Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Negligence (Duty of Care (Foreseeable ("was it reasonably foreseeable…

- - - - Kent v Griffiths
        
        it was reasonably foreseeable that an ill patient would get worse if an ambulance failed to arrive within a reasonable time.
      - Bourhill v Young
        
        it was not reasonably foreseeable that a pregnant woman who saw the aftermath of an accident would go into shock ad lose her baby.
  - - - However when the emergency services create a new danger or make an existing one worse, then they can be brought forth to court.
        
        Capital & Counties PLC v Hampshire County Council
        
        The fire brigade arrived at a warehouse fire and ordered the sprinkler system to be turned of, allowing the fire to spread and caused more damage than if the system had been left on. it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care as they made the situation worse.
  - - - Osman v Ferguson
        
        the claimant told the police he was being stalked and was able to name and identify his stalker, the police failed to act and he was later injured and his father murdered in an attack by the stalker. relationship is that of police/victim.
      - Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
        
        there was no proximate relationship between e police and the Yorkshire Ripper final victim, this is due to the police knowing that there COULD be another victim but not who the victim would be.
- - - - A learner
        
        Compared to a "competent person", someone who has passed their tests, and not to other learners.
        
        Nettleship V weston
        
        Learner driver crashed car into a lamppost injuring her passenger. Court of appeal stated that learner drivers were to be judged against a the standard of a reasonably competent driver and that she had failed to reach that standard.
      - An expert
        
        Standard of care is that normally expected of a similarly qualified expert. they will be judged against normal standards for that particular profession.
        
        Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
        
        A man need not posses the highest expert skill; it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of am ordinary competent man excising that particular art".
      - A reasonable person
        
        compared to an ordinary person, If D falls below the standard of care a reasonable person would take when carrying out a task, then there is a breach of duty.
        
        Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
      - A child
        
        Compared to a reasonable person of that age, rather than an adult.
        
        Mullin v Richards
        
        Two 15 year old girls were having a play fight using rulers as swords. one of the rulers snapped and a piece of plastic went into one girls eye causing her to lose her sight. COA held that D must meet the standard of a reasonable 15 year old and that as she had met this she was not liable.
    - - Social value of conduct
        
        If D is doing something " socially valuable" that will benefit the public, then this may justify taking extra risks.
        
        Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
        
        A fireman was injured when lifting equipment he was using to free a woman trapped under a bus fell on him. the equipment fell because the wrong lorry was being used to transport it. the claim failed because a reasonable fire brigade should respond to an emergency a quickly as possible and saving a life outweighed the need to take precaution.
      - Appropriate precautions taken
        
        If D has taken appropriate precautions to minimise or eliminate a risk then he may not be liable because he has acted responsibly. However, failure to take precautions, especially when it would be easy to do so, Makes D more liable.
        
        Latimer v AEC Ltd
        
        The claimant slipped and broke his leg at work on a floor made wet by flooding, D was not liable as they had put up warning signs, warned all employees and put down sawdust to minimise the risk. all reasonable precautions were taken and it would be unreasonable to expect them to close the factory.
      - Special characteristics of claimant
        
        D should take more precautions if the situation demands it, for example if the claimant is weak or vulnerable due to age or disability.
        
        Paris V Stepheney Borough Council
        
        The claimant was already blind in one eye, his employers failed to give him appropriate safety goggles and a piece of metal hit him in his eye. The job was not normally one that required safety goggles, but due to the claimant only having one eye, D should have taken greater precaution as losing a eye would be more serious for him than to those who had both eyes to begin with.
      - Risks known at time
        
        Means that if the risks were not known at the time of an accident then D is not liable. However, if the risks were known then D is more liable.
        
        Roe v Minister of Health
        
        Anaesthetic was kept in glass tubes which were cleaned in a special solution after each use. it was not known that tiny invisible cracks could occur in the glass and that this could cause the anaesthetic to become contaminated by the residual solution. the claimant became paralysed due to a bad reaction caused by the contaminated anaesthetic. as the risk off contamination was not know, the court decided to refuse the claim.
      - Size of the risk
        
        D should take more precautions if the risk is high, but does not need to take precaution against low risk or highly unlikely events.
        
        Bolton v Stone
        
        A cricket ball hit someone walking past the ground. there was a 5 metre high fence and balls had been hit outside the ground only 6 times in 30 years, the risk of damage was very low and thus no breach of duty.
- - - - Proving the "but for" test; "but for" D's conduct the outcome would no have occured in the manner it did or at the time it did
        
        Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospitals
        
        A man went to hospital complaining of sickness, the doctor did not examine him, but told him to go to his GP in the morning. The man died from poisoning and his wife sued the hospital. The doctor owed a duty of care and breached it, however, evidence showed that by the time the an went to hospital, it was already too late to save him. His death was not caused by the breach of duty and the claim failed.