Create your own awesome maps

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account?
Log In

GENERAL NEGLIGENCE by Mind Map: GENERAL
NEGLIGENCE
5.0 stars - 2 reviews range from 0 to 5

GENERAL NEGLIGENCE

DUTY OF CARE (DoC)

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

INITIAL POSITION, DoC only in limited, defined circumstances, Doctor/Patient, Employer/Employee, Landlord/Tenant

EXPANSION PERIOD, Universal DoC "NEIGHBOUR" principle developed, Donahue v Stevenson [1932], Lord Aitken: "An individual must take reasonable care not to harm those who he could have reasonably foreseen would be harmed by his act or omission", First time manufacturer/consumer DoC was established - proximity made wider, DoC owed if reasonable, unless policy reason why not (2 stage test), Anns v LB of Merton [1978], Lord Wilberforce: STEP 1. If reasonable proximity exists, a prima facie DoC exists. STEP 2. Limit scope of DoC ONLY if policy reasons, Too wide - DoC should not be prima facie. Overturned in Caparo., DoC extended to verbal advice situations, Headly & Byrne v Heller [1964], DoC extended to third parties, Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970]

LIMITING PERIOD (TODAY), DoC incrimentally established with 3 stage test, Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990], CLAIMANT must prove that its just/fair/reasonable to create a DoC, Lord Bingham: USE EXISTING DoC IF IT EXISTS, Foreseeability, Haley v London Electricity, Proximity, Hill v Chief Constable, Fair just and reasonable, McFarlane v Tayside HO, Murphy v Brentwood BC (1991)

SPECIAL DUTY SITUATIONS

OMMISSIONS

THIRD PARTIES

PSYCHIATRIC HARM

ECONOMIC LOSS, Negligent misstatement, New Idea

BREACH

STANDRD OF CARE

Reasonable man, Blyth v Birmingham Water, Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing, Experience/skill disregarded, Nettleship v Weston (1971), Wilshire v Essex Area HA [1988], Disabilities disregarded, Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980], Mansfield v Weetabix [1997], Common practice disregarded, Thompson v Smith's Ship Repairers, NOT CONSIDERED:, Common sense, Inteligence, Inexperience

Exceptions, Children, Mullin v Richards, Orchard v Lee (2009), Professionals, Bolam v Friern Hospital MC, Judged against ordinary skilled man professing to excercise the skill

WAS THERE A BREACH?

Likelyhood, Bolton v Stone

Seriousness, Wagon Mound 2, Paris v Stepney

Cost of precautions, Latimer v AEC

Social value, Watt v Hertfordshire

CAUSATION

FACTUAL - BUT FOR TEST

Basic test, Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Management, Cork v Kirby Maclean

Multiple causes, McGhee v N Coal Board, Wilshire v Essex Health

Unjust result, Fairchild v Glenhaven Financial

Loss of Chance, Hotson v East Berkshire

LEGAL - NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIUS

Act of God, Jobling v Associated Diaries

Unforseen Act of a third party, The Orpesa, Knightly v Johnson

Act of the claimant

DEFENCES

Volenti non fit inuria

Full knowledge of nature and extent of risk, Morris v Murray, Dann v Hamilton

Agreement to the risk, Nettleship v Weston

Voluntary acceptance of full damages, WORK, Smith v Baker & Sons, ICI v Shatnel, SPORTS, Condo v Bassi, Woolridge v Summer, Blake v Holloway, Hall v Brooklands Racing Club, RESCUERS, Baker v Hopkins, Haynes v Harwood, Cutler v United Diaries, SUICIDE, Reeves v COP, Kirkham v COP

Ex turpi causa

Ashton v Turner

Pitts v Hunt

Reville v Newbury

Clunis v Camden

Contributory negligence

Claimant negligent, Froom v Butcher, Owens v Brimmel, Jones v Livox Quarries, Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel

Emergencies

Children

REMOTENESS Wagon Mound 2

TYPE OR KIND OF DAMAGE

EXTENT

RISK

DAMAGES

PSYCHIATRIC HARM

1. Nature of damage 2. Foreseeability 3. Relationship 4. Proximity in time and space 5. Manner of perception, Secondary victim, 1. Ties of love and affection 2. Witness with own sense 3. Proximity to event 4. Harm due to shock, White v Chief Constable, Alcock v Chief Constable, McLoughlin v O'Brian, Mc Farlane v Caledonia, Primary Victim, Page v Smith

PURE ECONOMIC LOSS

Negligent acts/omissions, Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialist, Spartan Steel v Martin, Weller v Foot & Mouth, Murphy v Brentwood

Negligent statements, Special relationship, Actual reliance on the statement, Voluntary assumption