NEGLIGENCE
Donoghue V Stevenson
1
. duty of care Robinson uCC
↳
Statutory
y
analogous
Y Novel Caparov Dickman
↳ foreseeable Kentv Griffiths
↳
proximity Osmanv Ferguson
↳ four ,
just ,
reasonable Summer v Colburn
. A breach
2 in that duty of care
factors taken into account :
Y Likelihood of harm Bolton v stone
4 seriousness of potential risk
y special characteristics of - > Y learner Nettleship - Weston
Y
practicality of precautions 3 professional Roe v Minister
Y public benefit Y chudren Orchard v Lee
y times of emergency W
Hertfordshire
.
3 Damage was caused by the breach (causation)
↳ but for test Calvert v William Hill
y remoteness
y must be foreseeable Bradford v Robinson
Wagon Mound
↳ avoid compensation if its too remote The
Defences
>
-
consent Smith v Baker
y
knowledge of the precise risk involved
yexercise of free choice by Claimant
Brannon v Airtours
econtributory negligence
Donoghue V Stevenson
1
. duty of care Robinson uCC
↳
Statutory
y
analogous
Y Novel Caparov Dickman
↳ foreseeable Kentv Griffiths
↳
proximity Osmanv Ferguson
↳ four ,
just ,
reasonable Summer v Colburn
. A breach
2 in that duty of care
factors taken into account :
Y Likelihood of harm Bolton v stone
4 seriousness of potential risk
y special characteristics of - > Y learner Nettleship - Weston
Y
practicality of precautions 3 professional Roe v Minister
Y public benefit Y chudren Orchard v Lee
y times of emergency W
Hertfordshire
.
3 Damage was caused by the breach (causation)
↳ but for test Calvert v William Hill
y remoteness
y must be foreseeable Bradford v Robinson
Wagon Mound
↳ avoid compensation if its too remote The
Defences
>
-
consent Smith v Baker
y
knowledge of the precise risk involved
yexercise of free choice by Claimant
Brannon v Airtours
econtributory negligence
