100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Tort Law:Negligence Mind Maps £6.99   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. AQA
  4.  
  5. Law
  6.  
  7. Unit 4 LAW04 - Criminal Law or Tort, and Concepts of Law (LAW7162)

Other

Tort Law:Negligence Mind Maps

 17 views  0 purchase
  • Institution
  • AQA

All of my law documents uploaded follow the AQA specification and are of A/A* quality. These mind maps give an overview of the elements of negligence (duty of care, breach of duty and damage).

Preview 1 out of 1  pages

Document information

  • June 22, 2023
  • 1
  • 2022/2023
  • Other
  • Unknown

Subjects

Written for

All documents for this subject (57)

Seller

avatar-seller
leej93815

Content preview

Negligence: Duty Of Care


Duty Of Care Explanation

Caparo v Dickman (1990) 1) Was harm reasonably foreseeable?
2) Was there sufficiently close proximity between C and D?
3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

Robinson v CCWY (2018) The Caparo test does not have to be strictly applied in every case, instead the courts should look to
existing statutes and precedents and identify duties through analogy.

Cases:
> Kent v Griffiths (2000): The ambulance service owes a duty.
> Mullin v Richards (1998): Children owe a duty to each other.
> Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957): Doctors owe patients a duty.
> Nettleship v Weston (1971): Drivers owe a duty to other drivers.
> Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1950): Employers owe a duty to employees.
> Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954): Fire service owe a duty.
> Hall v Simons (2000): Solicitors owe clients a duty.
> Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958): Local authorities owe a duty.
> Donoghue v Stevenson (1932): Manufacturers owe a duty.
> Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018): Police officers owe a duty.
> Miller v Jackson (1977): Property owners owe a duty.
> The Wagon Mound (1961): Transport companies owe a duty.
> Haley v London Electricity Board (1965): Workmen owe a duty.
> Children and Young Persons Act 2008: Parents owe a duty of care to children.
> Childcare Act 2006: Others looking after children owe a duty.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller leej93815. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £6.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

77254 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£6.99
  • (0)
  Add to cart