Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Negligence, Definition-when C suffers damage,through injury or property…

- - - - -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)
- - - - 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-
- - - - 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)