(Neg) The 3 stages of negligence?>>> Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Damage
(Neg) Donoghue v Stevenson>>> 'Neigbour principle' (Lord Atkin) - "your
... [Show More] neighbour is anyone closely affected by your actions or omissions"
(Neg) Robinson 2018>>> Caparo test need only be used in novel situations and provided established DOC
> doctor to patient - Bolam
> driver to road user - Nettleship v Weston
> manufacturers to consumers - Donoghue v Stevenson
> solicitor to client - Arthur JS Hall v Simons
(Neg) Caparo v Dickman 1990>>> Caparo 3 stage test
> was damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable?
> was there a relationship of close proximity between C & D?
> is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a DOC?
(Neg) Kent v Griffiths>>> The damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable - D's actions judged by the standards of a reasonable person (objective test)
(Neg) Bourhill v Young>>> Relationship of close proximity between C & D - proximity of time & space, and legal relationship
(Neg) Hill v CC of W Yorkshire/ Robinson>>> It is fair just & reasonable to impose a DOC (public issue, floodgate argument) - if an omission then NOT fair (Hill), but it its a positive act it is (Robinson)
(Neg) Duty of Care>>> C must prove D owed them a DOC
(Neg) Breach of Duty>>> Used to establish D's liability for his actions/ omissions and the SOC they owe to C
Blyth v Birmingham - D is "judged by the standards of an ordinary person in that same situation with similar experience"
(Neg) Well v Cooper>>> If D is an ordinary person, then they will not be expexted to act like a professional
(Neg) Bolam>>> > Bolam - if D is an expert/ possesses a skill then judged to standards of other reasonably competent professionals
> Bolithio - if there is a body of professional opinion supporting D's actions, the judge will examine this and may deem it illogical so D still liable
(Neg) Bolam - OIR>>> > Wilsher v Essex - no account taken for D's actual experience
> Montgomery - doctor must make patient aware of material risks
> Chester v Afshar - doctor must inform of side effects
(Neg) Nettleship v Weston>>> If D is inexperience/ learner then judged by standards of experienced - standard never lowered
(Neg) Mullins v Richards>>> Children judged to standard of a similar age
(Neg) Disabled>>> D's judged to standard appropriate to the reasonable person with the same disability
(Neg) Risk Factors>>> Increase or decreas [Show Less]