one not the other
- 10Bolithomed. prof.
- opinion per Bolam must be rooted in logic - 11Blake v Gallowaystandard of care in horseplay is to be no breach unless d is very highly careless or reckless
- 12Mullin v Richardsa child is not held to the standard of an adult
- age matters - 13Roberts v Ramsbottominconsistent approach if d's conduct is as a result of illness
- here d could have pulled over earlier after stroke - 14Mansfield v Weetabixillness
- here d had no history of blackouts
- no breach found - 15Roe v Minister of Healthreasonable factors
1. likelihood of harm
- d was unaware of possibility of harm from syringe
- no breach - 16Bolton v Stone5 times in 30 years is low probability of cricket ball related harm
- 17Haley v London Electricity Boardlikely that blind man would walk down street unaided
- 18Paris v Stepney BCfactor 2.
the more serious the foreseeable harm the more likely d is in breach
- blind in one eye now blind in both - 19Wagon Mound No. 2likelihood low but seriousness should harm occur was very high
- prevention would have cost nothing - 20Latimer v AECfactor 3
- cost of prevention
d had done everything short of closing factory
- no breach - 21Watt v Hertfordshirefactor 4
- utility of d's conduct
in an emergency situation the utility outweighed the need for precautions
Información
- Descripción
- Fichas sobre NEGLIGENCE CASES, creado por Tells Bell el 20/01/2015.
- Creado por
- Tells Bell
- Visitas
- 22
- Etiquetas
- Valoración