(8)Framework - Negligence 4 elements to be fulfilled: Duty;...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Negligence 4 elements to be fulfilled: Duty; Breach; Causation; Remoteness o Duty- Selects what forms of “carelessness” are actionable. Caparo Test to determine duty i. Reasonable foreseeability of the class of plaintiffs: Duty will not be imposed without reasonable foreseeability: Bourhill v Young [ 1943] AC 92 Palsgraff v Long Island RR Co (1928) 248 NY 339 ii. Proximity between parties: Physical; Circumstantial or Causal proximity required. Lack of proximity; no threat to victim. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 Firemen owes duty to public and not specific individual; no proximity. Capital and Counties v Hants CC [1997] QB 1004 Ambulance service accepts call to individual; sufficient proximity because individual gives up other methods of rescue and call accepted to specific individual. Kent v London Ambulance Services [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Med 58 RSP v MCST Plan No 1075 [1999] 2 SLR 449 ( Eastern Lagoon case) Establishes that secondary victims need to show the 3 proximities to establish duty. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 K 153 iii. Fair, just and reasonable – Policy considerations to mitigate against imposing a duty. Rescuers are more robust and relatives not allowed to claim. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 No requirement for immunity for lawyers to ensure that they keep their duty to the court. [2000] 3 All ER 673 Non-profit organisation; imposing duty cuts across statutory framework, Hague rules. [1996] 1 AC 211
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Defensive fire-fighting mitigates against imposing duty. Capital and Counties v Hants CC [1997] QB 1004 Duty would hamper social workers from discharging their duty of taking care of the children. Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 A child is a gift from God; allowing a claim for the child’s upbringing.will be detrimental to the child’s development. McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999] 3 WLR 1301 Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38 Breach – Reasonable foreseeability of harm and whether reasonable care has been taken Factual enquiry – Qualcast v. Haynes Standard of care: Reasonable person/hospital/employer Reasonable person: Glasgow Corporation v. Muir Without precedent, use calculus of negligence: Probability + Gravity vs Justifiability + Practicability Probability: Bolton v. Stone Gravity: Paris v. Stepney Borough Council Vs. Justifiability: Watt v. Hertfordshire (The ends justifies the means.) Practicability: Latimer v. AEC Ltd . Other factors: Time for assessing risk: Roe v. Minister of Health Relevant characteristics of the foreseeable plaintiff: Haley v. London Electricity Board Circumstances which influence the standard of care Inexperience: Does not affect, Nettleship v. Weston (Aust, Cook v. Cook allows lower standard.) Age: Younger children lower standard, Mullin v. Richards; McHale v. Watson
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/07/2012 for the course LGST 101 taught by Professor Hsu during the Spring '11 term at Singapore Management.

Page1 / 11

(8)Framework - Negligence 4 elements to be fulfilled: Duty;...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online