Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Tort - Negligence Test - Coggle Diagram

- - - - 'Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably have them in comteplation as being so affected that, when I m directing my mind to the acts and omissions which are called in question'.
      - 'Two-part' test - Reasonable foreseeability of harm, and neighbourhood which refers to the relationship between the claimant and the deendant.
    - - Reasonably foreseeable, relationship was proximate, and was fair just and reasonable.
        
        Hayley v London Elect Board - Reasonably foreseeable that a blind person was to walk across a pavement, and injury was likely.
        
        Hill v Chief Constable of WY - No proximity between the police and the claimant during prevention or investigation of the crime. Swinney v Chief Constable NMB - Proximity through a contractual relation as he had been paid for his services.
        
        Hemmens v WB - It wasn't fair to impose a duty as it was possible to remedy the situation without imposing said duty.
- - - - Foreseeability - Roe v Minister of Health - You can't be negligent for risks that are completely unknown to science or medicine at the time of the events.
      - Magnitude of risk - Bolton v Stone - If the likelihood of injury is low and rare, a reasonable person is justified in ignoring it and taking no precaution.
      - Extent of harm - Paris v Stepney Council - The standard of care increases if the potential consequence of an injruy are far more severe for a specific individual
      - Social usefulness - Watt vs Hertfordshire - Courts allow defendants to take greater risk if they are engaed in socially beneficial or emergency rescue activity.
      - Precautions taken - Latimer v AEC - Defendant doesn't need to eliminate every possible risk if the cost of doing so is disproportionate to the risk.
      - Common practice - Bolam v Friern Hospital - Following acceted professional practices is strong evidence that the defendant acted reasonably. Bolam test, a professional isn't negligent if their actions conform to a practice accepeted by a responsible body of professional opinion.
- - - - Barnett v Chelsea Hospital
- - - - Wagon Mound No.1 (1961) - The defendant is only liable for damage that a reasonable person would have foreseen as a consequence of their wrongful act.