File note topics:
Key definitions:
Negligence: ‘Failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or
doing something which the reasonable person would not do’- Blyth v Birmingham
Waterworks Co (1856)
A reasonable person is the ordinary person on the
street.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) is when the defendant’s (Birmingham
Waterworks Co) pipes burst because if extreme weather conditions and this
damaged Blyth’s house. Blyth (the claimant) was unsuccessful with his case,
because it was not an intentional act.
Omission: where the defendant fails to do something when they have a duty to
act.
Obiter dicta: all other things stated in a judgement that are not directly related
to the decision.
Ratio decidendi: a legal reason for the decision and it forms a binding precedent.
Case studies for a duty of care:
1) Donoghue v Stevenson (1932): legal principle/ outcome was the drinks
company was liable to Mrs Donaghue.
The ratio decidendi= manufacturers of products with the potential to
harm owe a duty of care to their ultimate consumers.
2) Robinson v West Yorkshire Police (2018). This case clarifies liability of the
police to members of the public. Legal principle: the police do not owe the
public a duty of care to protect them from the actions of criminals/ third
parties.
3) Caparo v Dickman (1990), which created the Caparo test, a three-part test
which can prove the defendant owes a duty of care where there is no
previous precedent.
The Caparo test:
Step 1) Did the defendant foresee the risk of their actions affecting the claimant
at the time of the alleged negligence. If yes, the first part of the test is satisfied.
If no, then there is no duty of care owed.
However, claimants need to then satisfy the remoteness of damage test.
Remoteness of damage= the claimant needs to establish that the defendant has
no duty of care.
Relating cases are:
Topp v London County Bus Southwest (1993)
Key definitions:
Negligence: ‘Failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or
doing something which the reasonable person would not do’- Blyth v Birmingham
Waterworks Co (1856)
A reasonable person is the ordinary person on the
street.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) is when the defendant’s (Birmingham
Waterworks Co) pipes burst because if extreme weather conditions and this
damaged Blyth’s house. Blyth (the claimant) was unsuccessful with his case,
because it was not an intentional act.
Omission: where the defendant fails to do something when they have a duty to
act.
Obiter dicta: all other things stated in a judgement that are not directly related
to the decision.
Ratio decidendi: a legal reason for the decision and it forms a binding precedent.
Case studies for a duty of care:
1) Donoghue v Stevenson (1932): legal principle/ outcome was the drinks
company was liable to Mrs Donaghue.
The ratio decidendi= manufacturers of products with the potential to
harm owe a duty of care to their ultimate consumers.
2) Robinson v West Yorkshire Police (2018). This case clarifies liability of the
police to members of the public. Legal principle: the police do not owe the
public a duty of care to protect them from the actions of criminals/ third
parties.
3) Caparo v Dickman (1990), which created the Caparo test, a three-part test
which can prove the defendant owes a duty of care where there is no
previous precedent.
The Caparo test:
Step 1) Did the defendant foresee the risk of their actions affecting the claimant
at the time of the alleged negligence. If yes, the first part of the test is satisfied.
If no, then there is no duty of care owed.
However, claimants need to then satisfy the remoteness of damage test.
Remoteness of damage= the claimant needs to establish that the defendant has
no duty of care.
Relating cases are:
Topp v London County Bus Southwest (1993)
