1891342
Description
Flashcards by Tells Bell, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Tells Bell
over 9 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Blyth | negligence is the failure to do something... |
| Donoghue v Stevenson | neighbour principle - reasonable care so as not to harm your neighbour - proximity element |
| Anns v Merton BC | 2 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 |
| Caparo v Dickman | 3 stage test for duty - harm r. foreseeable - proximate relationship - to impose a duty would be just |
| Vaughan v Menlove | breach of duty is where d does not meet the standard of the reasonable man - Clapham omnibus |
| Condon v basi | obj. test is variable - amateur football player not held to standard of first division |
| Nettleship v Weston | obj. test is variable - learner driver held to standard of fully qualified driver |
| Wilsher v Essex | med. prof. - if d meets standard of reasonable person in profession there is no breach - same for trainees |
| Bolam v Friern | where divided opinion within medical prof. d will not automatically be found in breach for following one not the other |
| Bolitho | med. prof. - opinion per Bolam must be rooted in logic |
| Blake v Galloway | standard of care in horseplay is to be no breach unless d is very highly careless or reckless |
| Mullin v Richards | a child is not held to the standard of an adult - age matters |
| Roberts v Ramsbottom | inconsistent approach if d's conduct is as a result of illness - here d could have pulled over earlier after stroke |
| Mansfield v Weetabix | illness - here d had no history of blackouts - no breach found |
| Roe v Minister of Health | reasonable factors 1. likelihood of harm - d was unaware of possibility of harm from syringe - no breach |
| Bolton v Stone | 5 times in 30 years is low probability of cricket ball related harm |
| Haley v London Electricity Board | likely that blind man would walk down street unaided |
| Paris v Stepney BC | factor 2. the more serious the foreseeable harm the more likely d is in breach - blind in one eye now blind in both |
| Wagon Mound No. 2 | likelihood low but seriousness should harm occur was very high - prevention would have cost nothing |
| Latimer v AEC | factor 3 - cost of prevention d had done everything short of closing factory - no breach |
| Watt v Hertfordshire | factor 4 - utility of d's conduct in an emergency situation the utility outweighed the need for precautions |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.