Law of Tort - General Negligence

Sophie.J.E
Mind Map by , created almost 6 years ago

A-Levels Law (Law of Tort) Mind Map on Law of Tort - General Negligence, created by Sophie.J.E on 09/13/2013.

563
21
0
Tags
Sophie.J.E
Created by Sophie.J.E almost 6 years ago
Contract Law
sherhui94
A-Level Law: Theft
amyclare96
Natural Law
Rachel Wallace
THE HEART labelled
offintowonderland
Základy práva - 8. část
Nikola Truong
Law of Tort Summary (Pt 1)
Sophie.J.E
Law of Tort Summary (Pt 2)
Sophie.J.E
Negligence - Duty of Care
Olivia Liston-Byers
Negligence - Breach
Olivia Liston-Byers
How Parliament Makes Laws
harryloftus505
Law of Tort - General Negligence
1 To establish negligence, 3 things must be proven: A duty was owed, This duty was breached and that the breach caused the damage.
1.1 Duty of care was originally determined using the neighbour principle set out in Donoghue v Stevenson but was later developed into a more thorough 3-part test set out in Caparo v Dickman:
1.1.1 'Part 1 - Reasonable Foreseeability
1.1.1.1 The damage must be a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the Defendants action
1.1.1.1.1 Foreseeable: Jolley v Sutton, Kent v Griffiths
1.1.2 Part 2 - Sufficient Proximity
1.1.2.1 There must be sufficient proximity between the Claimant and defendant, either by relationship, or space and time.
1.1.2.1.1 McLoughlin v O'Brian - There was proximity by relationship
1.1.2.1.2 Bourhill v Young - No proximity in either relationship, space or time
1.1.3 Part 3 - Fair, Just and Reasonable
1.1.3.1 There could be a policy reason which would make it unfair, unjust or unreasonable to apply a duty of care
1.1.3.1.1 Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire - No duty of care applied as it would open the floodgates of litigation
1.2 Once duty of care is proven, the defendant but then be shown to have breached this duty. To Breach a duty of care, one must fall below the standard of care expected of the reasonable man.
1.2.1 The standard of care is a line which can be raised or lowered by risk factors:
1.2.1.1 Special Characteristics of the Defendant
1.2.1.1.1 Ordinary people must be held to the standard of the reasonably competent man, but professionals are held to the standard of professionals
1.2.1.1.1.1 Bolam v Friern - Set out Profesionals test
1.2.1.1.1.2 Nettleship v Weston - Learner drivers held to the standard of competent drivers
1.2.1.1.1.3 Wells v Cooper - Ordinary man doing DIY held to the standard of an ordinary reasonably competent man doing DIY
1.2.1.2 Special Characteristics of the Claimant
1.2.1.2.1 Paris v Stepney borough council - SoC raised due to previous injury
1.2.1.3 Size of the risk
1.2.1.3.1 Roe v Ministry of health - no breach of duty if risk wasn't known to the defendant
1.2.1.3.2 Haley v London borough of Hackney - Larger risk means higher SoC
1.2.1.4 Benefits of the risk
1.2.1.4.1 Watt v Hertfordshire County Council - Was a suffiecent benefit to excuse risk taken
1.2.1.5 Were all practical precautions taken?
1.2.1.5.1 Latimer v AEC Products - No breach as precautions were taken
1.3 Once the defendant has breached their duty of care, it must be proven that the breach caused the damage done
1.3.1 Causation
1.3.1.1 'But For' test
1.3.1.1.1 Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
1.3.1.2 Novus Actus Interveniens
1.3.1.2.1 MPC v Reeves
1.3.1.3 Multiple causes
1.3.1.3.1 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral services
1.3.2 Remoteness
1.3.2.1 Type of damage
1.3.2.1.1 Hughes v Lord Advocate - was foreseeable that a paraffin lamp would cause some form of damage
1.3.2.1.2 Bradford v Robinson Rentals - was foreseeable that C would be injured from low temperatures
1.3.2.2 Foreeability
1.3.2.2.1 Wagon mound - Damage was not foreseeable
1.3.2.3 Thin skull rule 'Take the victim as you find him'
1.3.2.3.1 Smith v Leech Brain
1.4 'reasonable man' - defined in Blythe v Birmingham waterworks

Media attachments