2841962
Description
Flashcards by Erin Ashby, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Erin Ashby
almost 9 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Reasonable man test | Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks Co. - omission to do something which a reasonable man would or would not do. |
| Learner | competent at what he does, held to same standard as experienced and competent driver Nettleship and Weston |
| Specialist | held to higher standard (even if acting in place of a specialist) must use skills they posess - Bolam v Friern HMC |
| Children | judged against somebody their own age (lower standard) Mullin v Richards |
| degree of forseeablity | if the reasonable man could see the risk - Roe v Minister of Health not foreseeable at the time that person would get injured by stuff going through needle. |
| size of risk/likelihood of harm | Bolton V Stone - Cricket pitch even if foreseeable if it really small than not required to take precautions. |
| Importance of the activity | Watt v Hertfordshire County Council - FM injured when FE braked. Risk of not sending it out was greater than risk of sending it out as putting out fire was important. |
| practicality of precautions | if cost is out of proportion to the benefits then it is not unreasonable - Latimer v AEC claimant injured in flodded factory but had already sawdusted the flaw and taken reasonable care. |
| potential seriousness of injury | if risk of s.i then take greater care (tsr and degree of harm) - Paris v Stepney only 1 good eye and employers didn't make him wear safety goggles. under more obligation to him as he was at a greater risk. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.