Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Law of tort : negligence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - mrs D went to cafe with friend, friend bought her a ginger beer and icecream, bottle of ginger beer had a dark glass so its contents could not be seen, after drinking some of it mrs donoghue poured the rest out saw that it contained adead nad decomposinh snail. Because of impurities in drink she suffered both physical and mental injuries
      - she wanted to claim compensation for her injuries and sas she had npot bought the drink she could not use the law of contract to sue so instead she sued the manufacturer in negligence cliaming that they were at fault in the manufacturing process and they owed her a duty of care
      - in house of lords lord atkin set the test for when a person would be under a duty of care for another. He said, "you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which uou can reasonably forsee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
        
        who then, in law, is my neighbour
        
        persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably to have them in contemplation when i direct my mind to the acts or omissions in question
        
        NOTE - the coparo test for establishing a duty of care to a neighbour is no longer used. it has been replaced by the robinson test
  - - - mrs robinson suffered injuries when she was knocked over and fallen on by 2 police officers who were physically apprehending a drug dealer when she was in close proximity. Both the trial court and the court of appeal held tha the two police officers were immune from a claim in negligence in line with existing authority - hill v chief constable of west yorkshire. Appealed again and they were found liable
      - said - public authorities are subject to the same liabilities in tort law as private individuals. They are under a duty not to cause the public harm via their own actions, but are not under a duty to prevent harm from third parties
      - test steps
        
        look for a precedent
        
        if there is no precedent look for an analogy
        
        weigh up reasons for and against imposing a duty
    - - kent v griffiths
        
        an ambulance had been called to take the claimant who was suffering an asthma attack to hospital. Despite repeated assurances from the control centre the ambulance failed to arrive on time. As a result the claimant suffered a respiratory arrest
        
        The court decided it was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer further illness if the ambulance didn't arrive promptly, no good reason given as to why it failed to do so. a duty of care was owed by ambulance when they initially accepted the call and as they failed in this duty they were eligible to pay compensation.
        
        precendent >
        
        The ambulance service will owe a duty of care to an individual patient where that patient calls 999 and - for no good reason - the ambulance arrives very late.
        
        analogy >
        
        analogy - other emergency services may owe a duty of care to someone who calls 999 and they fail to show up withinn reasinable period of time
      - bouthill v young
        
        facts
        
        The claimant had been pregnant, when she got off a tram she heard the sound of an accident.
        
        The accident was caused by a motor cyclist who died in the accident
        
        After sometime she approached the accident scene and saw blood on the road causing her to suffer such a shock that she gave birth to a still born baby.
        
        Sued the relatives of the motor cyclists
        
        Held that there was no sufficient close proximity between the defendant and the claimant. As a result there was no duty of care between them
        
        precendent
        
        an accident which causes shock and a miscarriage however had not been directly involved with the incident.
        
        analogy
        
        : any incident where someone saw something which gave them trauma or some kind of shock
      - for further precedents and analogies go to
        
        https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aVik5EMud59HLpeFikh9f_8VEFcgH6-5d7Uxsj03LLk/edit
  - - - in the case of hill v chief constable of west yorkshire it was pointed out that impising a duty of care on police and allowing them to be sued could lead to policing being carried iyt in a defensive way which might divert their resources and attention from the orevention and detention of the crime thus leading to a lower standard of policiing
- - - - the key phrase in the test is "reasonable man" what would the reasonable man have done in the circumnstances
      - in the case of blyth v birmingham waterworks baaron alderson stated that "negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or something the prudent and reasonable man would not do
      - blyth v birmingham
        
        in this case, the court was considering whether or not the defendant local authority had acted reasonably or not. D installed fireplug near ds house. Fireplug failed in extremely cold weather and as a result the claimants house flooded. It was an exceptionally cold winter. court decided they were sufficiently careful adn had acyed reasonably. Given the circumstances tehy acted responsibly
    - - glasgow coorperation v muir
        
        facts
        
        Defendants were owners of an old mansion in kings park glasgow
        
        One afternoon the manageress allowed a group of picnickers to have their tea in the mansion
        
        They brought their own tea urn
        
        While taking the tea urn into the mansion one part of the urn dropped and it spilled and hurt the children who were standing to buy sweets from sweet shop
        
        results
        
        held that the manageress was not liable as the result was not a natural or forseeable consequence of the manageress actions so she could not be guilty for negligence SEE linked document for full case facts
      - hall v brooklands auto racing club
        
        facts
        
        Defendants were owners if racing track motor cars
        
        Spectators could watch the races from the pavement and stands were provided from which they could do this safely
        
        One day two competing cars in a long distance race along this track were involved in a collision
        
        One of the cars flew and hit a group of spectators, killing two of them
        
        D was sued in negligence by one of the injured spectators saying that the spectating area was not made safe enough
        
        No accident like this had occured in 20 years
        
        result
        
        no breach was found
        
        they were under no duty to to guard against risks which were not reasonably foreseeable
        As no accident of this nature had previously occurred it could not have been said to be reasonably foreseeable
    - - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GybeJ7bw48OMi8oTCquIuNR9JyfXBOlEct5wdKTRPEk/edit
    - - professionals are held to a higher standard of care than the standard reasonable man
        
        professionals are judged by a higher standard- it is expected that a professional will be more skilled than teh reasonable man. so, when a professional is practicing their specialist skill eg doctor oepration, lawyer giving legal opinion, reasonable to expect a higher standard of care
        
        a professional may have done something which would have been considered reasonable but is unacceptable from the perspective of a professional standard of care
        
        what is the standard of care of a professional
        
        does the standard fall below the competent member of profession?
        
        would a substantial body of that profesison support the course of action taken by the defendant?
        
        After the decision in Bolam, the courts have almost always concluded that if expert witnesses state that they would have acted in the same way as the defendant, then the defendant will have passed the test
      - cases on professionals
        
        bolam v friem
        
        facts
        
        Defendant was getting “electroconvulsive” therapy for his medical treatment
        
        Doctor didnt give relaxant drugs and and the claimant suffered a serious fratcure
        
        Whether the relaxant drugs should be given was controversial as there is a small risk of death if they are
        
        Claimant argued doctor was in breach of duty by not giving the drug
        
        outcome
        
        held that the doctor was not in breach of duty of care " a medical professional is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accoradance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art"
        
        montogmery v lankashire
        
        https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GybeJ7bw48OMi8oTCquIuNR9JyfXBOlEct5wdKTRPEk/edit
- - - - the evidence could be from experts oral evidence of witnesses or medical reports. if the claimant cannot present sufficient evidence to prove the case he or she will be left without compensation