Tort: Neligence and a Duty of Care by https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy Law Revision 2018 en-us 2018-04-23 11:05:39 UTC 2025-10-12 15:00:42 UTC hello@padlet.com NEGLIGENCE, breach of duty of care. naomi_douglas https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254323696 “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”]]> 2018-04-23 11:15:01 UTC https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254323696 In the law of negligence, the neighbour principle enunciated by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562, 580 to provide a basis on which to determine whether a duty of care may exists. naomi_douglas https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254324900 “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”. But who is your “neighbour”? This is a person who is so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought to have them in mind, as being so affected, when you consider doing the act or omissions, that you are contemplating.  

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html]]> 2018-04-23 11:19:51 UTC https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254324900 Based on the neighbour principle naomi_douglas https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254326374 •Liability in negligence depends on the claimant being able to prove:
 
•a) That the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant

 •b) That the duty of care has been breached, by the defendant’s care falling below the appropriate standard of care

•c) That as a result of the breach, the claimant has suffered loss, injury or damage

 •d) That the loss, injury or damage caused by the defendant’s breach was not too remote a consequence of the breach ( it was a foreseeable consequence)
]]> 2018-04-23 11:25:44 UTC https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254326374 There have been a number of changes to the "neighbour principle" and in Caparo v Dickman (1990) the “neighbour test” was extended to a 3 part test: naomi_douglas https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254326583 •1) Was damage reasonably foreseeable?
Kent v Griffiths (2000) 
•2) Is there a sufficiently proximate (close) relationship between the claimant and defendant?
Bourhill v Young 1943
•3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty? (a public policy decision)

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council (1997) 
]]> 2018-04-23 11:26:42 UTC https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254326583 Additionally,in deciding whether a duty has been breached, the courts tend to attach particular importance to 4 factors (not all of these may be relevant to every case): naomi_douglas https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254328556 The likelihood of the claimant suffering harm.
Bolton v Stone (1951)

The Potential seriousness of the injury which the claimant was likely to suffer
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

The cost of preventing harm being caused
Latimer v AEC 1953

The usefulness of the defendants actions
Watt v Herts CC (1954) ]]> 2018-04-23 11:34:18 UTC https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254328556 Special Relationships: naomi_douglas https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254331701 There are a number of relationships that give rise to an affirmative duty to prevent harm:
•Employer and employee
•Parent and child
•Captain (or carrier) and passenger
•Referee and player in a colts rugby match 

Smoldon v Whitworth [1997] PIQR P133,

•School and Pupil 
•Occupier and visitor
]]> 2018-04-23 11:45:16 UTC https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254331701 Disabilities: naomi_douglas https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254331877
Where a defendant has a disability they are likely to be negligent.

]]> 2018-04-23 11:45:50 UTC https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254331877 Key Cases and Usefullinks: naomi_douglas https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254335174 Mark Pollock v Enda Cahill, Madeline Cahill  [2015] EWHC 2260 (QB)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11755743/Blind-Commonwealth-Games-medal-winner-sues-friends-after-falling-out-of-their-window.html

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pollock-made-personal-injury-claim-against-home-insurance-knowing-his-friends-wouldnt-have-to-personally-pay-a-penny-31415236.html 







]]> 2018-04-23 11:56:32 UTC https://padlet.com/naomi_douglas/4ohg7xu1htgy/wish/254335174