1. (1) Duty of Care
   1. Neighbourhood Principle
      1. Donoghue v Stevenson [CL]
      2. R care to avoid acts or omissions // R foresee likely to injure N // N = closley & directly affected // Ought to have in my contemplation
   2. 3-Part Test
      1. Caparo v Dickman [DF]
      2. Foreseeability
         1. The damage must be reasonably foreseeable
         2. Kent v Griffiths [CL]
         3. OTHER CASE NEEDED
      3. Proximity
         1. Needed in SPACE, TIME and RELATIONSHIP
         2. Bourhill v Young [DF]
         3. McLoughin v O'Brien [CL]
      4. Just, Fair & Reasonable
         1. It must be fair to impose a DoC - courts to avoid 'floodgates' for litigation
         2. Public sector workers = less liability imposed
         3. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [DF]
         4. Reeves v MPC [CL]
         5. Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
2. (2) Breach of Duty
   1. Reasonable Man
      1. Ordinary Person
         1. An ordinary person =judged against what is expected of an ordinary competent person
         2. Wells v Cooper [DF]
      2. Learner / Trainees
         1. Trainees/Learners = same responsibility as their fully qualified equivalent
         2. Nettleship v Weston [CL]
      3. Professional
         1. Professionals = judged by standard of profession itself. E.g. if there is a medical body in support of a certain method, judge inclined to rule for the professional
         2. HOWEVER: Judge can overrule if they believe the medical standard is obsolete
         3. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [DF]
         4. Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [DF]
      4. Young People
         1. Young people= judged by standard of a reasonably competent person of their age
         2. Mullin v Richards [DF]
   2. Special Factors
      1. Special Characteristics
         1. Special characteristics of claimant may increase SoC owed, causing a breach when previously wouldn't have been
         2. Paris v Stepney Borough Council
      2. Size of Risk
         1. The probability of the risk occurring should be taken into account
         2. Bolton v Stone [DF]
      3. Practical Precautions
         1. Judge may consider precautions the defendant took to prevent the incident
         2. Latimer v AEC [DF]
         3. See Also: Bolton v Stone [DF]
      4. Benefits / Importance of Taking Risk
         1. Public utility - there is a lower standard of care when responding to an emergency
         2. The court balances the risk against the measures taken and the benefit of public good
         3. Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [DF]
3. (3) Causation
   1. Factual
      1. 'But For' Test
         1. Asks "But for the negligent act, would the harm to the claimant have occurred? If 'NO' -> D is liable
         2. Barnett v Kensington Hospital Management [DF]
   2. Legal
      1. Thin Skull Rule
         1. Take your victim as you find them - if they have an underlying condition that makes injury worse than that on a normal person, liable to fullest extent. Also, liable for some further injuries that occur as a result of the incident
         2. Smith v Leech Brain [CL]
      2. Novus Actus Interveniens
         1. An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
         2. Smith v Littlewoods [DF]
      3. Multiple Causes
         1. When more than one cause of the harm, C does not have to show that D's breach was the only / specific cause of the damage, or even the main cause
         2. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [CL]
4. (4) Remoteness of Damage & BoP
   1. Remoteness of Damage
      1. Remoteness test
         1. D is liable for damage only if it is the foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty
         2. Wagon Mound [DF]
      2. The kind of damage must be foreseeable
         1. As long as the type of damage is foreseeable it does not matter that the form it takes is unusual
         2. Bradford v Robinson Rentals [CL]
         3. Hughes v Lord Advocate [CL]
   2. Burden & Standard of Proof
      1. Burden of Proof
         1. The claimant must establish the facts to prove the defendants liability
      2. Standard of Proof
         1. How convincing must the facts be?
         2. On the balance of probabilities - it must be 'more likely than not'
      3. Res Ipsa Loquitur
         1. The acts speak for themselves
         2. With this rule, there is no burden of proof required
         3. PROCESS
            1. (1) Was the thing under D's control? (If yes, proceed)
            2. (2) Could the accident have happened without negligence? (If no, proceed)
            3. (3) Is there any other explanation of the injury inflicted upon the claimant? (If no, D is liable)
5. Civil Courts & Damages
   1. Damages
      1. Special Damages
         1. Can be worked out before the court case & tend to be monetary
         2. EXAMPLES
            1. Emergency medical treatment
            2. Immediate loss of work (i.e. from sick leave)
            3. Repair of damage e.g. of car
      2. General Damages
         1. Damages worked out during the court case. Tend to be difficult to calculate - guidelines are used
         2. EXAMPLES
            1. Loss of future earnings
            2. Loss of limbs
            3. Reduction in quality of life
            4. Future care / treatment costs
      3. Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary
         1. Pecuniary = Monetary
         2. Non-Pecuniary = Non-monetary
   2. Civil Courts
      1. Small Claims
         1. County Court
         2. Personal Injury - Under £1000
         3. Other - Under £5000
      2. Fast Track
         1. County Court
         2. Personal Injury - £1000 - ???
         3. Other - £5000 to £25000
      3. Multi-Track
         1. High Court
         2. ALSO hears complex fast-track cases
         3. Personal Injury - ???
         4. Other - £25000 - £50000