Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Negligence (Causation (was the defendant's negligence a cause of the…

- - - - Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee - hospital had breached its duty of care to the deceased but that breach was not the cause of death
    - - Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority - claimant fell from tree injured and treated negligently however 75% chance claimants medical condition following fall same irrespective of teatment - fails to satisfy causation test
      - Wilsher v Esseax Area Health authouurity p117
- - - - Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee - doctors must show the same degree of skill as a reasonable doctor
    - - Donoghue v Stevenson p70m
  - - - Bourhill v Young held not reasonable to forsee - claimant walked to scene of motorcycle crash and suffered shock miscarriage as result
      - Proximity Caparo itself - claim for damages failed bc not sufficently close
    - - Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine 57 - not fair just reasonable to impose duty on non-profit that operated soley for promoting welfare at sea
- - - - 'reasonable person' test Blyth v Birminghamd Waterworks
      - special standards
        
        defendant say he is skilled at something - Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. principle established in Bolam applied to anyone who excersises a special skill - if defendant's actions are supported by reasonable body of professional opinion
        
        Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authourity - claimant might be able to demonstrate that the professional opinion relied on by defendant is not capable of withstanding logical analysis
        
        child
        
        Mullin v Richards expected to show such care as can reasonably be expected of child of the same age
        
        disability
    - - Bolton v Stone and Miller v Jackson - crucial distinction. decision is Bolton v Stone recognised it's justifiable not to take steps to eliminate real risk if risk is small and reasonable person would neglect circumstances. Risk measured against: purpose of defendant's activity and practicability of precautions
      - Risk of greater injury - Paris v Stephney Borough Coucil. As defendants knew claimant was blind in one eye they didn't act reasonably, as an injury would have producted a more serious concequence
    - - Latimer v AEC - defendants decision not to close down part of factory a reasonable one as risk was small and expense great
      - Watt v Hertfordshire County Council - if human life is at stake a defendant may be justified in taking abnormal risks
  - - - Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co - three conditions for res ipsa loquitur
        
        thing causing damage must be under control of defendant / someone whom defendant responsivble for
        
        accident normally happens negligence
        
        cause of accident unknown to claimant - no direct evidence