1 Dimensional Arrays>>> A standard list array - one index is needed to search for something in an array.
2 Dimensional Arrays>>> An array with 2 indexes needed to search - for example a table could be this.
Interception of PseudoCode>>> The ability to pick out and expla...
(Neg) The 3 stages of negligence?>>> Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Damage
(Neg) Donoghue v Stevenson>>> 'Neigbour principle' (Lord Atkin) - "your neighbour is anyone
closely affected by your actions or omissions"
(Neg) Robinson 2018>>> Caparo test need only be used in novel situations and provided
established DOC
> doctor to patient - Bolam
> driver to road user - Nettleship v Weston
> manufacturers to consumers - Donoghue v Stevenson
> solicitor to client - Arthur JS Hall v Simons
(Neg) Caparo v Dickman 1990>>> Caparo 3 stage test
> was damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable?
> was there a relationship of close proximity between C & D?
> is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a DOC?
(Neg) Kent v Griffiths>>> The damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable - D's actions judged by
the standards of a reasonable person (objective test)
(Neg) Bourhill v Young>>> Relationship of close proximity between C & D - proximity of time
& space, and legal relationship
(Neg) Hill v CC of W Yorkshire/ Robinson>>> It is fair just & reasonable to impose a DOC
(public issue, floodgate argument) - if an omission then NOT fair (Hill), but it its a positive act it
is (Robinson)
(Neg) Duty of Care>>> C must prove D owed them a DOC
(Neg) Breach of Duty>>> Used to establish D's liability for his actions/ omissions and the SOC
they owe to C
Blyth v Birmingham - D is "judged by the standards of an ordinary person in that same situation
with similar experience"
(Neg) Well v Cooper>>> If D is an ordinary person, then they will not be expexted to act like a
professional
(Neg) Bolam>>> > Bolam - if D is an expert/ possesses a skill then judged to standards of other
reasonably competent professionals
> Bolithio - if there is a body of professional opinion supporting D's actions, the judge will
examine this and may deem it illogical so D still liable
(Neg) Bolam - OIR>>> > Wilsher v Essex - no account taken for D's actual experience
> Montgomery - doctor must make patient aware of material risks
> Chester v Afshar - doctor must inform of side effects
(Neg) Nettleship v Weston>>> If D is inexperience/ learner then judged by standards of
experienced - standard never lowered
(Neg) Mullins v Richards>>> Children judged to standard of a similar age
(Neg) Disabled>>> D's judged to standard appropriate to the reasonable person with the same
disability
, (Neg) Risk Factors>>> Increase or decrease SOC required by D
(Neg) Roe v Minister of Health>>> Where risks known about at time of injury? D only liable
for risks within 'reasonable contemplation'
(Neg) Bolton v Stone/ Hayley v London Electricity Board>>> Size of risk and probability of
harm caused
> small risk = less precautions (Bolton)
> high risk = more precautions (Hayley)
(Neg) Paris v Stepney Council>>> OIR: C has a special characteristic that makes them more
suseptible to harm/ makes harm more serious
(Neg) Latimer>>> OIR: Where all practical precautions taken at the time of injury/ damage?
Cost and practicality are considered
(Neg) Watt v Hertfordshire Council>>> OIR: Is there a public benefit to taking the risk? If there
is, a lower standard is expected
(Neg) Resulting Damage>>> Must be a link between C's damage and D's act or omission (chain
of causation)
(Neg) Barnett v Chelsea Hospital>>> Factual Causation - "but for D's acts/ omission would C
have suffered harm?"
(Neg) Wagon Mound>>> Legal Causation - remoteness test ('remoteness of damage') - was the
damage to C "reasonably foresseable or "too remote" from breach
(Neg) Hughes v Lord Advocate>>> Legal Causation - no need to predict the exact way the
injury/ damage occured, just the injury/ damage of the same type is foreseeable
(Neg) Thin Skull Rule>>> OIR: Smith v Leech Brain - D must take C as he finds them,
including any pre-existing medical condition that makes them more suseptible to harm
(Neg) Intervening Acts>>> OIR:
> Act of C - McKew v Holland
> Act of God/ Nature - Carslogie Steamship
> Act of 3rd Party - Knightley v Johns
> Multiple Causes - Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
(Neg) DEFENCES: Contributory Negligence>>> Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act
1945: C contributes to own injury/ damage so damages reduced accordingly (partial defence)
> Froom v Butcher - damages reduced 25%
> Morales v Eccelston - no age limit at which you can contribute to own injuries
(Neg) DEFENCES: Volenti Non Fit Injuria>>> Consent - full defence providing 3 conditions
are satisfied
> Murray - C has knowledge of risk
> Morris v Murray - C's consent must be freely given
> Smith v Baker - C exercises free choice
(Neg) REMEDIES: Damages>>> Aim to put C in position before tort was committed (special &
general) - Remoteness test (Wagon Mound)
SPECIAL = pecuniary & specific value
GENERAL = non-pecurinary & not precisely calculated
Psychiatric Injury>>> For C to be owed a DOC, must show they are suffering from:
> a recognised psychiatric injury causing long term effects - Reilly
> illness caused by traumatic event or "assault on senses" - Sion v Hampstead Health Authority
(Psych Inj) Primary Victim>>> A person who reasonably fears for their own safety or is within
the zone of danger
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
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
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
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 johnlynn297. 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.
