61273
Description
Mind Map by sophia.h.staplet, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by sophia.h.staplet
about 11 years ago
|
|
Negligence
- "The categories of negligence are never closed"
Lord MacMillian Donoghue
- Unborn Child
- Burton v Islington AHA [1993]
- liability mother driving car
- liability mother driving car
- Human Fertilisation
and Embryology Act
1990
- applies damage to a child born
alive, negligence during the birth
process, pregnancy, prior to
conception, fertility treatment.
Excludes mother
- applies damage to a child born
alive, negligence during the birth
process, pregnancy, prior to
conception, fertility treatment.
Excludes mother
- Burton v Islington AHA [1993]
- Unborn Child
- Steps to negligence
- Def owes a claimant a duty of care
- Ann v Merton LBC [1978] two limb
- High water mark Junior Brooks v Veitchi [1983]
- High water mark Junior Brooks v Veitchi [1983]
- The neighbour principle Lord Atkin
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
- supported by Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970]
- supported by Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970]
- Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]
current text, foreseeable, proximity,
fair, just and reasonable
- Marc Rich & Co v Bishop
Rock Marine Co ltd [1994]
- Bharma v Dubb [2010]
- Marc Rich & Co v Bishop
Rock Marine Co ltd [1994]
- Ann v Merton LBC [1978] two limb
- Breach of duty
- Link between duty, breach and damage
- Def owes a claimant a duty of care
- Economic Loss
- Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988]
- Ann v Merton LBC [1978]
- Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank [2007]
- Criticism of Caparo - no straightforward answer for novel situations
- Criticism of Caparo - no straightforward answer for novel situations
- Candler v
Crane and
Christmas
[1951]
- DOC not allowed, but Denning dissented
- if someone owes a DOC, they owe a
DOC
- if someone owes a DOC, they owe a
DOC
- DOC not allowed, but Denning dissented
- Headley Byrne v Heller and
Partners picked up on LD speech
- needs to be a special relationship
- position today
- position today
- needs to be a special relationship
- Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988]
- Nervous Shock
- McLoughlin v O'Brien [1983]
- customary phlegm, doesn't need to be at accident
- customary phlegm, doesn't need to be at accident
- Alcock v Chief Constable
of South Yorkshire Police
[1991]
- customary phlegm,
proximity to accident,
evidence of ties of
love
- customary phlegm,
proximity to accident,
evidence of ties of
love
- McLoughlin v O'Brien [1983]
- Emergency
Services
- Police
- Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire - ripper
victim
- Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire - ripper
victim
- Link to assumption of responsibility
- Police
- Omissions
- Cannot be negligent
- Stovin v Wise [1996]
- Need for 'something more'
before there would be a
DOC for an omission
- Public Authority
- Need for 'something more'
before there would be a
DOC for an omission
- Stovin v Wise [1996]
- can be
- Stanbie v Troman [1948]
- decorator burglary
- decorator burglary
- Smith v Littlewoods [1978]
- Lord Goff set out standards assumption of
responsibility, relationship of control, def creates or
permits source , failure to remove danger aware
- Lord Goff set out standards assumption of
responsibility, relationship of control, def creates or
permits source , failure to remove danger aware
- Stanbie v Troman [1948]
- Assumption of responsibility
- Barrett v MOD [1995]
- When fallen ill,
relationship of care
undertaken, but navy not
under a general
responsibility
- When fallen ill,
relationship of care
undertaken, but navy not
under a general
responsibility
- Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] no
assumption
- HOL no assumption
by housing
department - as a
public authority it
would not be 'fair, just
and reasonable'
- HOL no assumption
by housing
department - as a
public authority it
would not be 'fair, just
and reasonable'
- Barrett v MOD [1995]
- Cannot be negligent
- Advocates
- Rondel v
Worsley lawyer
has immunity
- Hall v Simons [2000]
- lawyers should not have 'immunity'
removed for all cases
- lawyers should not have 'immunity'
removed for all cases
- Rondel v
Worsley lawyer
has immunity
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.