Flashcards
Negligence Cases
Cards in this deck (22)
- 1Duty of Care Caparo v DickmanSets the modern test for when a duty of care is owed.
1. Damage must be reasonably foreseeable
2. There must be sufficient proximity between the parties.
3. It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D - 2Damage must be reasonably foreseeable-ProvenJolley v Sutton
- 3Damage must be reasonably foreseeable- Not ProvenBourhill v Young
- 4Sufficient proximity between the parties-ProvenOsman v Ferguson
- 5Sufficient proximity between the parties- Not ProvenBourhill v Young
- 6Fair, just and reasonable to impose a dutyHill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
- 7Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty- ExceptionCapital and Counties v Hampshire CC
- 8Breach of Duty DefinitionBlyth v Birmingham Waterworks
- 9Objective 'reasonably man' testVaughan v Menlove
- 10Inexperience is irrelevantNettleship v Weston
- 11Age can lower standard of careMullin v Richards
- 12Profession can raise standard of careBolam
- 13Size/degree of riskBolton v Stone
- 14Seriousness of harmParis v Stepney Borough Council
- 15Practicability of PrecautionsLatimer v AEC
Paris v Stepney BC - 16Benefits of taking riskWatt v Hertfordshire CC
- 17Res Ipsa LoquiturScott v London and St Katherine Docks Co.
- 18Causation- 'But for' testBarnett v Kensington & Chelsea HMC
- 19Intervening ActsReeves v MPC
- 20Remoteness of damageThe Wagon Mound
- 21How harm happens is irrelevantHughes v Lord Advocate
- 22Thin Skull PrincipleSmith v Leech Brain Co Ltd
Information
- Description
- A level Law (Negligence) Flashcards on Negligence Cases, created by Amy O'Farrell on 03/04/2016.
- Created by
- Amy O'Farrell
- Views
- 20
- Tags
- Rating