Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Tort of negligence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - 1) factual forseeability: a preliminary requirement of factual forseeability of harm (but not specific kind of loss) to the plaintiff the focus is on identifying the group of people the defendant can reasonably forsee will suffer harm as a result of his negligence
      - 2) legal proximity focus is on the closeness of the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, including physical, circumstantial and casual proximity, supported by the twin criteria of voluntary assumption of responsibility and reliance, not every element has to be present**
        2 more factors that you can consider
        1) the defendants "knowledge of the risk of harm, or of reliance by the plaintiff, or of the vulnerability of the plaintiff and
        2) his control over the situation giving rise to the risk of harm and the plaintiffs corresponding vulnerability
      - Policy considerations: whether these considerations (eg “weighing and
        balancing of competing moral claims and broad social welfare goals”) warrant a negation or limitation for the duty of care
      - must use analogous cases where present please copy pase the case sin final notess
        
        list analagous casesd
  - - - a) factual causation
        "but for" test
        
        doctor refused to examine patient, patient later died from arsenic poisoning. However even if proper care had been administered patient would have died anywhere, therefore but for test failed (Barnett v Chelsea)
        
        If an intervening act that was to break factual causation occurs, the defendant's breach would not be regarded as the cause of the plaintiff's damage (wright v lodge) lorry and the car on the motorway
      - b) test of remoteness
        
        a loss would not be too remote where the type of loss which actually occurred was reasonably foreseeable, notwithstanding that the precise extent of the loss was not foreseeable (wagon mound) case of the spill oil-burning some random wharf
        
        Jolley v Sutton old boat, kids playing, council flats case
        court held that so long as the type of loss was reasonably foreseeable, there is no need to forsee the precise manner the P's injury occured nor its context
      - c) egg shell skull rule
        
        defendant has to take plaintiff as it, with existing predispositions aka person already prone to it but you caused it (Smith v Leech Brain)
      - d) mitigation
        
        defendant bears the burden to show that plaintiff did not take any reasonable steps to prevent or reduce his own loss
- - - - s 2(3) UCTA a term which purpots to exclude or limit liability for negligence, persons agreement to or awareness of it cannot be used as an indicator that the person voluntarily accepted the risk
      - Exemption/disclaimer of liability clause
        if negligent in the course of business UCTA applies.
        cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury -s 2(1)
        can exclude other liability if clause is reasonable s 2(2)