Negligence

Meredith Jeory
Mind Map by Meredith Jeory, updated more than 1 year ago
Meredith Jeory
Created by Meredith Jeory over 5 years ago
69
3

Description

comlaw
Tags

Resource summary

Negligence
1 Loss
1.1 Physical
1.2 Economic
2 Elements
2.1 Harm not remote
2.1.1 Beware of opening floodgates
2.2 Duty of care
2.2.1 Relationship (degree of proximity)
2.2.1.1 Temporal (time) factor
2.2.1.1.1 Meah v McCreamer
2.2.1.1.1.1 Person got injured in car accident, changed his personality, he became a sex offender
2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Cannot be compensated for his crimes against women, nor can the women sue the person who caused the accident
2.2.1.2 Physical (place) / personal connection factor
2.2.1.2.1 Dorset Yacht v Home Office
2.2.2 Factors affecting judicial imposition of DOC
2.2.2.1 Foreseeability
2.2.2.2 No presumptions exist for/against
2.2.2.3 Judicial reasoning, law of precedent
2.2.2.4 Economic loss may make court less willing to impose DOC (wider scope)
2.2.2.5 Special relationship = more inclined to impose DOC (essential in negligent misstatement)
2.2.2.6 Legislative background that en/discourages imposition of DOC?
2.2.2.7 Contractual background
2.3 Breach of duty
2.3.1 Standard of care (SOC)
2.3.1.1 Reasonable person
2.3.1.2 Skill and expertise
2.3.1.2.1 Greater standard of care required if def. hold out to be experts
2.3.1.2.2 Professionals and trades people
2.3.1.3 Risk allocation
2.3.1.3.1 Probability of harm
2.3.1.3.1.1 Preventative measures may be unnecessary to avoid rare/ improbable risks
2.3.1.3.1.1.1 Bolton v Stone
2.3.1.3.1.1.1.1 Pl. hit by cricket ball over fence
2.3.1.3.1.1.1.2 No negligence since risk of injury to anyone in such a place was so remote that a reasonable person would not have anticipated it
2.3.1.3.2 Circumstances, e.g. vulnerability
2.3.1.3.2.1 If def. knows the pl. is particularly vulnerable then the SOC will be higher
2.3.1.3.3 Social value of the activity
2.3.1.3.3.1 even if DOC is found, if def. activity is of high social benefit, SOC may be held to be lower
2.3.1.3.4 Gravity of risk (more danger = more care required)
2.3.1.3.5 How practical/expensive is it to take precautions?
2.3.1.3.5.1 Cheaper = more likely to be required, expense may be justified if activity is so dangerous
2.4 Duty caused harm
2.4.1 But/for test
3 Negligent misstatement
3.1 Pure economic
3.2 Reliance
3.2.1 pl. must have relied on the statement
3.2.1.1 Boyd Knight v Purdue
3.2.1.1.1 Auditor's report in company prospectus. (Unlike Caparo) court said a relationship existed between auditor as professional advisor and potential investors
3.3 Duty of care
3.3.1 Special Relationship
3.3.1.1 Plaintiff in contract with def.
3.3.1.1.1 Liability in contract and negligent misstatement
3.3.1.2 Pl. and def. have communicated directly or indirectly
3.3.1.2.1 Liability likely
3.3.1.2.2 Dimond Manufacturing v Hamilton
3.3.1.3 No direct contact but def. knows pl. will rely and act on his/her advice for an immediate purpose
3.3.1.3.1 Liability likely
3.3.1.3.2 Smith v Eric S Bush Ltd
3.3.1.3.2.1 Valuation for mortgage said no repairs necessary, but bought house and chimney collapsed. Court said valuer was liable
3.3.1.4 Def. has special knowledge and may reasonably pl. will use the statement
3.3.1.4.1 liability possible but unlikely
3.3.1.4.2 Caparo v Dickman
3.3.1.4.2.1 Auditor owes DOC to company being audited, not to individual shareholders
3.3.1.5 Def. knows statements likely to be relied on but knows nothing about pl.
3.3.1.5.1 liability unlikely
3.3.2 Proximity and assumed responsibility
3.3.2.1 Hedley Byrne v Heller
3.4 Breach
3.5 Remoteness
3.6 Disclaimers (to avoid liability)
3.6.1 Must be communicated to the client, well written, easy to find, concise
4 Defences
4.1 Contributory negligence
4.2 Voluntary assumption of risk
4.2.1 Def must prove (1) Pl knew of the risk (2) freely decided to assume responsibility in event of harm
5 Cases
5.1 Donoghue v Stevenson
5.1.1 Gastro-enteritis after drinking ginger beer with snail
5.1.2 Held: reasonably foreseeable that ultimate consumer could be affected by lack of "quality control". Thus there is a DOC to ultimate consumers
5.1.3 Established 'neighbour test'
5.1.3.1 Neighbour = someone so closely and directly affected by your actions that you should think about the affect your actions/omissions have on them
5.2 Hedley Byrne v Heller
5.2.1 Bankers gave info about creditworthiness of a customer to a third party (the plaintiffs)
5.2.2 Held: def. weren't liable because they had issued a disclaimer of responsibility
5.2.3 (negligent misstatement)
6 10 key points
6.1 Common law
6.2 Obligations
6.3 Neighbour
6.4 Donoghue v Stevenson
6.5 Elements to succeed
6.6 Duty of care
6.7 Breach
6.8 Harm/damage
6.9 Defences
7 Negligence
7.1 Duty of care = foreseeability & proximity
7.1.1 Breach of standard of care
7.1.1.1 Factual causation
7.1.1.1.1 Remoteness of harm
7.1.1.1.1.1 physical/economic loss
8 Negligent misstatement
8.1 Duty of care = proximity and assumed responsibility ("special relationship")
8.1.1 Breach of standard of care
8.1.1.1 Factual causation = actual reliance
8.1.1.1.1 remoteness of harm
8.1.1.1.1.1 pure economic loss
Show full summary Hide full summary

Similar

GCSE law Consumer Contract B144 WHOLE UNIT
Angela Dickinson
Negligence - Duty of Care
Olivia Liston-Byers
Genki 1: Chp 1 Vocab
T O
Cellular and Molecular Biology Lesson 1 of 5 - Cells
erica_dietlein
Suit against firm in charge of fire hoses dismissed
jasmine-goh
Comm 101 Mindmap
acostaa.maria
Legal, Compliance and Communication
Pip Fraggle
Negligence - Breach
Olivia Liston-Byers
Negligence Quiz
emhutton
SU PSYCHOLOGY 101 HOUSTON TEXTBOOK CH 1
Abigail McClung
Fiduciary Obligations
Meredith Jeory