TORT
Duty of care: Developed in Donoghue v Stevenson. Neighbour:
Proximity(Ann's test: Ann's v Merton Borough Council: contemplation of Ds action or ommision likely affecting the neighbour
3 part test in Caparo v Dickman ( reasonableforeseeability of the risk of harmat time of negligence): Policy Consideration:
Detterence, Public authority , no Duty of care in context of war, an officer owes another Duty if care during working hours,
there is Duty of care if the public body has assumed responsibility towards people who might suffer damage( Hill v chief
constable of West Yorkshire.): who can best stand the loss, whether D is insured,
Breach of duty: objective test applied subjectively.
Each party owes another the standard of care. Reasonable man test. Breach of Duty is when a party owing another Duty falls
below the standard required of the Reasonable person guided upon consideration which ordinarily regulate human affair would
do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. This standard does not include individual
idiosyncrasies .
Foreseeability of risk of harm: Roe v minister of health.
Magnitude of risk. Degree of risk dictated by likelihood of risk.( cricket)
Special circumstances necessitating more caution (googles)
Social utility of the activity .( cricket)
Praticability of precaution. ( oil sawdust)
Common practice accompanied by good reasoning.
Standard of care for children: standard of care owed to the child of the same age
Standard of care for the disabled( dtd of reasonable man suffering from the same illness or disability.
Learner driver: std of care expected of a competent and skilled driver. Insurance policy to driving schools
Professional: standard of care expected of reasonable experienced proffesion. Bolams test( convulsion therapy, was not
warned fully of the procedure. Bolitho( boy and intubation.
Causation: proving Ds negligent act or ommision actually caused damage.causal link btwn harm and the act or omission.
Factual causation. But for causation: were it not for Ds act or ommision harm would not have been occasioned. ( Barnet the
watchmen)
Multiple caused concurrent ( same time incapable of proving extent of liability)
Multiple consecutive causes. Liability is on the first unless subsequent have contributed to the damage.
Novus actus interventions. New act breaking chain of causation. Intervening act of the claimant..
Intervening act of nature: , Intervening act of 3rd part ( squatters Camden v London borough Council) NB: the Intervening act
should not be reasonable and foreseeable or where D was under a duty to prevent the act breaking the chain of causation
If damage is foreseeable the degree of harm caused does not matter
