Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Negligence (Res Ipsa Loquitur (The Claimant has to show (D was in control…

- - - - Anyone closely affected by D's actions
  - - - What the damage reasonably foreseeable?
      - Was there a proximity of relationships?
      - Is is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
- - - - Same as criminal
      - Barnett - arsenic poisioning
    - - Intervening events
  - - - Cannot be a random injury but can be in the genus
      - Bradford v Robinson Rentals - Frostbite
    - - Injury is reasonably foreseeable but because of C's special characteristics the damage is much worse than foreseeable
      - Smith v Leech - Dormant tumor
- - - - Bolam - Electric shocks broke bones
      - Bolam principle asks 2 questions
        
        Did D's conduct fall below the ordinary profession?
        
        Is there a school of thought that supports his acts
      - Bolam approach changed in Montgomery
        
        Montgomery - Cerebal Palsy - Not told of the risks of birth method
        
        Court decided doctor had to disclose risks of each method - treated as a reasonable adult w/ the ability to make her own descions
    - - Same a a competent professional - fair to the claimant
      - Nettleship v Weston - Learner driver hit lampost
    - - Treated at the standard of a reasonable child
      - Mullin v Richards - Ruler case
  - - - Paris v Stepney - Goggles
    - - If the risk was small, D need not do a lot to prevent it
      - Bolton v Stone - Cricket
    - - Courts have to balance the size of the risk and the cost of taking precautions
      - Latimer v AEC - Sawdust factory
    - - Can't do anything of you don't know
      - Roe v Minister for Heath - Aenesthtic tubes
    - - In an emergency, greater risks can be taken
      - Watt v Hertfordshire - Firefighter hurt under jack
- - - - O'Connel v Jackson - not wearing moped helmet
      - Stinton v Stinton - drunk driver
  - - - C had knowledge of the risk
      - C had the right of free choice
      - C took the risk voluntarily
    - - Stermer v Lawson - Motorbike
    - - Smith v Baker - crane
    - - Haynes v Harwood - Police, horse
      - Ogwo v Taylor - Firefighter
    - - Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital - Didn't have to give consent to 1%
    - - ICI v Shatwell - Detonator
    - - Wooldridge v Sumner - Rider