Negligence
Duty?
Hedley, Byrne v Heller - Does this Defendant owe a duty to this Claimant in this situation?
Caparo v Dickman identified 4 stage test:
1. Reasonably foreseeable that D’s conduct will cause damage to C
2. Sufficient proximity between C and D?
3. “Fair, just and reasonable” that a duty should be imposed?
4. Policy
Breach?
Blyth v Birmingham waterworks – reasonable man test and compensation act 2006.
Professions – Bolam Test – standard is that of the ordinary skilled man exercising that special skill
Nettleship v Weston – learner driver. Standard is lower.
Bolton v Stone – The higher the risk, the greater effort that must be made to reduce risk.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council - Where the risk of damage is high, the level of care that must be taken is higher
Latimer v AEC – slipped on slippery floor and only way to prevent would have been to have closed the factory
Causation - in fact
But for test.
Barnett v Kensington – he would have died anyway.
McGhee v National Coal Board – materially increased the risk.
Fairchild case - the appropriate test of causation is whether the employers had materially contributed to the risk.
Performance Cars v Abraham - 2 Defendants – D2 causes the same damage as D1. D2 is not liable for the damage if we apply the ‘but for’ test
Causation in Law
The Wagon Mound 1 - Reasonable foreseeability test
Novus actus
An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
Natural event
Third party
Act of Claimant
Defences
Contributory negligence. S.1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Damage
Fault of D
Fault of C
Causation – consider whether C’s actions have causally contributed to what occurred
Seatbelts – Froom v Butcher
Cycle helmets – Swinton v Annabel’s
Children - Gough v Thorne
Fitzgerald v Lane – crossed street when the light was red, double hitted by 3 cars. Contrib.
Volenti
D must have committed a tort
C must have...