Negligence

defined in (Blyth v Birmingham waterworks 1856)-failing to do something which the RM would do or doing something the RM wouldnt.

Definition-when C suffers damage,through injury or property damage,as a result of Ds negligent action or omission

defined in (Blyth v Birmingham waterworks 1856)-failing to do something which the RM would do or doing something the RM wouldnt.

must prove on balance of probabilities that D:
1)owed C duty of care
2)duty was breached
3)breach caused reasonably foreseeable damage

1) duty of care

3) damage

2) breach of duty

establish legal relationship between D and C the neighbour principle-(Donoghue v Stevenson)

Caparo test-3 parts (caparo v dickman)
-was damage reasonably foreseeable
-proximate relationship
-fair,just+reasonable to impose duty

-reasonably foreseeable?

an objective test
particular type of harm doesnt need foreseeing
(kent v Griffiths)

-proximity?

close relationship or time and space.
(Bourhill v young)
(Mcgloughlin v O'brien)

-fair,just and reasonable?

likely to be if it raises standard of care.
court may also consider practicalities-if D can pay compensation
(Hill v CC of WY)

if already well established relationship dont use Caparo test
the closest analogy-(Robinson v CC of WY)
e.g.doctor/patient
(wilsher v essex AHA;bolam v friern)

duties
statutory-children and young persons act 2003
contractual-pittwood
dangerous situation-miller
official position-dytham
special relationship-stone and dobinson
assumed responsibility-gibbins v proctor

by act OR omission

fallen below standards=breach

normal C =standards of RM
professional=reasonable competent body of pros in that field (bolam v friern hospital)
child=reasonable child of same age (mullin v richards)

-no allowances for inexperience (nettleship v weston) will be compared to qualified person.

courts will consider 5 risk factors:
-size of risk-higher probability of risk=higher standard of care (haley v LEB;bolton v stone)
-precautions taken-consider cost and practicality,do what is reasonable,dont have to eliminate every risk (latimer v REC)
-known risks-if risk is not known D cant take higher standard of care (roe v MoH)
-special characteristics-take higher standard of care (paris v stepney)
-public benefit- if raising the standard would benefit society can allow for lower standard of care(watt v hertfordshire CC)

breach must cause damage that is not too remote

causation-'but for' (barnett v chelsea and kensington)

unforeseeable and overwhelming acts:
-of C
-3rd party (knightly v johns)
-natural event (carslogie)

-if so=chain broken,breach didnt solely cause damage
-if not causation is established.

remoteness-