Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Set task, Unforeseeable=unpredictable - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Mitigation of Loss
      - Contributory negligence
        
        A claimant has a duty to keep his losses to a minimum and any contribution you made to your injury may reduce the compensation awarded.
- - - - Legal principle-A person owes a duty of care to your neighbour
        
        This means anyone closely effected by your actions or omissions
      - Sets out the elements of negligence
      - Shows that manufactures owe a duty of care to consumers
    - - The existence of a duty of care is shown by considering what has been decided previously.
        If there are no precedents, then we consider close analogies.
      - Pros of the rule of Robinson
        
        Keeps the law fair
        
        Keeps the law consistent
        
        Can help prepare for disputes better
      - Cons of the rule of Robinson
        
        Could be difficult for a claimant to show they were owed a duty of care in these situations
    - - E,A,S,E
  - - - A breach of duty of care happens when a person falls below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person doing the same thing.
    - - Expertise or being skilled will raise the level of care expected from the defendant, therefore the actions of an experienced/skilled defendant will be compared to those of another experienced/skilled person.
        
        Bolam only applies to highly trained and highly skilled experts
    - - Inexperienced will not affect the level of care expected. Therefore the actions of an inexperienced defendant will not be compared to those of a reasonably competent person.
    - - Age can lower the expect level of care. for example if the D is a child.
    - - Paris v Stepney Council-Characteristics of the claimant
      - Latimer v A.E.C -Possible precautions
      - Miller v Jackson-Size of risk
      - Watt v Hertfordshire Council-Benefits of risky activity
    - - E,A,S for the law
      - E,A,S,E for the risk assessment
  - - - Factual causation is proven using the but for test.
        
        Replace but for with without -the damage would not of happened but for (without) the defendants negligence.
    - - E,A,S
  - - - The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable
    - - How the damage occurs does not need to be foreseeable.
    - - The extent of the damage does not need to be foreseeable
    - - If the type of damage is foreseeable then a defendant is liable even if the damage is more severe because of the claimants hidden vulnerabilities.
    - - E, A, S, Conclusion
    - - It makes sure that defendants (especially companies) take adequate care over health and safety because they will be responsible for most injuries that happen.
      - We hold people to account for only predictable damage. This seems fair as if you’re negligent then you should only be responsible for predictable consequences
    - - It can be quite unfair when the damage seems like it’s totally disconnected from their negligence.
        Ie In Leech Brain not even Mr Smith was aware of the dormant cancer cells!
      - It means that a person can sue you for damage that you might expect but that becomes unexpectedly serious later.