Negligence Flashcards Preview

AQA LAW YEAR ONE AND TWO (w/o RvF) > Negligence > Flashcards

Flashcards in Negligence Deck (20)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

give the 5 potential risk factors

A
  • special characteristics
  • risk size
  • appropriate precautions taken
  • risks known
  • publc benefit to taking the risk
2
Q

what are intervening events

A

novus actus interveniens- an intervening act breaks the chain of causation

3
Q

define unknown risks

A

harm not known-no breach (Roe 1954)

4
Q

define risk size

A

if its a high risk then std of care is higher- Haley v London electricity board 1965- C was blind and couldn’t read warning signs about the trench)
lower risk then unlikely breach of duty therefore std of care is lower- Bolotn v stone 1951

5
Q

what is the legal point from the case

A

whoever you should reasonably have in your mind in regards to the act or omission taking place- Lord Atkin

6
Q

what is the legal rule in tort known as take your victim as you find him

A

the eggshell skull rule- illustrated in Smith v Leech Brain and CO 1962

7
Q

where does the three part test established

A

caparo 1990

8
Q

three parts to caparo test (when proving DOC)

A

damage or harm reasonably foreseeable
proximate relationship between C and D
fair just and reasonable

9
Q

fair just and reasonable- define (3)

A

must consider whether the law ought to set out a DOC on that person. ie Hill v chief constable of West Yorkshire (1990- not fair as doc to every person in the UK?)

10
Q

Define breach of duty

A

Objective test- that of the reasonable person. professionals judged by that of a prof (Bolam 1957- two separate clauses does Ds conduct fall below the stnd of an ordinary competent mem of that profession and is there a substantial body of opinion that would support the course of action?) earners are judged to std of a more experienced person (nettleship v Weston 1971) and children judged by children of the same age (Mullins v Richards 1998)

11
Q

2.) define close relationship

A

duty or care only exists if the C and D are proximately close (bourhill v young 1943- no claim as motorcyclists couldn’t have anticipated damage to a witness of an accident. Mclouglin v Obrien (1982)- claim as saw family before treatment

12
Q

define public benefit

A

if an emergency then grater risks can be taken and std f care lower- Watt 1954

13
Q

define factual causation

A

starting point, must be proved to have legal considered. But for test- Barnett 1969

14
Q

define res ipsa loquitur

A

when the burden of proof shifts to the D if the C has proved that
- D was in control of the situation which caused injury
-accident would not have happened w/o negligence
-no other explanation of the injury.
as demonstrated in Scott v London and st Katherine docks 1865

15
Q

define proving that that breach caused that damage

A

must prove the legal and factual cause of the damage caused.

16
Q

define special characteristics

A

something where someone should have taken extra care due to special things about C ie Paris v Stepney 1951- D was blind and should have been given eyewear to protect other eye

17
Q

in what case was the neighbour principle established

A

Donaghue v stevenson 1932

18
Q

what is the legal cause determined by

A

remoteness of damage- wagon mound 1961. D will be liable if the type of injury is foreseeable even if the way it happens is not (Hughes 1963) and even if the injury is a more severe version of the reasonably foreseeable one (Bradford v Robinson rentals 1967)

19
Q

define appropriate precautions taken

A

balance or risk involved against adequate precautions taken- Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953- NL as sufficient steps taken

20
Q

1.) damage or H RF?- define

A

where a reasonable person should forsee the damage (Kent v Griffiths 2000)