11185837
Descripción
Fichas por Laura Millward, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por Laura Millward
hace alrededor de 7 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| 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 |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.