To establish negligence, 3 things must be proven: A duty was
owed, This duty was breached and that the breach caused the
damage.
Duty of care was originally determined using the
neighbour principle set out in Donoghue v
Stevenson but was later developed into a more
thorough 3-part test set out in Caparo v Dickman:
'Part 1 - Reasonable Foreseeability
The damage must be a
reasonable foreseeable
consequence of the
Defendants action
Foreseeable:
Jolley v Sutton,
Kent v Griffiths
Part 2 - Sufficient Proximity
There must be sufficient
proximity between the Claimant
and defendant, either by
relationship, or space and time.
McLoughlin v
O'Brian - There
was proximity
by relationship
Bourhill v Young -
No proximity in
either relationship,
space or time
Part 3 - Fair, Just and Reasonable
There could be a
policy reason which
would make it unfair,
unjust or unreasonable
to apply a duty of care
Hill v Chief Constable
of West Yorkshire - No
duty of care applied as
it would open the
floodgates of litigation
Once duty of care is proven, the defendant but
then be shown to have breached this duty. To
Breach a duty of care, one must fall below the
standard of care expected of the reasonable man.
The standard of care is a line
which can be raised or
lowered by risk factors:
Special
Characteristics
of the
Defendant
Ordinary people must be held to
the standard of the reasonably
competent man, but
professionals are held to the
standard of professionals
Bolam v Friern - Set out
Profesionals test
Nettleship v Weston - Learner
drivers held to the standard of
competent drivers
Wells v Cooper - Ordinary man doing
DIY held to the standard of an ordinary
reasonably competent man doing DIY
Special
Characteristics
of the Claimant
Paris v Stepney borough council
- SoC raised due to previous
injury
Size of the risk
Roe v Ministry of health - no
breach of duty if risk wasn't
known to the defendant
Haley v London
borough of Hackney
- Larger risk means
higher SoC
Benefits of the risk
Watt v Hertfordshire County
Council - Was a suffiecent
benefit to excuse risk taken
Were all practical
precautions taken?
Latimer v AEC Products
- No breach as
precautions were taken
Once the defendant has breached their
duty of care, it must be proven that the
breach caused the damage done
Causation
'But For' test
Barnett v Chelsea &
Kensington Hospital
Novus Actus Interveniens
MPC v Reeves
Multiple causes
Fairchild v Glenhaven
Funeral services
Remoteness
Type of damage
Hughes v Lord Advocate -
was foreseeable that a
paraffin lamp would cause
some form of damage
Bradford v Robinson Rentals -
was foreseeable that C would be
injured from low temperatures
Foreeability
Wagon mound -
Damage was not
foreseeable
Thin skull rule 'Take the
victim as you find him'
Smith v Leech Brain
'reasonable man' - defined in Blythe v Birmingham waterworks