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?
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
An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
Act of Claimant
Contributory negligence. S.1(1) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
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.
D must have committed a tort
C must have...