Negligence Cases

Frage	Antworten
Duty of Care Caparo v Dickman	Sets the modern test for when a duty of care is owed. 1. Damage must be reasonably foreseeable 2. There must be sufficient proximity between the parties. 3. It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D
Damage must be reasonably foreseeable-Proven	Jolley v Sutton
Damage must be reasonably foreseeable- Not Proven	Bourhill v Young
Sufficient proximity between the parties-Proven	Osman v Ferguson
Sufficient proximity between the parties- Not Proven	Bourhill v Young
Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty	Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty- Exception	Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC
Breach of Duty Definition	Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Objective 'reasonably man' test	Vaughan v Menlove
Inexperience is irrelevant	Nettleship v Weston
Age can lower standard of care	Mullin v Richards
Profession can raise standard of care	Bolam
Size/degree of risk	Bolton v Stone
Seriousness of harm	Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Practicability of Precautions	Latimer v AEC Paris v Stepney BC
Benefits of taking risk	Watt v Hertfordshire CC
Res Ipsa Loquitur	Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co.
Causation- 'But for' test	Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea HMC
Intervening Acts	Reeves v MPC
Remoteness of damage	The Wagon Mound
How harm happens is irrelevant	Hughes v Lord Advocate
Thin Skull Principle	Smith v Leech Brain Co Ltd

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

	Erstellt von Amy O'Farrell vor mehr als 8 Jahre