marigoldafonso's version from 2016-04-21 21:30

Section 1

Question Answer
Breach of dutyDid d meet standard of care
Causation 2 qsD act substantially contribute? Was it too remote?
Standard of careobjective. 1.Establish Doc 2. Behaviour, does it fall short?
Blythe v Bham Waterworksneg=omission to do something a reasonable man would
Glasgow v Muirreasonable man is free from over-apprehension and overconfidence
Nettleship v Westonlegal duty to take reasonable care
Factors that reasonable man takes into accountBUMFC: foreseeability of harm, magnitude/gravity of risk, burden/cost of taking precautions, utility of d's conduct, common practice
Question Answer
Roe v Minister of Health foreseeability of harm
Magnitude/gravity of risk 1first -degree of liklihood of harm occurring Bolton v Stone
Magnitude 2seriousness of harm that may occur Paris v Stephney (risk small but damage great)
Burden/practicality - Latimernot expected to spend vast sums avoiding a small risk
Utility - Daborn v Bath Tramways if purpose is sufficiently important this justifies assumption of abnormal risk
Common Practice Bolithoadherence to common practice raises presumption of no breach but this can be overcome

Section 2

Question Answer
higher standard Wells v CooperD takes on an extra skilled or professional task, reasonable professional in that field
Bolam v Friern Doctor not guilty if acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body. Not negligent just becuase there is a body that takes a diff view
Children, Mullin v RichardsStandard of care owed is that of an ordinary, reasonable and competent child of that age
Emergences Jones v BoyceIf D made a reasonable choice in all the circumstances in the heat of the moment, D not liable
Res IpsaScott v London and St Katherine's Docks
Scott v London and St Katherine's Docks1. D had a right to control thing or event 2. Accident should be something which could not, have happened without someone's negligence 3. there is no explanation
Ward v TescoRes Ipsa

Section 3

Question Answer
Remoteness test is matter of law, influenced by policy considerations
The Wagon MoundKind of damage was reasonably foreseeable
Damageif some damage is foreseeable does not matter that the damage is actually more extensive as long as kind of damage is foreseeable
Tremain v Pikenot necessary to have foreseen the precise consequences as long as aware of possibility of damage resulting
Egg shell skullSmith v Leach Brain

Section 4

Question Answer
VolentiVoluntarily agrees to undertake risk =complete defence
2 thingsC acted voluntarily, express of implied agreement
Dann v HamiltonFull knowledge of the nature of the risk
Moris v Murrayaccepting lift from drunk pilot so obvious and dangerous
ex turpi causaNo action based on an illegal cause - Pitts v Hunt
Contrib Neg, - Fault on C's part; - Negligence by C
Jones v LinoxWas C acting negligently? did he actions contribute?

Section 5

Question Answer
CausationIn fact - was C's damage cause by D's breach? In law - was it too remote?
Factual 'but for'if damage would have happened anyway, breach not a factual cause
Barnett v ChelseaBut for test
McWilliams v Sir William Arroldeath not due to employer as wouldn't have worn safety harness anyway
Scott v Shepherd Natural instinctive does not break chain
Knightley v JohnsWas the whole sequence of events a natural and probable consequence of D's neg, if not then chain is broken
McKew v HollandIntervening act of C only breaks chain if unreasonable
Hughes v Lord AdvocateD only liable if kind of damage is reasonably foreseeable