![]() |
Erstellt von Erin Ashby
vor etwa 9 Jahre
|
|
Frage | Antworten |
Reasonable man test | Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks Co. - omission to do something which a reasonable man would or would not do. |
Learner | competent at what he does, held to same standard as experienced and competent driver Nettleship and Weston |
Specialist | held to higher standard (even if acting in place of a specialist) must use skills they posess - Bolam v Friern HMC |
Children | judged against somebody their own age (lower standard) Mullin v Richards |
degree of forseeablity | if the reasonable man could see the risk - Roe v Minister of Health not foreseeable at the time that person would get injured by stuff going through needle. |
size of risk/likelihood of harm | Bolton V Stone - Cricket pitch even if foreseeable if it really small than not required to take precautions. |
Importance of the activity | Watt v Hertfordshire County Council - FM injured when FE braked. Risk of not sending it out was greater than risk of sending it out as putting out fire was important. |
practicality of precautions | if cost is out of proportion to the benefits then it is not unreasonable - Latimer v AEC claimant injured in flodded factory but had already sawdusted the flaw and taken reasonable care. |
potential seriousness of injury | if risk of s.i then take greater care (tsr and degree of harm) - Paris v Stepney only 1 good eye and employers didn't make him wear safety goggles. under more obligation to him as he was at a greater risk. |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.