Law of Tort - General Negligence

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.

   • 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:
     • 'Part 1 - Reasonable Foreseeability
       • The damage must be a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the Defendants action
         • Foreseeable: Jolley v Sutton, Kent v Griffiths
     • Part 2 - Sufficient Proximity
       • There must be sufficient proximity between the Claimant and defendant, either by relationship, or space and time.
         • McLoughlin v O'Brian - There was proximity by relationship
         • Bourhill v Young - No proximity in either relationship, space or time
     • Part 3 - Fair, Just and Reasonable
       • There could be a policy reason which would make it unfair, unjust or unreasonable to apply a duty of care
         • Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire - No duty of care applied as it would open the floodgates of litigation
   • 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.
     • The standard of care is a line which can be raised or lowered by risk factors:
       • Special Characteristics of the Defendant
         • Ordinary people must be held to the standard of the reasonably competent man, but professionals are held to the standard of professionals
           • Bolam v Friern - Set out Profesionals test
           • Nettleship v Weston - Learner drivers held to the standard of competent drivers
           • Wells v Cooper - Ordinary man doing DIY held to the standard of an ordinary reasonably competent man doing DIY
       • Special Characteristics of the Claimant
         • Paris v Stepney borough council - SoC raised due to previous injury
       • Size of the risk
         • Roe v Ministry of health - no breach of duty if risk wasn't known to the defendant
         • Haley v London borough of Hackney - Larger risk means higher SoC
       • Benefits of the risk
         • Watt v Hertfordshire County Council - Was a suffiecent benefit to excuse risk taken
       • Were all practical precautions taken?
         • Latimer v AEC Products - No breach as precautions were taken
   • Once the defendant has breached their duty of care, it must be proven that the breach caused the damage done
     • Causation
       • 'But For' test
         • Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
       • Novus Actus Interveniens
         • MPC v Reeves
       • Multiple causes
         • Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral services
     • Remoteness
       • Type of damage
         • Hughes v Lord Advocate - was foreseeable that a paraffin lamp would cause some form of damage
         • Bradford v Robinson Rentals - was foreseeable that C would be injured from low temperatures
       • Foreeability
         • Wagon mound - Damage was not foreseeable
       • Thin skull rule 'Take the victim as you find him'
         • Smith v Leech Brain
   • 'reasonable man' - defined in Blythe v Birmingham waterworks