![]() |
Criado por Amy O'Farrell
mais de 8 anos atrás
|
|
Questão | Responda |
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 |
Quer criar seus próprios Flashcards gratuitos com GoConqr? Saiba mais.