Tort Negligence, Breach and Test for Duty of Care

Frage	Antworten
Negligence elements for a claim	- Loss or damage - Duty of care - Breach of that duty - Breach caused damage - Reasonably foreseeable (not too remote) - Defences?
Stansbie v Troman	Defendant created dangerous situation by leaving front door unlocked
Duty on defendant for the acts of a third party	1. Vicarious liability 2. Proximity (special relations) between claimant and def. 3. Proximity (sp relations) between defendant and third party 4. Creation of danger 5. Danger on defendant's premises
Stansbie v Troman	Decorator owed duty of care to property owners having allowed burglars in by failing to secure building. Also covers contractual liability.
Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis	Duty of care to a motorist injured in road accident. Driver swerved to miss young pupil who had been left unsupervised. Special r'ship between school authority and children in care. (Def and 3rd party proximity).
Stansbie v Troman	Decorator left house insecure - creating danger and allowing property to be burgled.
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales	Police did not owe duty of care to respond to emergency call within a reasonable time - Floodgates. Claim also failed on proximity.
Alexandrou v Oxford	Police owe no duty of care to respond to emergency calls. Police didn't check on burglar alarm. No need to apply Caparo test where failure of police is failure to respond to emergency call.
Jebson v MOD	Drunk soldier injured returning from night out organised by camp commander. Commander owed duty of care by impliedly assuming responsibility for safety.
Smith v MOD	Supreme: Doctrine of combat immunity should be narrowly construed not extend beyond active combat
Latimer v AEC Ltd	Some precautions had been taken - sawdust on slippery floor. Other option would have just been to close the factory. Practicality of precaution. Considering cost
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee	standard is based on what the reasonable professional in that field would have done, rather than what the man on the Clapham Omnibus would have achieved.
Glasgow Corporation v Muir	Reasonable man free from over apprehensive and over confidence.
Mullin v Richards	Reasonable and careful 15 year-old would have foreseen the risk of injury
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority	A junior doctor was judged by the standard of the reasonable doctor in that field of medicine, regardless of his own inexperience.
Wells v Cooper	Door handle falls off in hand.defendant Required to reach the standard of a reasonably competent amateur carpenter, and not the higher standard of a reasonably competent professional carpenter.
Watson v Gray	Professional footballer was judged by the standard of care of a reasonably competent professional footballer. The reasonably competent professional footballer would avoid challenges known to carry a significant risk of serious injury.
Maynard v West Midlands Regional HA	Doctor who acted in accordance with a common practice adopted by a reasonable body of medical practitioners was held not to have been negligent.
Re Herald of Free Enterprise	Court can rule that common practice is negligent - practice just to sail with doors open!
Haley v London Electricity Board	The precautions taken by the defendant were adequate to protect sighted but not blind persons. The court held that the risk of causing injury to blind people was not so small that it should be ignored.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council	One eyed employee. Not given protective glasses. Injured good eye. Employer should have provided glasses.
Greaves & Co v Baynham Meikle & Partners	if a defendant takes on a task that they ought to know is beyond their capabilities, then that may be evidence in itself of a breach of dut
Res Ipsa Loquitur	‘the facts speak for themselves’. The maxim is used (but only rarely) in situations where the only plausible explanation for the claimant’s injuries is that the defendant has been negligent.
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks & Co	number of large sacks of sugar fell onto her. She could not explain how this had occurred. However, since the sacks were in the defendant’s control, the court was prepared to infer that the accident had been due to the defendant’s lack of care

Nächster

Tort Negligence, Breach and Test for Duty of Care

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Laura Millward vor etwa 7 Jahre