GENERAL NEGLIGENCE

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
GENERAL NEGLIGENCE by Mind Map: GENERAL NEGLIGENCE

1. DUTY OF CARE (DoC)

1.1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1.1.1. INITIAL POSITION

1.1.1.1. DoC only in limited, defined circumstances

1.1.1.1.1. Doctor/Patient

1.1.1.1.2. Employer/Employee

1.1.1.1.3. Landlord/Tenant

1.1.2. EXPANSION PERIOD

1.1.2.1. Universal DoC "NEIGHBOUR" principle developed

1.1.2.1.1. Donahue v Stevenson [1932]

1.1.2.2. DoC owed if reasonable, unless policy reason why not (2 stage test)

1.1.2.2.1. Anns v LB of Merton [1978]

1.1.2.3. DoC extended to verbal advice situations

1.1.2.3.1. Headly & Byrne v Heller [1964]

1.1.2.4. DoC extended to third parties

1.1.2.4.1. Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970]

1.1.3. LIMITING PERIOD (TODAY)

1.1.3.1. DoC incrimentally established with 3 stage test

1.1.3.1.1. Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]

1.1.3.1.2. Murphy v Brentwood BC (1991)

1.2. SPECIAL DUTY SITUATIONS

1.2.1. OMMISSIONS

1.2.2. THIRD PARTIES

1.2.3. PSYCHIATRIC HARM

1.2.4. ECONOMIC LOSS

1.2.4.1. Negligent misstatement

1.2.4.2. New Idea

2. BREACH

2.1. STANDRD OF CARE

2.1.1. Reasonable man

2.1.1.1. Blyth v Birmingham Water

2.1.1.2. Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing

2.1.1.3. Experience/skill disregarded

2.1.1.3.1. Nettleship v Weston (1971)

2.1.1.3.2. Wilshire v Essex Area HA [1988]

2.1.1.4. Disabilities disregarded

2.1.1.4.1. Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980]

2.1.1.4.2. Mansfield v Weetabix [1997]

2.1.1.5. Common practice disregarded

2.1.1.5.1. Thompson v Smith's Ship Repairers

2.1.1.6. NOT CONSIDERED:

2.1.1.6.1. Common sense

2.1.1.6.2. Inteligence

2.1.1.6.3. Inexperience

2.1.2. Exceptions

2.1.2.1. Children

2.1.2.1.1. Mullin v Richards

2.1.2.1.2. Orchard v Lee (2009)

2.1.2.2. Professionals

2.1.2.2.1. Bolam v Friern Hospital MC

2.2. WAS THERE A BREACH?

2.2.1. Likelyhood

2.2.1.1. Bolton v Stone

2.2.2. Seriousness

2.2.2.1. Wagon Mound 2

2.2.2.2. Paris v Stepney

2.2.3. Cost of precautions

2.2.3.1. Latimer v AEC

2.2.4. Social value

2.2.4.1. Watt v Hertfordshire

3. CAUSATION

3.1. FACTUAL - BUT FOR TEST

3.1.1. Basic test

3.1.1.1. Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Management

3.1.1.2. Cork v Kirby Maclean

3.1.2. Multiple causes

3.1.2.1. McGhee v N Coal Board

3.1.2.2. Wilshire v Essex Health

3.1.3. Unjust result

3.1.3.1. Fairchild v Glenhaven Financial

3.1.4. Loss of Chance

3.1.4.1. Hotson v East Berkshire

3.2. LEGAL - NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIUS

3.2.1. Act of God

3.2.1.1. Jobling v Associated Diaries

3.2.2. Unforseen Act of a third party

3.2.2.1. The Orpesa

3.2.2.2. Knightly v Johnson

3.2.3. Act of the claimant

4. DEFENCES

4.1. Volenti non fit inuria

4.1.1. Full knowledge of nature and extent of risk

4.1.1.1. Morris v Murray

4.1.1.2. Dann v Hamilton

4.1.2. Agreement to the risk

4.1.2.1. Nettleship v Weston

4.1.3. Voluntary acceptance of full damages

4.1.3.1. WORK

4.1.3.1.1. Smith v Baker & Sons

4.1.3.1.2. ICI v Shatnel

4.1.3.2. SPORTS

4.1.3.2.1. Condo v Bassi

4.1.3.2.2. Woolridge v Summer

4.1.3.2.3. Blake v Holloway

4.1.3.2.4. Hall v Brooklands Racing Club

4.1.3.3. RESCUERS

4.1.3.3.1. Baker v Hopkins

4.1.3.3.2. Haynes v Harwood

4.1.3.3.3. Cutler v United Diaries

4.1.3.4. SUICIDE

4.1.3.4.1. Reeves v COP

4.1.3.4.2. Kirkham v COP

4.2. Ex turpi causa

4.2.1. Ashton v Turner

4.2.2. Pitts v Hunt

4.2.3. Reville v Newbury

4.2.4. Clunis v Camden

4.3. Contributory negligence

4.3.1. Claimant negligent

4.3.1.1. Froom v Butcher

4.3.1.2. Owens v Brimmel

4.3.1.3. Jones v Livox Quarries

4.3.1.4. Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel

4.3.2. Emergencies

4.3.3. Children

5. REMOTENESS Wagon Mound 2

5.1. TYPE OR KIND OF DAMAGE

5.2. EXTENT

5.3. RISK

6. DAMAGES

6.1. PSYCHIATRIC HARM

6.1.1. 1. Nature of damage 2. Foreseeability 3. Relationship 4. Proximity in time and space 5. Manner of perception

6.1.1.1. Secondary victim

6.1.1.1.1. 1. Ties of love and affection 2. Witness with own sense 3. Proximity to event 4. Harm due to shock

6.1.1.2. Primary Victim

6.1.1.2.1. Page v Smith

6.2. PURE ECONOMIC LOSS

6.2.1. Negligent acts/omissions

6.2.1.1. Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialist

6.2.1.2. Spartan Steel v Martin

6.2.1.3. Weller v Foot & Mouth

6.2.1.4. Murphy v Brentwood

6.2.2. Negligent statements

6.2.2.1. Special relationship

6.2.2.2. Actual reliance on the statement

6.2.2.3. Voluntary assumption